GALLOWAY PUTS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
The latest issue of the SWP’s internal mailing, Party Notes has predictably been leaked, and this time it was Dave Osler who published. This includes an apology by John Rees, and a copy of a letter sent to Michael Gavan in his capacity as secretary of Organising for Fighting Unions, explaining that Rees made a mistake in channelling £5000 to OFFU that came from a firm involved in PFI schemes in Britain. Nevetheless John Rees’s account was not entirely candid. So George Galloway has also written to Michael Gavan putting the record straight.
18 December 2007
Dear Michael,
I have been sent a copy of a letter to you from John Rees, distributed by email to SWP members, along with an apology from the SWP Central Committee concerning the donation to OFFU of £5,000 from Dubai.
I think it would be appropriate for me to give you my side of this unfortunate story as John Rees’s letter is misleading. When a cheque arrived in January at the Respect Office made out to Respect from a person I did not know but who was clearly a foreign national who said he admired and supported me, I took the position obvious to everyone involved in these things, except perhaps the Labour Party’s former General Secretary, that we were grateful for the offer but we had to refuse it on legal grounds.
When John Rees suggested an alternative organisation for the money to be donated to, my assistant Kevin Ovenden had a discussion with him and with Elaine Graham-Leigh saying this might be potentially difficult with the Electoral Commission but that, if such a proposal were to be made, an obvious organisation to suggest was the Stop the War Coalition. This organisation had no formal links with Respect, pre-existed Respect and was an organisation, given the likely nature of the support of the individual concerned, which he might be happy to donate to. The Stop the War Coalition also has robust structures and would have been able to come to a collective decision over whether it might accept such a donation. Kevin, on my behalf, categorically argued against the suggestion by John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh that the cheque be reissued payable to OFFU.
There was no further communication between me or my staff and John Rees about this matter until the end of August. In particular, I and my office were unaware that John Rees had written back soliciting the donation for OFFU. He did not circulate that letter to me, to the officers of Respect, or, it seems, to the OFFU committee.
It is utterly disingenuous therefore to say that neither I nor John Rees knew of the company connections of the individual concerned when the donation was made to OFFU in June. I did not know the donation had been made to OFFU. It also seems to be the case that the committee and officers of OFFU were not told that a £5,000 donation from Dubai had been accepted in their name. A Google search after I did learn of the donation, in late August, established the unfortunate links which have caused so much embarrassment.
I did not include this issue in my letter to the Respect National Council in late August as I wanted to resolve matters concerning this donation as quickly as possible and without any possibility of it embarrassing either Respect or OFFU. It was however part of the my opening remarks at a meeting with SWP Central Committee members John Rees, Lindsey German, Chris Bambery and Alex Callinicos on 4 September. These remarks were made in the context of my accusation against John Rees of his lack of accountability and his recklessness on this and another matter. However, they were dismissed by John Rees as being a cover for a right wing attack on the left in Respect. At a meeting of 250 London SWP members later that week, Alex Callinicos referred to my having spent 25 minutes going on about an obscure cheque.
Despite this, I continued to deal with John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh on a confidential basis with regard to this cheque. I insisted on referring the matter to the Electoral Commission on the grounds that the donation might still have been illegal and, in any case, to demonstrate that we were complying with our obligations of transparency. However, my best efforts met with resistance and obfuscation all the way down the line by both Rees and Graham-Leigh.
I raised the connection between the Dubai donation and the Interserve privateers in an email to John Rees, Elaine Graham-Leigh, Alex Callinicos, Lindsey German and Chris Bambery three months ago – on 10 September.
John Rees breezily dismissed these concerns in an emailed response on 13 September. He wrote:
“…this was an individual donation not a corporate donatation (sic). Many people work for firms that do bad things~but accepting money from them as individuals does not imply either that they endorse the actions of their employers or that we endorse the actions of the firms. Consequently, the whole ‘anything in the world can be connected by six degrees of separation’ argument falls at the first hurdle.
“More broadly, why should any labour movement body not accept a bit of the profit coming back to the workers so long as there are no strings attached.”
I continued to press John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh to refer this to the Electoral Commission until finally I felt obliged, not least for my own reputation, having been the victim of a genuine witch-hunt over donations from the Middle East to the Mariam Appeal, to refer the matter myself. The Electoral Commission are currently looking into the matter.
Given how widely the SWP leadership raised this issue in their own organisation, it was only going to be a matter of time before the issue got into the press, and so it has proved. I am sorry that it has taken press exposure to bring the necessary action to bear on this issue, although I note that John Rees’s letter does not actually suggest the return of the donation, which is the recommendation of the SWP Central Committee.
It would certainly be my view that the cheque should never have been solicited for OFFU for two reasons. Firstly, OFFU was set up as a result of a decision by the Respect Officers’ Committee, its National Council and resolution of the Respect Annual Conference. Its leading officers were members of Respect and one of the signatories to the bank account was an employee of Respect. Respect employees were engaged more or less full time in arranging OFFU’s only conference thus far, a conference which lost £5,000. These are connections to Respect which made the donation to OFFU potentially illegal and certainly potentially politically embarrassing. The second reason is, of course, the fact that the major shareholder in the Dubai company is leading PFI privateer Interserve – a connection which is far from “tenuous”. The Stop the War Coalition might have felt able to accept that money – I cannot see how a body of trade union militants would.
I am very sorry that this embarrassment has occurred for all who are involved in OFFU in good faith, but it entirely vindicates my criticisms of the way in which John Rees has operated both with respect to Respect and OFFU.
On another matter you continue to have my utmost support and good wishes against your victimisation by Newham Council and I remain at your disposal to help in any way I can.
With best wishes,
George Galloway MP
Good grief.
If those quotes from Reess are true and substantiatable, then he must surely be sunk. Shirley?
Comment by Red Deathy — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
“These remarks were made in the context of my accusation against John Rees of his lack of accountability and his recklessness on this and another matter.” - er Galloway accusing someone of being unaccountable and reckless??
But I’m sure that in RR, Galloway will now be accountable to Andy?
Comment by Adam J — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
The whole thing is incredible. Rees not even bothering to let Galloway know that he had solicited the money for OFFU, the fact that OFFU owed Respect 5000 pounds and he hadn’t even bothered to check the source of the donation.
Did Rees even bother to discuss this with the OFFU National Committee? The most amazing thing of all is that when faced with the truth, Rees saw nothing wrong in accepting the donation!! The quotes must be part of an e-mail that can be varified, so RD may be right. It will make for an interesting SWP Conference.
Comment by CHAB — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
The story was in the East London Advertiser this morning.
Is Galloway saying he sat on the story until the split was under way
Comment by Blah — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Andy your attempts at mudslinging are tiresome.
I don’t actually see the moral problem with FIGHTING UNIONS taking money from this source? It would be only a problem if evidence emerged that FIGHTING UNIONS political actions were being shaped by wealthy backers. If they take money freely donated and wit hno strings attached and use it for the workers movement, theh what’s the problem?
You are actually engaged in a very unpleasant attempt to smear good trade unionists.
Comment by Adam J — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Adam J: but it is clear that Rees has been unaccountable and reckless. The SWP CC has had to apologise for his behaviour. Well, a NuLab apology. I think we can safely assume that the quote from Rees is extracted from an email. There’s no way Galloway would put that in if it weren’t.
As for CHAB’s point: does anyone have a list of who is on the OFFU National Committee? Is Mark Serwotka on it? Could he perhaps have put pressure on the SWP CC over this? One thing seems certain: somebody outside the SWP CC put the pressure on. I just can’t see them humiliating Rees like this of their own volition. They’ve shown no inclination to stand up to his antics before.
Comment by Nas — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Adam J: you are resembling one of those unfortunate CP members who didn’t realise that the line had changed. The SWP leadership clearly see there is a problem with accepting the money. They say that it is “inappropriate that OFFU should have accepted these funds”. The letter to Michael Gavan shows that OFFU, in the form of its chair and committee, did not decide to accept these funds. Rees did. And now Michael and other “good trade unionists” have been politically embarrassed by his actions, this coming at at time when Michael is being victimised by Newham council and is in need of the support of national UNISON officials. So, frankly, Adam J, whether you think this is whiter than white is irrelevant. The people affected are damaged by it.
Comment by Nas — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Nas, What are Rees’ antics?
I know Galloway’s as do many (once) potential Respect voters
It’s interesting that ANDY refuses to state the logic of his position openly - that the money should not have been accepted even by StWC.
If he doesn’t believe this then why emphasise that the money was from a PFI backing corporation? Unless his aim is inuendo and smear
Ashame to see ANDY’s degeneration into Galloway’s attack dog!
Attacking FIGHTING UNIONs in the bourgeois media is really going to help Michael Gavan.
Comment by Adam J — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
In principle, I see nothing wrong in accepting these funds if they in no way influence the actions of the recipient.
Tactically, there are problems - electoral rules, people saying that a militant trade union organisation has corporate backers.
I recall the late Tony Cliff once said, we’ll take money from anyone.
The bolsheviks took money from the German imperialist government
Comment by Adam J — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
When was Kevin told?
Comment by Keiron — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
#8 sticks and stones …
Whether or not STW accepted the money could have been decided by the STW officers, under scrutiny from the national Steerng committee. STW has a reasonably robust structure, is politically pluralist, and PFI linked money would not be a problem for a single issue campaign wholely unconnected with fighting PFI. Indeed I would be surprised if all STWC supporters do oppose PFI.
Actually Adam, for me the problem was not that the money was from a corporation linked to PFI, but that the money was from abroad and was therefore illegal for Respect to accept, and OFFU did not have sufficient legal seperation from Respect.
It was in fact not me but John Rees who made the question relevant by claiming to the East London Advertiser that it was clear to him tis was an individual donation from someone sympathetic to the aims of OFFU. It was then Ted Jeory in the East London Advertiser who discredited that argument bt poiting out the link with PFI.
Adam, you would look a little less follish if you followed the link over to dave Osler’s site and read both the extract from party Notes, and the letter from John Rees to OFFU. You will see that it is John Rees not me who emphasises that the money is from a PFI backing corporation.
I suspect that this whole volte face is becasue the SWP have sought legal advice and realised that John Rees had monumentally cocked up by accepting an illegal foreign donation, and they are using this PFI issue as a smoke screen to cover their retreat.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Keiron
Kevin found out at the same time as Galloway.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Here is the germane part of the email sent on behalf of George Galloway to John Rees, Lindsey German, Alex Callinicos, Chris Bambery and Elaine Graham-Leigh on 10 September 2007 (he had first raised the issue verbally with the four Central Committee members on 4 September and had emailed since):
“It seems to me that there are two connected issues about this cheque.
“The first is the legal one: was OFFU a legally separate and distinct entity to Respect when it was banked on June 12? The second is a political question: even if it was, should the cheque have been accepted, given that the company behind it is exactly the kind of firm OFFU is campaigning against?
“There is only one way to test the legality and that is to discreetly talk to the Electoral Commission. It is not good enough to cite our treasurer and auditor, they are not the arbiters of what is legally acceptable.
“Indeed, you might say they are compromised by their positions. My legal advice - discreetly and not-attributely taken, naturally - is that OFFU is a subsidiary of Respect. It was set up by Respect, the offices were at Club Row, Respect commissioned and underwrote the conference and, even today, two of the signatories on the cheques are the current Respect chair and a (until recently) Respect office worker. Couple with that, the £3000 was re-paid to Respect’s treasurer.
“We need to lay our cards on the table with the Electoral Commission and, if necessary, re-pay the cheque.
“The second issue is the provenance of the cheque. As you know, we were all deeply sceptical about it when it came in, as perhaps as set-up by the Fake Sheikh, whose stings are usually through Dubai. I think now that the ramifications are potentially even more serious than that possibility.
“It may well be that Abdulrahman Khansaheb was genuinly well-intentioned when he sent the cheque to George originally.
However, Khansaheb Civil Engineering is a subsidiary of a British company Interserve (source: Interserve). Interserve is one of the leading companies involved in PFIs. It cites at least 13, spanning prisons, to schools and hospitals. It was the principal in the
University College Hospital London PFI and I believe the unions and the SWP campaigned strongly against this.
The CEO of Khansaheb is Keith Ridgway whom Interserve describe as their ‘international managing director’.
“Most of the executive positions are held by Interserve employees.
Additionally the chair of Interserve is Lord (Norman) Blackwell, a Tory peer, who was the head of the prime minister’s policy unit from
1995-97, he is the chair of the Centre for Policy Studies and a member of the Bruges Group. He is described as having ‘voted strongly against gay rights’…”
On 13 September Rees replied refusing to put the issue before the Electoral Commission and defending OFFU taking the money. 10 September was a Monday and 13 was a Thursday. The SWP Central Committee meets on Wednesdays.
Now, the entry in the Party Notes on Monday of this week says:
“An apology
Last week the East End [sic] Advertiser published an article raising serious allegations about a donation made to OFFU.
The CC has produced the following statement:
”The Central Committee is very concerned…”
Rees’s letter to Michael Gavan of 12 December starts:
“Dear Michael,
“We spoke recently about the article in the East London Advertiser regarding George Galloway’s accusations about the source of the donation made to OFFU by a Dubai businessman last June…”
It is clear that Rees had not spoken to Michael Gavan, the chair of OFFU, before the East London Advertiser article two weeks ago and that the Central Committee statement is drafted in response to the East London Advertiser.
But it is equally clear that four members of the SWP Central Committee – Rees, German, Callinicos and Bambery – were told of Interserve’s holding in Khansaheb Civil Engineering on 10 September. The alternatives, therefore, are:
a) The four Central Committee members, with the complicity of Elaine Graham-Leigh, withheld the information in George’s email from the rest of the CC, on Wednesday 12 September and subsequently, and thus misled them about an important aspect of the dispute between the SWP leadership and George Galloway, leaving it for the East London Advertiser to let the rest of the CC know two weeks ago.
b) The CC as a whole were aware of the information in George’s email in the week beginning 10 September, but subsequently misled the SWP membership and the wider movement into believing that they found out only from the East London Advertiser two weeks ago.
Either way, the CC or senior members of it, have dissembled and misled.
Lastly, no one appears to be disputing the fact that OFFU, ostensibly an independent body of trade union militants, had decisions taken on its behalf over accepting money from Dubai by John Rees, against vehement advice.
Comment by Nas — 18 December, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Post 13:
Kevin you forgot to change your name back from Nas, I always thought you two were one and the same.
Comment by JM — 18 December, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
err, JM: you are sadly mistaken. Do you have any comment on the clear evidence that the SWP membership has been misled either by four of its leaders or by the whole leading body?
Comment by Nas — 18 December, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Galloway says “late August” is when he knew.
Precisely when was it?
How long did he sit on it for?
Comment by Keiron — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Keiron: at a stretch, let’s say he knew on the twenty something of August and he raised it on September 4 demanding that it goes to the Electoral Commission. It’s not exactly sitting on it, is it? And it’s not enough to divert this thread. What’s clear is that the SWP CC or four of its senior members misled the party members.
Comment by Nas — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
you’re right Nas.
That is the main point.
Although we don’t know when George knew do we.
Comment by Keiron — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Does anyone know who the OFFU National Committee are and if they were consulted? I can’t seem to find details anywhere.
It does show a total lack of accountability and general incompetence at the very least. And also that Rees believes that any organisation he is involved should be subordinated to his increasingly more dazzling ideas.
There must be minutes of a meeting somewhere along the line where the donation was discussed? Surely?
Comment by CHAB — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
ReesGate will surely be the end of RESPECT. One wonders if Rees won’t also be forced to resign from SWP coordinating committee. Or maybe Chris Harman has a theoretical justification in the works for this monumental blunder?
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
“Kevin you forgot to change your name back from Nas”
Kev will be pleased to know he’s been here typing as someone else, given that I’ve been sat at his computer for the last few hours and not let him anywhere near it so I can do dull political stuff.
Gosh, “JM”, you’re good at this. So what’s your name then?
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
CHAB: yep, there must be someone reading this who knows who’s on the OFFU National Committee. Is Mark Serwotka on it?
Comment by Nas — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
George is really trying to milk this for all its worth isn’t he? Which incidentally isn’t much.
Tres, tres tedious mud-slinging.. we get it George.
Comment by JB — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
“George is really trying to milk this for all its worth isn’t he? Which incidentally isn’t much.
Tres, tres tedious mud-slinging.. we get it George.”
Right, so the issue here is that George is in the wrong.
Just so that’s clear.
Thanks JB.
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
JB: the SWP leadership, or four of its members, have misled everyone about this cheque, including Michael GAvan. Do you think it’s acceptable for self-styled revolutionaries to do that? They even manage to mislead and dissemble in the course of “apologising”!
Comment by Nas — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
#27 Its very unmarxist practices by the SWP cc. They can take the “un” out of it by expelling the gang of four, along with being transparent with their depleted membership.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
I must correct the weekly worker for spreading the incorrect number of resignations from the SWP. The actual number is 499 with one possible.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Tip of the iceberg, anyone?
Who ‘runs’ “Party Notes”, it used to be the National Organiser’s weekly task? The earliest posts are spot on about how this represents the only historic climbdown in SWP history. If the money-trail is followed more vigorously there’ll be no end to the rotten schemes that have propped up the “full-timers” in realising their ‘project’ for the British left.
There’ll be more of this, much more, as the dissolution continues.
I’m waiting (without holding my breathe) for the issue of “Party Notes” that announces the firing of Rees, German, Smith and their ilk and the call to a conference entitled “WTF! Why did we let it go on so long?”
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 18 December, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
Quite something that George is pretending to support Gavan after him and the others called him a ‘juvenile dwarf’, a ‘leech’, etc etc at the RR rally.
Wonder when George will issue an apology for his disgraceful behaviour that day? I won’t be holding my breath - George doesn’t do apologies, even when he’s in the gutter.
Comment by JB — 18 December, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
I hope this oversight on my part has not caused OFFU any embarrassment and I apologise if this is the case.
Yours fraternally,
John Rees,
What an understatement. I wait with interest to read Michael Gavan’s retort or will it be an accommading reply.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
“Quite something that George is pretending to support Gavan after him and the others called him a ‘juvenile dwarf’, a ‘leech’, etc etc at the RR rally.”
This is a lie, JB, and you know it’s a lie. You should withdraw it or consider yourself a disgrace to the left. That you’re reduced to lying about things like this is indicative of just how low people like you are prepared to go to deflect attention from what’s really going on here.
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
I deleted a number of comments by Tim, for the usual reasons.
But in the excitement I also deleted a comment from Tonyc by mistake.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Tonyc, Michael Gavan is a member of the SWP is he not? He is a member of the non-Renewal Respect faction is he not? George and chums had a field day slating them to high heaven at the RR rally did they not?
Or did we all imagine the particularly nasty bile that was spewed that day?
Comment by JB — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
JB,I think you know full well who Galloway was referring to in his speech to conference. What do you make of Rees’ monumental cock-up and lack of accountability in terms of the Dubai donation?
Comment by CHAB — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
JB
There was some criticism of the SWP in strong terms at the Respect Renewal conference. But all along we have shown a willingness to work with the SWP in practical joint activity, and the support for Michael Gavan, Karen Reissman, Yunus Baksh and Tony Staunton is real and unconditional.
And can’t you see from the evidence produced here that the behaviour of the SWP CC was in fact duplicitous, including deceiving the SWP membership? This is the type of behaviour that caused the problems in Respect.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
What exactly is it with Tim? How on earth can he be bothered to spend so much time posting stuff that just gets deleted, over and over again?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
JB, The only thing I could find that you had to say on the matter was that it wasn’t worth much.
So clearly then it doesn’t worry you that Rees took the cheque for OFFU seemingly without consulting anybody? Or that the CC, or at least 4 of them, have yet again lied to the membership?
Do you know of this was at any point discussed with the OFFU National Committee? And are you happy that Rees didn’t bother to tell Galloway that he had accepted the cheque for OFFU? Surely there is an accountability and competence issue here?
Comment by CHAB — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
“Tonyc, Michael Gavan is a member of the SWP is he not? He is a member of the non-Renewal Respect faction is he not? George and chums had a field day slating them to high heaven at the RR rally did they not?”
From strong criticism of an organisation, you manage to claim that George specifically made certain accusations about Michael Gavan.
You are nothing more than a smearer, are you not?
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
I know see a trend in the blog that some SWP supporters that defended their cc are no longer contributing.
That indicates to me that they are directing their questions to the SWP cc, after this latest admission by them.
Surely now they must give up the pretense of a witch hunt and give up on spliitting Respect, The must move away or things can only get worse for them.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Or it might be that some of them have just got bored with the whole thing here, and can’t be arsed to get into yet another interminable and inconclusive he said-she said.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
huff and puff
Comment by tim — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
JB
Michael Gavan is not a member of the SWP. He is also very grateful for all the support he has received, from whatever quarter, over the last few weeks. He was, for example, pleased that George Galloway highlighted his case in his column in the Morning Star. Your attempts to sow discord within the unified campaign to support Michael are not going to derail the rest of us - including I hope most people in the SWP.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
SWP supporters are bored? More like reeling. This apology over financial misjudgement of a high order can’t be separated from the RESPECT split. Now the “left-right” split must sound even more like pure nonsense to even the most loyal member of the SWP. The leadership has proven fallible, and on a matter of the utmost importance to a revolutionary and/or “broad left” party’s credibility as a left alternative.
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
No Kriss it is more about what the party notes said and the letter of apology. I am glad that my friends in the SWP are taking stock
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
Of the two levels of argument, legal and political, the legal argument may now be accepted by all, (re Respect as registered with Electoral commission and overseas donations).
However, I am amazed some in the SWP have tried to defend this donation to OFFU politically - including John Rees, who asks us: “More broadly, why should any labour movement body not accept a bit of the profit coming back to the workers so long as there are no strings attached?”
Now in the abstract this sort of talk can always be justified according to the invocation of this or that moment from the history of the Marxist tradition - with all its historically specific tactical imperatives - so apparently ‘the Bolsheviks may have even used bank heists’ etc.
However, even for the most ruthless ‘revolutionary pragmatist’ this clearly cannot outweigh any other obvious counter-productive effects in the actual struggle.
And the answer in this specific incidence is so bloody obvious - here is a privatising capitalist firm directly engaged in attacking the very trades unionists whom OFFU is designed to attract and rally! Nothing could be more calculated to demoralise its rank and file activists and provide ammunition to its many political enemies.
It is clear is that an initiative like OFFU would be immediately sunk if it were revealed that it relied upon international capitalists based in Dubai and the City of London because it could not finance itself from its own participants and the wider Labour/TU movement.
And of course, it is for a good reason that the SW appeal itself makes great efforts to appear as a grassroots movement fundraising effort! Even Rees is now able to dimly see this and in his apology to the trades unionists involved in the OFFU venture accepts that he may have caused ‘embarrassment’!
Such a blunder is only possible because of an organisational culture which allows a systematic unaccountability to any wider front/movement bodies such as those of OFFU or Respect, whose official organs are seen as merely titular, to be by-passed by executive decision made by Rees, or other full time SWP officials.
One asks how much this is an anomaly, and how much this is an endemic problem rooted in SWP CC modus operandi and practice, built up over its historic trajectory. Whatever advantages this may have once brought, the project to dominate the far left through financing such a formidable full-timer apparatus may have had all sorts of unpleasant consequences and habits built up over the decades. I just hope Rees Cavalier attitude to the Dubai money is not the product of a familiar routine.
Comment by Larry R — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
I would imagine that one could be reeling and bored at the same time, though thinking about it, that might make one feel a little nauseous.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
perhaps kevin could tell us what date he knew about this
Comment by Keiron — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
“Your attempts to sow discord within the unified campaign to support Michael are not going to derail the rest of us - including I hope most people in the SWP.”
That really is rich coming from you!
And yes, most are bored of this site and soon it will be just like the old days - a handful of people whingeing on about the SWP amongst themselves.
Comment by JB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
ErlingB
I think it’s going to get worse than this.
Back in early September the clarion call from the SWP leadership was to defend John Rees. The meeting on 7 September in London was fairly nauseous in that regard.
Now, three months later, the central committee has had to accept that he was, how shall we say, in error over this issue. That could have been done back in August and September. Instead, we were treated to a Vatican I doctrine of infallibility. Couple with that was what most SWP members must now see as a deeply cynical campaign against a fictitious witch-hunt.
What’s been achieved? Rees’s amour propre is now being sacrificed, but not before criminal damage was done to the SWP and Respect. There is still time for comrades in the SWP to call a halt to this. But they do have to act rather than say they will keep their powder dry for another day. This is a watershed.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
the point is that all of the rank and file only get to know about it after the fact that RESPECT has been irrevocably split. And, yes, KrisS, I think nauseous is exactly how SWP members must be feeling right now.
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
JB, the wonderful irony of all of this is, once it’s all over, people will see who was really trying to conduct a witch-hunt.
Don’t ever pretend that you’re a decent socialist or that you have any coherent theory or that you deserve to play any leadership role in any movement.
Your comments in this thread alone prove that you’re as low as Tim Robinson in trying to smear people - and that’s saying something.
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
I kid you not here: There is actually a ‘John Rees appreciation society’ on facebook! I thought this was taking the piss at first - and nearly joined for a laugh - but it actually has Rees and German as members! I am not making this shit up!
Comment by Larry R — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
blah blah
Comment by tim — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
the point is that all of the rank and file only get to know about it after the fact that RESPECT has been irrevocably split
Sorry, are you saying that Galloway should have had this argument within RESPECT rather than leading people out into his new venture? That makes some kind of sense, I suppose.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
Tony, no one could have behaved as disgustingly as Kevin and Rob - and I think you know this deep down. Obviously you have a bit of bias going on though.
Comment by JB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
KrisS, what I mean is that is the SWP’s decision to “go nuclear” may have been taken in no small part because of the stress of knowing that Rees had cocked up horribly on the Dubai privatisation cash. We all know that it wasn’t GG letter but rather the ballistic response that cause this split.
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
If you are reeling and bored and feeling a litle nauseous. I do understand, and there is no cure for it other than stepping back and taking stock of your comments over the last few months.
You must feel let down that the trinklings of truth has opened your mind to the honest truth. Or may be you feel good. I hope so, And seasonal greeting Kriss
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Yes indeed, we all know - I really love being told what I know, by someone who knows sod all about me. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and fraternal.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
And a “happy holidays” to you too, Teddy Boy.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Rather than personalising this - can we discuss what this means about future tactics, modes of organisation, new standards of revolutionary transparency and accountability?
Comment by Larry R — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Go right ahead, Larry. I don’t think anyone’s stopping you, are they?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
62 I agree with Kriss
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
JB, Are you going to answer any of the points I raised in 37? So far you have failed to address any of the issues in the original post - leads me to assume that you are merely trolling.
Comment by CHAB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
“We all get that from time to time, tonyc, I wouldn’t worry about it.”
Well done, KrisS. Not a good game, pretending to post as someone else.
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Oh, wasn’t that you? Then yeah, I’d agree, that is a bit poor.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
In case anyone is under any misapprehansion, the comment @ 9.34pm and the one at 9.28pm are not by the tonyc who usually posts the interesting stuff.
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
which tonyc is that?
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
@ ErlingB, let’s be honest, Neither me or the tonyc troll are that inspiring.
But I lack the panache and sense of humour of the troll.
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
JB
How about addressing the issue of four or more SWP central committee members misleading the party and the movements. There are a few SWP members who can work themselves up into synthetic indignation about me and Rob; there are many more who are simply shocked by what has happened over the last three months.
The toxicity of the Dubaious cheque was raised in January and again in September with Rees. The party and the members of the OffU committee - which includes half a dozen or more non-SWP members iirc - find out about this thanks to the East London Advertiser.
Don’t you think people ought to be held account for something like that? CC members and fulltimers have been sacked for far, far less.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
I suppose I have always had these nagging doubts, from when I was myself in the SWP, about our finance.
I used to wonder how it was that in contrast to the difficult struggle on the ground to raise funds for the SWP appeal, that barometer on page three always increased with ease each week! Yet local targets were rarely met. It always seemed a great achievement that a few thousand activists could raise over £100,000 in a few weeks.
And this relative concentration of financial resources in the movement is used to both good and bad result in this movement - it can help build mass mobilisations and mass dissemination of agitation and ideas - but also it can also employ a full-timer apparatus which allows the SWP CC to ‘carry the line’, and implement its twists and turns, bypassing any organs of party democracy.
So that’s why I’d like to ask if people think this episode is just an exception, brought about by some popular front misadventure in Respect.
Comment by Larry R — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
tonyc, i was only joking, i like you much better than the troll
On Kevin O: Doesn’t it strike anyone that none of the SWP apologists can really answer Kevin? And that he has the cojones to post under his own name. Maybe the SWP should have altered its all white leadership a while back and promoted some of their more capable cadre instead of leaving Rees and clique at the helm…
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Tim, the real question is when will the SWP dump Rees and co.
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
The real question is when do we start building a socialist movement that is not based upon either bureaucratic CC/full-timer hierarchies or Maverick celebrity MP’s, but genuine participation, democracy, transparency and mutual respect!
Comment by Larry — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
the person posting pretending to be tonyc was Tim.
I have deleted those comments, and a few of the others that just referred to them.
ErlingB’s point about the SWP having an all white leadership is of course not quite true. NOor is it really a questioon of personalities, one problem is the lack of accountable structures so that even good and talented people end up taking short cuts.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
I can assure you it wasnt Andy
Comment by tim — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Oily JR will resign and when he does the SWP will collapse True socialists will vote by their feet because of the duplicity of their cc. I think the other three will resign as well. What chaos.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
I don’t know anything more about this situation than has been posted here. Given the record of this place, I can’t really set much store by much of what’s posted here. However, it seems reasonable to accept that the quotes from Party Notes are accurate, so yeah, a mistake has been made.
Apart from that, though (and that’s quite a big “apart from”, granted), I’m not sure what the big deal is.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Actually, you are right Tim, I checked the IP address again and it wasn’t you.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Andy
It’s the haughtiness of Rees’s response when the Interserve-Khansaheb connection is pointed out to him that is most striking.
It’s of a piece with how he has behaved in Respect. It must deeply trouble SWP members and those of us, such as me, who are from that tradition that instead of being able to deal with that problem, the party leadership has managed to carry enough of the party to defending every jot and tittle of what was done in Respect.
There’s no point SWP members coming on here and trying to divert the thread. They need to deal with this.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
KrisS
You’ve been lied to by those who ought to depend on trust for their positions of authority. You might not care about that. A lot of SWP members I know do.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
KrisS:
“Given the record of this place, I can’t really set much store by much of what’s posted here.”
In which case no one is obliging you to read it or join in the discussion.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Kriss, you are seeing the death throes of the leadership of the SWP and the resignations of many who now see they have been let down and you are still not sure what the big deal is.
Its the disentegration of the biggest party of the left and you know it. I never thought you would act vague. C’mon that is below you
Comment by Teddy Boy — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Comrades should ease up a second on KrisS, as they seem to have at least realized a terrible mistake was made by the SWP leadership. It will take some time for SWP members to draw the conclusions of what problems lie behind that mistake, and how they might have to reassess their view of the recent split. It always takes time and the easiest thing to do is to cling to the group you are in until the cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable.
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Kevin - I’m afraid I don’t know that that’s true. I’m not saying it can’t be, just that there’s no way of my knowing that.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Erling - I’m not a member of the SWP. I’ll assume, for the moment, that you haven’t notice my saying that many times on here before now.
I can’t see how, even if the most fantastic flights of fancy were proved to be right on this one, that it would make any difference to my view of your splitting from RESPECT though.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
KrisS
Ok. Well just keep reviewing the evidence and the revelations that are to come and you will be able to come to a clear conclusion.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
KrisS, the same leadership that lied to its membership was the group that “went nuclear” and made certain that Respect would split. Pretty simple but if you don’t want to reassess that’s your problem I guess.
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
But if the “revelations” are just more of people from Galloway’s side accusing people from the SWP of this, that and the other, that’s not going to help, is it?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
KrisS, do you think the SWP decision to “go nuclear” if just an accusation?
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
#87 - ErlingB
Right, so if I assume that you were right all along, then I’ll think that you were right all along? While that may be true, I’m not sure it’s very helpful, is it?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Tim, I didn’t know the US Senate had employed trolls on this blog.
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
ErlingB - as far as I’m aware, it’s a quote from Martin Smith from before the split. I assume it was leaked by people unfavourable to the SWP CC’s line. I don’t see that it adds any light to the discussion, does it?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Yes, Kris, the quote goes directly to who caused the split.
Comment by ErlingB — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
In the mind of those who had already decided that the SWP caused the split, it does, yes. And in others’ minds, it doesn’t.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
KrisS
No. Just look at the emails that were exchanged between George Galloway on the one hand and John Rees, Lindsey German, Alex Callinicos, Chris Bambery and Elaine Graham-Leigh on the other on 10th September and 13th September; then look at the Party Notes apology and the letter from Rees to Michael Gavan.
It is clear that either four members of the central committee have willfullyg misled the others, the party and the movement, or that the central committee tout court has misled others.
There are no other possibilities. No one has disputed the emails or the Party Notes or the Rees-Gavan letter.
You don’t need more. That’s evidence of utter cynicism. The only moot point is just how many people knew about it between 10 September and 5 December.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
KrisS
Does it not worry you that all the argument and evidence coming from the RR side is consistent, self reinforcing, and endorsed by a number of people from different political view points.
Whereas the SWP CC’s position is inconsistent, they are on the retreat over the Dubai cheque issue, and there is strong prima facie case that they lied to the SWP membership.
What is more, it is simply inconceivable surely that Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman, Richard Searle, Clive Searle, Ghada Rhazuki, Kay Phillips, Jerry Hicks, Ger Francis, Jo Benefield and Ann Thomas, to name just a few, have suddenly all become anti-SWP witch-hunters prepared to construct one of the most elaborate conspiracies you can imagine?
Isn’t it much more plausible that comrades are telling the truth?
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Kevin - once again, as I’ve said, this place is full of partisan rubbish, and the fact that something is posted here doesn’t make it true. And can we all leave the “the lack of a denial in the format and at the time I demand is the same as an admission” shit alone, please?
If you really want to publish all the correspondence on this, then go ahead and do so. But you can’t seriously expect people on the RESPECT side of the divide to simply accept anything Galloway wants to say, anything he wants to quote, as partially as he wants to?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
Andy - it would worry me, if it seemed to me to be anywhere near the truth.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
BTW, just the few comrades listed there clock up more than 200 years of collective membership of the SWP.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
KrisS
Ok. Which parts of this do you doubt? Go through them and I will do my best to demonstrate that they are true. It’s quite simple: I can forward the relevant emails to you and the copy of Party Notes. Even Rene Descartes had to hit a floor with radical scepticism.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
KrisS
I look forward to you explaining the inconsistencies in the RR account of events about the Dubai cheque, and how the SWP’s account of events make more sense.
I invite you to write as long an argument as you wish, and I will post it here as a guest article.
Comment by Andy — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
#110 - Kevin
Descartes was a bit of a quitter, though, wouldn’t you say?
Right, well, first, I’m really not clear what it is you’re suggesting that Rees/the SWP CC/some of the SWP CC are lying about.
Second, I don’t trust Galloway in quoting selectively from emails from John Rees.
How’s that to be getting on with?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Andy, that really is a bizarro argument. People on the SWP CC have a lot of years membership of the SWP between them too. So what?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Anyway, some good news from South Africa, with Zuma winning the ANC leadership election.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
Zuma? Another bloody bourgeois bullshitter!!!
Comment by Mike — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
KrisS
Ok. All the the emails can go up. It will be very tedious and it is, of course, in Andy’s hands. But maybe he could put them somewhere on the site without clogging it up.
It will demonstrate everything that I and others have said above.
AS for Descartes: no, at least he had the sense to know that he couldn’t doubt that he was doubting. It would be quite fun to go through the cogito - except you are questioning a very serious turn of events and you are obliged to deal with the evidence.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
Frankly, the fine details are not what’s important really. A highly successful single-issue campaign - i.e. StWC - simply cannot be instantly transposed into a political party. People can come together from the widest political backgrounds and agree to oppose and campaign against a war, or any other specific policy, but it is foolish to assume that they will automatically all agree on how society should be organised. For me, this is, essentially, the real reason why the Respect Party has not succeeded. Those who believe in the collective rule of the working class should, ideally, be in a single organisation and those who do not should be elsewhere. Hopefully, that is the political lesson that can be learnt from this. And, most importantly, NEVER, NEVER, use a possessive apostrophe with an acronym!
Comment by Pedant — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
The acceptance of this cheque and the post facto justification strikes me as an act of gross political misjudgement. The implications for the future of OFFU is that’s its likely to stunt any further development of this project. Just think of what our enemies will make of this, what insults will the more right wing trade union leaders throw at us because of this spetacular own goal.
Secondly,as someone who used to contribute to the anunal SW appeal, the appeal would always make the point that we (SWP) don’t have rich backers. We don’t take money from big business.
There’s a world of difference between some comrade who would have made a large donation to the SW appeal because they had come into some money as opposed to taking the a donation from a business man to a trade union body and a ‘fighting’ one at that.
Comment by Richard Searle — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
As I said, Kevin, if you want to publish them all, do it. Of course, I’d have to have some way of knowing that you had actually published all the correspondence.
Anyway, can you distill it down into something very simple for me, this lying business - like “The SWP CC says x, but actually y is true, and we know that the SWP CC knows that y is true because of z”? That would help.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
I have to disagree. I think there’s a nuance of difference between “the SWP CC line” and “the SWP CC’s line”. One isn’t simply replaceable with the other, without changing the meaning to some extent.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
KrisS
I’ll indulge you. The SWP central committee told the party that they were concerned about an issue when they read about it in the East London Advertiser. John Rees told Michael Gavan something similar. But they knew about the issue 12 weeks prior to that - or at least four of them did.
So they, or four of them, lied to Michael Gavan and the readership of Party Notes about when they knew about something. Clear, isn’t it? And pretending that you have been manipulated by an omnipotent evil demon, or some other thought experiment, ain’t gonna help.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
But that demon fella, he really is quite powerful you know.
The thing Dave Osler has posted up doesn’t say anything about when the SWP CC, or some members ofit, knew or didn’t know, does it?
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
I’m not sure about the dates and all that, but when Chris Banbury told us at an emergency SWP meeting in Manchester that George had made a factual error in his letter and that the OFFU conference had not lost any money would I be right in saying that he would have known that the only reason this was true was because of this cheque?
If so isn’t that rather disingenuous?
Receiving a hand out from a fat cat can’t have been part of the plan for the conference and if this dubius act hadn’t happened it would have lost money.
Knowing this would it not have made sense to say “OFFU was a big success but we failed to raise enough funds etc.”?
Except that, that wouldn’t have fitted with the story that Georges criticism of OFFU conference loosening money was nothing more then a coded way for him to attack Respect organising with the unions -> a coded way for him to start a witch hunt from the right of Respect.
I am ready to believe that the OFFU conference was worth doing even if it did lose load of dosh but why weren’t we told that it was saved from this fate only by a rich business man?
If Chris Banbery didn’t know all this then why not?
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
No Kris, but the emails, whether you think they’re full quotes or not, CANNOT but show that George wrote to the 4 CC membera and Elane Graham-Leigh, at the beginning of September.
Even if anyone accepted your argument that the emails weren’t full quotes, the point is the bits that ARE quoted show that they were aware of the issue.
I’ve got more emails here. They show the emails being sent to the 5 people, they show the replies being sent to the 5 people. They show a letter sent by Elane Graham-Leigh to the Respect accountants in the 4th week of September.
Again, even if the emails aren’t fully quoted, they show that Alex Callinicos, Lindsey German, Chris Bambery and John Rees were involved in an email chain discussing the issue at the beginning of September.
Now, you can go on forever saying “yes, but you might be lying”. You never say it about the other side, so I would ask you to check your own motives.
There are so many emails here - I’ve got them all - that they can’t all be faked and we can’t all be lying.
Why not just ask John Rees? The SWP has split from Respect with a few allies, and John Rees is still the leader of that part of the split. If you have no doubts about his integrity or judgement, it’ll be no problem to ask him when he knew.
Alternatively, we could spend weeks with me taking screen shots of email routing info, showing them being sent to SWP email servers and returning “read” receipts and so on. But you will probably still end up saying “yes, but what does it REALLY say”, and I’ll end up asking why, if you are not prepared to believe a single thing I’m saying, do you keep trying to lead people down blind alleys asking for this and that piece of evidence?
There comes a time when you have to accept that even if you disagree with us, our claims have been consistent enough to give us a lot of credibility in the arguments we’re making.
And you have to surely accept that these claims of a witch-hunt really need to be re-examined in the light of this (remember, Rees claimed that GG’s complaint about the OFFU money showed that he was against this line of work - and that line has been propagated through the party, being used to prove that GG has moved to the right, towards electoralism and away from trade unionism) - time to look into why people were fed such lies.
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
I’m not intending to lead anyone down any blind alleys. If you think that, then I can’t see why you’d waste time engaging with me.
I think you’ve missed my point. Not that it matters so much. Galloways quotes not to prove anything about dates, as far as I can see, but to criticise Rees on a more general level.
As I said to Kevin, the piece Osler has quoted - which might well be a straight up copy of Party Notes and a straight up copy of a letter from Rees - doesn’t say anything about when who knew what. Except that Rees says “last June neither I nor George Galloway knew of any link between the donor and a company involved in PFI schemes in Britain”. Which Galloway says is true.
Comment by KrisS — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
“I’m not sure about the dates and all that, but when Chris Banbury told us at an emergency SWP meeting in Manchester that George had made a factual error in his letter and that the OFFU conference had not lost any money would I be right in saying that he would have known that the only reason this was true was because of this cheque?”
They were lying about this from the start too.
I’ve got financial documents that show a detailed breakdown of the OFFU conference. The loss was greater than £5,000, and they clearly show the loss being mitigated by a £4800-ish donation from abroad.
John Rees was using clever language - “OFFU” itself ended up in slight surplus. The OFFU conference lost £5000. So, Rees claimed OFFU was fine. Galloway never said anything about that - he was talking about how an amazingly successful conference, with many more attenders than predicted, could lose so much money.
Rees did a classic New Labour thing - he manipulated the issue and used figures to suit a false argument.
This was all known by everyone involved by early September.
I think there should be a full accounting of the mismanagement of all the stuff Rees has been involved with. Looking at the figures, I just cannot comprehend why they spent what they spent. If it’s simply that Rees is an ideas man and is shit with detail, that’s a fair enough admission - in future, let Rees do ideas, and let competent people handle money.
But we all know it’s deeper than that. ErlingB and Larry have got it right with their earlier contributions.
“If Chris Banbery didn’t know all this then why not?”
Indeed - it’s the same argument we used about Tony Blair: Either a liar or a fool. If he knew there were no WMDs, he was a liar. If he didn’t know, he was a fool.
Rees should’ve known that with the way Galloway is treated, the money was trouble. If he didn’t know, he’s not fit for office. If he did know and did nothing, he’s not fit for office.
If the rest of the CC didn’t know, it shows that the leadership of the SWP has crumbled into pure political incompetence and they should go. If they did know, it shows they are more dishonest than even the activities of which I’ve been a victim showed them to be, and they should go.
Call that a witch-hunt if the victim mentality makes it easier for people to do so. Or call it a revolutionary view of what needs to happen to re-orientate the SWP. Cos that would be the truth.
Comment by tonyc — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Hang on a sec: has anyone read the East london advertiser’s account of all this?
These are the last three paragraphs:
“In another development, a spokesman for Interserve plc claimed that, despite Mr Rees’s own admission, the cheque had been drawn on the private account of a member of the Khansaheb family and not that of the company itself.
The Advertiser asked the spokesman to provide proof, for example extracts of bank statements to show that was the case.
But two weeks on, neither Interserve nor Khansaheb Civil Engineering have yet been able to provide any such evidence.”
So i suppose it is possible that the cheque banked in june was from a private account and that JR simply didn’t even notice that either.
Which, given that he didn’t check out the company, is fairly plausible…
Comment by alan — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Anyone who is an active trade unionist know that this decision to accept and cash the cheque crossed a line. Its just the most stupid thing anyone could do, period, regardless of who it was. In the arena of trade union work, in the context of years of privatisation, of council housing, schools, hospitals, PFI, it shows a complete detachment from the hard, difficult and sometime thankless work carried out by many trade unionists, and on numerous occasions in opposition to the officials loyalty to Labour.
I also suspect that behind the limited apology in Party Notes is a blazing and bloody row. JR should quite rightly held to account for this sectarian act of folly, that will impact on other leftie trade unionists outside the ranks of the SWP.
Anger and embarassment is what probably a lot of members feel about this issue and quite rightly too. Don’t tell lies to the class as Cliff would always say, that also applies to the members
Comment by Richard Searle — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Cliff said that often, its true, but not usually in the moral sense that you imply.
I remember being really shocked when I heard him say …
…don’t be bloody stupid, do you really think Lenin didn’t take the German gold?
Comment by mm — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
121. While not wanting to get into a Cliff quoting competition with you. You misunderstand me if you think I’m making some moral point here. This issue is about the money, in the context of years of privatisation, we’re not taking about getting back across Germany to take part in a revolution. We’re talking about a political own goal and an attempt to hide it from the members of the SWP, for better or for worse, which will have very serious ramifications for the organisation.
Comment by Richard Searle — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Post ~121: I think a genuine trades union conference in todays Britain should be able to cover costs in an accountable way, unlike Lenin, we are not organising a clandestine party in Tsarist Russia.
Comment by Larry — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
You merely triggered in me some memories of Cliff. I am always thankful whenever someone does that.
Richard, he would be bemused by your decision to criticise from the outside, I am sure.
Comment by mm — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
~124: Its mighty hard to criticise from the inside.
Comment by Larry — 18 December, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Re # 124: Cliffism of the week:
“There are no shortcuts”.
Comment by Larry — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Larry
You can say that again. KrisS is doing a very poor job here. The longer the denial goes on the worse it will be.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:06 am
MM. I’ assuming we may have before. My reason are numerous for being where I am at present, as you posit from the outside. One key reason is that the party does not have the culture that it used to have, and any criticisms raised or suggestions made, I don’t think made a blind bit of difference.
I think the party is sinking into political isolation, that my experience in Manchester . However, I’ve not retreated from politics.
I would prefer to be in the room with, and involved in activity of 40 plus in North Manchester after the split in Respect here, you no doubt read about. This group was black, white, asian and arabic, men and women,aged 16 to 70. This, to me, is a much more attractive option in building an audience for socialist ideas and activity
but I don’t think we could do justice to this particular debate on a blog, comrade
Comment by Richard Searle — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Rees says “last June neither I nor George Galloway knew of any link between the donor and a company involved in PFI schemes in Britain”. Which Galloway says is true.
The phrase he actually uses is ‘utterly disingenuous’ - i.e. it’s literally true but cynically misleading, inasmuch as it suggests that both he and Galloway thought the donor would be an acceptable source of funds for OFFU. Nobody reading that statement would conclude that Rees had taken the decision to route the money to OFFU without Galloway’s knowledge and against his advice.
Where did you get up to with the Email of Doom, by the way? Are you arguing that Galloway didn’t necessarily send it when he said he did, or that he sent it but Elaine Graham-Leigh didn’t necessarily read it, or what?
Comment by Phil — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:11 am
I’m not doing a job here at all, Kevin. I’m not stupid enough to imagine that anyone else posting here hasn’t already made his or her mind up, or that anyone is open to persuasion, one way or another.
Phil - you read things how you read them. I read it as saying that neither he nor Galloway knew of any link. and they didn’t. You want to read a lot more into it, that’s…well, that’s just the way it is. The idea that there is only one way to read such a sentence is pretty daft. But there you go, nowt new there. I wouldn’t read it as saying Rees had taken the decision to route the money to OFFU without Galloway’s knowledge and against his advice, nor would I read it as saying the opposite. I’d read it as saying what it says. Which is true.
I’m not sure why you people keep banging on about dates, though.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:21 am
Richard
I agree. And, of course, some of us have no choice about being “outside”.
The terminology from mm alone betrays a “my party right or wrong” tone. It’s a terrible place for comrades to be. They are effectively being blackmailed: the revolutionary party is under attack, we are the revolutionary party, the leadership defends the party, we must rally whatever our misgivings.
Meanwhile, behaviour from a CC member that would have got a field organiser or national office worker sacked is covered up for to the point of pursuing a split.
And after all that, the leadership has to admit, in however a mealy-mouthed way, three months too late that Rees has made a big mistake. So precisely nothing has been gained by the SWP CC’s response to Galloway’s letter of 23 August. Even tne apparatus who comment here must see that.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:22 am
Kevin - some other time it would be good to hear about how you view the whole SWP culture now. We probably all have very different experiences of the SWP. For me, it always looked like a strange but necessary machine. I spent my youth devotedly but awkwardly trying to build it with all my passion. But I always felt distant from its centre, never feeling I could ever have any real say in what it did. This was and is unsustainable after a decade or so. It could not eat more than a decade and a half of me. So eventually I filled my life with other things - political, cultural and intellectual projects. Leaving / expulsion must have been harder for you, who seemed always to be at the centre of it all. So unlike you, I dont know if all this shit around Respect is an exception or the rule.
Comment by Larry — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:32 am
KrisS
People are being persuaded by all the evidence that is coming out. You seem to be making risible efforts to halt that.
Rees knows that George didn’t know that the cheque had arrived and been banked on 12 June into the OFFU account because he swore those who did the banking to secrecy. It was only when they told George about it, around 21 August, that the truth started to emerge.
And it’s irrefutable that Rees on 13 September dismissed the kind of concerns about OFFU accepting the money which the SWP CC later expressed agreement with - after the issue had become public.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:33 am
Larry
Yes. It would be very good to discuss that. Thank you.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:38 am
#133 - Kevin
Well, if my posts are subconsiously risibly non-anti-persuasive, I think I’ll live with that. Thanks for the tip though.
I do wish you’d lay out these lies for me, though. Maybe I’m thick, maybe I’m blinkered, whatever it is, I can’t quite see what it is that’s being said about “lies”.
Rees, as far as he’s quoted by Osler, doesn’t say, or attempt to lead a reader into thinking, that Galloway knew the cheque had been banked.
Galloway quotes Ress as saying, on 13 September:
“…this was an individual donation not a corporate donatation (sic). Many people work for firms that do bad things~but accepting money from them as individuals does not imply either that they endorse the actions of their employers or that we endorse the actions of the firms. Consequently, the whole ‘anything in the world can be connected by six degrees of separation’ argument falls at the first hurdle.
“More broadly, why should any labour movement body not accept a bit of the profit coming back to the workers so long as there are no strings attached.”
The SWP CC is quoted by Osler as saying:
Although the money was taken in good faith, from an individual with a proven record of supporting anti-war and pro-Palestinian causes, the coming to light of these links with big business means that we believe it is inappropriate that OFFU should have received these funds. Should the OFFU officers decide to return the donation, we will work with them to help raise the money.”
Where’s the contradiction?
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:46 am
One of the bitterest elements of this is that the PFI deal by Interserve at UCLH hospitals referred to in one of the emails resulted in the sacking of Candy Udwin, a hugely regarded SWP comrade.
What’s so enraging is that Rees airily dismissed all these considerations and pressed on regardless, not out of Leninist conviction, but to cover up his mal administration which had generated a 5k loss on a well attended conference. Preening and hubris.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:52 am
On the tread of Harman’s coment’s on the Respect split dated 11 Dec last I commented on #14 that ‘this could (and should) run and run and that hopefully in time the truth would come out, and people could make up their own minds.’
Have we now at this thread regarding the lies sourrounding the acceptance of a dubious cheque reached that point?
Not quite I feel, it still needs to run some more, but this is now correctly regarding the cred of the SW cc.
The trolls have had their day, they might still flap, but maybe now their sound will be drowned out by the truth that they tried so hard to obscure.
This could (and should) just keep running.
Comment by Halshall — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:52 am
KrisS
Thick? Blinkered? Nah. Just not very good at this.
People who’ve been burned by thid are not at all happy. And they are already making their feelings known. Best stay so far in denial you can see the High Dam, if I were you.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Ah well, I tried. You stay with your ready-made prejudices, if that’s what makes you comfortable, Kevin.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:59 am
People who know you, and who I respect, tell me you’re decent and serious. And of course people who have been burned are not at all happy. On both sides, of course. So maybe it’s unreasonable to expect anything other than what we currently have. Which is a shame.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:03 am
So JR made a mistake. Boo hoo! He didn’t lie to SWP members. He used the money to fund OFFU because he thought he could. Galloway may have told him not to but this is the same man who, without telling anyone, enters the CBB house. Not exactly the most reliable man in the world.
Why you think members of the SWP are going to be outraged by a Rees making a mistake and have the courage to own up to it is really a desperate desire on your part to seek revenge. But life doesn’t work like that. Mistakes of this nature happen. Unless you know otherwise it was one cheque and not a case of laundering PFI money.
When I read this thread I must admit that the attempts at blowing this out of all proportion grow incredibly tedious. If Galloway had made a mistake and owned up to it with an apology then would you all be baying for his blood? I doubt it. This blod isn’t a level playing field so let’s not pretend Rees will ever get a fair hearing hear.
Nice to see that Andy believes that socialists like Sheriden should receive solidarty rather than witchhunting by fellow comrades. Too bad he can’t offer the same courtesy to Rees. But then Rees is a bigger threat to his political goal of eradicating the SWP from any united front.
It’s sad to see Kevin and other ex-SWP members jumping on Andy’s bandwagon because I feel certain that he’ll do the same to them as he’s done to Rees when it’s politically expedient.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:05 am
KrisS
That’s really Bad form. You have an offer from Andy to post here and from me to provide you with the whole paper trail.
Sneaking off like you inimate above is contemptuous.
I also have to tell you that for serious people on the OFFU committee Rees’s bluster of 13 September has sent alarm bells ringing.
If you want to skulk off without taking up the offer of a serious post here, well, go ahead. I think this has rwached a natural end in any case.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:08 am
Harsh, Kevin. That wasn’t what I meant at all.
I’ve said, from the beginning, that I don’t have any other knowledge of this situation than what I’ve read here and on Osler’s site. I don’t know what Andy thinks I could add, I really don’t.
I’ve asked you to detail what these lies are. And you haven’t. I guess you think it’s obvious, but I’m afraid it isn’t, to me. But you don’t seem to accept that my posts are genuine, and I don’t seem able to persuade you on that. And that’s what I thought I might as well give up on.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:12 am
What’s interesting Kevin is that you claim that suddenly Rees and the CC have turned rogue yet you worked with them for many years. You claim that most of the CC have decide to turn rogue and collude with each other to lie to the membership after years of principled leadership which you supported? That must be the quickest about turn in political integrity the left has ever seen.
You appear to believe that the problem is not your lack of accountability to the party but Rees accepting a cheque that he has admitted was a mistake and has apologised for. When are you going to have the courage to apologise for flouting party rules? It’s not a problem for socialists to be wrong sometimes. Trotsky and Lenin both got it wrong on occassions.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:18 am
As it goes Kevin, if you’ve got the whole of Galloway’s email of 10 September and Ree’s reply of 13 September, I’d be interested in seeing them. Of course, if you’re right about me, then there’s no point in your sharing them with me.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:20 am
In the pre-history of all this, I always regarded John Rees as one of the most approachable, down to earth and intellectually/tactically capable members of the SWP CC. (Certainly more approachable than someone who always seemed to me like an unreflexive-attack-dog-on-amphetamine like Bambery).
Once I remember at an educational asking John Rees about my difficulties with Lenin’s early formulation that the Bolsheviks were “Jacobins attached to the working class” (worried that this might mean that Bolshevism or ‘Leninism’ may have imported bourgeois Jacobinism into the ‘pure’ sphere of independent working class self organisation and politics). Rees was at least able to joke that “at least they were attached to the working class, which would be a start”. Now I liked the Cliffite modesty in this statement, he seemed to be honestly able to acknowledge the real state and class location of the SWP (although its strategic implications may be only just dawning on me!).
But then years later he appeared a different man. I saw him launch a Socialist Alliance Branch. He was in full agitator mode, saying: “When I voted Labour, I did not vote for privatisation, …I did not vote for tuition fees, …I did not vote for war in the Balkans”
I remember thinking he was loosing his reflexivity. For if you did not expect these things outcomes of a labour Govt, why are you on the Central Committee of a revolutionary Marxist party?
Surely he should say: ” People who voted labour did not vote for…War, Privatisation etc!”
Such apparently subtle phraseological questions should of course be vitally important - especially if you take Lukacs and Gramsci seriously on the role of class consciousness and hegemony. Maybe Cliffs heritage is too sociological/syndicalist and economistic for this moment, but Rees had always appeared to understand this and the relevance of Lukacs and Gramsci.
Then it got worse, with Rees ending up several years later claiming at Marxism that the anti-war movement had been the main factor in forcing Blair’s withdrawal.
This seemed to me like a mere cheer-leaders exaggeration, avoiding answering difficult questions faced by hundreds of thousands of grassroots activists during the undoubted ebbtide of the great Feb 15th movement. Such hyperbole could not reorientate activists in the contradictory world of the retreat of a demoralised anti-war movement. Even though this retreat was simultaneous with the undoubted retreat of a demoralised British Army and Military from Basra, along with a massive legitamcy crisis for the political sysytem. But the ghosts of Feb 15th do not share the triumphalism of Rees. And if Rees, as the SWP CC’s most talented and nuanced theoretician/tactician or philosopher/activist is talking such shit what hope had we?
Comment by Larry — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:31 am
KrisS
Take up Andy’s offer of a post. Email me and I’ll send you the full paper trail. Easy. But please stop this mawkish bleating in the meantime.
UiS
Rees apologised for nothing and dismissed all criticism until it hit the ELA. Then he and the CC misled Michael Gavan and the party.
Ask them: was it just four Cc members who knew in the week beginning 10 September what the problems were with the Dubai cheque, or was it more? Why was nothing said - aside from disparaging remarks by Alex Callinicos - until the ELA article?
As for accountability - when I told Martin Smith and Lindsey German about the problems surrounding this cheque (on Sunday 26 August at the Bookmarks garden party at the RMT Clapham complex) they knew nothing about it.
You ought to be interrogating the party leadership, UiS - and closely.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:34 am
It is amusing to read comments from loyal SWPers that Galloway’s warning to Rees not to use money donated by a bourgeois for the OFFU as he is not a trustworthy individual. Be that as it may the point is that revolutionaries, for example John Rees, are meant to operate according to better principles than those mere reformists pay lip service to.
Returning to Adam J’s comment in post 9 that “I recall the late Tony Cliff once said, we’ll take money from anyone. The Bolsheviks took money from the German imperialist government” I note that Adam does not recall any such comment by Cliff. Nor can an aimless conference of trades unionists be compared to the opportunity to take state power.
In any case Cliff’s statement is plain wrong, more an example of his chutzpah than sage political advice, and not to be taken seriously. Unless one proposes to take money from the bourgeoisie in the fashion of the Bolshevik Exes.
Comment by Mike — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:43 am
Kevin - I don’t have an email address for you. Andy has mine, or you can click on my name and email me from the website. “Mawkish” is a first for me, I’ll have to make a note of the date. I still don’t know what lies are referred to, and I still don’t have any knowledge other than what’s been written here ans at Osler’s site, and that’s pretty obviously not material for a long post.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:44 am
KrisS
Stop bleating. deal with what you have in front of you and investigate why you haven’t got the reassurances you evidently want from Rees et al.
Look, this is a popular blog where many items get contested. The salient items here have not. Drawbthe conclusions.
BTW do the post then email me. I’m easy to find and Andy has my address too.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:56 am
Don’t be daft, Kevin. Make a big show of saying you’re happy to publish everything, and then make it conditional on my writing a post I’ve said I have nothing to say in - that’s pretty cheap. If you want to do what you have said over and over you want to, click, click, there’s my email. If you’ve decided not to, fine. Up to you. I’m off to bed.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:00 am
UIS (post #141) defends Rees in contrast to Galloway. Of the latter: “this is the same man who, without telling anyone, enters the CBB house. Not exactly the most reliable man in the world”.
Sure, of course one would expect Rees the CC member to be better than some ex-Labour MP! But John Rees was about the best the SWP CC could offer. In the context of our comparatively miserable time and place, the nearest we had to an activist/theoretician. His ‘Algebra of Revolution’ is ok / bordering on wonderful, and unlike Alex, he can actually speak and lead / organise movements.
I would have expected John Rees to be better than George Galloway! - George is a very talented orator, but also a politically fascinating hybrid of Catholicism, Stalinism, Arab Nationalism, Third Worldism and Social Democracy. I think George G is great, but he has behaved (slightly better)than I would expect any maverick left populist to behave . But I had imagined John was approaching a great, or at least adequate revolutionary Marxist leader. so you cant defend John by saying he’s better than George. So What? Robespierre would be better than Danton, Lenin than Kerensky, Durrutti than Companys - Wine than Piss! What a low standard of comparison with your supposed Marxist leader - “well he is better than piss”!
Comment by Larry — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:05 am
KrisS
I’m merely repeating what I sai above - look.
The full correspondence will be made available to everybody - a few already have it. But you won’t be given a preview. Why should you? You doubt its veracity and authenticity already.
So - start working on your argument…
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:08 am
Regarding Larry’s post (152): I’m becoming suspicious of the Rees-ophilic set up of the subsequent denunciations. The SWP is and always was a classic experiment in machine politics. Rees filled a post-Cliff vacuum based on a long heritage of machine minding.
I joined the party prior to the Great Strike (84-85), and, fortunately, spent my ‘formative’ years ‘up North’. It was an important distance, since coming to London in the late ’80s felt like stepping into a cross between an Old Vic. revival of Zhivago done by Pinter, and The Good Food Guide. In other words, Jacobinism: no strings!
Rees stood head and shoulders above the Hackney/Stoke Newington cabal in one important respect (no pun intd.), he would assiduously court (intd. load on that one) ‘heretical’ opinion in a way some found refreshingly distinct. He’d been brought/sought from Hull (a notoriously under-performing branch) and was a ‘Journo’ on the paper.
He did stints on Socialist Review, but his ‘big break’ came with his editorship of the ISJ (the SWP’s quarterly journal). How and why he was given this job remains a complete mystery to me. But, in an organisation that fetishized its own nomenklatura, it was a key milestone in the SWP’s disastrous trajectory.
His cultivation of the ‘intellectual’ moniker was, in no small way, boosted by his relationship with the party’s #2 leader and hatchet-grrl; L. German (who became his partner around the same time as his ‘promotion’).
Marxists are oft-heard reciting the famous formulation; Being Determines Consciousness! And let’s face it, this way of ‘being’ - having a top-down, opaque, ruthless (in an oh-so bourgeouis way) and compliant machine - has been Rees et als MO for many, many years.
“The Project,” has now begun to unravel. Without a manipulable machine, Rees and his ilk will simply dissolve away - they inherited their base, they did not build it. At best, they might get jobs on the telly or with the Spectator. Our jobs are to politely step over the mess and intervene (god, how I hate that word) in the wider culture - like Kevin O. is doing - and win open arguments, honestly.
And finally, Larry, don’t disappoint me in banging on about Lukacs. If he (GL) were alive today he’d be Rees’s PR man. I can see the day, with the SWP assuming state power, headed by Chairman Rees, that children’s fairytales are banned! Gorgeous Georg would applaud (the second time round).
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:43 am
Here is something a little of topic.
Centrism is a petty bourgeois trend in the revolutionary socialist movement. It vacillates between reform and revolution analagous to the way that the middle class vacillates between imperialism and the working class in general society.
Centrism displays all the worst characteristics of the petty bourgeoisie: cruel and sentimental; dogmatic and eclectic; empirical and superstitious; cultishly loyal and carelessly disloyal; egocentric and obsequious, adventurist and opportunist; etc, etc. In short, politically untrustworthy.
For those who would like a short break from the struggle against the SWP CC’s brand of left centrism check out my article about the CPGB’s anti-war front Hopi by clicking on my name below. Thanks for your indulgence. Please leave comments.
Comment by David Ellis — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:10 am
I wish I’d gone to bed a couple of hours earlier.
Anyway, Andy’s right, no one is obliging me to read it or join in the discussion. Wiser counsel suggests that people who have “been burned”, or feel they have, need a place to vent and be angry for a while, so I should let you get on with that and stop interrupting.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:23 am
To try and get some clarity in my own brain,
It seems to me that there are two main issues;
Rees’s competence, why did he take the money?
On this most supporters of SWP-official Respect seem to acknowledge that it was a mistake but claim it wasn’t that big and they don’t think it signifies anything about Rees’s political thinking (though some claim it wasn’t a mistake at all; i.e. “we should take money from anyone”). Further, they accept his apology as sincere.
Most RR supporters think that it was a very big mistake and that it was in some way symptomatic of Rees’s political outlook. They also think that the apology was forced rather then sincere, as shown by the fact that it hasn’t appeared till now.
The second issue is Rees’s political honesty.
The dates which Rees and co new about the possible problems with the donation are debated and information about the financial success (or otherwise) of the OFFU conference seems to have been skewed by the lack of transparency over donation.
Supporters of the SWP-official respect (on this blog at least) seem to be debating the evidence, claiming that the emails don’t show that Rees an co new any earlier then they claim or they seem to be saying that Rees and co haven’t made any claim not to have known at the earlier point(?), though if the latter there doesn’t seem to be any explanation of why there was no earlier apology. I might have missed it but I haven’t seen any defence of the fact that SWP comrades were told that George was mistaken over the OFFU loss, as part of convincing them of the reality of the right-wing (of Respect) witch-hunt, without them being given the context of the donation.
RR supporters are claiming that the emails show that Rees new about the issues with the cheque before 13 September and that the CC deliberately failed to mention the donation to offu in the context of making out that George was attacking trade Union organisation rather then attacking poor organisation leading to losing money.
If that’s a fair description of both sides then I can’t see how anyone could honestly not see that the RR case is stronger then the SWP one.
If its an unfair description, then were is it misleading?
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:56 am
Just to return to Andy and Richard Searle’s point, I honestly don’t see the problem with accepting money from big business if it is clear that the recipient is not going to in anyway be influenced politically by the source of the donation. Of course, if FIGHTING UNIONS or Respect or any other workers organisation was generally funded by forces from outside the workers movement then this might be an issue.
If big business and PFI supporters are so stupid as to donate money to an organisation that wants to build a militant trade union movement then let’s take the cash and use it to build forces against them.
Isn’t it actually quite delicious that some of the profits from exploitation have, instead of going into the pockets of the exploiters, by mysterious circumstances been more appropriate used for a campaign against exploitation: Oh, happy day!
By the way, strange to see that Kevin Ovenden citing Descartes. I think Freud is more appropriate for this debate?
Surely, the real issue is not the CHEQUE, but other disputes, other conflicts. I doubt whether Galloway’s real issue with Rees wsa one cheque . . .
By the way, Kevin Ovenden, do you not see the comedy in George Galloway becoming the champion of accountability and democracy?
What do you think about him flying out to Jordan to campaign for a businessman?
Comment by Adam J — 19 December, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Adam J If you were John Ree’s lawyer you would get him 30 years with that load of hogwash that you have posted
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Just teasing out the illogic of ANDY’s position: He thinks it would be wrong for FIGHTING UNIONS to accept this dirty money but okay for StWC to take money from the profits of exploitation?
It’s either morally wrong for StWC, RESPECT, FIOHTING UNIONS etc to take the cash or it’s not wrong at all and just a tactical question
I think there are tactical and legal reasons for not having taken the money but just can’t see the logic of this position that it was morally wrong in principle to take money from the profits of exploiters.
If some maverick businessman donates money (as a one-off) with no strings attached and says use it as you will then I don’t see the problem.
Rees clearly made a tactical error but not a moral one. Certainly Galloway’s sins are greater and have done more damage to the reputation of Respect.
Comment by Adam J — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Adam
The PFI issue is subsidiary, although if you don’t see why this is a political problem then you obvioulsy haven’t spent much time in the trade union movement. Especially as one of the aims of OFFU was to break the unions from the Labour party. I can foresee this example being used as a stick to beat the left in the unions for the next twenty years. But still, the prestige of Rees within the SWP is obviously a more important consideration than the credibility of left activists in the unions, or the repuation of Michael Gavan, fighting victimisation from a labour council, and relying on his labour party led union to defend him.
The even bigger problem though is that it was a FOREIGN donation, and was probably illegal.
Where I differ from you Adam, is that i feel that the effectiveness of socialist organisation shouold be judged by its ability to progress the struggle for a socialist society; and the role of the leaders of socialist organisations is to protect and build the organisation and the movement. In which case there are serious problems with Rees’s behaviour.
If like you seem to beleive, the purpose of socialist organaisation is to boost the ego and prestige of the leadership clique, even if that is to the detriment of the organisation as a whole, or the movement, ,then of course the CC acted wisely.
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:15 am
AdamJ (#158), on your current trajectory, you are incapable of “teasing out the logic” of anything.
You don’t have to listen to a word from us. You are contradicted by the SWP CC; here are their words (already available to you):
And here is John Rees in his letter to Michael Gavan:
You are trying to cover for people who are no longer covering for themselves (thanks to the pressure of publicity).
Comment by babeuf — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Ok Adam
Imagine you are in a trade union meeting, where the majority of those present are dissillussioned with New labour, but still have residual lyalty to the Labour party. There are two or three hardened Labour loyalists there as well. You propose affiliatin to OFFU, make a great speech, and have the majority nodding. The labour loyalist stands up and day: “OFFU is partly funded by a businessmen with links to John major’s government, and who are carrying out PFI. This is an ultra-left stunt from pwople who woul be happy to see the Tories back in”
Can you really not see a political problems with that.
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:21 am
“Where I differ from you Adam, is that i feel that the effectiveness of socialist organisation shouold be judged by its ability to progress the struggle for a socialist society; and the role of the leaders of socialist organisations is to protect and build the organisation and the movement. ”
So why are you with Galloway? I have seen no evidence that he will suddenly become accountable to the RR NC.
Many who now seem to have discovered problems with the SWP machine never breathed a word of criticism previously despite having worked for them and extremely closely with people like John Rees.
Your new pal, Rob Hoveman, I believe only a few months ago referred to you as “a tosser last time you flickered on his radar, now flicker off”
This seems a Zinoviev/Kamenev revolt rather than a Trotsky one, with many who acted in an unaccountable way and lorded it over the members now complaining about some people slightly higher up on the greasy pole.
I also share some of your reservations about the SWP, indeed local comrades of mine can vouch that I actually was very sympathetic to the RR side, pre-split at the start of this debate and very much in the ex-SWP camp, but the more I have heard from the RR camp the less I identify with them and couldn’t support their premature split from Respect, I just don’t think that building a broad left party excluding the biggest party on the far left is viable and don’t believe that the massed ranks of the ISG can beat back a slide towards electoralism and reformism in Respect.
As I have said before, RR seems an unholy alliance. The words “democracy” and “pluralism” have united people who actually attach very different meanings and practices to these words.
Comment by Adam J — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Andy, the scenario you raise is a valid one. No disagreement.
My point is that I don’t see anything morally wrong or in principle from accepting dirty money if it’s being used to challenge dirty practices.
As you stated it was politically unwise. However, I actually think that - hence the allusion to Freud - this is being used by Galloway as a stick to beat Rees when his real issues with Rees are probably related to very different terrains and issues
Comment by Adam J — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Has RR registered with the Electoral Commission?
Comment by Kelly — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Adam J
It’s conceivable that the OFFU committee, or the SWP central committee, or the Respect officers’ group might have agreed with your cavalier approach over the donation. But John Rees didn’t give them the opportunity to form a view or, in the case of Respect and OFFU, make a decision.
He did it anyway. And when others eventually found out about it, they strongly disagreed. But this wasn’t before they had been implicated in it all.
Joseph’s right: for the SWP leadership it meant repeating the falsehood that the OFFU conference did not lose 5k and that therefore George Galloway’s critique was in fact the launch of a witch-hunt.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Adam J (#) said: If big business and PFI supporters are so stupid as to donate money to an organisation that wants to build a militant trade union movement …
They’re not stupid. Galloway was at the time being hounded by a Parliamentary Committee “investigation” that was a transparently political attempt to fit him up (it eventually condemned him regardless of the fact that it had managed to unearth no evidence). No-one’s opinion of Galloway matters here: this was part of an ongoing attack on the anti-war movement, to weaken it and undermine its public credibility.
In this context, Galloway detected a trap when the cheque turned up - drawn on a company account. The first consideration was that it probably would have been illegal for Respect to have accepted this foreign donation. The second consideration was that the Dubai company concerned, and its parent company, were both engaged in anti-trade union and privatising practices that were the opposite of Respect’s policies.
To which Adam J says: Isn’t it actually quite delicious that some of the profits from exploitation have … been more appropriate[ly] used for a campaign against exploitation: Oh, happy day!
Adam J, either you are incapable of arriving at a sound judgement, or you will obfuscate come what may. Either way, your credibility is now zero.
Comment by babeuf — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Andy,
Thanks for Christmas message. Have you just found religion or are you just having an elderly moment?
Sorry but your latest blab about so called you-know-who ‘fellow socialist’ Y factor will have them laughing and weeping in the aisles within the SSP.
You seemed to have turned religious all of a sudden, calling on all brethren to offer their understanding and sympathy to poor Y at this difficult time.
Y factor’s behaviour and activities are of Y’s own making and I dont see why Y should suddenly deserve our sympathy.
And if Y ends up in prison because Y is found to be you know what.It’s a six letter word and it begins with G and ends in Y.Then so be it!
You’ll be wanting us to we pray for forgiveness for the SWP leadership next!
I know it’s Christmas, all mass materialistic madness, piss head nation and all that but let’s try keep things in some kind of sane perspective.Pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase!
Comment by Jesus Christ — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Adam J (#158) said: It’s either morally wrong for StWC, RESPECT, FIOHTING UNIONS etc to take the cash or it’s not wrong at all and just a tactical question
An old chestnut that has already been answered several times (as Adam J is already aware). But here we go again: OFFU and Respect are diametrically opposed to the anti-union policies of the Dubai company and the PFI policies of the parent company. The StWC, on the other hand, is opposed to the wars being waged on the Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian peoples, and is opposed to any plans to wage war on Iran.
Anti-union businessmen engaged in PFI ventures can plausibly be opposed to imperialist wars and therefore supportive of the StWC. They cannot plausibly be supportive of OFFU and Respect because that would mean that they both supported and opposed anti-union policies and PFI.
It was therefore sensible for Galloway to propose that the source of the money offered to Respect should be asked to donate it instead to the StWC. It was grossly incompetent of Rees (now by his own admission and that of the CC) to propose that the source should offer the money to OFFU, 1. because OFFU was a Respect initiative and was run from the Respect national offices and therefore not fully independent and 2. because OFFU just happened (!) to owe the same amount of money to Respect, and so the money would be going into Respect accounts in any case.
Comment by babeuf — 19 December, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Incidently, in Palestine i have sat and had coffee and baklava with patriotic businessmen, who are both exploiters and also fund military operations of Al Aqsa martyrs. It is quite a plausible coincidence of interests.
Interesting that every current of political opinion in palestine sees the need for the workers movement to cooperate with patriotic business people in the national struggle.
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Jesus.
I think i am making my position quite clear by calling on everyone, the accused and witnesses to tell the truth.
My political support for the SSP is undiminished.
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Now you’re completely off the wall. The precise problem with the PLO was that it wsa led. not by people with the camps building links with workers struggles across the Middle East but reliant politically and financially on Arab regimes and led by former businessmen like Arafat.
Comment by Adam J — 19 December, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Kevin and Joe are spot on with pointing out not just the dodginess of the donation but the way the money was used against Galloway after his letter.
Earlier this year Graham-Leigh informed the Respect National Council that the OFFU conference had lost about £5000. When George puit this information in his letter to the NC it came as no surprise as we knew this to be the case.
What did came as a surprise was the (rather smug) assertion in Rees and Graham-Leigh’s response to Galloway that Respect had actually made a profit at the conference selling merchandise. No information had or has ever been given to the NC about how the OFFU confernce had cleared this debt. We should have been asked to comment on such a dubious $10,000 donation - we righty criticised the Labour party for not knowing what goes on with thier finances - but we were not.
Surely a donation of this size should have been cause for celebration - the fact that the NC were kept in the dark about it suggests both Rees and Graham-Leigh knew it was dodgy and that the rest of the NC would have told them to send it back.
Comment by Clive Searle — 19 December, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Clive, Has there been a response from OFFU to all of this?
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Adam. I am sure that the people of palestine will welcome your advice about how they should conduct themselves. They never tire of advice from white people in Europe who know better than they do what they should be doing.
Anyway, whether or not you agree with it. the point I raised was the complete plausibility of a businessman in the Middle east supporting the aims of the Stop the War Coalition, and how the anti-imperialist questioon is to a degree decoupled or autonomus from the class struggle.
It seems highly unlikelt to me that these MIddle east businessmen would support a trade union initiative in Britain, and JOhn Rees should have smelled a rat.
Your enthusiasm to back his judgement is comendable though. This is also part of the problem though isn’t it. A leader makes a mistake becasue he beleives himslef above accountability, and then the loyalists argue it wasn’t a mistake (even though he admits himslef it was) and that he shouldn’t be held accountable.
We are really talking about cult like behaviour here.
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Andy#174
Please let this element of the thread run on for all it’s worth.
I just have a gut feeling that those hitting it are finding it extra revealing of the real nature of the split in Respect and it’s consequences.
Comment by Halshall — 19 December, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
If Rees spat on the pavement this blog would have a story on it. I don’t even need to bring Galloway into this anymore because it’s not about personalities or mistakes about cheques. It’s about a difference in political strategy that is really at the core of the disagreement.
Let’s start with accountablitiy shall we? Galloway and his followers split from Respect and set up their own unaccountable and undemocratic opposition. They didn’t use Respects democratic channels to achieve this - they simply pissed on those and walked out like petulant kids who can’t get thier own way. Yet they believe they hold the moral highground that allows them to make personalised attacks on a fellow socialist like Rees. That’s really rich considering they flout democracy when it suits them.
Even though Rees apologised this is not good enough for the sectarians. This is because nothing that Rees and the SWP do can ever please them. We are divided by political strategy and there is no getting around this.
I was chastised for comparing Galloway’s unaccountability with Rees’s because Galloway is a centerist and Rees is a revolutionary socialist. Yet this fact has not stopped people on this blog splitting from Respect with centerist Galloway as their leader in a highly undemocratic and unprincipled manner. They complain that revolutionary socialists need to have principles yet they can’t even respect the democratic process in Respect. They won’t even consistantly uphold the revolutionary principle of defending socialists against witchhunts by the state.
Finally, lets not forget that every leading revolutionary socialist has made mistakes. One of the most disasterous was The Bolshevik CC’s failure to prevent Stalin succeeding Lenin. Trotsky’s opposition came too late. So even great political strategists get it wrong sometimes.
As for accepting capitalist cash to fund a left opposition I recall that Lenin allowed capitalism to flourish in a limited way after the revolution in order to fund the workers state. It’s not the capitalists cash that’s necessarily the problem it’s whether it is completely under the control of socialists that decides how it is spent. Why it would be any better to give the money to STWC just doesn’t make sense. I presume it would be possible to link PFI companies with those that produce weapons somewhere along the line. So the mantra on this blog that Galloway’s judgement is beyond reproach and Rees is completely duplicitous resembles the quasi-religious beliefs of the cult of Galloway.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Calm down Colin
Comment by Galloway Cultist — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Galloway a centrist? The political illiteracy of some supporters of the SWP shows no bounds!
Comment by garagelanduk — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Simple question for you Mr Strength - should OFFU have taken the money or not? Based on your NEP theory of political donations I think you think it was OK but please confirm so that we know why you’re so annoyed. Is it because:
1) we’re criticising John Rees because he made a mistake - and that’s not fair (we all maake mistakes)
2) we’re criticising John Rees despite him not makeing a mistake - and that’s really unfair or
3) we’re just criticising John Rees for no good reason - and that’s just plain nasty
Comment by TLC — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
UiS: “it’s not about personalities or mistakes about cheques”. But it is about mistakes about cheques and the autocratic methods that led to them.
This flannel about what the Bolsheviks did under Tsarism and when they had state power is so embarrassing. Is this going to be the line taken by Respect supporters and SWP members in UNISON when the real which-hunters point out that the SWP’s trade union front is funded, thanks to John Rees, by PFI sharks? What will you say, UiS? “Well, Stalin robbed banks and as for making mistakes, Trotsky made a few and so this is small fry”
Rees, and with him Callinicos, German and Bambery at the very least, hid the truth about the problems surrounding this cheque from their members and from OFFU for nearly three months before finally issuing a disingenuous and misleading NuLab apology when it had got into the press.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Adam J: John Rees and the CC of the Socialist Workers Party disagree with your judgement that it’s ok to accept dirty money.
That’s made clear by the apology; the fact that they’ve apologised also indicates that they don’t think the OFFU committee will approve of the idea of taking dirty money.
The only person who thinks it’s right to accept the money is you.
Comment by tonyc — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
“Unity Is Strength”. You say you’ve been in the SWP for 18 years.
And yet you have the debating ability of a child, the honesty of a New Labour politician and the logical deductive ability of a London Underground disciplinary panel.
If I wasn’t so convinced that you’re simply playing a role, I would take your argument apart piece by piece.
But as with Tim Robinson and the other Harry’s Place smearers, you’re fit only to be treated with contempt.
Learn to have some honesty in debate or stop considering yourself to be a socialist.
Comment by tonyc — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
The unforgivable about his “mistake” was he lied to most everyone about it and as another blogger has said comrades have been expelled from the SWP for far less.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
There is also another big player in this mix and they are so silent. Is it because they are controlled by the SWP, C’mon OFFU give a response to JR’s letter of apology or is because JR believes that you are a tool and tame appendage to the SWP cc. The whole lack of sincerity stinks
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
UiS: “Finally, lets not forget that every leading revolutionary socialist has made mistakes. One of the most disasterous was The Bolshevik CC’s failure to prevent Stalin succeeding Lenin.”
What point are you actually trying to make here? That Rees is Stalin to Cliff’s Lenin?!
Comment by Bystander — 19 December, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
I have no problem with accepting a one-off donation from the very devil himself as long as there are no conditions or strings attached to it.
The surplus value that is embodied in this donation was created by construction workers in Dubai. By rights, it does not actually belong to the capitalist owners of the firm. It has been stolen from them. It is thus rather fitting that a part of this surplus value should be used to advance the interests of fellow workers.
And, as someone else said on this thread, if members of the class enemy are stupid enough to finance a campaign against their own class interests, then more fool them. As long as OFFU makes a statement to this effect, there is no own goal. It is actually an own goal by the capitalists.
And Galloway can’t have it both ways–if was OK fro the StWC to accept this money, the same applies to OFFU.
Comment by Chris Edwards — 19 December, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
A clarification of #189: By “stolen by them” I mean stolen from the construction workers.
Comment by Chris Edwards — 19 December, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
And the importance of all this? What honestly are you trying to do by raking over this stuff for hour after hour?
You want Rees to resign? What good would it do if he did?
Want the SWP to get down and grovel? etc etc? What do you want?
How, in any way, are you helping the movement?
Comment by Erm — 19 December, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
I have a strong sense from these 191 posts that socialism is just round the corner.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Its alway round the corner. Have you just woke up
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Erm: if SWP members, many of whom are deeply disturbed by the course of events of the last few months, come to see that the witchhunt story was a fairtale and that Galloway raised genuine questions about Rees’s running of Respect then they might call their leadership to account. That would speed the day when there could be renewed cooperation.
It does not help the movement for an avoidable split over the running of an organisation to be mischaracterised as a which hunt.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Michael my opimism and your pessimism
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
It is thus rather fitting that a part of this surplus value should be used to advance the interests of fellow workers.
You’re defending John Rees taking a position that he has abandoned, and rejecting criticisms that Rees has conceded.
if was OK fro the StWC to accept this money, the same applies to OFFU
Not really, for two reasons. Firstly - and most importantly - it’s a foreign donation, which makes it illegal for RESPECT to accept it. It’s easy to demonstrate that STWC is separate from RESPECT. It’s possible to make a case that OFFU isn’t a wing of RESPECT, but it’s also possible to argue that it is. RESPECT was also a major creditor of OFFU, and thus benefited indirectly from the donation - as Rees, obviously, was in a position to know that it would. Shunting the money to STWC would have put Rees in the clear; directing it to OFFU could land him in trouble. In terms of electoral law, it was a really stupid thing to do.
Nor was it a great idea politically. Can you run a union-busting company and sincerely oppose the war? Of course. Can you run a union-busting company and sincerely support OFFU? Hardly - it would look like OFFU was either ripping off Khansaheb or being set up by them. Either way they’d be storing up trouble.
Comment by Phil — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Naw Nas, I prefer to read Rosen’s crap poetry to them as the ultimate punishment
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
As a supplementary to my comments in #186, I think it would a marvellous gesture for OFFU to try to make contact with the workers/unions at the Dubai construction firm and donate the £5000 back to them–since it was their labour that created it. Many of these construction workers are migrant workers from the Indian sub-continent– some of the poorest and most exploited people in the world. £5000 is a fortune to them.
It would a good way of establishing fraternal international links between workers.
Comment by Chris Edwards — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
You misunderstand me, Teddy Boy. I’ve been optimistic about it since I was about 12, fifty years ago. What I’m suggesting in my own clumsy way, (and I didn’t think I needed to spell it out) is that I don’t think these threads help one bit. I’ll put it personally (which I know is a dangerous method, but bear with me). When me and the ex divorced we spent an incredible amount of time nitpicking over the reasons, she, as I believed, accusing me of all sorts of sins of omission and commission, and me defending myself point by point. What was gained by this? Absolutely fuck all times zero. Absolutely nothing was clarified. Absolutely nothing was achieved. Why was that? I think essentially because it was argument without responsibility. We had no point to work for, nothing that had to be completed, or agreed on. So we could invest enormous amounts of effort into proving each other wrong, without ever having to co-operate on those things that we might have needed to cooperate on. For all I know, we were each, both, either right some of the time. But it was pointless. We never had to discuss how to do anything, improve anything, we never had to work out what to do next. It was then, argument without responsibility. I think this is where these arguments on this website are going. It makes me sad. I know some of the contributors (I think) and among them are people I’ve respected down through the years. The socialist and/or revolutionary left in this country is incredibly, incredibly weak. I think there are several reasons for this, one of which (and it may be a small reason, but a reason nonetheless) is that for some hundred years or so, this socialist and revolutionary left has been exceptionally good at ‘proving’ that different parts of itself are wrong. As a process, this is probably necessary some of the time, but when it becomes an end in itself (which I think is the phase we’re in now) it is disastrous. For every wound that x thinks it is inflicting on y, will, to my mind, end up by being x wounding x and y wounding y and the whole bloody ship slowly sinking into a sea of oblivion and/or mockery.
So, Teddy Boy, I’m not a pessimist. To be a pessimist I would have given up on these ideas and this sort of politics about forty years ago. I haven’t one jot or iota.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Apologies for the crap poetry, Teddy Boy. I do what I think I can. You do what you think you can.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
#194. “Defending John Rees” doesn’t come into it. I am not a member of the SWP and hold no brief for it. I have a mind of my own. As far as I am concerned, Rees didn’t need to apologise.
Comment by Chris Edwards — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
#189 Mike Rosen
Mike has this whole sad and avoidable business given you pause to think that maybe the socialist project is always likely to be riven with splits?
Hence your comment ‘I have a strong sense from these 191 posts that socialism is just round the corner’.
You are not alone, when the split took place with the two rival ‘meetings’ on Nov 17, I already had the feeling that socialism as per October 1917, was a fluke that arose in unique circumstances, never likely to be repeated.
I guess now with the possibilty at least of another stab at it, there might be a real chance that the lessons of the past might be learned and a mass left movement be a real possiblity.
Without that there’s no hope.
Comment by Halshall — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Sorry, the comment numbers keep changing presumably as posts are deleted. So you’ll have to search for the earlier comments I was referring to.
Comment by Chris Edwards — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
No, Halshall. I think with the existence of two ‘rival’ organisations (if that’s what they are) then you would have to look at the chances of them co-operating to feel that we are one inch nearer to socialism. You would have to look at whether either side is coming up with ideas for co-operation, whether either side is more or less committed to attaching the other, whether there is any realistic chance of - at the very least- some unity in action. I’m not sure that there is much ‘learning from the past’ going on.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
From Galloway’s piece:
These remarks were made in the context of my accusation against John Rees of his lack of accountability and his recklessness on this and another matter.
Anybody know what “another matter” is?
Comment by Alex Bourn — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
‘attacking’ not ‘attaching’ sorry.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Michael Rosen - the poster (from the same IP as me) who posted as “Pedant” last night made pretty much exactly the same point to me yesterday, likening this situation to the nightmare that often goes on during a divorce. It seems a reasonable analogy to me.
Comment by KrisS — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
#202 Mike Rosen
Mike, I almost completely agree.
‘Unity in Action’ is the Key.
However one inch at a time is not nearly enough. Sounds like ‘gradualism’, which as you know was the excuse of reformists for not advocating any real challenge to the system.
Comment by Halshall — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
I think the question of whether it’s ‘gradualism’ or not, depends on what the ‘action’ that one is in ‘unity’ over!
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Michael Rosen When the sassenachs over run my country Robert the Bruce seen a spider struggling to build a web and it eventually done it and Brucie was filled with optimism. So he sent the tartan army lead by slim Jim Baxter and we beat England 2-1 at wembley. So do not give up and do not blame your ex.
Like many bloggers I just want my party back and you see the anger and frustration in the posts. You Know I was kidding about your poetry Am sucking in with you. If you have got to recite it with a posh voice, forget about sending me a free copy
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Some posters seem to be suggesting that had it not been for this ‘cheque’ incident then the SWP and Galloway would not have parted company. And that the SWP ’split’ as a result of handling it badly - and then went on to manufacture political reasons.
I think that’s delusional nonsense. How Rees and co. handled the cheque, who knew what and when etc is a matter for the SWP to resolve if members feel strongly about it.
The fact is that political differences between Galloway and the SWP are real, regardless of the cheque, and people need to move on.
Comment by stuart — 19 December, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Stuart: so how Rees handled the finances of Respect and OFFU is simply a matter for the SWP membership. Everyone else just has to put up with it. They are, after all, merely appendages in a special united front. And all that needs to happen when there’s maladministration is to declare “political differences” denounce the non-SWP people as right wingers and… move on. The problem here is that with this kind of reputation there are going to be precious few people for the SWP to move on to in further fronts.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
#207 Mike,
in order for this to avoid going round in circles clear examples are needed.
Getting a concession on green recycling bins whilst accepting cuts to services for carers, is clearly going backwards. That’s what the Greens did in Lewisham.
Now those cuts have been reversed, the same Greens are claiming credit for it.
However the differences between the local SP, SWP - Respect and RR Respect could (and should of course) not stand in the way of any campaign to reverse those (and other) cuts.
Cooperation on any anti-fascist work.
Electoral agreements where possible, although I think that Respect’s GLA campaign is lost; I would still be willing to campaign for LG 1 and KL 2, if there still is a campaign!
I’m sure you can think of other possibilities.
Comment by Halshall — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
It’s funny how people feel the need to ‘move on’ when they’re having to face an uncomfortable truth. ‘Moving on’ is the New Labour mantra when someone directly raises an awkward issue with them.
Comment by Doug — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Teddy Boy, thanks. You’re too kind.
(Posh accent? Well, my parents were teachers and I was brought up in the London suburbs. It’s not non-posh. And it’s not posh. It’s kinda middling. The kind of accent that gets called posh by the non-posh and common by the posh. Teacher meets shopkeeper meets football manager meets second hand car salesman meets vet.)
In brackets because it’s got nothing to do with this thread!
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Stuart there is others please dont reduce Ree’s malpractice from wrongly expelling people and accusing a leading trade unionist of ballot rigging and a host of other misdeamours as Just one person against another He sought enemies and he now he is haunted and I hope expelled
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Erm sums up the whole issue very well. What do those of you attacking Rees and the SWP want? It appears to me that nothing less than Rees’s head on a block and the SWP crawling to RR will appease you. But that’s not a political strategy. It’s just revenge.
That’s because this isn’t about cheques or Rees it’s about a political disagreement about strategy for the left. And when socialist don’t have a political strategy they resort to personal attacks.
@ 180 Nas, trying to score points by selective editing is pretty sad really. You don’t have anything constructive to say about the differences of political strategy or the way forward so you resort to childish name calling.
Describing Rees’s apology as NuLab spin is as politically inept as garagelanduk (#178) believing that Galloway is doing anything other than trying to turn RR into a new version of Old Labour under his control. That would make RR the NuOldLabour Party I suppose.
Not that this would be bad in itself because any left alternative to New Labour should be welcomed by socialists. But let’s not delude ourselves that Old Labour was any less inclined to manage capitalism as New Labour when in power.
Like Old Labour, RR will attract reformists and old Stalinists who become very hostile to any mention of revolutionary socialism - let alone putting these ideas into practice. Despite the efforts of socialists in Old Labour to move it to the left in the hope that this could bring about socialism it never materialised. Instead they experienced witchhunts and eventual expulsion. Respect has experienced something similar except it’s the right that have split and set up their own witchhunt against the left from outside. RR is an attempt to repeat the folly of parliamentary socialism without the interference of those socialists who want to move it to the left.
The difference between Respect and RR is that Respect has the involvement of revolutionary socialists while RR is centred round non-aligned reformists who are hostile to revolutionary socialists having any leadership role.
I think it’s very important to distinguish between Galloways political intentions in leading the split and the intentions of some of those who followed him because they are not necessarily the same. Galloway is an opportunist and an old hand at using alliances while it suits him. I don’t criticise him for this because part of the reason for political alliances has always been the agenda of recruitment for each organisation involved. While Galloway was happy to keep moving leftwards socialists could work with him but there is only so far left he is willing to go and RR is his swansong to that particular journey. He’s always had the taste for electorial politics and RR fits that mould.
I’d like to know what all those who are attacking Rees see as the way forward. What is their poitical strategy? The SWP’s political strategy is clear but this clarity does not seem to have crytalised yet for those who support RR. I doubt very much whether Kevin, Andy and Galloway share the same strategy but I would be interested to hear them nonetheless.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Halshall: very good points. Looking at the “I can’t believe it’s not Respect” Respect website it doesn’t seem as if there is a campaign for Lindsey German for mayor, or a GLA campaign. It might be that there is stuff going on that’s not on the website. Maybe people involved in Lindsey German’s campaign can enlighten us. But there’s been nothing out there from her that I can see over the RMT protest the Evening STandard campaign against Livingstone or anything else.
I would have thought that if the SWP leadership was serious about building their Respect they would be ramping up German’s campaign. But it appears to have died already. If there are signs of life, I’d be happy to take this back.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Michael I have briefly met you and I was too shy to ask you for your autograph, a dinner and twenty quid. Maybe we will meet again at the swp marxist weekend. I have a lot of friends who are members
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
UiS: what do you mean, “selective editing”? You baldly assert that this is not about “mistakes about cheques” when Michael Gavan (secretary of OFFU and member of SWP-Respect’s “National Council”) clearly thinks it’s about the handling of a cheque as do the SWP CC. Most people on the left would see lack of financial rigour and accountable decision-making in a left organisation as an extremely important question.
And I’m glad you’re revealing the full import of the SWP’s sectarianism in response to the Galloway criticisms. You say, “Like Old Labour, RR will attract reformists and old Stalinists who become very hostile to any mention of revolutionary socialism - let alone putting these ideas into practice.” These would be the reformists and old Stalinists that were welcomed into Respect before the SWP leadership abandoned working with the broader forces in it. Or do we now have a situation where Morning Star supporters who cooperate with George Galloway and Ken Loach are vicious old tankies, but if they were to cooperate with “the socialists”, ie the SWP leadership, they would become proof of the SWP’s ability to work with other traditions and vindication of the United FRont Of A Specious Type?
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Sod the autograph, Teddy Boy. Just take the twenty quid and run.
Comment by Michael Rosen — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
@ 218 So far Nas I’ve only ever seen you launch into attack after attack on this blog. It’s such a pointless way to behave. Why don’t you give us an idea of your political strategy and the way forward for a change?
As for RR we’ll watch what it turns into without the support and input of the SWP. Without a unified political strategy within RR the the right reformists will eventually control RR and it will end up resembling Old Labout but on a much more tiny scale. The alternative is that sectarian squabbles lead to split after split until there is nothing left.
Like it or not Nas, a united front needs the involvement of the largest socialist organisation outside Labour who are able to pull against reformism.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
So, UiS, is Lindsey German standing for mayor or are they going to retreat from that? This pompous talk about a the need to have the SWP as the controlling mind of successful formations is so wide of the mark. Rees had unchecked control in Respect. Look what happened - the cheque fiasco.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
@ 191 Again, Nas your indulging in your favourite pastime - selective reporting of events. You lot split from Respect. Respect did not offically divide into two groups.
You claim that many SWP members are deeply disturbed by the info on this blog. Have you taken a vote or something because that’s news to me? Apart from us saddo’s who indulge in blogging the majority of SWP members have no idea and could care less about this blog.
Still waiting to read about your ideas for the way forward.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Like a rope round the neck of the condemned. If we went with the SWP in the present state it is in we we be putting back the progressive movement for many years. I would prefer having nothing to with them in the present and hopefully they sort themselves. Get a hold of reality UIS
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
@ 221 Is that your best shot Nas? Rees as puppetmaster…
Still waiting for your views on the way forward comrade.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
UIS you can be rest assured it will totally different. It will not be a party within a party
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
UiS wrote: “garagelanduk (#178) believing that Galloway is doing anything other than trying to turn RR into a new version of Old Labour under his control”.
No I suggested you were politically illiterate for your description of Galloway as a “centrist”. I suggest you look it up as you clearly don’t understand it.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/e.htm
Centrism means vacillating between revolutionary and reformist politics. It is usually associated with those who use revolutionary rhetoric but whose practice is reformist. Galloway is a straight forward reformist - which is no special criticism because I don’t think he claims to be anything other than that.
The SWP on the other hand spout revolutionary rhetoric - especially when they are trying to defend the latest indefencible action by their own organisation. It is marvelous to watch SWP supporters going on about Lenin and the Russia revolution as if there is some parallel between the Bolsheviks and the pathetic sectarian cult that is the SWP.
Perhaps you could describe those who smashed up the Socialist Alliance in favour of a non-socialist organisation as “centrist” - revolutionaries on paper but reactionary in practise.
Michael Rosen complained earlier about moving on after messy divorces. The problem is the analogy doesn’t hold - the SWP have trashed everything going back to the Socialist Alliance - the result is a trail of fragmentation and disaster. They need to be prevented from inflicting any more damage to the movement and that means it is a duty to all revolutionaries, and all socialists to challenge them - they won’t just go away like a former partner, instead they keep returning and trashing the place.
Comment by garagelanduk — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
The ironically monikered ‘unity is strength’ wrote “The difference between Respect and RR is that Respect has the involvement of revolutionary socialists.”
Which statement may or may not be true but ignores the point that Respect (SWP) lacks any significant support other than that of the SWP.
The question which SWPers must ask in the light of the above is then who is United Front of a special kind a United Front with?
Comment by Mike — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
“It is the duty of all revolutionaries…”
cripes.
Comment by johng — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
While all the debate on this blog is fascinating I think people have drifted away from the point a little.
One thing that I think has got lost in the storm is the issue of the way the money was used against Galloway after his letter. I still haven’t seen any defence of the fact that SWP comrades were told that George was mistaken over the OFFU loss, as part of convincing them of the reality of the right-wing (of Respect) witch-hunt, without them being given the context of the donation. Do people deny this happened? If so were they at the emergency SWP meetings and how would they discribe what happened re: this issue in a different light? Please I really want to hear an explanation.
Teddy boy you are a dick, why insult Michel Rosen’s poetry? I really wish I weren’t on the same side as you.
Michel, one important difference that I think exists between your divorce and the Respect split is that (to my knowledge) you and your wife are both singular individuals thus there was no chance of one part of you (your arm say) rejecting your arguments and joing with your wife (or vice versa). On the other hand getting the arguments about this spl;it straignt is important because those who are now Renewal might rejoin SWP or those who are SWP might be convinced to join Renewal. Not that I think this blog is the place to convince but it may be the place to get out arguments sharpe.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
I‘m a bit slow politically these days and it has taken me some time to work out what has been going on re Respect/RR; the attacks in this Blog on the SWP and the expulsions of Ovenden, Hoveman and Wrack.
However being based in Bristol it is actually quite easy to understand. All of them in their different ways would like the SWP to disappear.
Quite clearly Ovenden at al chose not to carry out the instructions of the SWP CC, well whether you like it not, those are the rules, don’t like them then you are not going to be a member or you will have to change the rules. Much easier if the SWP just went away. Galloway never wanted to be accountable to anyone. If the SWP went away life would be easier for him, no one asking whether his ideas ar the right ones. Jer Hicks is actually very similar. He wanted the SWP in Bristol to dissolve itself into Respect. Jer could see a big organisation with lots of members all working for his own view of politics, actually not one shared by the rest of the SWP in Bristol, i.e. no more SWP.
Problem is however that I and many thousand like me want the SWP to carry on; organising, fighting and building an organisation that refuses to go away. Particularly we like to see an organisation that makes mistakes because it tries and then uses some well tried methods for sorting them in its own time and inside its own organisation
I’m still not quite sure what Andy’s reasons are though as he never seems to state any coherent position. I suspect with him it’s just personal.
Anyway it seems to me that this blog is made up of lots of people who just want the SWP to go away. My advice to any SWP members or sympathiser posting here is to leave it alone. Make no mistake you won’t hear another word about it in the rest of the world.
Comment by Boon — 19 December, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Look Joseph why don’t grow up. This is the third or fourth time you have a go at me even wanting me off the blog. I will send you a hankie to wipe your tears away. Some of us are mystified with your algebriac metaphors. So stop trying to impress you will get there it takes a lifetime.
For all your inexperience, I forgive you as I know you are a slow learner Good second paragraph keeping trying and lay off the metaphors
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
The trouble is that so many of the people on the SWP-RESPECT side of the argument are such shy, retiring types. KrisS, for example, has a really clear understanding of why the SWP are right to use the term ‘witch-hunt’, but I can’t seem to persuade him to share it with us. And I’m sure Chris Edwards (no relation) has really good answers to what I said in comment 194 about the difference between STWC and OFFU, but he obviously can’t bring himself to post them.
Courage, comrades! If you don’t explain our errors, how will we ever correct them?
Comment by Phil — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Boon I’m sure you are well intentioned but I think you need to spend a little more time thinking about everything. I for one found it very painful to have to leave the SWP overall this, so don’t suggest that we all just want the SWP to go away - most would welcome a reformed SWP back with open arms, I would join a reformed SWP straight away and all are happy to work if SWP members on many different fronts.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
teddy boy, ‘you are a dick’ is not an algebraic metaphor its a plain fact.
From what I have seen it would aid Renewal if you were on SWP side.
The reason this pisses me off so much is because I’m am sure there are good SWP people out there willing to look at the Renewal arguments who see the shit you, and others like you, post and are given good reason to dismiss us out of hand.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Joseph, I can now understand your petulance towards me. You have just left the SWP and you miss it.
I am glad you are explaining to hoon how much you want a reformed SWP. Old wine in a new bottle It is an unaltered state. Smash the SWP forever Get used to it young fella.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
RE. # 234: Nice ally you’ve got, Joesph… How you are going to build a socialist organisation with sectarians like T-Boy is beyond me. Way beyond.
Comment by Concerned socialist — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
please try the guilt by association, #235 I doubt Joe or myself would consider T boy an ally
Comment by Richard Searle — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Concerned socialist: he isn’t Joseph’s ally. What you are doing is playing the game of guilt by association. It’s what happens in…er what’re they called again?… ah yes, witch hunts.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
@ 227 your link:
Centrism
Political positions that stand or oscillate between being reformist, reactionary and/or revolutionary.
We must have our wires crossed. No doubt you must be referring to a different Galloway to the one who wrote this article then?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=195
To save you the bother of clicking it’s a little article he wrote for SU on Che and the Cuban revolution that Stalinists of the Morning Star variety like to characterise as a socialist revolution. They don’t have in capitalist democracy in Cuba.
Not the straight forward ‘parliamentary road to socialism’ reformist you make him out to be then? No doubt he believes these revolutions are socialist or at least liberating but he’s not averse to talking up revolution rather than socialism through parliament when it suits him.
So if he’s given you the impression that he’s purely a reformist but he write articles praising the so-called “socialist” revolution in Cuba like any good Stalinist would do he must be vacillating like a centerist then.
Oh and let’s not forget the reactionary witchhunt that he’s launched against the SWP.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
and let’s not forget the reactionary witchhunt that he’s launched against the SWP.
And then there’s Unity, who is so shy and retiring that he won’t even tell us his real name! Ah, bless.
Perhaps one day he’ll be able to muster the self-confidence to explain why he thinks Galloway’s actions since August constitute not only a witch-hunt but a reactionary witchhunt. We can but hope.
Comment by Phil — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
It’s very interesting that UiS seems to think that centrist is a more damning insult than plain old reformist. It’s the sectarian method writ large: the closer someone is to you the more they are a renegade when they don’t agree with you. That’s a large part of the problem on the British left. There was a time when the SWP as a whole seemed to recognise that. Quite a few of its members, or at least the ones I talk to, still do.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Quite simple the whole progressive movement want rid of the SWP forever because of their authoritarianism, and their lies and witchhunting, and air brushing and many other practices. My attitude oes no go well with Joseph and he with me.
We are not clones,sycophants, cult members or zombies like you CS 238 I will not guess what your party is, if its like the SWP. It will not be welcome in the progressive. Stop winding up Joseph his homones is developing, its not good for the Young un
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Phil: it’s a reactionary witch-hunt because he’s a centrist. If he was a plain old Stalinist-reformist it would be a people’s witch-hunt.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Teddy is only one of (admittedly one of the most outspoken ones) the people uniting against the SWP here. I honestly can’t understand what unites the ‘Renewal’ people besides their opposition, in some people’s case outright hostility, to revolutionary organisation. Where in the world do Joseph and the others see themselves a few years down the line?
Comment by Concerned socialist — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
UiS - when has Galloway advocated socialist revolution in Britain? Plenty of reformists and even liberals support revolutions if they are somewhere else. Trotsky famously described the ILP in the mid 1930s as centrist - but then their leaders called for international socialist revolution at the time.
Comment by garagelanduk — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
CS: people probably see themselves as active in a progressive movement. Those who are revolutionaries probably hope to have gained wider support for their ideas.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Still waiting for your opinion about the way forward Nas.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
@ 244 I didn’t see the part in the definition you provided that centerists must advocate revolution in Britain. But I’m sure under the right conditions (Stalinist) Galloway wouldn’t be averse to this.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
Keep waiting then, UiS. I don’t see the need to outline what I think about that as my thoughts are not definitive.
Meanwhile, back to the topic. I’m hoping that someone might tell us who is on the OFFU committee. Maybe someone can also tell us why the SWP-Respect officers’ committee meeting on 11 December decided that all was well with the Dubai cheque and was told that OFFU committee members had been spoken to - apparently without any problem. Yet the following day Rees sends a letter to Michael Gavan regretting that the cheque had been accepted without checking and the SWP CC issue a statement saying the money should not have been accepted.
That must have been some central committee meeting on Wednesday 12 December.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Boon: #241: “I’m still not quite sure what Andy’s reasons are though as he never seems to state any coherent position. I suspect with him it’s just personal.”
Here we go again. This is the standard SWP lie to discredit me ever since I left the organisation. Firstly it utterely defies belief that anyone could say that I haven’t argued a coherent position over the broad party question.
And why should it be “personal”. I spent 20 years in the SWP and I resigned, I wasn’t expelled, over a political disagreement, precisely over the relationship of the SWP with the broad party concept.
But hey, I suppose it makes people in the SWP feel better saying to themselves that it is something personal for me. Sorry that i didn’t do what I was supposed to do when I felt the SWP, which is either politically self destruct so i can be ignored, or be one of those non-member SWP supporters who agree with every twist and turn the SWP come up with.
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Always the interrogator but never the enlightener, eh Nas?
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
@ 249 Andy, for someone who left the SWP you seemed incredibly obsessed with it still. It come across like a vendetta.
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Re # 245: For revolutionary socialists, ‘being active in a progressive movement’ is not enough. What revolutionary organisation will the few individuals who have left the SWP be building now? The ISG? Don’t make me laugh. Or Andy’s one-man blog party?
Comment by Concerned socialist — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
UiS: I think the enlightenment might have passed you by.
Meanwhile something clearly significant is happening in the SWP at a high level. One friend tells me she has never in 37 years seen an apology from the SWP CC like the one linked to in the post. And the minutes of the SWP-Respect officers’ meeting last week show that German and Rees were brazenly bluffing out the OFFU cheque business the night before the climbdown. So, if they have been rolled back on their heels there might be some hope that the disastrous line they’ve been at the centre of could be abandoned. That would help in reestablishing relations on the left and enabling us to move forward.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
CS: forgive me for sticking with the topic of this thread, but I imagine that whatever organisation they end up in it won’t allow its leaders to lie to its members for three months and then expect the members to go out and defend being lied to. I imagine it would be that kind of organisation.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
I am old ex navvy, with no qualified education and I get fucked up with some of the shit passed as intellectual discourse and it all comes from the SWP trolls who are a dangerous bunch of half-wits that that is a proven fact.
If they are not in complete control of any organisation they damage and destroy it on the way out. Tell me any group that they have not destroyed. I would be gobsmacked if you could mention one. This is the worse situation the left has been in ever. There is many of my ilk say fuck them. And I am not surprised that the would be theorists and sophists on this blog want to engage and trade pleasentries with these scumbags.
Tell them we dont want them. That is an old age pensioner telling you. In case you are mistaking about Joseph its the way I tell them, and more importantly I am glad Joseph comes on and calls me names but more importantly he makes well thought out contributions that I totally agree except the wish for a reformed SWP .
Keep them down or they will rise again in a more destructive force. Smash the SWP. The oppotunity is begging dont miss it
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
@ 253 The only thing that’s passed me by is your desire for “…reestabishing relations on the left…”
Comment by Unity Is Strength — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
#250
Well Mr strength, “incredibly obsessed” is part of the same lie that I have a “personal problem” with the SWP.
frstly, this could be easily dispproven by looking at how many articles on this blof referred to the SWP prior to the current dipute in Respect, and you would notice that is was no more than proportionate to the infleunce of the SWP on the left, and certainly not all articles have been critical
I have a political disagreement with the way the SWP have operated in the Socialist Allaince and Resepct, and seeing as these have been important left regroupment projects, then that has involved engagement with the SWP.
Now we have to ask why this current dispute in Respect has got so ugly for the SWP.
Tactical differences within Respect were mishandled by the SWP as if they were questions of principle, and specific incompetances by John Rees and others caused problems. Now the SWP leadership could have rolled with that, moved Rees aside, and lived to fight another day. I am absolutley convinced that is the way Cliff would have played it, who was a lot more canny in a faction fight than any on the present CC.
But at the stage where political differences were irreconcilable, the SW were offered and took part in negotiations to secure an amicable divorce. had they gone through with that that, the acrimony would be much less, and there might be future opportunities for reconcilation.
But instead, they decided to construct the fictitious witch-hunt; start bandying around false accusations of communalism, rasing red herrings about galloway’s salary, and expelling people. The ludicrous left/right split was constructed on evidence so flimsy that it was largely a product of imagination.
Given that all these accusations are politically and electorally damaging for RR, then we have argued back. That is all that the “obsession with the SWP” entails.
Of course what RR was supposed to do was sink without trace, and not become any rival to the SWP. Which is more or less what was done to the Socialist Alliance. Sorry to disappoint. But this is partly piss poor generallship on the part of the SWP cc, they wanted a war, and planned for one, but they didn’t realise that in a war things don’t always go to plan.
This is the ludicrous situation you are now in. YOu remain theoretically committed to a broad party formulation along the lines of Respect. But you have no allies, and your reputation is in threads. This was all utterly avoidable for the SWP, but the leadership of the SWP put their own personal interests within the SWP as being more importnat than the wider interests of the movement, and indeed they put their personal prestige before the interests of the SWP.
At one level that is just a questin for the SWP. Except the practical issues relating to Respepct are not resoolved becasue they won’t negotiate. They continue to mount political attacks on RR, like harman’s ISJ article, and Rchardr Seymour’s piece in Monthly Review. So naturally if they are goving it out they have to take it. But they are in a much weaker position becasue they are the ones lieing about facts; they are the one whose Respect project is holed beneath the water, and they are the ones prepared to tolerate incompetance and political narcissism from the leading members.
If they want to stop the war, they can at any time by stopping their self justifying attacks on RR, and by picking up the phone to the trusted third party, and restarting negotiations.
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
UiS: it’s simple. SWP members have been misled by Rees. He and Graham-Leigh told them, as Joseph pointed out, that Galloway was so wide of the mark with his criticisms that he claimed a loss of £5,000 on the OFFU conference when, according to them, it made a profit. This was important evidence supporting the claim that what Galloway was really doing was launching a witchhunt to crush the left. But it turns out Galloway was right about OFFU losing money and also had the savvy not to accept the cash from Dubai to cover that loss. So SWP members now know that they’ve been misled. So they might question whether they were subject to a witchhunt. If they rightly conclude that they were not, but were in fact manipulated by a cynical leadership which now might be cracking under the strain then that would be progress. It would make it far easier for them to cooperate with other socialists who were on the other side of the split in Respect and who are not witchhunters, but people who disagreed with the Rees regime.
You must see that talk of moving on and working together is just cant if people don’t look at how they’ve been misled into seeing others as an implaccable foe when they are in fact people who just had a different view.
You see, there have been loads of posts here supporting Karen Reissman. She was invited, three times, onto Galloway’s show and to address the Bishopsgate conference.
But there has been no acknowledgement at all from teh SWP centrally that she has that support from Galloway, Yaqoob, etc.
Similarly over Michael Gavan. I’m told he is grateful for all support and says so. But a leading figure in the SWP in Newham is going around saying that the Respect councillors (who she was in the same outfit with only a couple of months ago) are siding with New Labour in getting him sacked.
That’s the difference. Quite a few SWP members already see that.
Comment by Nas — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
I have the greatest of respect for Mike Rosen, but his analogy between a messy divorce and what has happened with Respect is like comparing chalk and cheese. For a start most divorces or, like me, separations, are personal and individual. I wouldn’t dream of making a political generalisation from my own separation because there are no political conclusions worthy of the name to draw. The personal is not always political, quite the contrary.
What this latest debacle tells us is that the SWP has lost its way politically. To take a shady cheque from a company in the Middle East, knowing full well the antecedents of things like the Fake Sheikh, is stupendously stupid. It is also unprincipled. Rich companies bankrolling organisations defending the working class? What next? Taking money from the Israeli government to support Palestine Solidarity Campaign or maybe Globalise Resistance applying to the World Bank for a grant?
Mike knows full well that an organisation which can front and push an anti-Semite like Gilad Atzmon, who he himself has complained about, is now capable of any political treachery. Quite simply the SWP has been reduced to political activism without a brain. Activity is all, but carefully controlled, mechanistic activity. Hence why a donation from a shady source was acceptable to an SWP front (despite at the time the OFFU being described as a non-Respect organisation the truth has now come out).
The fact is that the SWP have destroyed any hope of left unity in a period when the differences between the Labour Party, Tories and Lib Dems are minute. There was a large vacuum which, slowly but surely, the socialist left could have filled. Instead the SWP prioritised building themselves and when anything sprang up they couldn’t control they tried to destroy that too.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Tony: ” Instead the SWP prioritised building themselves and when anything sprang up they couldn’t control they tried to destroy that too.”
It is worse than that Tony, they prioritised the prestige and position of the inner circle of the CC over even the growth of the SWP.
Contrast this week’s party notes:
With this from Respect(SWP) http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=1696
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Richard, Richard, you can judge me not an ally. If you and Joseph are members of RR then please show a bit of respect to me as a fellow member I sell the Respect newspaper and I travel 1200 miles round round trip to all national demonstration. I am also a campaigner on disability rights. What is your practical usefullness.
If you are not a member of RR then its your progative to utter I am not an ally. I take it you are not
Comment by Teddy Boy — 19 December, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
for gods sake you guys lets all stick togeather and attack the REAL enemy. The SWP.
Comment by johng — 19 December, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
I think we should call it a day on this.
Comment by Andy — 19 December, 2007 @ 9:32 pm