SOUTH BIRMINGHAM RESPECT MEETING
Snap-shot into the life of a Respect councillor by Ger Francis
Over 90 people attended the South Birmingham Respect meeting earlier this week. The bulk of the meeting was given over to a comprehensive report from our two local councillors, Salma Yaqoob and Mohammad Ishtiaq.
Environmental concerns are a top priority for our councillors. Sparkbrook is a poor, inner city ward, with very high housing density, a high number of restaurants and fast food outlets, and inadequate council cleaning services. Problems with rubbish and rats are a major concern for residents. There is a general sense that the area is dirty and because of that some residents feel a lack of pride in where they live.
The councillors are challenging this perception with a ‘Respect your area’ campaign. This is an initiative involving local residents, the Sparkbrook Neighbourhood Forum, Balsall Heath Forum and over 100 local youth which has led to 26 clean-ups in the ward over three months. The thinking behind the campaign is to be proactive in generating greater local pride in keeping our streets clean, while also highlighting inadequate council provision. The feedback on the campaign has been very positive.
The positive working relationships between a number of local community organisations has been one of the most encouraging features of this campaign. In the past we have been hampered by rivalry and division between residents’ organisations who often feel in competition with each other over funding. This has been compounded by the decision of the council to cut funding for community support agencies like the Birmingham Association of Neighbourhood Forums and the Birmingham Community Empowerment Network. To try and overcome this Respect councillors have used NRF funding to help build the capacity of neighbourhood forums so that residents do not feel disempowered in the decision making process. To that end, Salma is chairing the Ward Development Initiative, which has funded three support workers to work with the forums in identifying local needs and to facilitate cooperative working. This is now beginning to pay off. Instead of being in competition with each other, all forums will now work together to share knowledge and expertise. All will be aware of what funding bids each are submitting so that they work together to support each others bids, and share in any success.
This may sound like a small achievement, but personality tensions, competition and jealously, have undermined local community organisation. Getting people to work together in this way is an important step forward, and testimony to the people skills and a commitment to a bottom up approach of both councillors. On this last point, Salma is also doing a lot of work with local women’s organisations to encourage greater participation on Ward Advisory Board and Ward Committee. Many women find the involvement in these bodies difficult because they are male dominated, often acrimonious and intimidating.
The councillors also reported that they had also secured funding for two people and a van to provide an additional flexible clean-up service that can supplement rubbish collection between designated times.
Salma and Ishtiaq reported on their attendance at a meeting, organised by St Paul’s Trust and Balsall Heath Forum, on tackling climate change at a neighbourhood level. An action plan was drawn up with an emphasis on increasing local awareness and take-up of solar panelling, making new builds more energy efficient, examining existing energy supply contracts to see how environmentally friendly our suppliers are, and increasing the number of landmark environmentally friendly buildings. At present Sparkbrook has the first eco-friendly Mosque and Gudwara in the city. Salma also announced she would be speaking at the Climate Change demo in London on December 8th and encouraged people to attend.
Concern was expressed at the meeting at the attempt by council management to discipline two local environmental wardens for delivering ‘political’ leaflets. The leaflet in question was a council leaflet, highlighting an additional extra council bulky rubbish collection but funded locally as a result of a decision taken by our councillors. Management alleged the leaflet was ‘political’ because it advertised surgery details of the three local councillors (two Respect and one independent). Salma attended one of the disciplinary hearings, intervened, and no further charges or disciplinary action were taken. There is a feeling that this is politically-motivated interference from elements of the so-called ‘Progressive Alliance’ – the Tory/Lib Dem coalition that runs Birmingham.
Ishtiaq reported that £25,000 was being allocated for improved street lighting and that both he and Salma, in conjunction with residents, had done a tour of the ward to identify the most suitable sites.
Salma reported on a meeting with senior regeneration officers in which she was asked to take a lead in identifying worklessness issues in the ward, with hopes of large scale funding for immediate and long term strategic goals. She promised to keep everybody up to speed as this developed.
Drug abuse is a source of concern in the ward. Respect Sparkbrook councillors have committed the highest level of financial support of anywhere in the city to fight this problem at ward level. Some of the funding allocated has been used to finance the opening of the new KIKIT centre on the Stratford Rd. The centre provides prevention and treatment services for drug addiction as well as help for parents and carers who are often ignored by mainstream services.
Salma expressed concern that both she and Ishtiaq are receiving complaints of new identification hurdles when travelling to India. Apparently, British passports holders of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin, with family ties in India, are being asked to provide letters of confirmation of identity from their local councillors or MP.
Salma reported on the battle over single status in the council. In the name of a national equal pay deal the City Council is trying to cut the wages of thousands of already low paid staff. She said it should instead be demanding that the government pay the shortfall citing the example of the £24 billion - nearly £1,000 from every taxpayer - the government is spending to bail out the bankers of Northern Rock. Salma encouraged people to support the union protest over single status, next Tuesday, before the full council meeting.
Unfortunately, the protest clashes with an invite from the Venezuelan Embassy to attend the presentation of letters of credence from the new Venezuelan Ambassador, Samuel Moncada, to the Queen! Salma said how proud she was to receive the invite, and how proud she was of the association between our patch of Birmingham and the Bolivarian Revolution, mentioning both Venezuela’s resolute anti-imperialism and commitment to equality and social justice. She will, however, be speaking this weekends Latin American conference in London, in addition to visiting the Stop the War conference, and encouraged people to attend both. On other international issues, Salma announced plans in conjunction with the South Asian Alliance for a meeting on the crisis in Pakistan demanding the restoration of democratic rights.
Salma offered congratulations to Raghib Ahsan - Respect candidate for East Lozells and Handsworth at last years local elections - on the success of his 10 year battle to prove racial discrimination against the Labour Party. The judgment of the Law Lords was damning, with its conclusion that Labour had directly discriminated against him because he was of Pakistani origin, and then victimised him for taking the matter to court. The effect of Labour’s victimization had been to effectively kill Raghib’s political career at a time when he was the most high profile black political figure in the city. A letter from Salma to this effect had been printed in the Birmingham Post earlier in the week.
Finally, both councillors presented a positive report of the Respect Renewal conference. Ishtiaq explained he had never attended anything like that before and found it uplifting. Our chair, Mark Holland, praised Ishtiaq’s intervention at the Renewal conference when in response to allegations of communalism, Ishtiaq explained that he had been put under pressure not to stand against the Lib Dem candidate on the grounds he was from the same birarderi, and by standing he would split the birarderi vote. Ishtiaq resisted those pressures out of a conviction that this kind of politics had to be broken.
There was a proposal to take a report on the ‘other’ conference, with one speaker for and against. This was overwhelmingly defeated.
A new 19 strong committee was elected. There was a short, frank, but civil and disciplined exchange by all concerned about the appropriateness or otherwise to have people on a committee hostile to George and Salma. It was the overwhelming view of the meeting that it was inappropriate.
There was a round of applause for long standing SWP member and Respect treasurer, Andy North. Andy had expressed a wish to resign the post of treasurer, and he was thanked for his hard work since the establishment of Respect in Birmingham.
After the meeting was declared over, everybody hung around for some tasty samosas and snacks, where most of the discussion I was engaged in was upbeat and positive, with several ideas to make our meetings more interactive and enjoyable.
All in all, a very informative and productive experience.
Ok. Heres another small test for all posters responding to this report.
Concentrate on reporting on the positives your Respect Renewal, SWP-Respect, local Labour Party, Green Party, Socialist Party, Trade Union branch. campaign are doing. Compare it honestly to the achievenents of Salma and Ishtiaq.
Yes, yes we ALL know that there will be those who agree/disagree with the part about the SWP, not taking the Respect Conference report etc but that’s been aired on other threads. On this one just contrast your own local activity to Salma and Ishtiaq’s achievements.
Of course this doesn’t apply to the three saddos; Tim, Mike P and Jim Denham , we know you have only one point to contribute and no doubt you will, can hardly wait.
Comment by Mark P — 1 December, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Achievements? What achievements? Achievements of Salma and Istiaq in their heroic struggle against communalism? Where is Ger’s report of the Respect Renewal’s non-Muslim councillors? Or don’t you have any? And if not, why not? I think we should be told.
Comment by parkme — 1 December, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
An interesting report from Grrr. But all it amounts to is ‘pork barrel’ sub-reformism.
Comment by Mike — 1 December, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Sounds very positive - just the kind of down to earth attention to detail needed to build and consolidate a real local electoral base (I like ‘respect the neighbourhood’ idea). This work , combined with a commitment to radical left politics is what we need. It what people in Preston have been doing as well.
Truth is we need both detailed grassroots work and broader socialist politics and organisation. The danger is with the split - that the SWP do the socialist politics (but in a more abstract and propagandist way) and other forces do the detailed local work (but in a way that succumbs to electoralist pressures). Looks like Salma and her comrades are avoiding this pitfall at the moment, with the support for Venezuela wtc. well done.
But its always a potential pitfall - witness tensions in the old SSP between some who wanted to focus on the free school meals campaign, and others like the SWP who wanted more of an anti-war and global political focus. Of course, a unsuccessful new left force will have to combine both!
Comment by Larry R — 1 December, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
meant to end last post with: Of course, a successful new left force will have to combine both!
Comment by Larry R — 1 December, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
You were right the first time Larry R. Any new ‘left force’ which fails to place the emphasis of its politics on the working classes organising at the point of production will fail.
Campaigning for better school meals (perhaps you could form a new ‘left force’ with Jamie Oliver?) and/or campaigning against things as nebulous as climate change is all well and good but unless you have an orientation on the workplaces then the goal of socialism simply does not connect to your everyday concerns however worthy they might be. hence sub-reformism.
Comment by Mike — 1 December, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Unfortunately, the protest clashes with an invite from the Venezuelan Embassy to attend the presentation of letters of credence from the new Venezuelan Ambassador, Samuel Moncada, to the Queen! Salma said how proud she was to receive the invite
Surely any leftish councillor worth their salt would be clear which ‘event’ they would go to, particularly if they are one of two councillors in their area, and are one of the figureheads of their organisation nationally?
But this report doesn’t make it clear how Salma will be spending Tuesday evening. Will she, as I would hope, be at the the union protest over single status, next Tuesday, before the full council meeting, or will she be at the presentation of letters of credence from the new Venezuelan Ambassador, Samuel Moncada, to the Queen, which she would be so proud to go to? Ger only tells us that “unfortunately” they clash, and that she will, however, be speaking this weekends Latin American conference, which suggests Salma will be staying in Brum and going to the union protest. But it’s far from spelt out.
Please tell us.
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 1 December, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
I do not think she can be in 2 places at the one time if her diary clashes with both.I think she will have noted it. It has been spelt out to you
Comment by Teddy Boy — 1 December, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Sorry Mark, but your “test” is actually an attempt to question the right to debate the controversial aspects of this report–which is in line with the contempt displayed for other people’s viewpoints by RR throughout this saga. It won’t wash.
The whole approach of this RR branch meeting is smug, self-righteous and contemptuous of all elementary norms of democratic conduct and socialist unity.
The context of this report is that a self-appointed clique of big wigs–who are now in RR–undermined the national conference of Respect and engineered a split before branch delegates nationally could discuss the differences. Nobody asked the North West members, for example, what they thought about the issues. They never got a chance–they were presented with a split as an accomplished fact.
The RR apologists don’t begin to understand how angry that makes many people outside their rarefied circle feel. Once exposed to the limelight of the media, the likes of Galloway and Salma seem to think that they are beyond accountability.
And the worst part about this whole sorry affair is that–Galloway, Salma et al–do even begin to suspect just how arrogant they appear to many of us who strongly opposed the split, but never got a chance to put our case.
Now we see the continuation of this method. In this report, the non-RR members of Respect were simply air-brushed out of the picture in the good old Stalinist fashion. We don’t agree with them, therefore they don’t exist. Take a report of the “other” conference? Oh no, we don’t want to hear about views that do not accord with ours. Someone pulls a lever and all the hands go up to prevent it. Allow the election of non-RR types–who oppose the split–on to the branch commission? No, we can’t have that either. Socialist Unity is good for May Day speeches and blog titles, but everyone knows that it is dispensable.
The irresponsible conduct of Galloway, Salma, RR and their apologists during this enormously damaging split can only be described as one of the greatest displays of political bankruptcy in history.
Comment by Chris Edwards — 1 December, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
“The irresponsible conduct of Galloway, Salma, RR and their apologists during this enormously damaging split can only be described as one of the greatest displays of political bankruptcy in history.”
Chis, when talks breakdown it takes two to bring the talka together again. Can you tell us who has posted themselves missing
Swp are not talkers they are stalkers of groups of comrades who had the bottle to stand up to their unmarxist behaviour.
Away and read the documents from both sides. You will soon find out who is hounding who
Comment by Teddy Boy — 1 December, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Yeah Chris, I mean, it’s obvious that you haven’t read all the documents, because surely no sane person who did would think anything other than that the SWP are “stalkers of groups of comrades…” and that Galloway and his friends are shining beacons of truth and justice in the world.
Teddy Boy - some people have opinions different from yours, after having educated themselves. You really should learn to deal with that.
Comment by KrisS — 1 December, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Sounds like a report a Lib Dem Councillor could have written.
Comment by paulm — 1 December, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Kriss, when you resort to air brush Salma, its political stalking. You are right its got to be dealt with by exposing it. Its a failed coup by a mob of headless chickens who call themselves the SWPcc.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 1 December, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
I love the picture that’s just entered my head on reading that #13, Teddy Boy. Thank you.
Comment by KrisS — 1 December, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Comment 6 by Chris:
“The context of this report is that a self-appointed clique of big wigs–who are now in RR–undermined the national conference of Respect and engineered a split before branch delegates nationally could discuss the differences”.
You know full well that the SWP had taken part in divorce negotiations twice, despite lies to their members at the time this was taking place (funny how the SWP commentators always ignore this little fact), having made sure the National Council was cancelled for this to take place. It was they who walked out on the third day of negotiations and suddenly ‘dicovered’ the holly grail of the members conference - knowing that it had been packed with their supporters - it did justice to Stalins show trials in the way it was manipulated. It shows me that it is the SWP who have ‘moved to the right’ in a dishonest and gerrymandering way. It reminds me of how the ‘right’ in the Labour Party have mainipulated their conference to keep out the voice of the left and trade unions.
If its democracry you want then try to act in a democratic way and dont blame the rest of us who are fighting back for democracy - we ARE the LEFT in RESPECT Renewal, the left that does not fix conferences and conference delegations.
Have you ever wondered why there has been harmony in Birmingham South Respect - its because the SWP were not allowed to manipulate that branch before or now. And have you ever wondered why there has been so much grief in Tower Hamlets branch - its becasue the SWP tried but failed to manipulate Respects largest branch, but the members were having none of it and have successfully fought back.
No, we will not allow the SWP and friends to control and take over RESPECT (with real decisions being made in your SWP CC meetings). Respect is not and will never be the ‘SWP’, it is a coalition of all to he left of New Labour, a Socialist, left coalition we intend to keep alive in RESPECT Renewal with the support of many ex SWP members who are most welcome.
Comment by outsidethebox — 1 December, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Kriss, You cannot undermine Birmingham RR That is the big picture you will have to get used to.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 1 December, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
#16
I didn’t notice that I was trying to, Teddy Boy.
Comment by KrisS — 1 December, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Teddy Boy: I do not think she can be in 2 places at the one time if her diary clashes with both.I think she will have noted it. It has been spelt out to you
Well done. Exactly. So which one will she be at?
It isn’t spelt out at all. If you’re able to provide the answer, please do so before brylcreeming your hair. Otherwise: enjoy your a night out on the town ripping up some seats in your local Odeon.
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 1 December, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Can anyone confirm or deny that 2 Respect Renewal councillors in Newham have defeated to Labour today? I heard this from a Newham comrade at the Peace Conference today. I really hope it’s not true and that the splitters are not so fickle that they’d choose to strengthen New Labour’s hand at the expense of a left wing alternative…
Comment by Syme — 1 December, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
That would be a blow, I hope it isn’t true.
Comment by KrisS — 1 December, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
We were an oppressed group in the fifties Shame on you.
And if you want to believe the yellow press of that that we trashed seats go ahead. It does show you want to believe anything. Out of our loins sprung brats like you
So rock around the clock, and see you later alligator, in a while crocodile
Comment by Teddy Boy — 1 December, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Post 2. Sounds like a racist.
Post 12. ‘Sounds like a report a Lib Dem Councillor could have written.’
Not sure what Lib Dems you have around you way, but the ones in Brum are in coalition with the Tories and busy pushing through Single Status and huge attack on council workers. Nor are they exactly known for their support for the Bolivarian revolution.
Post 7 & 18. I thought it was pretty obvious where Salma was going to be; the Unison demo.
Comment by Ger Francis — 1 December, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Good to see 4 people came to the Respect Renewal Student meeting, you fight the power!
Comment by Nobby Swallows — 1 December, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
GG was poor at todays excellent peace conference.
Ger.. is it true 2 newham cllr of RR have gone to new labour?
my thought on your report of the meeting was actually how low down the order paper the industrial stuff with council was? there does not appear to be any organised repsonse to it just try and go down to it? when it comes to litter picking there is huge detail? Looks a bit like coomunity politics overkill.
Did RR build the peace conferecne? apart from GG who only stayed for his own lacklusture performance no other RR appeared to be there and certainly didn’t speak.. perhaps the anti war movement a bit old hat and leftish.. best to stick with picking up the litter.
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 12:03 am
# 23 I believe the number was 100 students last year. I direct you to the SWP Respect website and you will find that they had control of the bookings and organisation of this year’s event, not RR.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:55 am
Ger: thanks for the answer. Sadly, with Respect (whatever ‘faction’), nothing is obvious, hence the question. I don’t know why Ted Bovis couldn’t answer the question though.
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 2 December, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Post 23. What was remarkable about the chat Salma had with some students after the very successful Latin American conference, (over 600 registered), was the lunatic sectarian behaviour of a couple of SWP’ers who turned up, who were so determined to prevent the meeting from taking place,(they failed), that they literally surrounded Salma and followed her every step in an extremely ugly, bullying and intimidating manner, despite her numerous requests for them to stop doing so. It reminded me of kind of cult like stuff that the RCP got up to and is reflective of sectarian degeneration. With behavior like this towards people who wanted to hear and express a differing point of view to that of the SWP, it is no wonder that the Student Respect operation has so spectacularly failed to fulfill its potential.
Comment by Ger Francis — 2 December, 2007 @ 11:23 am
Karl, Its a tough old blog world and an auld oppressed minority like me has to deduce if your question is worthy of answer.
I did give an answer but ” You Aint nothing but a hound dog and you aint no friend of mine”
Ah, bring back the fifties when the Internationalist Socialists were in drainpipes and you were not even thought of. Where did we go wrong?
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Oooh, that one disappeared quickly, didn’t it? Glad the spam;s been cleared up, though once again I do have to say it does make me laugh, he get some high quality stuff here Andy.
Comment by KrisS — 2 December, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Poat 24. I have heard the stories, I don’t know whether they are true or not, no doubt we will find out shortly. But if it they are true it marks the absolute death of Lindsey German’s GLA campaign. The SWP always held up Newham as a shining example, because of Lindsey’s influence, of how Respect could build. The truth was always very different. One the biggest criticisms of SWP influence in Newham was their failure to build an effective electoralist operation and give the councillors the kind of day to day support they need, their failure to build local Respect organisation in a consistent and effective manner (it was telling that only 15 people attended this year’s Newham Respect’s AGM), and their failure to promote the local councillors on national platforms. Labour, by contrast, took our councillors very seriously, it has been known they have been trying to exploit Newham Respect weaknesses and have courting the Newham councillors for well over a year. It would not surprise me if they have been successful.
Comment by Ger Francis — 2 December, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Truly, Ger, you are a desperate man. Still, as I’ve said, let’s hope it isn’t true.
Comment by KrisS — 2 December, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
You mean Ger, that when only 4, one was Ian Drummond and the rest were three members of Socialist Action (!), came to meet to “chat” with Salma, George and yourself, you immeadietely buggered off to have your “debate” elsewhere, because of two SWP members being present!
As I said comrade, bravo, well done on your superbly organised alternative student meeting, you fight the power!
Comment by Nobby Swallows — 2 December, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Ger is not beong despareate at all. Like you I really hope Respect hasn’t lost two exacellent councillors. But Ger is simply to account for the objective factors that could lead to. The failure to centre organisation, support networks, public activities around elected councillors has been one of the most severe failings of Respect. Where this is addressed, in Preston and Birmingham, the gains are substantial. It will be a big test of both RespectRenewal and SWP-Respect if either, or even both, learn this lesson.
By the way before someone hits the keyboards this has nothing to do with either communalism or the rightward pull of electoralism. What it is about is an organisation that is led by its most effective members, centres its activities around its strongest community bases. The fact that these are Muslim, Asaian and inner-city should be something to be proud of, not to apologise for.
Having said all that, can anyone confirm the rumour one way or t’other?
Comment by Mark P — 2 December, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Again thanks to Grr for a report that comes across as a plausible and convincing analysis. Although it strikes me that the supporters of the Galloway faction might be said to have as great a responsibility for the defection of these two councillors in Newham, assuming this rumour to be true, as the SWP does.
It would also seem remarkable that councillors belonging to a party that set out its banner as The anti-war party could so easily transfer their allegiance to the party that took us into war in the first instance. And again is it not remarkable that these two councillors could defect to New Labour at a moment when that party is caught up in allegations of corruption? One can only assume that these two councillors discovered an affinity with New Labour as the news of that party’s difficulties broke.
Comment by Mike — 2 December, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
KrisS, stop burying your head in the sand. The issues I highlighted, and the frustrations they have caused, more generally formed that backdrop to George’s initial letter. The SWP’s refusal to openly acknowledge any of the real problems in Newham, but instead deliver a mantra of everything going onwards and upwards, was dishonest and damaging. And it looks like that maybe the chickens have come home to roost in Newham because of it. I hope I am wrong.
Comment by Ger Francis — 2 December, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Kriss. read my post again. I quite consciously suggested that both RespectRenewal and SWP-Respect need to seriously address this issue of organising around areas of strength, developing both support networks and pubkic activities to facilitate this. And I singled out Preston and Birmingham as models for both organisations. I would in all seriousness suggest that whichever one does this will prove to be the most successful.
So why the jibe ? “Mark P - just a bit bored with the whole idea of every single thing that ever goes wrong with anything ever being the fault of the SWP and the SWP alone.”
One of those rare qualities on the left, along with humility is the ability to be self-critical. I was seeking to encourage that, its a shame you read it as the usual simplistic carping that the SWp did this or that wrong.
Comment by Mark P — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
I don’t know why Nobby feels s/he has got to crow about a meeting that was meant to be small and informal. The Student Respect conference today will have around 100 people at it today. I am confident we could do better than that in Birmingham alone if we put our minds to it. I remember when the SWP’s annual Student Marxism would have over 2,000 attending. The real issue here is the manner in which the Student Respect operation has been run down and subordinated to fit in with SWP priorities. The absence of a series of major Student Respect rallies on the campuses this year speaks volumes. If the audience for left of labour politics is large nationally, it is even larger among students, yet Student Respect, under SWP leadership, has failed badly in relating to this audience. I have every confidence alternative strategies can be easily pursued with much greater success.
Comment by Ger Francis — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
now come on ger.. if there is another 2 defectors to new labour.. the question is the GG strategy of have anyone who is known to be a candidate regardless of politics is pr0oved to be a complete disaster. This is the mess you yourselves could get into. people who previousy were tory party members (2 months) to stand as RESPECT !!! or they will stand against respect if they are not nominated. This is the politics of the gutter. I mean did Dr Naseem donating £15,000 aid his selection as a candidate? smells of new labour lite.
no doubt defections to New Labour in TH was all the SWP’s fault, failure at anyhting is all tyhe trots fault and GG is above any criticism. what a future!
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
#38
Well in previous years GG did a few meetings.. not this year.. too busy with his media interests I guess.
Ger.. how come you are not able to tell us if 2 cllr of RR have defected to the war party..I mean as a leading member did you not get told? was there not immediate phone calls to work out what to do about it.. I see nothing is on the RR website, no press release.. all kept in the dark..
or you do know its true and a bit embarressed another 2 cllr have been able to ditch respect ofr new labour!!with so much ease.
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Again JJ, like Hros, read my post both and see if you are able ro engage with the need for an icreasingly conservative leftism to engage with self-criticism. It does wonder for the dialectic!
Comment by Mark P — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
It does go back to the first document “It was best of times, It was the worse of times” and how prophetic George’s words are about internal weaknesses, These have been elaborated by Ger and others warning us in this blog that the headless chickens (SWP cc)have come to dismantle our party.
I have booked onto the sea-worthy boat, heading for the open seas believing that the only course we can set, is to dump the SWP cc.
There is no other option and that can be be only done through legal recourse, I only pray that the SWPcc return to the split negotiations.
If not I can only see JR and co, futilely clinging on, and drowning in stormy waters. In the short term they will damage Respect internally. In the long term we will have a stronger party with a growing membership.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
JJ
Whatever has happened in Newham, your unalloyed joy over it is a mark of very deep sectarianism
All along you in particular have consistently passed around rumours, personal attack and slurs.
What particularly concerns me is that not once has any of the responisble people in the SWP reprimanded you or dissaciaiated themselves from your comments.
The SWP has a large number of dedicated and brillinat militants in it, who do sterling work in the workers movement. It is a tragedy that their reputation is damaged by association with you.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Ger how many respect cllr have now defected in total.. is it 4 and one retirement? or 3 and 1 retirement. I mean when you vote for GG people to be honest there is a high 25% chance you will be electing someone who will go to new labour.. doesn’t look good does it.
One thing that must be grist t0o the mill for the GG fans.. michael Lavalette- you can’t criticise him and he is an absolute rock solid SWP member!! indeed GG tried to use him to build the GG rally (conference) in a lying manner. He is clearly the most able of the RESPECT cllr’s to articulate clear socialist and general arguements with fighting ont he ground ov4er day to day things and build a good repsect broad based organisation,, whilst being a SWP member.. doesn’t fit the picture does it.
Salma- likewise has an ability to potentially to do both but to be honest looking at your report is simply do a lib dem approach with a few left phrases. There is only so far to go with this approach to ditching socialist arguements. Ger you have become someone who vision of what is possible has gone from wanting to change the world to becoming a local activist with little ambition beyond his patch of B’Ham. The blame for the 2 cllr going to new labour lyes with GG- and his fan club. they won’t be the last will they. And when GG loses and you have no MP in east london-there will be one hell of a road crash..good luck
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
andy
Everyone of your posts attack the SWP.. you clearly have a complete hatred for the SWP. I have no joy what so ever over defections to the new labour party by respect cllr.. so of whom I have supported with money and a bit of activity. It makes me bloody angry. But Andy what responsibility do you and GG take for the practice of selecting peoiple because of connections rather than politics. That is the issue- where is the discussion about why significant numbers of cllr from your side defect to new labour.. Ger puts the blame on Lindsey German.. no even you must be able to view this as bullshit. Why haven’t you been told about the defections.. and if you have you didn’t let your audience know… lets think if it was SWP cllr defecting.. you would have plastered that as much as possible all over this site.. with deep joy.. so cut the sanctamonious bull. where was RR at th peace conferecne?? no show bar GG.. didn’t hang around.. and frankly looked nervous. plus noticeable his speech was a bit flat and uninspiring.
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Yes and when the SWP decides after Lindsey German receives a derisory vote in the GLA elections that a United Front of a Special Type is no longer as important as shoring up a declining membership, flogging the paper, building Marxism 2008 there will be one hell of a road crash… good luck
Its quite possible of course there will be two road crashes. Being self-critical with a smidgin of humility provides the capacity to recognise that.
Comment by Mark P — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
mark p
Problem is you are not able to realise what the politics of GG et el have in connection to these defections. This is the problem of picking candidates because they have local connections and yes in relation to the overall class basis of the cllr grouping. Whe the SWP put this arguement GG went Nuclear.. remember it was the SWP arguing this practice of pocket membership and local connections etc would lead to oppourtunism and I am afriad in that they were proved right.
No joy in that just fact
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
JJ
I politically criticise the SWP’s political line. that is not the same as attacking it, and I certinly do not put around malicuous slanders like you do regardiung ballot rigging, etc.
I have in fact discussed the politica issue of defections, there are many factors to this.
Michael lavallette was of course elected as a Socialist Alliance councillor, and the Socialist Allaince was largely built up over a number of years of collaborative working, and we were trying to build mutual trust and converegence.
It was inherent in the idea of Respect that it was built over a short period, without any preliminary period of collaboration. If you recall my role in all this, minor though it was, I supported the launch of respect on the SA national executive, but opposed the premature closure of the Socialist Alliacne, prdicting that the failure to win over the 1000 or so members of the SA to respect would casue problems. I think I was right and the SWP were proved wrong on that.
Given this, then it was inevitable in the original concept of Respect that some of the councillors would be stronger than others. But you also have to look at this in the general context of locall government politics, where defections and resignations are pretty much common coin.
How you avoid this is to develop local grassroots organistaion to support the councillors, and develop local policy to which the councillors feel committed. The SWP in fact opposed this model of working in most of the country. The chickens coming home to roost are indeed the problems outlined in George Galloways letter.
This goes back to the point that I have always recognised that the split would leave both sides weaker.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
#36
What you actually said was:
The SWP always held up Newham as a shining example, because of Lindsey’s influence, of how Respect could build. The truth was always very different. One the biggest criticisms of SWP influence in Newham was their failure to build an effective electoralist operation and give the councillors the kind of day to day support they need, their failure to build local Respect organisation in a consistent and effective manner (it was telling that only 15 people attended this year’s Newham Respect’s AGM), and their failure to promote the local councillors on national platforms.
In case you’d forgotten, like. their failure, the SWP’s. Not Respect’s, not anybody else in Respect’s. But the SWP’s. That’s how you put it. Yet again.
Comment by KrisS — 2 December, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
KrisS #48
Mark Perryman and Ger Francis are not the same person, your arguments would make more sense if you didn’t reply to Mark as if he was the author of Ger’s comments.
#9 Chris Edwards complains that the Birmingham meeting did not hear the report back from the SWP.
But he doesn’t mention that the Bristil meeting voted against hearing a repport back from Jerry Hicks.
We get nowhere by swapping “atrocity stories” - what we need is politics - and negotiations.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Haha, yup, indeed, my bad. Mark P certainly hasn’t done that in the way that Ger Francis has. Unreservedly withdrawn and apologised for.
Comment by KrisS — 2 December, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
JJ: I don’t know how you think GG is to blame for Respect candidate selection in Newham, which the SWP essentially ran. IF these rumours are true, it is indicative of political failure on the SWP’s part as they were the people with the most sustained contact with the cllrs in question. No ammount of sticking your head in the sand can hide away that fact.(Of the two Cllrs alleged to have gone over, one I have never heard speak and would not know what he looks like, the other, I only heard speak for the first time recently. It was a disgrace they were not promoted,encouraged and supported more locally and nationally.)
And your Lib Dem jibe at Salma smacks of infantile ultra-leftism. Perhaps you would like to write a report of your Respect branch, and your own activities in it, and we can do a compare and contrast? A little humility is in order, I think.
Comment by Ger Francis — 2 December, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
JJ, it’d definitely be good to know what Respect branch you’re in and what sort of effect the split has had on it.
Comment by tonyc — 2 December, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Was the long gap between me asking about the defections and getting a response due to your desperate scurrying around for an excuse that blamed it on the SWP? No support network, didn’t put them on national platforms. That’s why they went to the vile, right wing New Labour council of Robin Wales. Your pathetic, opportunist excuses will go down well with Michael Gavan who supported these councillors in Newham Respect and in return sees them pal up with the scum who sacked him. Unbelievable. GO TEAM RENEWAL!!
Comment by Syme — 2 December, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Watch those pots and kettles fly!
Comment by johng — 2 December, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
“Your pathetic, opportunist excuses will go down well with Michael Gavan who supported these councillors in Newham Respect and in return sees them pal up with the scum who sacked him. GO TEAM RENEWAL!”
So Michael Gavan, according to this, “supported these councillors in Newham Respect” (as did the SWP) and thus can blame Respect Renewal people (who presumably also “supported” them), for their defection to the Labour Party. Gavan, and the SWP, being of course, despite by this account having ’supported’ the councillors who subsequently defected, completely innocent of any political sins or flaws that may arguably (or not) have led to their defection.
But then I don’t suppose logic really matters to people like ‘Syme’ who rants and raves but doesn’t have the courage to sign his name.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Syme has done nothing but be a real nasty sneerer from the start. S/he isn’t interested in the debate, only in trying to do what Harry’s Place-type trolls always try to do - divert debate, sneer and divide.
Not even worth bothering to reply to him. Or her.
Comment by tonyc — 2 December, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
this latest defection is totally unsurprising. i expect this wont be the last defection.
if you capitulate to opportunism and select candidates who will likely win, but are obviously careerists, local community ‘leaders’ and businessmen, who have zero history in the workers’ or socialist movement, who don’t even see themselves as socialists or understand what socialism is, then why would you not expect them to defect?
who is to blame: primarily the swp are to blame. it was their right turn and capitulation to opportunism and electoralism that allowed respect to happen with its methods and programme.
who else is to blame though? socialists who have been around the block, like andy newman, ger francis and the isg, who went along with the swp, who were at one time their boot lickers! they never coherently opposed the right shift and the opportunism of the swp and respect, and they still don’t.
those cdes in renewal need to analyse the old respect more seriously - and actually face up to the rampant opportunism that lay behind it. then they need to break with this opportunism.
will renewal actually select socialist candidates, people with a strong history in the workers’ movement - people who aren’t careerists? will they hold their representatives accountable? will they stand on a workers’ wage? will they advance a socialist programme, and actually include it in their public literature?
if renewal wont break with the opportunism of the old respect then it will be a disaster.
ks
Comment by ks — 2 December, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
I like the stages theory in KS’s contribution. First of all comrades, the SWP are to blame (this is likely to be heartily recieved). Second of all get togeather all the comrades who thought the SWP too doctrinaire and win them round to the idea that they were not doctrinaire ENOUGH (some uneasy shuffling of feet). Its a tough job ks but someone’s got to do it (or DO they?).
Comment by johng — 2 December, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
On the councilers I think its bad news all round really, and nothing to be celebrated by anyone. It is true though that there is a faint connection between RR and these councilers. They were firmly in the RR camp so I understand. But its obviously the case that defections of this kind whilst related to problems that both sides should have been able to discuss without bust-ups, are also related to a reality were Respect as a project is in deep trouble. Which is not anything for anyone whose debated in good faith on this blog to be cheery about.
Comment by johng — 2 December, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Teddy Boy: “So rock around the clock, and see you later alligator, in a while crocodile”
Would that be back in a while with a shortbread biscuit, by any chance?
Comment by Alex Nichols — 2 December, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
To be honest, I’m not that interested in ks’s critique - the overall thrust of it is nonsense.
In reality, people like ks would be more honest if they would subsitute the word ‘communist’ for ’socialist’ in their strictures about the need for a full ’socialist’ programme. The only reason they don’t is a capitulation to anti-communist public opinion in English-speaking countries, but a full communist programme is what they mean. The stuff about a workers wage is of course the norms of the Paris Commune, i.e. of the proletarian dictatorship, which of course is fine if you think we are in a situation where proletarian revolution is on the agenda in an immediate sense. Of course, it isn’t.
But there is no principle that says that any attempt to get going a political, left, working class movement has to have these communist positions as norms right from the start. There are many people who want to struggle politically for elements of what communists also seek to struggle for, who do not accept the whole of a communist programme. Communists cannot seek to impose these norms on them as a condition for political collaboration, the attempt to do so makes every sectarian dilletante a master strategist in his/her own mind, but does not advance the class struggle one iota.
Seeking to build a broad, political working class movement with elements open to struggle for more limited political goals but do not accept the full communist programme is a perfectly valid tactic for communists to employ. Particularly in situations where the traditional party (Labour) that claims to stand for the working class increasingly openly acts against our class. It is entirely principled, and in this situation I would argue obligatory, for communists to seek to build a working class party with non-communist but amenable elements so are prepared to do so. For such a formation to be won to communist politics, the argument for those politics has to be won with these wider layers of workers and the oppressed. To make communist politics and norms a precondition is a great way to build a sect, but not a party, in current conditions.
Which is why ks’s critique of the entire Respect project from top to toe is utter nonsense, and harmful nonsense at that.
Actually, by the way, johng flatters himself and the SWP with his view that the SWP is being criticised by RR people for being ‘doctrinaire’. If the SWP leadership wants to pose as ‘doctrinaire’ for its own purposes, this pose is entirely cynical and for reasons of bureaucratic self-preservation. Fundamentally, any left posturing by the CC is aimed at preserving the SWP’s bureaucratic regime and *nothing else*.
If anything, the defection of some councillors to Labour in these conditions can most likely be put down to demoralisation caused by the crisis in Respect. Unfortunately, splits, and even more the crises that give rise to splits, can demoralise people, and lead good people to break from the movement when they might not otherwise have done so. That is one of the consequences of splits. But splits are sometimes the lesser evil to a false attempt to preserve unity despite a deep crisis. And this crisis, above all, is a crisis of the bureaucratic, flawed regime in the SWP. That is its root cause.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
i never mentioned anything about being “doctrinaire”. it’s funny though how consistantly opposing opportunism and advocating a soialist programme for respect is seen as “doctrimaire”! evidently this is the way swpers are taught to ‘put down’ any criticism from the left these days.
as for the leading renewal cdes, they make correct criticism about the swp’s control freakery and stalinistic methods. clearly i don’t agree with their analysis about the old respect though, and i doubt very much i agree with their suggested programme and methods for renewal either. if i do agree with them, or even a large section of them, i will join renewal and fight for it to abandon opportunism and adopt a clear socialist programme.
anyway, lets not detract from the real lesson of this total mess, which is, this is where opportunism gets you. it’s a short cut not to success, but off a cliff.
ks
Comment by ks — 2 December, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
So rumours have it that 2 councillors who allied themselves to RR in the split, have defected to New Labour and the SWP is to blame.
Hmmm…..
My dog was hit by a car last night. I didn’t see the driver, but I bet it was an SWP CC member. Bastard!
Comment by anticapitalista — 2 December, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Good to see that you’re still here trying to poison things, anticapitalista. Keep it up, it earns you a lot of credibility in the debate.
Comment by tonyc — 2 December, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
So where is the poison tonyc?
Comment by anticapitalista — 2 December, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
ian you are way off the mark i’m afraid. i’m not some ‘ultra-left’ as you try to imply.
a new broad workers’ party to the left, which we all evidently want here, will not be successfully built with opportunist methods and approach. they may deliver some short term electoral success, but they store up future disasters.
selecting candidates who aren’t obviously careerists or so called community ‘leaders’, but instead selecting well known socialists, trade unionists, community activists with a record of struggle etc. and holding cllrs accountable, is hardly ‘ultra-left’, it’s pretty basic i would suggest!
respect let in these blatent careerists and so called community ‘leaders’ to try and get elected fast. it’s ended im disaster. just learn some lessons is all i’m asking!
best wishes,
ks
Comment by ks — 2 December, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
1) Have they defected?
2) If yes did they go to the RR rally? Obviously weren’t that impressed if so..
Comment by Muon — 2 December, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
# 60 Alex
It looks like a biscuit but its not a biscuit, So you have resorted to insulting shortbread as well. How low can you stoop too.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
I’m not sure who these ‘blatant careerists’ ks refers to are or were. We have had losses of some elements who turned out to be politically weaker than they might have been, but that’s about all. Maybe one of them might later turn out to be a T Dan Smith or a Roger Rosewell, but I would point out that these people were products of explicitly Trotskyist groups, not formations like Respect.
I don’t see how you can predict in advance who will turn out to be good and who not. Particularly in a situation when a new movement grows rapidly in a very fluid situation, a turnover is unavoidable.
It would be just as unavoidable if a new left-wing party was recruiting rapidly in a trade union environment in an upsurge of struggle and politicisation through the unions. There are plenty of potentially opportunist and politically erratic people in that kind of situation also. Sorting them out inevitably takes time.
Respect is still not yet four years old, by the way - it takes a lot longer to consolidate a basic party cadre out of raw elements even without the kind of crisis the SWP CC have artificially created for their own very short-sighted, bureaucratic reasons. This kind of critique does not impress.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
#60 So should I take that as a “spot” then?
Comment by Alex Nichols — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
Posters as ever get things wrong when they do not have the full facts, go down blind alleys and get mugged.
From a Newham Respect member - not confirmed but looks likely that 2 Respect councillors will defect to New Labour. Labour in Newham besides being a very nasty piece of work (recently sacked Unison trade union member Michael Gavan on trumped up charges)also see Respect as a threat.
Why? Well Respect came second in 12 wards total votes for Respect in the Council elections 2006 were 59,338. There has been continual pressure from Labour on Respect members to come over to their side. Some Labour people have come over to Respect.
The 2 defections are a betrayal of colleagues in Newham Respect and people who voted Respect. Defections come and go in politics. On the RR and SWP Respect point that seems to be an obsessive point with posters. These councillors were chosen when Respect was unified.
All candidates had to go through a vigorous interview (from L. German)on their credentials to be come councillors. The 2 defectors have shown their betrayal and people in Newham will not forget it.
Newham Respect will grown and build. 2 foolish defections will not stop us.
Comment by Kevin E — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Say what you might I admire Ian Donovan and believe that he has a good chance of a successful career as a stand up comedian. The idea that a corrupt former Trotskyist should can be usefully compared to a couple of local chancers is idiotic. Unless Ian is suggesting the gentlemen in question are both former revolutionaries and/or corrupt…..
Comment by Mike — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Alex What are you leading me into?. I would prefer to give you Blind Pugh’s black spot.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
“Defections come and go in politics” we are told by Kevin E and that is true. But defections are rare when individuals are bund by a shared allegiance to a political idea especially when that idea finds roots in the working classes. Defections frm one bourgeois or petty bourgeois clique to another are however common when there is little of substance to differentiate between the parties or cliques concerned. Clearly this is the case with these individuals who have defected from a party that bills itself as The anti-war party to that party which took us to war.
Kevin E also tells us that the two defectors from Respect Renewal were vetted by Lindsey German prior to their being selected to stand for the undivided populist alliance that was Respect. So much for the political judgement of Ms German one might say. But come to think of it did not Ms German select Grr Francis and others now expelled from the SWP as fulltimers for that organisation? In light of which her judgement really should be questioned by the remaining members of that group one might suggest.
Comment by Mike — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
#73 “I would prefer to give you Blind Pugh’s black spot.”
In which case, I’ll raise you with:
http://www.londoncemeteries.co.uk/postcards/big/6.jpg
Comment by Alex Nichols — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Yeah, Mike, when I first met Ger I predicted his entire subsequent political trajectory, because of my superior leninist binoculars. Very unfortunately Lyndsey German did not have the pair of binoculars you handed over to me one dark evening in the pub. What kind of ridiculous nonsense is this?
One of the things about Respect was the possibility of moving beyond this kind of ridiculousness. Its why for anyone sensible on either side of the debate there is something a bit sad about reading posts like Mike’s.
Comment by johng — 2 December, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Thanks Alex I like it
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
# 76 c’mon John you got guffaw. But not at his islamophobia.
Blame me, I took Mike to the pub, and left him when he started to call the crisps petit bourgeois temptations.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Well John I admit that even the best judges of character can make errors but the current leaders of the SWP seem to make more than most. Perhaps I’m a bit naive but I thought that one aspect of political leadership was the ability to judge people in relation to their characters and allegiance to a shared political program.
Looking at the record of the leading figures on todays CC you can’t realistically deny that their record is dismal. The group has declined since the loss of Cliff losing many of its allies in the IST, has recently been forced to purge some individuals who stod on its right and has lost a series of other individuals. John this is not a good record and speaks badly as to the political abilities of these indivduals regardless of the theretical contributions some have made.
Given that it is this group of individuals, the CC, who appointed many of the leading members who have since been expelled and vetted the Newham councillors their abilities ought to questioned by your good self. In fact you have a duty to the SWP to raise such a question internally within the SWP.
Comment by Mike — 2 December, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Yeah gotta guffaw at Teddy Boy who seems to think that a class analysis is a joke. Says a lot about his politics…..
Comment by Mike — 2 December, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
I bet John G is absolutely over the moon about being having such demands placed upon him by a bigoted ‘left’ Islamophobe like Pearn. Almost as delightful as SWPers being given tactical advice about how to deal with Respect Renewal by Martin Ohr of the AWL.
Still, that’s the political price SWPers pay for their leadership’s opening of the door to ‘left’ Islamophobes with the nonsense about George and Salma being ‘communalists’. The ranting Denham-like SWP hack jj is another consequence of the CC fabricating political justifications for its unprincipled behaviour in Respect.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
I am a retired old building navvy and you can fool me some of the time. Please believe me MIke, you would be a hoot in the bothy.but not on a Monday morning.
We are a big part of the hegomony of progressive forces and at the moment we have got real distractions and we could not cope with you gibbering in parables. Can I touch the hem of your robe when you come to a buiding site
Your class analysis would compete well with the racing section, football and page three. You are a joke.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Ian D misses the point, as usual, that it is events not me that should give cause to John G asking the leadership of his organisation questions as to why the SWP is losing members and allies.
Frankly I pity Ian with his constant resort to muck flining. I suppose you can take the boy out of the Sparts but not the Spart out of the boy.
Comment by Mike — 2 December, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Noones gonna tell me if the Newham councillors went to the Renewal conference are they?
I’ll take that to mean that they did. Which, if true, speaks volumes.
Comment by Muon — 2 December, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Muon, they did
Comment by Nobby Swallows — 2 December, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Yes the Newham councillors were at the RR conference.
One of them spoke of how shocked he was to be told by JOhn Rees and Lindsey german of their vision of Resepct without Galloway and Yaqoob, and they said they could not follow the SWP on such a disastrous course.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
“One of them spoke of how shocked he was to be told by JOhn Rees and Lindsey german of their vision of Resepct without Galloway and Yaqoob, and they said they could not follow the SWP on such a disastrous course.”
And so now has joined New Labour? Interesting logical process that.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Canadien
i deleted a comment from you becasue it included a clearly libellous claim about who attacked Oli Rahman.
If you have information about who carried out the attack then you should pass it onto the metroplitan police, if you have no information then please do not pass off your speculation as fact..
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
“So, if the SWP is to blame for JJ, who is to blame for the violent death imagery of your ally on here “Teddy Boy”? In any fractious situation there are those who get wound up beyond reason. And, in any case, you might want to watch where your logic leads you, since it is official Respect councillor Oli Rahman who has suffered physical attacks and nasty e-mails from Galloway/RR supporters.”
Its not jj’s rhetoric that bothers me (he can be as rude as he likes for all I care!), its his Muslim-baiting politics. Similar to the likes of Mike Pearn, Jim Denham, or the denizens of Harry’s Place. Nice to see canadien acknowledge that JJ is reprehensible, though. Not for being rude, but for Muslim-baiting.
As for Oli Rahman, there is no material evidence as to who attacked him, nor that these emails were genuine. In the absence of evidence against some individual or individuals, this is just an unsubstantiated smear. If the culprits are found, they should be prosecuted - and I hope they are. RR has repeatedly condemned these acts, including in joint statements with all other parties in TH.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
“i deleted a comment from you becasue it included a clearly libellous claim about who attacked Oli Rahman.”
How was it libelous, since Oli received threatening e-mail from people who said he was a traitor who owed his career to Galloway amongst others? That is a matter of public record.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Indeed Ian
Not only has JJ been abuse and shit stirring, he has also passed around a disgraceful slur that an FBU official is a bellot rigger.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
“As for Oli Rahman, there is no material evidence as to who attacked him, nor that these emails were genuine.”
And there is no evidence that anybody who claims to be anything on here is in any way what they claim. I could claim to be the Queen of England and you couldn’t prove I wasn’t. So, I am willing to accept this particular rule if you will also in the future not apply two sets of standards for the purposes of argument.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Canadien.
Oli has apparently received e-mails saying that.
I have recieved several e-mails over the years from people in Nigeria offering to be my business partner in exploiting an unclaimed huge financial legacy, I have also received several e-mails offering me penis enlargement and cut-price viagra. I do not draw the conclusion that all e-mails are true, or can be accepted at face value.
It is clearly very bad that Oli has been attacked. It has been condemned several times.
I have no evidence that the e-mails he was sent actually orginated from anyone connected with the people you alledge they were from, and the matter has been passed to the police, who are rather better placed to investigate than you are.
Similarly there is no proven link between the e-mails and the attacks, nor between the attacks and the people you allege were behind them.
I have heard that Oli had been subject to some threats totally unconnected witgh politics over the last several moonths, and had been encouraged to go the police about it. NO doubt now the police are involved we can all hope that the attcks stop and the perpetrators are brought to justice.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
As for shit-stirring - you should have some modesty in this regard since you posted on numerous occasions entries about how the official Respect councillors who resigned the whip in Tower Hamlets were going to join the Lib Dems (and didn’t and no evidence was ever provided to prove that they had any intention of doing so). This was shit-stirring, more so for being hypocritical. You’ve posted nothing about how your allies in Newham, who you won to split from official Respect and go to the RR rally, have ACTUALLY, not in anybody’s imagination, actually crossed the floor to New Labour.
That’s a pretty dreary average for councillors aligned with your lot, you must admit - the two in TH and now two more in Newham. Have I missed any?
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Canadien #92
You don’t seem to be a stupid man, so why pretend to be?
There is a difference between you making a claim about active involvement by identifiable individuals in a serious criminal act, and the general exchange of opinion on this blog.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Um, spam offering you penis enlargement or a $100 million from the governor of some Nigerian province’s ex-gardner if you’ll just provide your bank account, are hardly the same as “Dear Oli…we’re going to beat the shit out of you, you owe everything to George.”
But, in any case, it seems to me that what’s good for the goose must also be good for the gander - it is inconsistent to apply that rule to hate mail received by Oli which is very specific and not to apply it to anonymous posters who claim to be from whatever party, etc. It is only consistent then to argue with their point and not draw syllogistic conclusions - eg. Person X says this terrible thing, person X claims to be a member of Group Y, therefore all people in Group Y believe this terrible thing.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Alright - I’ll accept I was wrong to use that Oli example but only as wrong as Ian’s ridiculous generalizations or any of the other one’s on here that amount to “ah-ha! You’ve made a misstep and you support the other side, therefore your mistake is a mistake that can be imputed to everyone in alliance with you.”
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
“Violent imagery of teddy boy”
Please I pray do give me examples of them, I have been very scatheing and insulting but not expressing violence
If you point me to the blog number then I will apoligise unreservedly. You are making it up. I was on another thread please identify yourself.
Can I point out i was made to guess on the Word “spot” and the only spot I could think of was Blind Pugh’s and I said to that to Alex. I think that is where you are coming from. So you are clutching at anything even the victim symdrome Grow up and get used to it you have lost the debate and credibility, whoever the blogger is. So I get accused of tearing up seats and I am Ted Bovis Hi De Hi and now I am violent. I do laugh at it and most other do
Comment by Teddy Boy — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Canadien #94
No one has ever claimed that Oli rahman was going to join the Lib Dems. He did however admit himself to the East London Advertiser that he had had coalition talks with the Lib Dems, and the Lib Dems also confirmed this to two seperate journalists, Ted Jeory and David Osler.
I find it utterely bizarre that the SWP and their heroic band of international briagaders now seek to wash their hands of everything that happened in Respect before 17th November. I actually don’t know yet if it is true that the Newham councillors have joined the Labour party or not.
But let us look at the situation, the two Newham councillors were two of the councillors with the closest relationship with the SWP, and Lindsey German and John Rees were very close to them. If these two councillors have switched to labour it is a failure for everyone who has been involved in respect, and for reasons that were flagged up in george galloway’s letter in August - the persistent amateurishness, failure to support the councillors, etc, all of which happened while John Rees was national secretary and the national office was run by the SWP.
Simiarly, for two out of the original thirteen Tower hamlets councillors to have either resigned or swithced to labour was predictable politically, given the way respect was built in a hurry, and that rate of attrition is regrestable but not perticularly unusual for councillors in English local authorities. These defectins and resiugnatins happened while the SWP wee invloved in Tower Hamlets Respect. What was significant, and which presuaded me that resepct was not dead in the water, was the amazing defence of the Shadwell seat in the resulting by-election after the resignation.
I think it is revealling that there is an inference that the only really reliable people to be councillors are hardened socialists. But that is not the project that most Respect members signed up to.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
But I wasn’t making any such generalisation. I merely pointed out that the SWP’s use of the ‘communalism’ characterisation against Respect in TH and Birmingham opened the door politically to the likes of JJ, who seems to have found a niche as the SWP’s answer to Jim Denham. Its not that all or even most SWPers share these views, but rather that this trend is now part of SWP discourse and a respectable trend within the SWP, when it wasn’t before. That is a new development, a result of this crisis. A reactionary development, imo.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
cough cough
any chance to some answers to the questions this thread since every one is on line?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1175
Comment by bysshe — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
Andy, he did not admit he had coalition talks with the Lib-dems and you know it.
On the question of defections. It seems to me that Respect needs to get its house in order if “two out of the original thirteen Tower hamlets councillors to have either resigned or swithced to labour was predictable politically”
This is appalling. One is one too many! To say that well, what a shame, but it is predictable just won’t do (whoever is to ‘blame’)
Comment by anticapitalista — 2 December, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
“He did however admit himself to the East London Advertiser that he had had coalition talks with the Lib Dems, and the Lib Dems also confirmed this to two seperate journalists, Ted Jeory and David Osler.”
He never admitted any such thing. He said that he spoke to the Lib Dems and to Labour, etc. Just as Abjol Miah had had meetings with the Tories et al previously. There were no quotes and no sources ever to indicate there were “coalition talks.” But, of course, much more importantly - there IS NO COALITION with the Lib Dems. The Newham councillors have defected to New Labour.
“But let us look at the situation, the two Newham councillors were two of the councillors with the closest relationship with the SWP” So, the two Newham councillors who were recruited to Respect and denounced the SWP - they joined New Labour because of the SWP? Interesting logic.
But, in any case, you are seeing this through too small a lens, in my view. The point, and the point of the SWP’s argument is that the success of Respect means that it has come under opportunist pressures from the other parties, from electoralism, etc. etc. This was a product of success and at the same time failure: the failure to break into the labour movement and to grow as quickly as initially hoped for. You want to lay everything - and I mean everything because I have heard no other broader analysis at any point - on the doorstep of the SWP. In contrast, the SWP has not in its public pronouncements tried to scapegoat individuals or groups for the problems but rather tried to locate the problems in the context and broader political conjuncture.
As to “inferring” that only “hardened socialists” can be councillors - I never said such a thing at any point for the simple reason that I don’t believe it. I don’t think socialists have cornered the market on principled politics (for one thing there have been no shortage of socialist opportunists - just look across the Channel to the Socialist Party). It’s a question of finding mechanisms and processes to correct weaknesses rather than turning inwards and blaming one particular group, which is what has happened and which is unhealthy. You may all feel swell and “liberated from SWP oppression” for the moment. But sooner or later - Newham indicates it will be rather sooner - you will face the same pressures and contradictions as before. Then who will you blame? Or who will blame you?
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
“Its not jj’s rhetoric that bothers me (he can be as rude as he likes for all I care!), its his Muslim-baiting politics”
Can you provide 1 example of this slur?
Ian.. this is the politics of the gutter.
but 1 example please will do.
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
JJ you have thoroughly discredited yoursef, and no-one should feel obliged to drag their ay through all the comments.
You have talked about communalism, ballot rigging, etc, etc.
You are a disgrace and you are damaging the reputation of the SWP
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
typo: So, the two Newham councillors who were recruited to Respect RENEWAL and denounced the SWP - they joined New Labour because of the SWP? Interesting logic.
Teach me to edit in process…
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Yes I can, the smear that Galloway attacked Fitzpatrick for supporting gay rights, to appeal to homophobic Muslim voters. A disgusting, Muslim baiting smear that originated with Peter Tatchell, and in its original form, was exposed by Islamophobia Watch, which by the way is run by opponents of Respect.
Hopefully if you reveal your identity to your own comrades, the better ones will treat you with the kind of contempt they generally reserve for the AWL.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
I am not going over all this again.
Ted Jeory says that Oli Rahman confirmed to him that specifically coalition talks had taken place, but Oli would not give a quote to that effect on the record. this question of on the record and off the record reporting is quite common, and the perambulation “a source close to xxx said” is often used.
Stephanie Eaton, leader of the TH Lib Dems confirmed the story to Dave Osler.
On balance of probability there were coalition talks (plausible as it wouold have made them the official opposition on the council, with financual and politicall advantages) but almost certainly the SWP did not initiate nor approve this idea.
Canadien, the trouble with the narrative you construct of increasing electoral pressure following a failure to break out wider ( an example of ex post facto rationalisation, that is superficially plausible, but lacks empiricall support) is that there is no evidence of any adaptation being made in a rightwards direction over any policy issue whatsoever.
If you can point me to a single example of a policy difference on a left/right axis then I will concede some substance to it. But there is none.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
“Yes I can, the smear that Galloway attacked Fitzpatrick for supporting gay rights, to appeal to homophobic Muslim voters. A disgusting, Muslim baiting smear that originated with Peter Tatchell,”
Tatchell is crazily Islamophobic but the difficulty is that Galloway not only put it on his website - which is easily a cut and paste mistake - but then went on to repeat it on the radio. If nothing else it’s damn sloppy. He should have apologized for the screw-up and pointed to his voting record on the issue. That he just pretended it didn’t happen left it open to being exploited.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
“Canadien, the trouble with the narrative you construct of increasing electoral pressure following a failure to break out wider ( an example of ex post facto rationalisation, that is superficially plausible, but lacks empiricall support) is that there is no evidence of any adaptation being made in a rightwards direction over any policy issue whatsoever.”
You’re being mechanistic - a change in practice almost always precedes a change in policy. Look at the Labour Party - Clause 4 was around for how long when clearly it was MERELY policy and not something that would be implemented in practice. When the change in policy took place it was simply a formality. Your approach reminds me of the orthodox Trotskyist obsession with program. Program is only one, and not always the most important, expression of the political character of a party or grouping. The point is that the success/failure pressures, as I indicated, were causing new practices to take root and those new practices were damaging Respect politically. It may be that the SWP (and others) should have moved on them sooner or dealt with the pressures differently. I don’t know but I accept the analysis in general.
As to it being ex post facto, well, it is no more so than the sudden discovery that the SWP was a cancer when two months (not even) earlier, Galloway et al were publicly singing their praises. The SWP can at least point to having raised concerns viz. B’ham and TH prior to the crisis.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
“He should have apologized for the screw-up and pointed to his voting record on the issue. That he just pretended it didn’t happen left it open to being exploited.”
Actually he did repudiate any possible misunderstanding from this, to the Evening Standard. That the same error found its way onto TalkSport before it was spotted how it could be maliciously misinterpreted doesn’t change anything - the content is the same. It is absurd, and indeed libellous, to say that GG is hostile to gay rights and could campaign on that basis.
See
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2007/9/18/mp-accused-of-using-gay-issues-to-win-muslim-votes.html
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Speaking of programmatic obsessions - I was told a story once by an anarchist about how the Bordigists in Italy buried the party’s program under some tree or other in case they were all arrested by Mussolini’s fascists. Why? Because as long as the program existed the party existed. I don’t know if they ever found the tree again or if, like the proverbial squirrel, they buried it under several trees to increase their chances. Perhaps the party grew into the apples and the program was ingested by the locals.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
# 98 Cool it.
I think this could be a case of a “Comedy of Errors” rather than “Treasure Island”
There was a certain Aberdonian Actor, who used to play tricks on young ‘Jim Hawkins’ by handing him a card with a saucy joke on it, to throw him during the “black spot” scene. Causing him to corpse, as it were.
I actually was trainspotting Teddy Boy because he’d made some allusions to early I.S. history and had him down as Ted Crawford. (Shortbread, geddit?)
But he’s certainly not a retired building worker!
Comment by Alex Nichols — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
what I opposed was GG statement regarding standing against a labour mp and citing 1 of the reasons being he (labour MP) was “Strongly in favour of gay rights”. The statement is not up for debate.. indeed on GG website there is a link to his announcement when he said it.
I for one do not believe in any shape or form that to win votes within the muslim community you have to pander to this sort of politics. I think thta is the whole point- you don’t have to pander to homophobia to win muslims to respects politics!!! no how on earth is this in any way shape or form islamophobic is beyond comprehension. It is surely the opposite view which I am sorry to say takes at face value the islamaphobic nonsense.
It GG that was so insensed by being asked by phone on 3 occsassions to attend the gay pride march- at a time when we were being attacked by Tatchell etc as homophobic.. The idea of a serious intervention in that march made absolute political sense did it not….I see NO contradiction between fighting for gay rghts and fighting against Islamaphobia. So this is totally unsustantiated smear from Donovan etc.
Of course donovan etc state the statement on the radio and the statement on his website were a mistake. I personally find that very hard to believe given GG is well astute enough to think very carefully about a statement that he was going to stand on a national radio show.. then there was a mistake putting it on his website..
repeat.. no contradiciton fighting for gay rights and against islamaphobia.
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Ian - I’ve read that article. I never accused GG of being homophobic, just that it was sloppy. You know what they say - fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I never read the Evening Standard article.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
by the way Ian
Is there anything that GG has done you disagree with?
are you going to support the respect candidate for london mayor?
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
given that Andy and Ian you are both leading members of RR can you let us know if it is true or not with regards to the Newham Cllr’s? and if so what do you think the reason for them going over to new labour?
Comment by jj — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
#108 I don’t want to go over it all again either. Let me just say. You agree with Ted Jeory’s interpretation, I agree with Oli Rahman’s.
[End of story.]
Comment by anticapitalista — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
#110 Canadien
“You’re being mechanistic - a change in practice almost always precedes a change in policy. Look at the Labour Party - Clause 4 was around for how long when clearly it was MERELY policy and not something that would be implemented in practice. When the change in policy took place it was simply a formality”
Bt where was the change of prcatice?
Indeed when JOhn Rees stood in a perliamentary election in Birmingham he was very passionataley courting the genuinely communalist Kashmiri Peoples’ Justice Party becasue he though th there were some votes in it.
if there was a change in practice it was from the SWP in Tower Hamlets when thirteen councillors were elected, but none of them in the SWP, and the preferred councillor close to them, Oli Rahman, could not win the leadership of the TH councillors group aganst the very talented and articulate Abjol MIah. this left the SWP a bit out in the cold, not in control of the oppostion group on Th council. It was only at this stage that their attitude changed, when they realised that respect wouldnot simply be a conveyor belt to help the SWP, but might be a hard political slog for them with political foroces just as well orgsniased as them.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
#117
I don’t know.
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
“I never accused GG of being homophobic, just that it was sloppy.”
I never said you (canadien) did, and I agree this was sloppy and something of a cockup. That’s all it was.
JJ’s sophistry above, however, certainly does echo Tatchell’s denunciations yet again. As in “I for one do not believe in any shape or form that to win votes within the muslim community you have to pander to this sort of politics.”
Which ’sort of politics’ is that then?
I wonder which kind of politics JJ is talking about being pandered to. The assumption is still that this was no technical cockup, that GG was pandering to ‘this sort of politics’ (very suggestive that) to win votes.
Incidentally, GG has often outspokenly supported gay equality on his radio show - whenever the subject is raised. I know - I listen quite a lot. So this allegation doesn’t even make sense in its own terms. Presumably the listeners who were supposed to be impressed by this statement ‘attacking’ Fitzpatrick for supporting gay rights would not hear George’s own statements supporting gay rights on the same show. What nonsense!
So yes, the repeated and aggressive baiting of those sympathetic to George Galloway in this dispute was a concrete example of Muslim-baiting by JJ. Worthy of Jim Denham or some other degenerate Muslim-hater.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
“But where was the change of prcatice?”
This has all been covered elsewhere: Respect went from being a formation that had no history and no chance of winning, to being a real contender in a series of localities, with a number of visible personalities, etc. Whereas at first it was a struggle to find anyone to run and then they only ran based upon a commitment to the project and the politics, now it was attractive in terms of careerism to seek the nomination. This meant both that Respect attracted some careerists - like the fellow who defected to the Lib Dems - and also that it also became a tempting way to maneouvre in local politics - like getting an ex-Tory candidate in B’ham to stand in a different riding and not challenge Respect in his first choice of riding.
And there began to be a growth in strongholds like TH of the temptation of recruiting “pocket members” to ensure you won the candidacy etc.
Those are some examples, off the top of my head.
As for the narrative that you put out here, once again, that it was the machiavellian machinations of the SWP that led to this analysis. You must admit that it’s not that convincing when you look at the other activities they are involved in - Stop the War, Campaign Against Climate Change, DCH, the trade unions (where they lose votes all the time and clearly don’t anywhere near predominate).
“if there was a change in practice it was from the SWP in Tower Hamlets when thirteen councillors were elected, but none of them in the SWP, and the preferred councillor close to them, Oli Rahman, could not win the leadership of the TH councillors group aganst the very talented and articulate Abjol MIah. It was only at this stage that their attitude changed, when they realised that respect wouldnot simply be a conveyor belt to help the SWP, but might be a hard political slog for them with political foroces just as well orgsniased as them.”
Um, aren’t two of the councillors members of the SWP? (plus two more in Preston and Bolsover?) Again, this doesn’t make sense. The SWP has downplayed recruitment until recently to focus on building the movement. In fact there were debates inside the party about this (and still are as Mark Steel indicates, but also earlier with John Molyneux’s argument being in part about this). So, I don’t buy that there was this secret “get rich quick” membership scheme that didn’t appear in any public or, to my knowledge, internal discussion (which would have been all over the CPGB site if it had) and which, when it wasn’t realized, made the SWP go mad with control fever.
As to Oli Rahman’s leadership in the council - as I understand it, it was rather more fraught than how you portray it. The branch voted to have him lead but the councillor’s group voted for Abjol Miah and so a compromise was struck, which the SWP agreed. The SWP also agreed, even though they actually won the vote, to move Rees out of the seat for which he was selected by democratic vote to run - as a concession. The SWP also voted against Harun Miah to run in Shadwell but when they lost they campaigned hard for him. Ditto in Birmingham - if I’m not mistaken - when the stuff about Helen Salmon happened, who Salma had asked to run and then backed out of the deal. None of this provides evidence of the SWP taking their ball and going home when they didn’t get their way - though they did say it was a weakness that more non-Muslim candidates didn’t get elected because that would put paid to the attacks on Respect as communalist.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
“The branch voted to have him lead but the councillor’s group voted for Abjol Miah and so a compromise was struck, which the SWP agreed.”
That is not true, in fact Abjol was in my understanding approved by a vote in the branch also. There is a very solid base for Abjol in the branch, as the recent parliamentary selection showed, where he recieved 117 out of 132 votes cast in a secret ballot. Wheras Oli’s splinter group of councillors recent public meeting claimed 80 in attendence, though the Weekly Worker reckoned it closer to 60 (not that they are always accurate). Whatever, this indicates a decisive base for Abjol in the TH membership, I think, considerably more than for Oli Rahman.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 2 December, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
Ian - nobody said that Abjol didn’t have a base of support. My point was that the selection was more fraught than is being portrayed and it is my understanding - based upon stuff that I have read here, that there was a split between the desires of a significant section of the branch and that of the councillors.
Comment by Canadien — 2 December, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Canadien
I will return to the discussion of “pocket members” with a more substantive response, I think this is at root a semi-racist claim. There is in no principle no difference in say Abjol Miah recruiting his supporters into Respect, and the SWP recruiting its own supporters into Respect.
You narrative is deeply flawed, because right from the get go it was assumed that Respect would be electorally successful. Indeed i the early months of resepct i spent a lot of time trying to dampen down people’s unrealistic expectations of the 2004 Euro election result, where half of the country (mainly up north, and London) did well enough to give a very reasonable expectaion that council setas could be won. (the other half of the country, the south, the west and Wales did poorly).
I think some people did get involved with respect for careerist electoral reasons, for example the candidate in the July 2004 Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election. BUt by and large there is very little careerist advantage in becomeing an opposition councillor in a british local authority - the careerist advantage is alsways to join the party in office who have much more patronage at their disposal. Indeed political defections of councillors from opposition to ruling council groups is very common in England. BUt more than that, in some of the wards where you claim these political pressures were operating, respect had no chance of winning.
All along, Respect had two problems. The SWP, and the fact that George Galloway doesn’t have much base of support in the trade unions and wider labour movement.
And you could only be writing from several thousands of miles away if you think the idea has no credibility that the SWP bureaucratically control the various united fronts they are involved in.
But you narrative also makes litle sense, becasue the examples you give of
Comment by Andy — 2 December, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
Alex Nichols idea (post 113) that ‘Teddy Boy’ is my good friend Ted Crawford is very amusing. LOL.
Comment by Mike — 2 December, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Ted Jeory says that Oli Rahman confirmed to him that specifically coalition talks had taken place, but Oli would not give a quote to that effect on the record. this question of on the record and off the record reporting is quite common, and the perambulation “a source close to xxx said” is often used.
Are you really still pedddling this old nonsense, Andy?
Comment by KrisS — 3 December, 2007 @ 12:17 am
“I will return to the discussion of “pocket members” with a more substantive response, I think this is at root a semi-racist claim. There is in no principle no difference in say Abjol Miah recruiting his supporters into Respect, and the SWP recruiting its own supporters into Respect.”
I guess I don’t get the “semi-racist” thing - for two reasons: 1) racism is like pregnancy, you can’t be semi-pregnant. And 2) it’s not like every other electoralist party on the planet doesn’t engage in “pocket members”. I know that whenever there is a leadership contest in Canada candidates and their election teams regularly sign up thousands of members to boost their delegate numbers at convention. This is clearly not an ethnically rooted process - it is structural to the electoralist project.
“You narrative is deeply flawed, because right from the get go it was assumed that Respect would be electorally successful.”
I think you’re confusing electoral success with electoralism, which, as a term, incorporates opportunism and careerism as means and ends for engaging in electoral activity.
“BUt more than that, in some of the wards where you claim these political pressures were operating, respect had no chance of winning.”
The examples of wards this was operating within were Tower Hamlets and Birmingham. Hardly areas were Respect had no chance of winning. And, if you are referring to the ex-Tory candidate who ran on the Respect ticket in Nichells, well, the point of it was to get him out of the other riding where Respect DID have a chance.
As for careerism and the party in power - this is a complex process and a mass process: certainly the party in power has more of a gravitational pull but up and coming parties also have a pull. There was a growing sense of momentum developing around Respect and it was seen as a party - in a few key areas - against privatization, that would stand up for Muslims against the Islamophobes, and especially that it was against the war, etc. As a budding community member, hoping to gain prestige, etc. Respect could be a good vehicle - just like volunteering for a well known charity or NGO might be.
“And you could only be writing from several thousands of miles away if you think the idea has no credibility that the SWP bureaucratically control the various united fronts they are involved in.”
No offence but I have heard that particular slander over here too - against me and people I know and respect. Sometimes it is enough to have worked cooperatively with someone in the IS to have that slander thrown at you by anarchists, socialists from other tendencies, etc. Frankly it is generally of two sorts - 1) people who disagree with us politically but haven’t been able to convince others they are right and we are wrong. And 2) red-baiting, often by outside idiots who have no idea about what is going on. None of which is to say I and others in the IS haven’t made mistakes. I’ve made zillions of them and will do again. But the method - which I learned from the traditions of the IST over the past twenty years - is one that I believe in and that I have seen work - in the anti-war movement, trade union movement, anti-racist movement, women’s liberation movement. Usually those who argue for things to be “looser” want less accountability, more individualism and free-lancing that damages the solidarity of the united front and the effectiveness of its work.
Comment by Canadien — 3 December, 2007 @ 2:11 am
Canadien wrote “I guess I don’t get the “semi-racist” thing - for two reasons: 1) racism is like pregnancy, you can’t be semi-pregnant. And 2) it’s not like every other electoralist party on the planet doesn’t engage in “pocket members”.”
Fine but then I think it fair to ask if you ‘get’ the concept of soft racism which the SWP have ofetn employed. I note that that idea is in essence identical to the idea of semi-racism.
Comment by Mike — 3 December, 2007 @ 2:21 am
“soft racism which the SWP have ofetn employed.”
I don’t buy this. If we are referring to patronage politics, as I was viz. pocket members then that is what the SWP is arguing. What are you talking about?
Comment by Canadien — 3 December, 2007 @ 2:36 am
I think he means that the SWP have used the concept of ’soft racism’ analytically, rather than actually using ’soft racism’ in some unnacceptable way. In other words he’s disputing your comparison of ‘a bit racist’ to ‘a bit pregnant’, or disputing that the swp have a record of seeing things that way.
However, ’soft racist’ does have a nuance that ’semi racist’ does not, after all, ’soft racist’ IS racist.
Comment by Muon — 3 December, 2007 @ 9:33 am
by semi-racist I mean a concept that unconsciosuly draws upon prevailing common sense stereotypes in society, without realising that they have a racist sub-text.
Comment by Andy — 3 December, 2007 @ 9:37 am
#127 “Are you really still pedddling this old nonsense, Andy?” KrisS
There has still been no statement from the “gang of four” denying that coalition took place with the LibDems.
Since the LibDems have confirmed to two independent journalists that these negotiations did happen, then such a statement would presumably immediately produce a response from the LibDems saying that it was lie. Instead of accepting this and seeking to move on, the SWP leadership and their supporters, who we all accept now were not party to the negotiations though their members were, have tried to argue:
1) the “gang of four” also met with Labour
- fine, no-one was saying they did not, just that the negotiations with the LibDems were about forming an opposition coalition, whereas those with Labour obviously could not have been; by the way they obviously didn’t meet with Respect.
2) the leader of the Respect group had previously met with Tories and LibDems
- again fine, no-one is denying this, indeed it is a recorded activity of councillors by the council itself that business meetings take place regularly between the opposition parties; again the specific issue is that these meetings were NOT about forming a coalition.
It is a simple matter for the ‘gang of four’ to accept (or deny) that the negotiations were about coalition. That they have not done so, while the other side have confirmed it, leads only to one conclusion - there were negotiations and they were about coalition.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 3 December, 2007 @ 9:37 am
All this stuff about ‘pocket members’ is complete hypocrisy from the SWP. They have their own ‘pocket members’ called the SWP. In Birmingham the so-called ‘witch hunt’ letter was signed by some people who have never done any activity in Respect whatsoever for years, if ever.
It made me laugh when I listened to Lindsey German’s speech from the SWP Respect conference in which when she said the SWP would rather not get any votes if they were delivered on the basis of family or village ties. What a hypocrite. When Rees was standing in a Brum by-election he had a somewhat different line. He said family members deciding collectively what they would vote was like a form of trade union rank and file democracy. (In some case that might be true, it many others it most definitely is not). And he was very happy to be taken door-to-door by members of the Peoples Justice party, the embodiment of communalist politics in its real meaning, who would have been getting votes for him purely on their village ties.
As Salma says in an interesting article in Red Pepper about SWP behaviour:
‘To me it’s like leeching behaviour. When Muslims are their vote fodder, we’re the community. When they don’t get their way, we’re the communalists’.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article731.html
Comment by Ger Francis — 3 December, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Ger is certainly right to flag up a very interesting article from Red Pepper on the split with quotes from Galloway, Rees, Lavalette, Yaqoob and others.
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article731.html
Comment by Adam J — 3 December, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Again many thanks to Grr for some very interesting comments. Particularly in his confirmation of the tendency of the SWP, in the unlovely form of John Rees, to engage in the very communalist practices which they now denigrate.
Comment by Mike — 3 December, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
How depressing all this sounds. Can the personal and the political ever be divorced? I personally saw the begining of the end of Respect when GG appeared in the red leotard miaowing.
However, George Galloway and John Rees should both take the blame for ruining what for most of us was a hard worked for and hard built forum for discussing politics of the left with a wider audience. I lay the blame at both doors for ruining OUR hardwork.
The most important thing for me was not being elected - but having the opportunity to learn and fight alongside others.
Comment by kipper — 5 December, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Thank you for all the comments but all I want to say about the recent disagreements within RESPECT are baseless. I mean baseless for the people that do the real work within the party. If two individuals have a personel disagreement and cannot be adult about finding a solution which leads to others deciding they have to choose “sides” then they really have NO understanding on what it means to support a Socialist party, WE ARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE AND NOT INDIVIDUALS!
Comment by Paul Lawton — 9 December, 2007 @ 1:25 am
I was having a discussion with Andy on Splintered and thought it might be relevent here:
johng said,
December 9, 2007 at 11:54 am
One of the more interesting things about Georges piece on ‘train crash on the left’ was his discussion of how, effectively, any coalition has really lost it if attempts are made to force things through by mobilising activists as opposed to concensus. I disagree with him on the detail of who was really doing this (obviously) but in general terms it points to a problem for those like yourself who see what I’ve described as the ‘membership’ model as key. My critique of your general theoretical account is that it focuses much too much on the diochotomy between ‘Leninists’ and ‘broad parties’, at the expense of looking at the history of how broad parties have actually developed. To my knowledge there are no examples of broad parties (of any description) emerging on the basis of ‘membership’ type ‘ones and two’s’ mobilisation. This is an ironically Leninist approach to broad parties, and what you can end up with is the worst of all possible worlds, a sect with broad politics, not to be confused under any circumstances with an actual broad party.
It was the function of the SWP within the coalition (and indeed within the StW movement) to play the hard bastards in terms of ensuring that contingent collections of individuals did not scupper the attempt to build a platform which could be attractive to wider forces. There is something a tiny bit disengenuous therefore of some of these people playing the democracy and pluralism card.
Its notable for instance that for much of the period under discussion George would have been deeply hostile to a paper despite not having the alleged motivation of the SWP that he didn’t want a competitor. No way would he have wanted to be tied to positions on the basis of an editorial policy which he might not have controlled. Similar difficulties would have existed with the idea of branch life which might have led to the setting of national policy. What you did find was that in areas were we had an electoral base there would obviously have been real things to discuss (and in some parts one saw this).
But outside of that context whilst no one would have objected to activists meeting to discuss how they were going to build a Respect presence in a particular area, to have a national framework of branches which set the agenda nationally politically, irrespective of the social and political weight of the individuals who made up the branches would have been, and I strongly suspect, probably still would be, totally unacceptable to those whose participation is based on having real social and political weight within the movement. This has nothing to do with Leninism in my view. Its the logic of broad party formation at the early stages. One suspects that the people I am discussing would give more leeway locally were they would have the confidence that they could win their arguments through mass support of one kind or another. Some of the arguments against the SWP (that they all vote togeather, that they don’t have a proper electoral base etc) would be arguments that people like yourself may well find yourselves at the wrong end of.
The difference between my position and yours is that I don’t think George is entirely wrong on the principle of the thing. Its just that I think he’s guilty of making the same mistake he accuses the SWP of. Early on in the discussion I pointed to the fact that just as it was widely understood that you had to take individuals as they were rather then as you’d like them to be, the same thing applies to organisations and individuals with real weight. Thats why George is right on the substance of the thing when he says that if you are in a position where you are mobilising groups of activists against each other, the thing is effectively finished. This is because at this very early stage, Respect, by definition as an electoral organisation (as opposed to, say, a revolutionary party) was seeking to ‘represent’ as opposed simply to ‘organise’ large groups of people way beyond the confines of its own membership. And both the organisations and individuals being discussed represented much more then the contingent membership.
At this stage that was a good thing not a bad thing. And we needed much more of it. This was generally recognised before the current crisis, and indeed, almost everything that people currently argue about, from ‘internal life’ to the question of electoral strategy (strong areas vs spread, for instance) were widely agreed.
It is much to early to go for the membership model. Respect could only exist as a coalition of forces rather then an amalgamation of members at this stage. In other words there would be a top down logic in terms of recognising that what was at stake was what you bought to the coalition, whether this was in terms of ones position in the wider movement, or whether this was expressed in terms of electoral weight, or in organisational abilities or whathaveyou. It was also neccessary to realise (and indeed was realised) that it would indeed be true that in any genuinely broad formation, the players would indeed have their own interests, whether it reflected (hopefully) trade union leaders, political organisations, community activists or whathaveyou.
To preclude this in advance means effectively ruling out the possibility of building a broad party which will have as many disparate interests as its components but which is united around the idea of attempting to build a broad electoral alternative to New Labour. In the same way as there is a kind of circular trap in terms of electoral activity (in order to be effective you already need to have some kind of representation) there is a similar problem in getting these broader forces involved. It has to be large enough and significant enough for people to have an interest in holding it togeather despite even bitter niggles.
The fact that we couldn’t manage this is a defeat for the whole project of establishing broad political alternatives, for those who call themselves revolutionaries, for those who call themselves reformists, and for those who think the distinction is irrelevent. Its a collective failure which requires more serious thought then is really possible in the midst of this, in many ways, ludicrous faction fight. When people from other countries write to me and ask what the hell is going on, and what they should say, I just send them Andrew Murray’s speech, and tell them to stress the importance of unity. I say thats the sensible thing to do.
In reality it would probably be the sensible thing here as well, but what can you do.
Comment by johng — 9 December, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
#133
Oh dear.
There has still been no statement from the “gang of four” denying that coalition took place with the LibDems.
You mean, as I suggested before, that there hasn’t been a piece in your favourite local rag saying that. Which appears to be true. However, as has been reported a number of times on here, Oliur Rahman has said as much, more than once.
You can carry on saying that this hasn’t happened if you want to. But it’s not true.
Comment by KrisS — 9 December, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Interesting, johng. What does that mean for RESPECT now, though? If you take that line - and it makes sense to me - then do you end up agreeing with those who say the project is finished now for the SWP?
Comment by KrisS — 9 December, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
No I don’t. But I think it is important to understand that both sides start off from a far weaker position then we would have been in had this not happened. Imagine for a moment, with the current travails of the government, with increasing talk of recession, with quite prominant TU leaders more and more explicitly discussing the possibility of an independent political alternative, with quite a lot of talk even on the hitherto supine Labour Left about re-alignment, if we had not had this moment of grand catharsis. Imagine where we would be now. This general situation means that we have to redouble our efforts in this direction, but just to pose the question like that, is to realise how premature and stupid all this has been (in some ways made worse by being bounced into this fight by bloody Gordon Brown). I tend to think the SWP is more realistic about this then RR, at least in the distorted world of blogdom.
Comment by johng — 9 December, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
#143
I think that much is obvious, about being weaker than we would have been. Although there has been a bit of “well, we’re better off without them”, mostly from the Galloway side but some from ours as well. While it is a profoundly disappointing situation, I agree that we have to redouble our efforts. I don’t know if we will be able to exploit the opportunities there are, but we have to try.
Comment by KrisS — 9 December, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
The better off without them position is in my view deeply stupid, on both sides. Anybody who doesn’t understand that this is a setback is completely hatstand and will not be taken seriously by anyone, aside from fellow lunatics.
Comment by johng — 9 December, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Apologies, I meant of course, “Political” lunatics.
Comment by johng — 9 December, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
You are doing a wonderful thing here on the Internet. I wish you the very best. Kindest regards.
Comment by colonial penn life insurance — 3 January, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
This site is interesting as well as informative. Enjoyed browsing through the site. Keep up the good work. Greetings..
Comment by casinoas gratis pquer caribeo — 21 January, 2008 @ 7:13 am
Great article, thanx for information
Comment by AlexGM — 8 March, 2009 @ 9:14 am
best site of its kind
Comment by reviews — 28 October, 2009 @ 3:35 pm