RISE FESTIVAL - UNITE PULLS FUNDING - RCP DANCES FOR BORIS
Unite the Union is to cease financially supporting the Latin American stage at the Rise Festival after the Mayor’s Office has targeted its partner in the production, the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, as being a “political campaign group” and therefore unacceptable.
For the past five years Unite has co-produced a programme of Latin American music and dance at Rise, a close fit with its organising campaigns, working with London’s Latin American community who are often on the margins of the labour market.
The Latin American show has gone from strength to strength and is seen as one of the high points of the Rise Festival.
Not only has the Mayor’s Office banned CSC from the festival site it has also altered the message of the Festival, changing it from anti-racist event to one that “celebrates London diversity”.
Unite’s London Regional Secretary, Steve Hart, has tried to negotiate with the Mayor’s Office to resolve the impasse but has always come up against the same barrier, Unite is welcome to participate but it can’t participate if it involves Cuba Solidarity Campaign as its partner.
Steve Hart said: “The ban on Cuba Solidarity Campaign is the direct application of a political pre-condition on Unite in its sponsorship of the Latin American stage at Rise. Censorship is unacceptable to my union. I feel that I am left with no alternative other than to withdraw our intended funding of the Latin American stage at Rise in 2008.”
Harry’s Place has amusingly picked up on the defence of this from Munira Mirza, of the Revolutionary Communist Party (now acting as a covert network of libertarian think tanks) who has been appointed Boris Johnson’s spokesperson on race and equality.
In addition to undermining anti-racism, the now underground RCP have managed to insinuate themselves into the establishment scientific debates, promoting an entirely ideologically driven agenda overriding the scientific evidence. Given the mutual support that the network of RCP members give each other, and the overlapping nature of the libertarian think tanks, it seems unlikely that their organisation was actually disbanded, as they are still working together on some shared political agenda - though one that is increasingly difficult to fathom.
There is an expose of their methods on the GM watch site. They have even received funds from the ESPRC government research funding body, and RCP idealogist Frank Furedi, allegedly advertised for funding from supermarkets so that he could promote Genetically Modified products to their customers!
RCP supporter, Martin Durkin, has made a series of programme’s promoting bad science. including a report on how silicone implants reduce the risk of breast cancer (initially proposed to the BBC’s Horizon but dropped when the commissioned researcher contradicted the claims, then shown by Channel 4), a series (again for Channel 4) called Against Nature, which essentially argued that environmentalists were proto-Nazis out to control the world (which misrepresented the views of many of those interviewed, for which Channel 4 was forced to apologise) and a programme (once again, Channel 4) on genetically-modified foodstuffs which one of the participants described as having “rendered great disservice to science generally and to the scientific debate on GM-food particularly“. I tackled the intellectual laziness and deceit of Durkin last year.
Now RCP supporter Munira Mirza dances to justify Tory Boris Johnson undermining the use of the Rise festival to promote anti-racism:
Over the years, Rise was proclaimed by Ken & Co as a key weapon in the fight against racism and fascism. In reality, it became an annual jamboree for Ken’s favourite political activist groups, many with no clear link to anti-racism. The Cuba Solidarity Campaign, Socialist Workers Party and CND, among others, brought in their armies of volunteers to man stalls, hand out leaflets, sell newspapers and rattle donation buckets. The “community” area of the festival looked more like Sussex University freshers’ fair circa 1970. Not without good reason did Rise become known as “Kenstock“.
The deterrent effect of this highly politicised atmosphere should not be underestimated. Although the event was supposed to be inclusive and attract people from ethnic minorities, the GLA’s own research (conducted while Ken was mayor) shows that 65%-70% of attendees in the last two years were white. That is disproportionately whiter than the population of London. It seems reasonable to conclude that the political baggage and relentless sloganeering was actually putting people off. And no doubt many individuals and families who did come on the day were there primarily for the music or a nice day out.
Londoners deserve a great, free music festival with excellent bands from around the world. They don’t need to be hectored about why racism is bad or accosted by activists explaining why Castro is a hero. We don’t have anti-racist fireworks on New Year’s Eve and we don’t need to organise an anti-paedophile concert to prove our moral credentials on the issue. Sectarian political festivals are not the way Londoners want their money to be spent. Most of us, I suspect, just want to be trusted to get on with other people and not be instructed by activists about the dangers of racism.
That’s why the GLA has decided to go ahead with Rise this summer, but to change the emphasis. We are stressing the cultural aspects of the festival and keeping the vibe positive. We are also bringing in grassroots ethnic and community organisations that have not previously been involved. Above all we are making Rise fun. As a result, the festival will hopefully attract a more diverse audience.
Londoners voted for change on May 1 and the new Rise is part of that change. Out will go the political sloganeering and heavy-handed propaganda but by bringing Londoners from different backgrounds together to share their love of music Rise will be doing anti-racism for real.
Of course one could argue that the probelem is going after gov funding for left projects. Thus in the long ( or even short term) we will lose any autonomy.
That was the great thing about RAR ot was independent of state institutions.
Comment by Curious — 18 June, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Does anyone have the means to scan the early publications of the RCP, that is, when it was called the Revolutionary Coomunist Tendency (not to be confused with the Revolutionary Communist Group)? I’ve got a couple myself but no scanner on-line. It would be interesting to compare them with Spiked-on-Line (not that I can be arsed to read the latter for more than a few minutes, since it one of the most boring sites on the Web).
I suppose their hatred of the IMG - then I imagine Socialist Action etc - has led them to being Boris’s boot-boys.
Not quite a bizarre as Lyndon LaRouche, but going that way.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 18 June, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
‘Black students stand to lose from SWP alliance with the NUS’ right wing’
http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/ruqayyahcollector/275557.aspx
‘Fighting to win the maximum, principled unity of African, Arab, Asian and Caribbean people is fundamental to succeeding in the struggle for Black liberation. That unity can only be achieved by fighting for the interests of the Black communities as a whole. Any attempt to subordinate this struggle to narrow self-interest can only serve to undermine that unity and weaken our ability to challenge injustice.
The unprincipled alliance between the SWP/’Left list’ and the right wing within NUS displayed at the recent NUS Black Students’ Conference exposed this kind of opportunism and must be vigorously challenged by those who believe in Black self-organisation and an NUS Black Students’ Campaign that continues to defend all Black people.
Earlier this month, at the NUS Black Students’ Conference in Coventry, leading left activist Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy was elected the new NUS Black Students’ Officer. Bell won the NUS NEC post in the first round with a powerful 56% of the votes cast. Her platform was an unequivocal and consistent defence of Black self-organisation and unity to ensure the most effective campaigning against the growing climate of racism and for the liberation of all Black people.
Bell was opposed by an open, and politically corrupt, alliance of the SWP and the right wing NUS leadership ‘Organised Independents’ (OIs).
Assed Baig, the SWP/Left list candidate standing fraudulently as Respect, refused to advocate a second preference vote for Bell despite claiming to share her progressive agenda of defending Black representation, opposing the NUS ‘Governance Review’, anti-racism and opposition to British and US imperialism.
Instead Assed and the SWP did a deal with Salima Lanquaye, the candidate of the NUS right, over transfers for the election of Black Students’ Officer and the Committee elections.
Since the conference, SWP members have called for this alliance to be maintained. Ultimately, only the more powerful of the two parties stands to gain from such an unprincipled block – the agenda of the NUS right wing will be strengthened.
The agenda of the NUS Black Students’ Campaign stands in stark contrast to that of the NUS leadership. While NUS has become increasingly disconnected with its membership and inadequate campaigns let students down, the NUS Black Students’ Campaign has grown stronger with increasing involvement by fighting to defend our members’ rights.
Black students have had to fight for the gains we have made in NUS. It took ten years to win a full-time NUS Black Students’ Officer. We still face gross under-representation and what we have won has to be constantly to be defended. This year we saw the NUS leadership try to push through its ‘Governance review’ that would have overturned decades of struggle for Black representation at every level in the student movement.
We face constant attempts to over-ride the right of Black students to organise our own Campaign. At the Black Students’ Conference, Salima defended the Governance Review and failed to even mention our free education policy in her motions or manifesto. She has previously argued that tensions between sections of the Black community should be a greater focus for NUS than the racism, under-representation and exclusion that we face in common and has never spoken out against the NUS leadership’s failure to support the Palestinian people. On every question where a contradiction arose, Salima and her supporters took the position of the NUS leadership rather than what was in the interests of the Black community as a whole.
To support her campaign, Wes Streeting, NUS President, even made a ruling to allow five members of the NEC to attend our Conference as voting delegates from their institutions, despite this being expressly forbidden by the NUS constitution.
The corrupt alliance displayed at Conference is consistent with Assed and the SWP’s political record which has seen the SWP label Salma Yaqoob and other former allies in the Muslim community as ‘reactionary communalists’ over the split within the Respect Coalition, and in conflict with the overwhelming majority of the Black communities by publicly attacking those who supported Ken Livingstone against the racist Boris Johnson for London Mayor.
The power of Black self-organisation is that we are not dependant on others. Our representatives can consistently challenge every manifestation of our oppression because they are dependant only on the support of those for whom that oppression is a reality.
By the same logic it is not possible for the SWP to pursue a strategy that is dependant on the support of the NUS right wing without making concessions to the right wing’s agenda.
Previously, when the right wing of NUS won control of the Black Students’ Campaign participation at our conferences shrunk, Black representation in NUS was rolled back and the interests of Black students were attacked. Since then powerful unity of Black students ready to defend our representation and rights has seen the NUS leadership’s supporters weakened inside our Campaign. Now that their support has bought them new ‘friends’ they and their agenda have already been strengthened.
The history of the struggles for justice for our communities has shown that Black self-organisation can be a powerful defence against such opportunism. Progressive activists in the NUS Black Students’ Campaign will have to continue our fight against this corrupt alliance to ensure that it is the interests of the Black communities as a whole that are put first - through powerful and effective campaigns for Black representation, for equality in education, for international justice and against racism.’
Comment by Ger Francis — 18 June, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
am I being thick? The CSC is a ‘political campaign group’. Why would you expect the Tory Mayor’s office to fund a festival with them as ‘partners’?
Comment by jack r — 18 June, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Why they might still use the name RCP is slightly baffling - but their politics aren’t hard to fathom - horrible right wing libertarianism. When they openly operated as the RCP they would swing wildly from ultra left to right wing labourist. Occassionlly they might be right about something, but hey, so is a stopped watch. They did seem to grow for a brief period but this often appeared to be related to the RCP equivalent of love bombing. It could be very scary.
They sometimes seemed to have a provecauter air - this may have been their stupidity or something more sinister. Despite their toy town revolutionary attitude, they were often strangely absent on anything that they didn’t organise and control themselves.
Why anyone would want to scan in the documents of the RCT and RCP is really baffling. I remember them as long winded boring dirge.
Comment by RC — 18 June, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Any socialist interesting in feeding an increasing population should embrace the possibilities of GM food.
What are the arguments against it Andy?
Comment by Science is good. — 18 June, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
>I’ve got a couple myself but no scanner on-line
These days I don’t bother with scanners (or photocopiers) for 95% of jobs - most things a hand (or monopod or tripod) held digital camera (even a compact one) is more than adequate. I usually just sit the book or sheet of paper on the floor by a window on a dull day.
That may do it.
(digitak c
Comment by Matt Wardman — 18 June, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
>I’ve got a couple myself but no scanner on-line
These days I don’t bother with scanners (or photocopiers) for 95% of jobs - for most things a hand (or monopod or tripod) held digital camera (even a compact one) is more than adequate. I usually just sit the book or sheet of paper on the floor by a window on a dull day.
That may do it.
(digitak c
Comment by Matt Wardman — 18 June, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Good piece by Andy, but Munira Mirza isn’t Boris Johnson’s “spokesperson on race and equality”. She is Director of Policy, Arts, Culture and the Creative Industries.
http://tinyurl.com/4cdc7s
I think we can reasonably assume that Johnson will not be appointing anyone as his spokesperson on race and equality.
And speaking of equality, the Labour Group on the Assembly have pointed out that Munira Mirza, the one woman among Johnson’s senior advisers, gets paid only 65% of the salaries of her male counterparts.
http://tinyurl.com/4hr2su
As for Johnson’s claim that Rise will celebrate diversity rather than promote anti-racism, this is bullshit.
The official Rise website makes no mention of celebrating diversity and just describes it as “London’s free music festival”.
http://www.risefestival.org/
The press release on the GLA website doesn’t refer to diversity either.
http://tinyurl.com/6739p2
Apparently what happened was that the reference to “celebrating diversity” was subsequently added to the press release, presumably in order to cover Johnson from criticism by NAAR and others.
http://tinyurl.com/4kjgd4
In any case, it’s difficult to see how Mirza can be serious about promoting a festival “celebrating diversity”. Back in November 2006 she contributed an article to the Guardian in which she attacked “the principle of diversity, where all cultural identities must be given public recognition”.
http://tinyurl.com/47xo72
Comment by NoToBoris — 18 June, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
I like Sp!ked, particularly their rigourously Millian stances on the smoking ban and other things, and I find their stuff on humanitarian intervention very strong. Where they fall down is their bizarre, pettifogging mixture of ultra-leftism and obsession with formal legal equality. For instance, they constantly berate the anti-war movement for raising the slogan ‘Not in my name’ for no good reason, and undermine its significance (memorably belittling the February demo, the largest demo EVER on British soil as “people saying NO to Tony Blair”). Their failure to support an explicit anti-racist message in this context is surreal, given the rise in the BNP vote and the election of a BNP GLA member. The arguments offered by Mizra are pathetic - if the SWP and CND are replaced by the CBI and the Adam Smith Institute, will Black and Asian youths flock to the festival? On CSC, it’s hard to imagine why their stall would be allowed under Boris, but good to see Unite recognising a witchhunt where they see one.
Ger Francis - interesting stuff about the NUS - I’d like to get more detail on both sides, although the statement was packed full of shoe-horned attacks on the SWP, including mentioning our ‘lack of support’ for Ken as though that meant something in the context. Those of you pining for a Ken-led London please remember - he failed on his own strike-breaking, city-loving Jean Charles De Menezes-shooting terms, and every SWP member in London campaigning for Ken wouldn’t have changed that. Don’t blame us for his striking failure.
Comment by steffaction — 19 June, 2008 @ 2:09 am
Did anyone seriously expect Boris to continue Ken’s policy of funding CSC, NAAR and other left wing activist groups?
Londoners voted for change, whether we like it or not.
Comment by Colin — 19 June, 2008 @ 3:28 am
Steffaction: I agree that the statement is biased. Although the account of the SWP backed candidate being so blinded by sectarianism as to enter into a pact with the right accords with Salma Yaqoob’s conclusions after a conversation she had with him at the conference (she was there as an invited speaker). I also agree that it would be wrong to try lay any ‘blame’ at the SWP for Ken’s defeat. They are simply without the social weight to have mattered that much.
Comment by Ger Francis — 19 June, 2008 @ 7:37 am
Ger, you have more credibility if you and Salma hadn’t been involved in a deal to let a guy who had recently stood for the anti-working class Tories be a Respect candidate and to think you were once a full-timer for a revolutionary organisation! I simply cannot imagine this kind of thinking even being on the table in the SA, or other left alliances like the SSP. It undermines our credibility as a working class organisation, and does us no favours in trying to recruit trade union militants, it also undermines building an alliance with radical muslims on a secure foundation.
As to the NUS, I have no knowledge of the dispute, but your statement has some weird dated Black nationalist pap, the kind of stuff that Kevin Ovenden used to critique, very far from the marxist tradition that the fight aganist racism has to unite black and white workers.
Ken can fight his own battles, the role of the left cannot be to give left cover to Labour politicians, but rather by having a strong left voice force these politicians to the Left onto our territory.
Respect Renewal spent the last 6 months tailing Ken, what have you got to show for it? What independent working class organisation has tailing Ken helped you build on the ground.
Comment by Adamski — 19 June, 2008 @ 8:50 am
i see Ger’s article is by Socialist Action/Respect Renewal member Ruqayyah Collector
Once again I have no knowledge of NUS politics but according to one critic:
“She was a member of the Governance Review steering body and never attempted to keep activists informed about its proceedings, let alone sound the alarm or launch a campaign. She then voted for sections of the Review at the NEC.
* She previously voted at the NEC for a £100,000 management consultant to investigate “NUS reform”.
* She voted at the NEC with the right-wing NUS leadership in favour of supporting the FE Bill, which expands privatisation in the FE sector.”
Comment by Adamski — 19 June, 2008 @ 9:16 am
#14
Adamski, yes it is laughable for anyone in socialist action to complain about alliances with the right in NUS, presumably they are worried about the SWP taking over their turf.
Comment by martin ohr — 19 June, 2008 @ 9:52 am
I am not really up on NUS politics, but wasn’t the candidate that won the election to NUS black student officer a supporter of New Labour? True, they might be committed to ‘black self-organisation’ in rhetoric - but how this combines with supporting a warmongering pro-imperialist party and government is less clear. What Ger Francis is angry about then is that Student Respect stood a candidate against a supporter of New Labour for NUS Black Students Officer and tried to get the support of independent black students in the process. Is this really worse than the Renewal position of backing careerist New Labour supporters with black nationalist rather than socialist politics?
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15072
Comment by Snowball — 19 June, 2008 @ 10:00 am
#15 To be fair, I have no knowledge of student politics or the NUS so I should reserve judgement.
Comment by Adamski — 19 June, 2008 @ 10:04 am
I think the author of Ger’s article was supported by Student Respect last year. This kind of cod black nationalism does make me laugh, it sounds radical but what does self-organisation actually signify on campus?
Comment by Adamski — 19 June, 2008 @ 10:10 am
#6 “Any socialist interesting in feeding an increasing population should embrace the possibilities of GM food.”
One reason for opposing GM food is the precautionary principle, that we don’t know what changes the release of GM seeds into the environment will do at the cellular level, and mixing them in the countryside with non GM crops means the choice is removed not to have GM. The way that GM seeds are controlled by multinationals means a reduction in the diversity of seeds, meaning blights that affect the most common varieties could be inescapable in the future. There are plenty of other ways to increase fuel and food production (one favourite hobbyhorse of mine is that cannabis can be used very effectively for biofuel and 1001 other uses and tends to rebuild the soil it’s grown in so is very effective in crop rotation [cue someone making a “My daddy’s bought my the Socialist Workers Party” joke from The Young Ones]).
The RCP have always been horribly right-wing since I first came across them and when Andy was comparing the SWP to them a couple of months ago I thought he was going a little far.
Comment by skidmarx — 19 June, 2008 @ 10:28 am
you can make lots of good stuff from hemp = clothes, paper, shoes. Hemp paper is particularly environmental compared to chopping down trees.
The Socialist Alliance had a great leaflet on leaglisation of Canabis where they differentiated us from the LibDems by explaining that the LibDems would let all the profits pour into rip-off multinationals but we would nationalise production so that the profits could go into building hospitals and schools.
Of course, we were never allowed to even debate this kind of stuff in Respect probably ‘cos it would have upset George Galloway et al.
Incidentally, Andy seems to have done a 180 degree u-turn again.
I recall him and colleagues witch-hunting Yvonne Ridley for not having the necessary socialist credentials to be a Respect candidate or on the NC (due to sending her daughter to a boarding school) now he wants a party broad enought to encompass Compass and all kinds of non-socialists.
Comment by Adamski — 19 June, 2008 @ 11:06 am
The late Duncan Hallas summed up the RCP so well many years ago; he said…
“They’re probably well-meaning as individuals, but, let’s face it comrades, in political terms they don’t know their arse from their elbow”.
Comment by OnTheSquare — 19 June, 2008 @ 11:18 am
#21 Applies also to some of the socialists in RR.
Comment by Adamski — 19 June, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Well Adamski can concentrate on the nationalisation of the cannabis industry as a mechanism for funding education if he wishes and side-step those who SWP align with, whilst throwing stones at other people’s glass houses.
Some out there have woken up and realise how much in fact Ken did achieve on uniting against racism (grudgingly conceded by some of his left opponents)
The Rise Festival under Ken included all the left participating (yes, SWP had a stall, too).
Rise festival goes back to 1996 prior to GLA and Ken funded it first in 2001, when it was known as Respect, (until some other people used that name…)The anti-racist movement and the unions have mananged it before, so there’s nothing to stop us doing it again.
However, the main issue that the left has to confront is the agenda of the Tories and the right in breaking up everything that was progressive in London before. The good bits such as affordable housing will be removed from the 2012 plan, only leaving the bits that Ken had conceded as a deal.
It is also noticeable how Unter-fuehrer Barnbrook has applauded Johnson for dropping the anti-racist bit from the festival and approves of the shift to Munira Mirza being in post.
Comment by Stuart G — 19 June, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
#21 OnTheSquare ah, yes. I remember the RCP. They had a paper ‘The Next Step’ (nothing to do with choreography or Latin American dancing). My favourite was their headline during the miners’ strike: ‘RCP Hits the Pits!’
Their story, not mine
Comment by Harold — 19 June, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
#22 and the SWP
Comment by Curious — 19 June, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
Oh dear, Stuart G I wasn’t in fact commenting on the original post, as often happens on here, the discussions move onto other subjects.
Nobody denied that Ken was better than Boris, but a somewhat faint echo of his former self.
“The anti-racist movement and the unions have mananged it before, so there’s nothing to stop us doing it again.”
Good point.
Comment by Adamski — 19 June, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
#24 Perhaps an allusion to an excellent document produced by the diy working class movement in South Wales, The Miners Next Step?
Comment by Adamski — 19 June, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
the only thing i do agree with is was rise was basically all white
unlike many other London festivals that did not gelt GLA funding
However, that does not take away from another attack by Boris on Londoners
counting down the days till hes back to Henley or writting his articles in The Telegragh or Spectator
or spending his time in bars clubs drinking champagne and eating Oysters
oh thats right….he does that now
Comment by john — 19 June, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
Anyone remember the RCP’s “Preparing for Power” conference posters?
David Steel didn’t make it either.
Comment by Theo Saurus — 19 June, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Assed Baig responds to Ruqayyah Collector:
There were many things that concerned me about the recent Black students’ conference, but for the sake of maintaining unity within the campaign, I decided to remain silent. That was until I was mentioned by name in Ruqayyah’s recent officer blog entry. http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/ruqayyahcollector/275557.aspx
Her central argument is that an alleged alliance between my campaign team for Black students officer and Salimas was an “attempt to subordinate this struggle (for black representation) to narrow self-interest” and that it must be “vigorously challenged by those who believe in Black self-organisation”.
Ruqayyah is apart of the “Student Broad Left,” a front for the secretive Socialist Action. Their control of the campaign runs so deep that they are able to make themselves out to “be” the campaign as opposed to merely being in “control” of it.
Ruqayyahs arguments centre around two issues. One that student Respect had an alliance with the Organised Independent’s and two I am a “fellow traveler” of the SWP. The Broad Left has always resorted to smears when it benefits them. If there is something wrong with the way the campaign is run, it is not correct to accuse people of being against Black Self-organisation – we need to address the real political differences.
I think it is pertinent to state that I am not and never have been a member of the SWP. Student Respect (SR) is a coalition of different groups and independent members around principled leftwing politics. I consider myself as an independent member.
I work with the SWP in SR because of their commitment to anti-racism and liberation. A minority of my campaign team were in the SWP. Many including Hind, Yousuf, Malaika and Bonolo are high profile independents. I have always been clear about my political affiliations. However the same cannot be said about Ruqayyah who fails to mention she is a member of Respect Renewal, despite her face been plastered all over the Respect Renewal newspaper. It should also be noted that she failed to mention that she is part of Socialist Action, an organisation that was run out of Ken Livingstons office.
The Broad Left labels people who are not a part of their organisation as against ‘black self organisation’ in an attempt to maintain control of the campaign. Ruqayyah cannot even be taken seriously on who she considers to be ‘left wing’ after her failure to take a clear stand against the governance review, arguing that the campaign to save NUS democracy should be subordinate to her own failed campaign for president. She set up a meeting right before the crucial vote, at NUS conference, in a bar, when she should have been outside speaking to delegates convincing them to vote against the review. Ruqayyah spent her time preaching to the converted. Ruqqayah and Student Broad left have a very poor record of standing up for principled leftwing politics.
The sectarian politics even permeated through to the issue of Palestine. Ruqayyah was actively involved in telling students not to attend Action Palestine conferences because it wasn’t headed by her own faction. Ruqayyah has failed to engage in any debate on Palestine at annual conference or at NEC meetings, rather she pretends her phone is ringing and walks out. So much for Palestine.
I was on the streets campaigning for Salma Yaqoob when she stood for Councilor and said I would campaign for her again if she decided to re-stand or stand for MP. I do not recall Ruqayyah on the streets of Birmingham.
There never was an alliance between my campaigns team and salima’s. Student Respects line was to transfer to Bell despite Ruqqayahs undemocratic methods.
However we decided to let delegates choose for themselves between the corrupt Broad Left and Salima. That hardly amounts to an alliance.
I think it is hypocritical of Ruqayyah to throw around the word corruption. Especially since the manner in which she ran the campaign has been so corrupt. We can no longer remain publicly uncritical of the way the Broad left have run our campaign:
• Black Students campaign money has been used to pay for students to come to National Black Students Alliance (NBSA) meetings. NBSA holds a joint summer school with the Broad Left.
• Even after the close of delegate registrations, Ruqqayyah still bullied Union Presidents and or General managers to change the delegate to one of Bell supporters. In one case changing the delegate at London Met to Bell’s mum!
• The delegates from the Black Students women’s day, an event set up outside the NUS, were sent an email by Bell, asking for their support in her election. A clear abuse of position, in using delegate information to profile for a candidate.
• Bell has not been a student since December but enrolled onto a course at a college just so she was eligible to stand for officer.
• The chair of steering (and Broad left member) Pav attempted to give each person in a job share one vote. So you could, theoretically, have up to 4 extra votes per elected position!
• The head of steerings also inserted an extra round of speeches on motions and amendments, even when no one was speaking against the motion. This was simply to give their candidate further profile.
• Ruqqayah and Pav tried to control the delegate list for conference and keep NUS staff from registering delegates. So to allow them to register their own delegates at places like SOAS over the heads of both the Union and the democratically elected delegate.
• Bell “co-edited” the Black students’ handbook, (even though it is almost identical to the previous year). None of the other committee members were consulted or given the opportunity.
• Bell’s email was put on the NUS website for Black Students’ campaign events, not the NUS events email which is the correct procedure.
• There was a coach paid for by the Black Students Campaign to bring delegates to conference from London. Committee members that were supporting me or Salima were not made aware of the coach then blocked from coming on it. Most of the people on the coach were not delegates, it was, simply, a Bell campaign bus, paid for by the Black Students campaign. There was ample space on the bus, just not for the opposition.
• the broad left supported a job-share for mature students rep with a pro-governance review candidate and one who said he would vote for the BNP.
• There was a coordinated conceited effort to have Bell’s campaign seem synonymous with the Black Students campaign. Bell’s campaign, including her t-shirt, had a purple colour scheme which was the same colour as the distributed folders and balloons used at the conference. Many black students were left astounded that Chair of steering Pav Akhtar proceeded to distribute purple balloons to delegates and observers during the dinner on the night before the election. Pav (head of steerings) was also actively campaigning for Bell
• The entertainment was used as a further platform to profile Bell with performers unashamedly holding up bell T-shirts on stage.
There is a long list of things that I could mention, but the examples above are enough to display the corruption that is systemic within the Broad Left/Socialist Action.
We should not let Ruqayyah and her cohorts use the veneer of Black representation and self-organisation to justify the actions of the Broad left. I ran a campaign based on political principles, not on trying to get my mates and as many of my relatives to the conference. If it was possible, Ruqayyah would make her pet cat a delegate.
Unity in the Black Students’ campaign should not be defined with those that are with the Broad left and those that are against. It should be on a real grass roots and representative campaign.
The Struggle for Black representation continues, it is just a shame that the Broad left’s undemocractic methods continue to stop the NUS Black students campaign developing into the campaign it deserves to be.
We should not just limit ourselves to electoral politics, real campaigning takes place everyday across university campuses and looks at the real issues affecting people across the world; imperialism.
I have a proud history of campaigning and not just paying lip service to the issues. I stand up and speak out, write my own emails, speeches and run my own campaigns.
I wish Ruqayyah all the best for the future and hope she finds employment, I know it will be difficult with Ken Livingston not being in office anymore, but I’m sure Pav Akhtar can sort her out with a job at UNISON. I hear that is how things roll in the world of Socialist Action.
Comment by Dave Festive — 19 June, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
For what it’s worth (which is very little), the RCP did disband as an organisation, their ordinary membership having no say in this. However, the ‘leadership’ and their hangers on, reconstituted themselves internally as ‘The Association’, redolent of ‘The Discussion Group’ from which they and the RCG emerged, years before. The idea was to ‘constitute themsleves as an opposition within the Bourgoisie’ or something. I’ll have to lie down after that.
Comment by Tricksy Mix — 19 June, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Dave Festive: The concern about Student Respect was that the SWP had corrupted it with their ultra leftism. The comments from Assed Begg illustrate the extent of the rot. He is unable to differentiate between a board left candidate standing on a platform in principle similar to his own, and the NUS exec backed right wing candidate: ‘we decided to let delegates choose for themselves between the corrupt Broad Left and Salima’.
Assed was disappointed that Salma Yaqoob refused to support his campaign. He should reflect as to why not: his method is the very antithesis of her own and goes against some fundamental principles behind Respect’s raison d’être. Her stating point is always how best to progress the totality of the left, not some faction of it.
While ultra leftism is par for the course in student politics and to be expected, Assed embarrasses himself with this explanation of his motives, especially the infantile nature of his final comments.
Comment by Ger Francis — 19 June, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Thanks for that Dave Festive - should probably refuted step by step but Assed has confirmed Ruqayyah’s central point - as Ger points out the SWP was so blinded by sectarianism it failed to distinguish between the left and the right. Anyone was at the conference knows it certainly went further than letting ‘delegates choose for themselves between the corrupt Broad Left and Salima’. Even if you swallowed that the sight of Assed standing up clapping for Salima during hustings but not for Bell and of the SWP and right wing cheering for each other’s candidates would have been enough to know where their loyalties lay.
The article from the SW posted by ‘Snow ball’ says it all really http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=15072
According to the SWP the NUS Black Students Campaign, led for the past two years by Ruqayyah Collector just had its biggest ever conference which passed a load of progressive policies ‘including gun and knife crime, the rise of the Nazi BNP, the “war on terror” and Islamophobia.’ Fantastic – what a contrast with the dismal shape of the rest of NUS!
What they don’t mention is that Bellavia and Ruqayyah organised those motions, led up the debates at the conference and won the support of delegates for this progressive agenda. They don’t mention it because instead of seeking an alliance with this agenda they blocked against it by forming an alliance with the NUS right wing who want to pursue a completely different agenda including the NUS Governance review which seeks to drive back the Black Students Campaign and democracy in NUS in general.
Nor do they mention that the Black Students Campaign, led by Ruqayyah, Bellavia and their supporters is the only part of NUS to have opposed the governance review, have clear policy for free education, actively support the Palestinians and much more
On the Ken point its not so much that the SWP made any real difference to the outcome but that the SWP backed candidate made a big deal of attacking people who supported him. At a fringe meeting at NUS conference for example he called it a ‘disgrace’ that Ruqayyah was supporting Ken. I have to say at least on Ken the SWP did call for a second preference, they took one step further in the Black students campaign where they formed an alliance with the right.
#14 Adamski you’re right your not really up on the student movement. For the record Ruqayyah was the only full time officer of NUS to oppose the ‘Governance review’, she was a leading campaigner on the issue, published various articles attacking it, used the Black Students Campaign Winter conference to organise Black students against the proposals, organised a packed briefing meeting at the start of NUS conference against it, wrote a series of public letters to the NUS leadership challenging them to a public debate on the issue etc etc.
You might consider this agenda to be ‘dated’ – so do the right wing in NUS who think we need a modern NUS that supports fees, war and attacks on democracy, no doubt Munira Mirza thinks antiracism is out dated – I just think these things are progressive and should be supported by everyone who reads this blog
Comment by a student — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:15 am
If MI5 were wanting to set up a honey trap for young leftists they might have called it the RCP. Could play a useful role in getting info on the IRA etc with bold declarations on the Irish war and the Irish resistance. Useful to organise it in a very hierarchical cell like structure with much emphasis on internal security etc. But that era is over. what to do next
sandy
Comment by sandy — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Ger, before attacking Assed Baig you should consider his very serious points, that he evidently preferred not to go publc with in the interests of left unity but has been forced to. It would be a mistake for the Left to publicly be associated with such systemic corruption. It also seems the view of most of the left within NUS is that your collegaue is the equivalent of a Derek Simpson type left winger.
Some might believe that given that RR have been unable to build a student organisation they are trying to undermine the most successful fighting left group within student politics - Student Respect.
I fear that Ger is not acting in the interests of left unity. I also think that while certain groups such as Socialist Action have wormed their way into the NUS bureaucracy, there is precious little evidence that they are in the vanguard of grassroots student politics.
Comment by Adamski — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Assed Baig’s squib shows all the hallmarks of the young cadre the SWP are developing within and around themselves. Rees and German must be so proud of the fruits of their labours.
Comment by Nas — 20 June, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
The substantive issue is that the SWP students and hangers on were so blinded by sectarianism that their actions served the right. Adamski admits he knows nothing about NUS politics, yet like some fervent believer who can’t stand it when his religious leaders are being criticized, he can’t help falling into knee-jerk defensiveness and denial.
Comment by Ger Francis — 20 June, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
#36 Nas, in the words of Marley: “Open your eyes and look within / Are you satisfied with the life your living?”.
You come across as someone who has no zest for life, I imagine you living in a house like Mrs Havisham in Dickens’ “Great Expectations” behind your keyboard.
Comment by Adamski — 20 June, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Yes, what a squib for complaining that the secretive sect Socialist Action (who are, surprise, now best friends of Respect Renewal) were out of order in rigging the entire conference and acting in utterly undemocratic manouvres and mispending of campaign money on shoring up their position! How disgraceful! It makes the so called “rigged” Respect Conference last month look like a Quakers Circle, but lets withold any criticism from even the shadiest and sneakiest groups if they’re willing to give RR a bit of a nod. I notice that no-one responds to the concrete criticisms of SBL that Assed lays. It’s true that they should have transfered votes to SBL despite the shameful handling of conference, but in the context it is an understandable error.
As for Assed’s last words being “infantile”, they accurately reflect the cronyism at the heart of Socialist Action, Ger only criticises coz he hopes to get in on it soon enough.
Comment by Randy Newman — 20 June, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Respect Conference last year, sorry
Comment by Randy Newman — 20 June, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
#37 Well Ger, I have come across Socialist Action, I have also come across Student Respect, so I have some idea of the politics of both organisations. I have been presented by two accounts by both sides, and Baig’s seems more convincing.
You seem incapable of answering concrete point except with vague generalities. Or of addressing questions to your position. You are so consumed with hatred for your former employers that you are becoming obsessive. Your cult of the personality thing is worrying.
Who has the best record of grassroots student politics? Socialist Action or Student Respect? It is clearly Student Respect.
Comment by Adamski — 20 June, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
But he’s not an SWP member and says so repeatedly. Curious.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
#42 Baig also names several high proflie members of Student Respect who are not members of the SWP as well, Ger can’t accept that many non-alligned members of Respect chose not to join his faction, so has to continually lie.
Not starting from reality shows the weakness of an argument.
I mean he must be aware that on his own patch a former left wing Labour Councillor, and former President of Birmingham Trades Council declined to stand for his outfit.
Comment by Adamski — 20 June, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
I think that those who can’t build a student base should be as modest about student politics as Ger expects others to be about, well, Birmingham for instance.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
At core this is a pretty straight forward issue which, to his credit, Randy at least acknowledges: Assad and his SWP backers ‘should have transferred votes to SBL’. Pity Johng and Adamski cannot bring themselves to admit likewise.
Adamski defends aligning with the right while blowing smoke about Socialist Action, Birmingham Trades Council and the rest of it. And for Johng, who apparently will defend or make excuses for anything the SWP do, his student comrades are above criticism because…amm…they are students and have built something. So did the RCP in their day.
Comment by Ger Francis — 20 June, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Ger recruit some students. Then talk.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
So we can expect no answer from Ger to Baig’s concrete points!!!
As to “blowing smoke” in the words of Bruce Lee, everytime you point the finger, three fingers point back at you! It is exactly what you are doing, everyone can see on here your complete failure to answer Baig’s concrete points and the fact that the entire Left outside of SBL was critical of SBL.
Baig says: “Student Respects line was to transfer to Bell despite Ruqqayahs undemocratic methods.
However we decided to let delegates choose for themselves between the corrupt Broad Left and Salima. That hardly amounts to an alliance.”
This is not alligning with the right, but abstention, now you may believe that this aided the right, but Baig who preferred to have remained silent lists a whole series of serious misconduct by senior members of SBL. Actually, there is an argument that Student Respect could have been discredited in the eyes of the mass of students by being alligned with a sect that was mired in corruption.
Baig to his credit had preferred to remain silent on these serious matters in the interests of unity, until he was slandered and felt impelled to set the record straight.
Comment by Adamski — 20 June, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Ger,
Any chance all your cllr’s are going to oppose cuts and support strikes by public sector workers in B’ham next time………..before lecturing students ! best get your own organisation to actually act like they are ont he side of the workers…………..perhaps the socilaist action deep entry has got Ger hooked………..Salma starts out as an advisor to soem baroness anfd then hey presto…..we have socilaism through the back door………….Ger time for a re think!!!
Comment by jj — 20 June, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
saw this on the LeftNow blog:
Lies, Damn Lies and Hypocrisy - A Response to Ruqayyah Collector
There is so much to say about this. So much that I don’t know how to begin. I must say when I first read Ruqayyah’s blog I laughed, I mean come on, Student Broad Left (SBL) throwing around corruption allegations!
But seriously, this represents a baseless attack on one of the best Black student activists in the country and has come about due to the demise of SBL and their stranglehold on the Black Students’ Campaign (BSC).
I am going to refute Ruqayyah’s ridiculous claims point by point, but will leave details of SBL corruption in the BSC to others who have been more involved in the campaign.
Lie number 1) Assed stood fraudulently as Student RESPECT
Assed Baig was democratically chosen to be Student RESPECT’s candidate for Black Students Officer following successful committee election results at BSC Conference 2007. Assed has been a Student RESPECT activist for a number of years and is also a member of the Student RESPECT National Committee. How then, exactly, is his standing under the Student RESPECT banner fraudulent? The simple fact of the matter is Ruqayyah Collector has done nothing to build Student RESPECT, has never been to a committee meeting, never been to a conference and has shown no interest in participating in our democratic structures. Indeed she has consistently supported candidates against Student RESPECT (and fellow BSC members so much for black self organisation!) including Bryony Shanks against Hind Hassan for Block of 12 at NUS Conference 2008 and Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy against Assed Baig for Black Student’s Officer, also in 2008.
We are open and honest about our political affiliations. This can hardly be said about Ruqayyah Collector who limits admitance of her membership of SBL to manifesto small print. Not only this but she also claimed she was not a member of a political party at Presidential hustings at NUS Conference 2008. This is despite after having joined RESPECT Renewal.
Lie Number 2) Student RESPECT and the Left List are synonnymous with the SWP
This smear has been used all the way through the existence of RESPECT by right wingers and opportunists, so its no surprise to hear it again. But let’s look at the facts. Student RESPECT is much larger than the Socialist Workers’ Student Society. It had twice as many delegates at the end of NUS Conferenc 2008 than SWSS had before the creation of Student RESPECT. SWP members were in a minority not only in Assed’s Campaign team but in the Student RESPECT delegation to BSC itself. Assed himself is not in the SWP and neither is NEC member Hind Hassan. And anyone who has ever met Hind or Assed knows that they are not subbordinate to the SWP. All this it seems is sour grapes at the fact that despite the leadership of RESPECT Renewal trying to split Student RESPECT, it didn’t happen.
Lie Number 3) Assed/Student RESPECT made a deal with the right wing Organised Independent (OI) faction.
Ruqayyah claims that Assed made a deal with the OIs yet describes this imaginary alliance as one between the SWP and the OIs. Given Assed is not a member of the SWP she is essentially accusing him of taking SWP orders. This is incredibly patronising to Assed and everyone who campaigned for him. Perhaps Ruqayyah finds it hard to understand that Assed does not take orders from the SWP and that Student RESPECT is a genuinely dynamic and democratic organisation because she is so used to a) taking orders from the shadown sect of Socialist Action (see Peter Leary and George Woods) and b) being part of an incredibly elitist top down organisation.
For the record, the Student RESPECT line was to transfer to Bell to ensure that the BSC remained anti-war, pro-Palestinian and anti-governance amongst a few things.
Lie Number 4) SWP members have said they want an alliance with the OIs
Who exactly?
Anyone who knows been involved in NUS this year knows that SWSS members within Student RESPECT took a leading role in the Save NUS Democracy campaign being vocal in our opposition to the OI initiated governance review from the beginning. This cannot be said for Ruqayyah for SBL who did not take one speech against the review at Extraordinary conference and showed no interest at all in working with other forces in the campaign.
On the central issues of a radical campaign for Free Education and antiwar activity it was also Student RESPECT who took the lead with SBL taking aback seat, not wanting to speak on controversial issues for fear of losing voters. Electoral opportunism at its worst. No wonder they’re jumping ship to RESPECT Renewal.
In the LGBT campaign it was SWP members in Student RESPECT who were central to overturning right wing policy on means testing and right wing cuts on HIV prevention for Gay and Bisexual men in London. On almost every front the politics of the SWP and the politics of the OIs have clashed. To suggest the SWP are pushing for an alliance with the OIs is therefore plainly ridiculous.
Ruqayyah claims that the stronger partner in any such alliance would be the OIs. But the truth of the matter is that Student RESPECT and its progressive allies is the main threat to SBLs domination in the BSC, not the OIs and that is the real motivating factor behind Ruqayyahs disappointing slurs.
Lie Number 5) The SWP has labelled Salma Yaqoob a reactionary
This is a downright lie. In making building RESPECT we faced many problems. How can we build a pluralistic, broad and radical alternative to New Labour while resisting those forces who would seek to put electoral success above principled politics. In Tower Hamlets and Birmingham we saw the spectacle of one person bringing in scores of completed membership forms and a wadd of cash the day before the deadline for the right to attend candidate selection meetings. We saw people who refused to see that in a city the size of Birmingam it was unacceptable not to have one single female amongst our local election candidates (this included Salma Yaqoob) We saw people trying to refuse entry to Muslim women in East London candidate selection meetings with some being told to go into their homes ‘where they belonged.’ This is reactionary and it is something the SWP is proud to have argued against time and time again and many times we won with several people not being allowed to join RESPECT because of their political track record. This has led many Muslim RESPECT members to join the SWP. So it is utterly false for Ruqayyah to paint a picture of the SWP tarring the Muslim community with the brush of biggotry.
Even when we lost some of the internal struggles, we did not split from the organisation. Not only did we not split, but we put every effort into getting candidates elected. Without the SWP many candidates (which might not have been the SWPs preferred choice) would not have been victorious such as Abjol Miah. It is only when George Galloway and others in RESPECT who placed electoralism above principles realised that the SWP would never stop arguing for a ‘from below’ type strategy did they begin the witch hunt against the left wing of the coalition.
Ruqayyah is right that the BSC has had to fight hard and defend hard the rights it has won. She is right to say that the worst outcome for the BSC would for it to fall into the hands of the NUS right. But if she thinks that underhand and ridiculous allegations against Student RESPECT are going to stop us from campaigning for a radical, democratic, transparent and grassroots BSC then she is sorely mistaken. If she thinks that Stalinoid accusations of racism and imaginary alliances with the right are going to hoodwink Black Students then she is wrong. Black Students are beginning to wake up to the corrupt cabal who have controlled the BSC for too long. Most Radical Black Students at NUS Conference 2008 chose Hind Hassan over Bryony Shanks and they chose a radical independent left candidate for National Council Rep (over Ruqayyah Collector!!!) at BSC Conference 2008. Ruqayyah holds up Bell’s victory as an impressive result. No one can deny it was a clear victory (see Assed Baig’s response for details of how the conference was rigged in Bell’s favour) but the simple fact of the matter is that the SBL vote has halved in a year.
Student RESPECT and the SWP are proud of working with broad forces and we will continue to work with all those opposed to war, racism and the destruction of our environment, including SBL and RESPECT Renewal. Despite our differences we have not taken a sectarian line, evidenced by our decision to support Ruqayyah Collector for NUS President 2008 believeing that this was the best option for left unity, despite coming under criticism from other sections of the left.
Black Students must unite ahead of important struggles against the BNP, the governance review, and a possible attack on Iran. But unity does not mean ignoring the behaviour of some in our own campaign which is detrimental to the struggle for Black Liberation.
Comment by Adamski — 20 June, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Does the SWP plan to run a Student Respect operation next year while it is busy asking people to come up with a new name for for the Left List? It would be rather odd. “Join Student Respect” says SWP full timer. “Is that linked to Galloway?” asks fresher. “No” says fulltimer. “It has abolutely nothing to do with the organisation called Respect. It is the student wing of Left List (or Party, or Alliance or Coalition, or Unity, or…). Doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
Comment by Nas — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Organisations often have to rebrand and change their names. I don’t understand your point here Nas. Respect Students have a real base in the student movement, and are the same people who played a decisive role in just about every major advance for both Respect and the anti-war movement in the colleges. They didn’t join Respect Renewal. Respect Renewal consequently have nothing in the colleges. Making fun of peoples name or trying to pretend that you built their base for them is not a substitute for building in the colleges and its also unlikely to get you one. Quite the reverse. It would be normal to ask why Renewal has no student base and try and do something about it rather then attacking and mocking students. They don’t like it you know.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
#50 Autumn 2008 will be when many Student Respect members take up their posts as officers of local student union, will be interesting to see how the new generation of student radicals cut it, as you may know we swept the board at Essex university as part of a progressive slate, doing well at Goldsmiths and elsewhere. Remind me of RR successes on campus? Most students have never even heard of Student Broad Left!
Comment by Adamski — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Johng: ‘Go recruit some students. Then talk’. What kind of a dumb ass comment is that. It is like me saying Adamski is not entitled to speak about Respect because he has built sweet fa where he lives. The SWP students made an ultra left move. At best they were indifferent to whether the right wing candidate beat the broad left one. At worst they colluded together. I know what impression Salma Yaqoob left with when she spoke to Assed at the conference. Either way, they were guilty of sectarianism. This is not unknown in the world of student politics, and they should not be forever condemned for it. But you do them no service by denying or trying to cover that up.
Comment by Ger Francis — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Ahhh yes Adamski. You’ve answered the question in your own inept way. From what you say, there will be a Viva Essex society, but no Student Respect. It’s perfectly logical.
johng: you too seem to be saying there will be a name change. Excellent. It’s all heading to a situation where there is Respect and then there is whatever the SWP chooses to call its interventions in elections and in universities. I think you’ll find that’s absolutely fine by people in Respect. You know, the odd thing is, back last October, there was a deal which would have allowed both the SWP and those it had alienated to use the name Respect. Rees and German scuppered that. Such tactical genius.
Comment by Nas — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
#53 Ger, it’s not really possible to have a discussion when you keep on saying “The SWP students”. Why can’t you admit that Student Respect has high profile non-alligned members who chose not to allign with your faction?
Baig clearly believes there was misconduct and misbehaviour by SBL which is why he may have given the impression of indifference according to Ger.
Why is Ger so reluctant to answer Baig’s central points?
Comment by Adamski — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
“is like me saying Adamski is not entitled to speak about Respect because he has built sweet fa where he lives” But you say things like that all the time Ger. And truth be told I was taking irresponsible glee in giving you a dose of your own medicine. Which with the best will in the world happens sometimes. I don’t know enough about the in’s and out’s of what went on to know just how bad this mistake was (if it was a mistake), but it just might be the case that the consistant bad faith on these and related issues leads to a jaundiced view of the ritual denunciations (up to and including comparisons of Student Respect with the RCP) which seem to be popular in these discussions. You’ll know about jaundiced reactions to bad faith yourself. Its the excuse I make to myself about your more eccentric diatribes (the ones above being rather choice). It is true though when it comes to students I know enough to know that the membership of student respect reflects much more the best of those sections of the student movement who have been central to the anti-war movement and struggles in the colleges generally, then the people you seem to be throwing your lot in with at the moment. Its possible to be ultraleft towards people you wouldn’t trust as far as you can throw, and thats a mistake. Its somewhat worse to be tied to them. Worse still to be sectarian enough to denounce what are without question the best section of activists in the movement, in relationship to political goals we probably still share, just because you were’nt able to win them to your project. The denunciations of students began with the rhetoric around boycotting the Conference and ends with generalisations about students all being ultraleft, not to be taken seriously and a bit like the RCP, when they’re not simply the arm of an evil conspiracy by sections of the SWP CC. Your probably not going to create waves of acclamation in the colleges like that Ger. Just a friendly hint for your comrades there.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Well Nas, the trouble is, in the colleges, there can be no question that student respect have much more right to the name then your folk would. Just objectively. If you want some sort of a deal where both can use the name, as opposed to demonstrating that you have a whiphand over the evil sectarians etc, etc, why not pursue it. Or is it a pride thing?
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
But JOhn
This is a bit like the SLL claming that they had a better claim to the name Young Socialists than the labour party after Bessie Braddock had them all expelled.
The SLL/WRP did indeed continue with the Young Socialists brand until the late 1970s, but no-one ever really thought they were the same as the Labour party young socialists.
It is silly for Student Respect to continue to use that name, when they are not linked with the actually existing Respect organisation of Geroge galloway, Salma yaqoob, et al.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
johng: the problem is, though, that something called Student Respect will be associated in people’s minds with Respect (unsurprisingly). So, your leaders having screwed up and lost any chance of using Respect in elections, you’re now faced with having to relaunch your student organisation. Again, pure genius from Rees and German.
Comment by Nas — 20 June, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
No it isn’t Andy. Respect in the colleges is associated with the students who built it. They’re the students who occupied their colleges against the war, who endlessly organised meetings, events and the like around it, who fought racism and islamophobia, who built solidarity with the struggle in palestine, and provided the core of the wider left movement in the colleges around issues which still tacitly unite us. Thats what student respect is associated with and it goes way beyond the ‘SWP’. Just because you had to whip up a bit of hostility to students when you were trying to argue that the conference was rigged don’t imagine that the stereotype you obviously have of student respect have any bearing on reality. I don’t see why George or Salma, fine as their achievements are in other fields, have ownership over the name in the colleges. The truth is they didn’t do anything there aside from occassionally give meetings. The aim of the students was to build respect in the colleges. And they did. Just because you refused to acknowledge their contribution doesn’t mean they didn’t make one, and doesn’t mean you have a right to tell them what name they can use. If you take this kind of approach I don’t see any possibility of any resolution to this question.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
johng: in the real world, your leaders recognise the problem, which is why they have been moving away from building anything called Student Respect. You, again, are going to left paddling a canoe others have long since bailed out of. Something tells me you are going to be embarrassed, yet again.
Comment by Nas — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
We may well do that Nas, something I’d already mentiond. However it doesn’t change the reality of what I said, nor does it change the pathetic display of hostility to students which was allowed to fester round here for the purely short term purpose of painting a conference as ‘rigged’, and then continued in a rather tedious sour grapes sort of a way when they were’nt convinced by your side of the argument (’ultraleft’, ‘all swp’ etc, etc). Thats both a real example of short termism, as well as considerably more embarressing. As well as teaching students you sometimes learn something from them.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
John, there was no “hostility to students” - there was hostility to student delegations being misused.
And, as I said millions of times late last year, during times of no strife, no one minds about those kind of delegations too much. But during a time where trust has been broken, for whatever reason, if the SWP had the slightest interest in appearing fair and reassuring the non-SWP members who agreed with Galloway’s letter, it could simply have applied the same rules to the student delegates as it applied to the rest of the organisation - that is surely uncontroversial. One side said it felt the conference wasn’t fair. The other side had only to open the books, and Linda and Salma were entitled to see them, but Rees refused, cos all student memberships were held at SWP HQ - believe me, John, there were zero student membership records at Respect HQ - how could the organisation run a properly delegated conference like that?
But your view is that this was “hostility to students”. Says it all about just how much you’re willing to delude yourself.
Comment by tonyc — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
Respect in the colleges is associated with the students who built it.
I can only speak for the university where I work, but in Manchester Student RESPECT is associated with pretty much sod-all. Lots of campaigning and organising 2005-7, but last autumn they disappeared from view and SWP/SWSS material started appearing instead. Even when the NUS elections came round at Easter they only started campaigning as Student RESPECT about two weeks before the vote - which they lost.
Doubtless there are lots of explanations for this bizarre chain of events, but the simplest is surely that the local SWP has decided to give up Student RESPECT as a bad job, in favour of reviving SWSS. But, as I’m sure johng would agree, SWSS is only one component of Student RESPECT: it was the students who built RESPECT and not the local SWP cadre, and the SWP don’t have any right to tell them what name they can use. I hope we’ll see a revival of Manchester Student RESPECT, but this time run from below rather than above.
Comment by Phil — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
How many members of Respect are there among the student body in LSE, KCL or, say, SOAS, johng?
Comment by Nas — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
#60
I am not sure what you mean by sayng “no, it isn’t” John.
At the time Bessie Braddock closed down the Young Socialists (1964?) the membership was very much wider than the SLL, and it was the membership that has built and was associated with the acheivments of the Young Socialists.
However, most of them had joined the YS because of its association with the labour party, not the leadership of Healy and co So when the SLL tried to continue with the YS outside of the LP, they were, in the medium term, F*cked.
You will face similar problems trying to build Student Respect.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
I don’t know how many exactly nas but a damn site more then your organisation has. its also a significant part of the student left. if you don’t see this your the only one who is deluding yourself. and tony this is precisely what i mean. not the detail of the argument about the conference but the utterly contemptuous language that was used about students in respect to win that argument: which some of your comrades simply can’t get over. they’re just a bunch of russian dolls, they’re the tools of full timers, they don’t really have a presence its all an swp plot etc, etc. but, hell, who am i to advise you? carry on your merry way.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
#64 ” I hope we’ll see a revival of Manchester Student RESPECT, but this time run from below rather than above.”
Presumably meaning by your mates rather than the SWP?
Comment by skidmarx — 20 June, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
oh and it isn’t like that because the SWP is not the WRP, and student respect is not a front for the swp. basically.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
#64 ” I hope we’ll see a revival of Manchester Student RESPECT, but this time run from below rather than above.”
Presumably meaning by your mates rather than the SWP?
#58 “actually existing Respect”
Would that be like the “actually existing socialism” that some of us would describe as Stalinism or state capitalism?
If the SWP and whatever allies they have (none according to many of their enemies here) have lost the use of the name Respect through bureaucratic maneuvering, it’s hardly a reasonable for supporters of Respect(There Can Be Only One) to expect them to leave the name in the hands of their opponents easily. Much as with Marx and the First International, but there isn’t the option to move it to New York this time. And this time it’s not anarchists but sort of 21st century Fabians.
Comment by skidmarx — 20 June, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Student Respect is not a front for the SWP! Oh, johng, you’re such an embarrassment. It was such a front that the Respect national council wasn’t allowed to see the Student Respect membership lists. They were kept in the SWP’s head office. Get real.
Comment by Nas — 20 June, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
John, you raise the issue - the lie - of us showing “hostility to students” yet, as always, when challenged, you duck out.
And Nas is right. Nothing to do with Student Respect touched the Respect national office.
Believe me, not one record existed there. Email trails showed that SWP student organisers would simply give figures to the office and that would be it.
Still, that must be our “hostility to students”, as opposed to Rees’s hostility to the proper running of a political party.
Comment by tonyc — 20 June, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
#70 “Presumably meaning by your mates rather than the SWP?”
You have any evidence for that presumption? You are, after all, the person who accused Andy of deliberately not publishing pictures with left list placards in them, when the truth was, there were no left list placards at the demo he was writing about - so your judgement isn’t exactly top notch, and you have a habit of sneering at our side while not applying the same standards to the SWP.
Comment by tonyc — 20 June, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
tonyc your constant tirades accusing everyone of being a ‘liar’ are really getting tedious. clearly your upset that you have nothing in the colleges. i have simply suggested that the sneering abuse against students so associated with the fight around conference has had a large part to play in that (and is there a wilful selective blindess about this? perhaps in the circles you move such sneering is regarded as clever and mature and so you just don’t notice it anymore?). as it happens i know for a fact that quite a lot of people in student respect were, as we all were, traumatised by the split, and over that summer many people were not sure which direction they were going to go in. the behaviour of many of your comrades around this made peoples minds up for them. Obviously this is not something I’m terribly upset about, so why I’m trying to give you advice I really don’t know. it was quite an achievement though. to get literally nothing from the student movement. obviously your cover story is that this is because they were’nt really respect they were just swp moles. believe it if you like. but, as stated, its not the best way to win friends and influence people.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
More long winded waffle from Johng. This core of this issue is very straight forward and there is nothing eccentric or confusing about it. Ruqs alleges Assed Begg and his SWP backers preferred the right wing NUS exec candidate to the Broad Left one. Assed denies a formal alliance but claims indifference to whether the Broad Left candidate won. The political term for this behavior is ultra leftism. Not the worst of crimes for students to commit but true to form Johng is too much the deferential hack to call it what it is. I don’t feel any hostility towards the SWP students and those they influence. It is the people who should know better schooling them in this nonsense that I feel contempt for.
Comment by Ger Francis — 20 June, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
Tell you what, we’ll have a competition! It’s competition time, everyone, gather round!
In September, RR and LL can post their results of who recruited what at University and we’ll see how it goes. I’ll bet the shirt on my back (it’s from Primark, don’t get too excited) that RR will have bugger all in the colleges. They’ll probably be insisting on students filling out a direct debit to the Galloway fan club before they even let someone into their meetings. Which they won’t be having.
The problem of the name is something that we have to recognise. But, in keeping with their fetishisation of big names over grassroots activists, they think the name will matter in the colleges. But it’s not quite like the electoral sphere where the name was in people’s minds and had a positive brand recognition in many parts of London. Student politics is not based on the passive voting for a name every couple of years, but in building a group of activists and being engaged with them on a regular basis. When we set up our Student Respect group in 2004 (a year before it was launched nationally), people weren’t attracted to us because of Galloway but because we stood out as the most serious group of activists on campus and proved it in practice.
The argument that the SWP will ditch Student Respect (which is obviously going to have to be renamed) is simply based on the absolute ignorance of lots of you Renewal lot who actually believe the hysteria about how all the Student Respect members were actually just SWP sleeper-cells rather than a broad group of activists, most of whom had never bothered to fill out a form for membership of Respect proper - one reason for which possibly being that in the past, we had always considered members of Student Respect as members of Respect itself. Of course, when the Russian Doll insanity/inanity kicked in, all this went by the wayside in favour of fucking over the student groups because it suited your purposes.
Comment by Randy Newman — 20 June, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
well recruit a few students Ger.
Comment by johng — 20 June, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Thanks for your lesson that Assed is an ultra-left, Ger. You’ve really laboured the point that some of the Student Respect contingent may have voted for the wrong candidate - I stress some as I’m sure that since the official line of the group WAS TO VOTE SECOND FOR SBL most will have done that. Shame on Assed for not insisting on it a bit more forcibly, what a rot there must be in the SWP for giving such horrific political education (to someone not in the SWP) etc!
Now, can you answer the phenomenally more important criticisms that Assed has laid at the feet of your fellow party member Ruqayyah Collector? That maybe her political education seems downright Stalinist and entirely undemocratic? Of course not, because you are an imbecile.
Comment by Randy Newman — 20 June, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Presumably meaning by your mates rather than the SWP?
There’s no point debating with anyone who argues on this level, so I’ll just restate the point I was actually making. With the sole exception of a few belated election posters, I haven’t seen hide or hair of Student RESPECT around campus since last Autumn, while the walls have been liberally papered with SWSS and SWP literature. This suggests to me that the local SWSS/SWP leadership appears to have turned off the tap labelled Student RESPECT and turned on the one labelled SWSS. In that situation, anyone who wants to work as Student RESPECT but doesn’t want to work as SWSS is a bit stuck - unless they reorganise Student RESPECT from the ground up, rather than working under the direction of SWSS/SWP. I don’t know if there is anyone in that position, but I hope so - I’m sure the Uni could do with having an active Student RESPECT branch again.
Comment by Phil — 20 June, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
I see the SWP loyalists are not prepared to defend the situation where their cc members and not the Respect office or national council held the Student Respect membership details. Student Respect was used as a front by the SWP just like OffU. Whatever happened to OffU? It’s clearly been wound up, but what official story have Rees et al given?
Comment by Nas — 20 June, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
*49 “Assed himself is not in the SWP”
Eh? News to us Stokies!
Comment by a very public sociologist — 20 June, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Official SWP Response to Ruqayyah Collector
The election of a member of the Nazi BNP to the London Assembly and the revival of the Tories make the fight against racism especially urgent. From the Anti Nazi League to Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) today, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) has always been at the forefront of challenging racism and fighting for liberation. That is why we were shocked to read the outrageous slander about our involvement in the NUS Black Students campaign by the current officer.
Our approach reflects the growing resistance to racism and the potential to build this new movement. Hundreds of thousands have taken part in Love Music Hate Racism activity across the county including the massive LMHR London carnival. That has become a reference point for further education and school students across London bringing popular culture together with the struggle against racism. Our comrades have been engaging with debates across the country about how to best challenge the rise of the Nazi’s and racist right by building for the Unite against Fascism demonstration on the 21st June and taking LMHR into the BNP’s strongest areas in places like Stoke and Rotherham.
Now Tory Mayor Boris Johnson has announced that the “Rise against Racism” festival will be about “communities” rather then racism killing its political content. The SWP will be central to building resistance to this attack as we have been over every attempt to deny the issue of racism in society. We have campaigned for justice in response to the racist murders of Stephen Lawrence, Christopher Alder and Antony Walker. Our members are at the forefront of organising migrant workers from Eastern Europe in the trade unions. In the late 60’s it was an SWP member on the docks who leafleted against the march in support of Enoch Powell while other dockers were caught up in Powell’s racist hysteria.
It is this alliance between socialists and an emerging anti-racist movement we hope to bring into the NUS Black Students Campaign. We reject Ruqayyah’s contention that democratising the campaign and opening it up to activists on the ground will benefit the rightwing of the student movement. A left wing student movement can only be based on democratic, campaigning groups on every campus. Attempts to build the left by manipulation and locking down democratic structures are bound to fail.
Ruqayyah implies that we oppose Black self organisation. In fact we have always defended the right of black students to organise independently. But independent organisation does not, as she argues, defend against “opportunism”. Avoiding opportunism requires a mass democratic movement controlled from the bottom-up fighting both racism and the system that breeds it. Our real difference is that we want a radical and democratic campaign controlled from below while the Broad Left wants a campaign tightly controlled from above.
The SWP believes in a complete over throw of society and the creation of a socialist society with equality for all. Therefore we support all efforts to organise against oppression regardless of the blocks thrown up by capitalism. Only a movement comprising of the whole working class, black and white, that can over come the power of the system which propagates racism and is built on their exploitation.
Our position at NUS Black Students Conference was clear. We organised with and supported Assed Baig and other Student Respect supporters to get the most radical candidates elected and policy passed. We succeeded in affiliating the campaign to LMHR for the first time and elected several people to the committee. We advocated (alongside Student Respect) a second vote for the Student Broad Left.
The Student Broad Left is heavily involved in Galloway’s split from Respect and are trying to draw parallels. The politics and choice is similar – an erosion of principled methods and policy for electoral gain or a focus on building the broadest and most radical movement against the horrors of war, racism and exploitation
Socialist Workers’ Party
Comment by Dave Festive — 20 June, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
And Phil, Assed’s not a party member, though I think he should join.
Comment by Dave Festive — 20 June, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Student Broad Left have lied, cheated, bureaucratically outmaneuvered elected delegates, bullied general managers and student union presidents to change delegates to ones more favourable to SBL, they have used every last dirty trick from the New Labour party hack handbook to win the presidency of the Black Students. They are totally discredited now in the eyes of most left wing black students.
There were around 20 students who voted in the president election and not in the committee elections, and this reflected their strategy of ‘bussing’ up students just to retain the presidency. Most of committee elections were won by Student Respect and not SBL, including beating Ruqayyah in one election. We had more activists there and this election is a scandal, and they stole it by their control of the committees (which now, thankfully, they don’t have.)
And the other disgrace is their conduct after the conference of slandering the SWP, who DID (Ger listen up) vote for the SBL as second choice. Any talk of a ‘block’ with the OIs is plainly ridiculous considering the central role the SWP and Student Respect played in the Save NUS democracy campaign against the OIs! It’s thanks to the SBL that the 2nd pref votes are effectively kept under lock and key so they can come out with whatever outrageous slander they can think of.
Comment by john rook — 20 June, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
John rook: Your claims, and the SWP statement about supporting SBL, ring hallow. Your candidate has somewhat hoisted himself on his own petard: ‘we decided to let delegates choose for themselves between the corrupt Broad Left and Salima’. And what he wrote is consistent with what he said to Salma Yaqoob at the conference.
Randy: The issue is not whether the SWP, with nearly half a century of student work behind them, can build something in the colleges. Of course they can, although those of us with a history in the SWP can remember a much stronger student operation twenty years ago than what they have now. The issue under discussion is how Respect should build. If Respect embodies anything it is the idea of building the broadest unity of those opposed to imperialism, racism and neo-liberalism. The SWP departed from those founding principles when they put their desire to control Respect above all else. Their actions at NUS Black Students conference illustrate that rot has infected their student work.
Comment by Ger Francis — 20 June, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Just to thread hijack for a moment, as well as the article on Respect’s website supporting the anti-BNP demo, you can also download Respect’s leaflet for the demo here.
Comment by Respect — 20 June, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Bull fucking shit.
Ger we do not apologise for the Student Broad Left, they are a corrupt little sect who for years in student politics have used bureaucracy and positions as a means to furthering themselves and their cynical version of left politics.
We gave SBL our tactical 2nd preference votes, because this is how bad student politics has become, even they are better than the New Labourite OIs. But let’s face it, we are aren’t going to shy away from criticising them, especially since they have undertaken every bureaucratic maneuver possible in an attempt to smash us out of the NUS black students campaign.
They are so weak on the ground (their candidate could not get elected to the block of 12 at NUS conference) they have increasingly resorted to these kinds of tactics.
Comment by john rook — 20 June, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
John rook: nobody is asking you to apologise for SBL. It is your right to have disagreements and to express them. The issue is whether in the face of a right wing challenge, whatever your criticisms of others on the left, you unite with them against that challenge. In short, not to lose sight of who the enemy is. It is clear that your candidate lost that clarity. Read his statement. And while you say you called for 2nd preferences to SBL, at the same time you describe it as a ‘a corrupt little sect’. With friends like that, critical or otherwise, who needs enemies! I find your protestations unconvincing.
Comment by Ger Francis — 20 June, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
I’m sorry but what the hell are you on about? I want to know if you, Ger, advocated that we liquidise into Student Broad Left or at least tone down our opposition to what SBL do in the student movement in an attempt to “unite with them against the [right wing] challenge” from New Labour in the student movement.
Do you honestly believe we would get anywhere? Student Broad Left are livingstonites, careerists and bureaucrats, they have nothing to contribute to a renewal of a radical student movement, apart from contributing some very vague left wing sentiments on the NUS exec. They have no proper activists, and no weight on the ground in universities, only in bureaucracy. In fact, they represent a block against a radical renewed NUS and NUS left, look at our statement, this makes it very clear.
In fact this is exactly what SBL have done in the NUS black students movement, they have attempted to claim that anyone standing against them from the left, is therefore helping the right, because well, they think they represent the left!
I also want to know why, despite all the evidence that SBL have lied, cheated and stole the election of the NUS black students campaign, by manipulating the election of candidates at individual universities, why, why are you still defending them, or glossing over or ignoring this fact? So much for black liberation if SBL can’t trust black students to do it.
Comment by john rook — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Ger
think of the things you call swp!! so cut the moralistic crap for once. Its an open secret you are with socialist action and this explains your deep love of all things livingstone and for pushing for salma to take new labour jobs with the baroness. but then don’t sound offended if socialists call SA what it is.. a sect.
Comment by jj — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
And that should read…
I’m sorry but what the hell are you on about? I want to know if you, Ger, advocated that we liquidise into Student Broad Left or at least tone down our opposition to what SBL do in the student movement in an attempt to “unite with them against the [right wing] challenge” from New Labour pre-split in Respect?
Comment by john rook — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
#89 and #91 - Liquidising into the Broad Left sounds a brilliant, if rather Tarentinoesque, idea. Is that Johnny Rook by the way? When did you become John, Johnny? Have you got yourself a posh job?
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Sorry to go back to what this posting was all about and the issue that is making the news across London, at least - Boris Johnson’s removal of Rise Festival being an anti racist event.
Johnson insists he knew nothing about his decision on BBC London. Meanwhile UNISON have withdrawn £25,000 sponsorhip.
However, he has one supporter for his decision - Richard Barnbrook.
The real racist agenda is unfolding in London and it includes Barnbrook and BNP, of course, but it is a mainstream assault to undo every inch of multi-culturalism, anti-racist activity that has been evident in the past period. The fascists will not be discouraged by this.
Comment by Howard T — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
John rook: ‘Student Broad Left are livingstonites, careerists and bureaucrats’. Indeed. Drive them out of the student movement but not before giving them your second preference, eh? JJ is the current holder of the Dave Spart memorial prize. It is not a trophy you wanna get…
Comment by Ger Francis — 20 June, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
“JJ is the current holder of the Dave Spart memorial prize”
Oh thanks Ger, I was wondering if the prize is a seat on a governemnt think tank, quango, etc. I sure you can fix it.
Comment by jj — 21 June, 2008 @ 7:04 am
Well done jj. You have also already forged an almost unassailable lead in the competition for the “Sectarian Idiot of the Year” award. It’s turning out to be a bit of an annus mirabilis for you, especially given the very strong competition for these awards on this blog and with you still such a long way off voting age.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 21 June, 2008 @ 7:56 am
The awful thing is, just like Tim Robinson, these guys are deadly serious about this idiocy, and they really think it gets them somewhere.
The problem is, it’s the worst sort of advert for the SWP as a revolutionary party - what it shows is that a) these people can’t debate, b) they’re nasty pieces of work, c) they don’t have enough political development to be confident in their politics and d) they don’t mind wrecking whatever gets in their way.
The real thing is, these people are like Tim Robinson. The appalling thing is, they can’t see it.
Comment by tonyc — 21 June, 2008 @ 8:46 am
Two whole comments posted before this thread was turned into yet another “John Rees ate my hamster”. Good work.
Anyway, any thoughts on if there’s any mileage in pursuing this rather bizarre story that Johnson didn’t actually have a clue what Rise was or what “he” was planning to change about it? Or is it just more faux-buffoonery from Johnson?
Comment by KrisS — 21 June, 2008 @ 11:34 am
The police are nicking people on the UAF demo who they recognise from last week’s Bush demo. This is getting nasty.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 21 June, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
#73 & #79 “You have any evidence for that presumption?” I assume that you mean “assumption” and are not making an a priori assumption that I am presumptious. No, it’s just when I hear the phrase “organised from below rather than above” especially in this context, it seems likely that it means nothing more than “run by my friends”. If Respect (George Galloway) turns out to be a much more rank-and-file style organisation than the SWP could come up with I’ll be proved wrong.
“You have a habit of sneering at our side while not applying the same standards to the SWP.”
Yes, probably. But I tend to think they have a great track record and you provide a lot to sneer at.Maybe there were no Left List placards on the demo you mention. See if I care.
“There’s no point debating with anyone who argues on this level”
I thought much of the debate was already at that level. My apologies for not raising it. But I think that if you don’t want such crude attacks on your language you would be advised to use words that don’t pre-assume that your argument is true.
Comment by skidmarx — 21 June, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
@ 79 Phil is continuously gloating over the so-called demise of Student Respect based on absolutely no evidence. In fact, Student Respect have had quite an eventful year and yet Phil is dogmatic in his disparagement of anything that involves the SWP. Why bother with evidence when dogma is so much more comforting? Heaven fobid that people start believing that Phil actually wants a student union where proto-Labour bureaucrats control NUS policy by stitching up deals with one another.
Comment by Ray — 21 June, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Skidmarx: I think that if you don’t want such crude attacks on your language you would be advised to use words that don’t pre-assume that your argument is true.
Which words would those be? Feel free to quote from what I’ve actually written.
Ray: Phil is continuously gloating over the so-called demise of Student Respect based on absolutely no evidence.
That’s a lie, Ray. I posted about what I’ve seen around campus, and about the local election results. Things may be going completely differently at other universities, I don’t know.
and yet Phil is dogmatic in his disparagement of anything that involves the SWP.
Another lie. Hey ho.
Shall I repeat what I actually said? I think I will. With the sole exception of a few belated election posters, I haven’t seen hide or hair of Student RESPECT around campus since last Autumn, while the walls have been liberally papered with SWSS and SWP literature. This suggests to me that the local SWSS/SWP leadership appears to have turned off the tap labelled Student RESPECT and turned on the one labelled SWSS. In that situation, anyone who wants to work as Student RESPECT but doesn’t want to work as SWSS is a bit stuck - unless they reorganise Student RESPECT from the ground up, rather than working under the direction of SWSS/SWP. I don’t know if there is anyone in that position, but I hope so - I’m sure the Uni could do with having an active Student RESPECT branch again.
Comment by Phil — 21 June, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Ruqayyah Collector has responded to Assed’s article:
Assed Baig tries to justify unprincipled alliance
Assed Baig and the SWP have written responses to my article against the alliance they formed with the right wing NUS leadership at the recent Black Students Conference. It is important that these issues are discussed openly and that Black students are aware of what is taking place.
I believe that the interests of Black students are threatened by their decision, motivated by the hope of electoral advantage, to enter an alliance with supporters of the NUS leadership who want to overturn the entire agenda of the NUS Black Students Campaign, who support the NUS ‘Governance review’ that would drive back Black representation, and who have consistently sought to subordinate the interests of Black students.
Assed Baig has confirmed that he refused to call on his supporters to give their second preference vote to Bell, whose policies of commitment to Black representation, opposition to the NUS Governance review, anti-racism, opposition to war and occupation he claims to support, over a candidate who opposes these policies.
In his response however, Assed has sought to justify this decision in a number of ways: first by claiming that I, and presumably by association Bell, do not actually defend the interests of Black students and therefore should not be supported over the NUS right wing, then by making false allegations of impropriety within the campaign and finally by claiming that I do not support democracy and grass roots involvement. All of this is laughable and easily disproved. It is an effort to sling sufficient mud to distract from the corrupt deal struck by Assed and the SWP with supporters of the NUS leadership who wish to overturn the policies of the Black Students Campaign as a powerful force against racism and under-representation in NUS and in society and for the liberation of all Black people.
Assed’s claim that I do not defend the interests of Black students
In his response, Assed accuses me of ‘failure to take a clear line against the governance review’. This is simply an attempt to rewrite history to justify his actions. My record of vocal opposition to the NUS ‘Governance review’ is well known. To offer just one piece of evidence, at Black Students Conference, when Assed was eager to be associated with that record he took one of the proposing speeches on a motion stating ‘the NUS Black Students’ Officer acted in the best interest of Black students by opposing the Governance Review’ and resolving to ‘congratulate the NUS Black Students’ Officer and NUS Black Students’ Committee for defending Black representation and helping to defeat the Governance Review proposals.’ This motion was passed overwhelmingly by conference.
He claims that I have ‘failed to engage in any debate on Palestine at annual conference or at NEC meetings, rather she pretends her phone is ringing and walks out. So much for Palestine.’ This is a joke. I am the leading campaigner on Palestine on the NUS NEC. When I first took office I led a massive campaign against the refusal of the NUS NEC to call for an immediate end to Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, this year I proposed a motion that secured a historic breakthrough in winning NEC policy for an immediate end to the siege of Gaza, I have mobilised students against that siege and in support of Palestinian student Khaled Al-Mudallal who was trapped in Gaza, at last NUS Conference I organised a meeting where Khaled spoke and I spoke alongside him, I have recently launched a campaign to support other Palestinian students trapped in Gaza as a way to highlight the suffering caused by the siege – and all this while I was outside pretending to be on my phone! Far from hiding my support for the Palestinian people as Assed bizarrely claims, it has been at the forefront of my work in NUS.
These lies have no basis in reality and are simply an attempt to distract from the alliance that Assed and the SWP formed with supporters of the NUS ‘Governance review’ and opponents of the Palestinian cause.
Assed’s allegations of impropriety in the campaign
In his response to my article Assed makes a series of allegations of impropriety within the campaign. Some of these are bizarre, including the claim that the purple folders provided by NUS at the conference constituted a ‘conceited effort’ to support Bell’s campaign.
Others however, relate to the campaign’s finance and therefore merit a serious rebuttal. Firstly it is claimed that campaign money has been used to pay for students to attend National Black Students Alliance meetings. This is a lie. On the contrary however, Assed did claim expenses from the campaign to speak at a series of ‘Student Respect’/Left list meetings on ‘What is racism’ which he used to promote himself as a candidate for Black Students Officer.
Secondly, Assed claims that the Black Students Campaign paid for a ‘Bell campaign bus’ to bring delegates from London to the conference and that his and Salima’s supporters were prevented from travelling on the coach. This is a lie. A coach was provided primarily to help facilitate the involvement of FE delegates in accordance with campaign policy. It was then also opened up to HE delegates. All delegates from London were informed of the coach by NUS (the only people who had the contact details). Everyone who asked for a place was given one. The only leaflet distributed on the coach was from ‘Student Respect’.
These and similar claims are an attempt to smear me in the hope of deflecting attention from the political issue of Assed’s decision to enter an alliance with opponents of the Black students campaign’s progressive agenda, for his own electoral gain.
Claims that I do not support democracy and grass roots involvement
This is nonsense. At Black Students conference Assed and the SWP did a deal with supporters of the NUS Governance review, the biggest attack on democracy and grass roots involvement in the student movement for years. In contrast the recent Black students’ conference was the biggest ever. Far from ‘locking down democratic structures’ as the SWP claims, every time we meet as a campaign, our events are bigger, engaging more students than ever before. The Black students’ campaign provides a radical alternative to the direction of NUS as a whole. It was these grass roots activists who overwhelmingly supported Bell for NUS Black Students’ Officer and overwhelmingly supported the progressive agenda that she and I argued for.
The real difference is between political principle and a commitment to building the broadest possible movement that puts the interests of Black students first or the electoral opportunism shown by Assed and the SWP based on unprincipled deals, behind the backs and against the interests of Black students. I will continue to fight for the first.
Comment by charlene — 23 June, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
I did a relevant blog piece with some links you may find useful…
http://stevefarr.blogspot.com/2008/06/blog-on-blog-cultural-experiment.html
Comment by Steve Farr — 24 June, 2008 @ 8:21 pm