TOWER HAMLETS - ITS TRUE!
From the East London Advertiser. EXCLUSIVE by Ted Jeory
MP GEORGE Galloway’s Respect project suffered another bitter blow tonight (Wednesday) after it emerged four of his former Tower Hamlets councillors in East London were on the brink of defecting to Labour.
Shahed Ali, the deputy leader of the Town Hall’s Respect group, signed his Labour application form today, along with the three remaining Respect Independent rebels Oli Rahman, Lutfa Begum and her daughter Rania Khan.
The East London Advertiser, which predicted the move last month, has been told that Labour’s London regional bosses have given their blessing and a formal announcement is expected tomorrow.
It will swell Labour’s numbers on the 51-seat local authority to 33 councillors.
Galloway’s party would be reduced to just six members, half the dozen ‘Bengal Tigers’ elected two years ago, while the Tories would remain the official opposition on eight and the Lib Dems on four.
All four defectors felt they had no choice. Cllr Ali, Respect’s strongest performer on council committees, could no longer stomach his colleagues’ politics, while the other three have felt isolated ever since splitting from the main party last year.
The decision has been an agonising one for Cllr Rahman in particular. He was Respect’s first ever councillor in 2004 and his politics are deeply rooted on the Left Wing and in the Trade Union movement.
Could you change the headline Andy?
Hardly a cause for celebration for anyone on the Left, whether they be LL, Respect-Renewal or any outside both.
Comment by anticapitalista — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
So its all over for the SWP-Left List with the Chair of SWP-Left List Oli Rahman joining New Labour - how sad. Its even sadder to hear that Shahed Ali is also joining New Labour - how did this happen?
If the four Councillors had any honour they would resign and stand for New Labour in a bi-election for the party of war, profit and privatisation that they now represent and support.
Once aagin the local paper has used the event to have dig at Respect (”New blow for Galloway as four more Respect members defect”) knowing full well that three of the Councillors left Respect to join the SWP-Left List months ago.
At least this has cleared the air - ‘Left List’ is dead and buried and their ex leader is now a supporter of war in Iraq and Aghanistan, closoure of local post offices, supporting academy schools, privatisation of the NHS and public services and a supporter of holding down pubic sector wages while inflation runs riot! A soorry end for the Chair and leader of the SWP’s version of Respect the Left List - well and truely dead and buried tonight.
Comment by Neil Williams — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Anticapitalista - I think the headline relates to those ostriches who were denying that this would happen. Can’t think who they could be though - have you any ideas?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
How does the headline celebrate anything?
Comment by Andy Newman — 24 June, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
#3 reads like a SUN headline to me. Did you think Shahed Ali, the deputy leader of the Town Hall’s Respect group, was going to defect? Or are you an ostrich too?
I agree with some of #2 that the media will use this as a dig to RR and also anyone else to the Left of New Labour.
However, post #2 is wrong to state that
“ex leader is now a supporter of war in Iraq and Aghanistan, closoure of local post offices, supporting academy schools, privatisation of the NHS and public services and a supporter of holding down pubic sector wages while inflation runs riot!” (applies to the RR turncoat as well)
These turncoats are not simply supporters of NL, but see no alternative to NL, a bit like Ken Livingstone really.
Comment by anticapitalista — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:02 am
Who really cares
THE rESPECT PARTY IS SO MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT
Comment by Carole — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:04 am
This article is a joke. The only agony for any of them was whether New Labour would accept them and the only consideration was their chances of re-election. And what is this nonsense about them feeling they had no choice? They might have had a choice if any of them had any principles, but they didn’t. If I was a Labour member in Tower Hamlets I would be well hacked off by the arrival of these carpetbaggers. I don’t think it will be long before Labour will be regretting the decision by regional officers, leant on by Jim Fitzpatrick, to let the turncoats in.
Comment by sergo — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:19 am
Tthe whole Respect project has been anti socialist from the
start. Maybe even worse than the SSP. At least the SSP had some class
struggle dynamic at the beginning before it became simply a left nationalist joke . Galloway is a total chancer and always has been. He is not a socialist but an anti socialist with a long record of support for capitalism and the labour bureacracy.
Here is a tip. Why not try to build a real democratic socialist party instead of
a labour party mark 2. And Stop trying to build a united party of the
left. The “left” is divided for good reason. Most of the left parties
and groups are viciously anti working class and anti socialist. They are creatures and satellites of the labour bureaucracy. And as we know the labour bureaucracy is the major social prop of capitalism. Why
unite in the same party with the enemy. What is needed is a socialist party which fights for the political independence of the working class and tells the truth to the working class. Anything less wont work
sandy
Comment by Anonymous — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:46 am
Galloway is a rags to riches story like the American dream. He doesn’t have to give a penny of his money to anybody, just as Donald Trump doesn’t. They both love what capitalism has done for them.
Comment by FG — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:58 am
Neil wrote: “At least this has cleared the air - ‘Left List’ is dead and buried and their ex leader is now a supporter of war in Iraq and Aghanistan…”
Friend, you’re a fool if you think that you can use this to take a poke at Respect/LL. RR lost their deputy leader. Both sides are suffering from the broader social and political dynamics that created the split and which continues to create a centrifugal tendency towards disintegration. And if you take a poke today you may eat your words tomorrow if somebody else from your own side follows your deputy leader - the pressure will now be raised.
Comment by redbedhead — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:09 am
DO THESE LOT KNOW ABOUT POLITICS
How dare they use the Respect platform to climb on a bandwagon of warmongers profiteers and highwaymen
It really disgusts me to think that people voted for these poxy turncoat’s
People voted Respect for all the things that New Labour was all about How can they now join forces with all they said was so wrong.
Luther owns her council house an shouted out loudly against the Housing choice Ollie just disgusts me now I for one thought that he would never stoop as low as associating himself with Tower Hamlets Nu-Labour Party and the policies he fought against
will he still be so passionate against all the PFI’s hes new mates are so enthusiastic for will he be out canvassing for all the things he has always fought against.
We need to ask the question is what is there Reward? what are there thirty pieces of silver
whats in it for them we have to ask because a leopard cannot change there spots of ma-by they were just hermit crabs looking for a new home.
Comment by Carole — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:11 am
I think parties and organisations of the Left must now rethink their whole approach to recruiting those people from minority communities who are obviously much more interested in self-advancement and communal positioning than in socialist principles.
It’s not hard to tell the difference between authentic socialists who happen to be Bengali or Kashmiri (or white, for that matter) and dubious characters with no ideological integrity who make vaguely the right noises for as long as it suits their purposes.
Let’s face it: we’ve been taken for a ride because we were so desperate to forge links with oppressed communities that we willfully suspended our critical faculties about the obvious shortcomings of certain individuals. Some of them have now joined the War Party, AKA New Labour. One even defected to the Tories!
If a white councillor who was a member of the SWP or Respect Renewal suddenly joined the Conservative Party it would create massive ructions and lead to probing analyses as to motive, but when a Bangladeshi does it we just shrug our shoulders and look away in uneasy embarrassment.
Can we have an honest discussion about this, or is it just too difficult?
Comment by Ally — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Ally: nothing to do with brown-skinned people. Rees proclaimed that there would be a crisis if he wasn’t elected to Tower Hamlets council and then did his best to manufacture one. Interestingly, all the people he identifed as on the left have ended up in New Labour. The one he identified, and the SWP demonised, as the right wing, petite bourgeois communalist - Abjol Miah - is still with a party that supports the council workers going on strike, wants immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and is the only party to have an MP making waves about the policing of the Stop the War demonstration the other week.
Rees’s work is done. Isn’t it time he passed over to the other side. Speaking of which: the shop stewards thing is happening this weekend. Any news about Offu?
Comment by Nas — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:28 am
oh - I understand more news is on the way over the Offu donation fairly soon. I see the SWP is attending the shop stewards conference this weekend. I hope Rees isn’t putting himself forward as the treasurer. Or Elaine Graham-Leigh. And, on a different note, what has happened to Michael Gavan?
Comment by Nas — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:48 am
In retrospect, the causes of the split have become clearer. After Respect was formed the party saw two years of rapid growth followed by two years of slower growth and setbacks. The SWP became unhappy with the progress Respect was making, and the progress they were making within Respect, and began to question the benefit of staying in Respect. The gang of four, led by Oli Rahman, were unhappy with their own position within the Tower Hamlets Respect group and felt subordinate and resentful towards Abjol Miah. Both the SWP and the gang of four decided that the Galloway/Miah/Yaqoob wing of the party were the problem, and opportunistically joined forces, thinking they could do better on their own.
They had the chance to prove themselves on May 1st and they failed. Oli was ringing up leading members of Renewal on the evening of May 2nd, saying he was leaving the Left List and wanted to talk about the possibility of joining Respect Renewal. After two months consideration, he’s decided that New Labour promises the best chance for re-election, and the other three have trudged off with him. Sadly the damage the split did to the Respect (Renewal) vote means that their deputy council group leader has now decided to do the same to preserve his chances of re-election. And more may follow.
What is clear after all of this is that the split was not a principled left/right split, with the Left List as the defenders of pure socialism and Renewal as right wing communalists. Rather it was a split between opportunists with an eye on their prospects for re-election, and those who remain committed to the ideals that Respect was founded on.
Not that I’m trying to hide the fact that the whole thing is a crock of shit and very damaging for everyone involved, of course.
Comment by Jon — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:03 am
This is sad news. Not just for the LL or Renewal but for the left as a whole. It has nothing to do with recruiting from ethnic minorities and everything to do with the disintegration of Respect.
Despite the best intentions of all those who built Respect the decline in our vote before the split led to demoralisation and an unfortunate search for who to blame. It led to Respect breaking up into factions with alternative solutions to the problem and this precipitated the split.
If there is going to be a successful alternative to Labour in the future then it needs to embrace the labour movement much more effectively and not rely predominately on an electoral campaign rooted in a few specific areas.
I don’t think we should write off any of the comrades who defected to Labour. The only way we will convince them of their error (if it’s not too late) is to demonstrate in practive that the left can build a viable alternative to Labour.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:08 am
#16 I’d actually agree with that. The idea that the SWP were to blame for all the problems that the old Respect was facing doesn’t hold any water either.
Back to the drawing board, then. Convention of the left, anyone?
Comment by Jon — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:23 am
“I don’t think we should write off any of the comrades who defected to Labour.”
Fool me one, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Comment by Ally — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:26 am
“I think parties and organisations of the Left must now rethink their whole approach to recruiting those people from minority communities who are obviously much more interested in self-advancement and communal positioning than in socialist principles.”
Totally agree with Ally.
“I don’t think we should write off any of the comrades who defected to Labour. The only way we will convince them of their error (if it’s not too late) is to demonstrate in practive that the left can build a viable alternative to Labour.”
I totally disagree with Ray. I think we should _totally_ write off a comrade who defects to Labour or the Tories and we should really question quite how we can have a principled army of councillor politicians not self-motivated oppurtunists or communalists. A long term trade unionist or a Trotskyist SWP member would not ever defect to the Tories. Someone might say “OI but what about Ahmed Hussain” But I think everyone knew that Ahmed Hussain joined the SWP to get in good books with members of Respect, I am suspicious that he never understood left-wing politics.
Before his defection he once went to a local demonstration against Hospital privatization and muttered something about ‘how we don’t want to be like chips’ his bizarre and incredibly soulless speech sounded entirely wrong, his defection was not surprising.
T
Comment by Anonymous — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:36 am
“I think parties and organisations of the Left must now rethink their whole approach to recruiting those people from minority communities who are obviously much more interested in self-advancement and communal positioning than in socialist principles.”
Totally agree with Ally.
“I don’t think we should write off any of the comrades who defected to Labour. The only way we will convince them of their error (if it’s not too late) is to demonstrate in practive that the left can build a viable alternative to Labour.”
I totally disagree with Ray.
I think we should _totally_ write off a comrade who defects to Labour or the Tories and we should really discuss openly how we can have a principled army of councilor politicians and not self-motivated oppurtunists or communalists.
A long term trade unionist or a Trotskyist SWP member would not ever defect to the Tories. Someone might say “OI but what about Ahmed Hussain” But I think everyone knew that Ahmed Hussain joined the SWP to get in good books with the SWP members of Respect, I am suspicious that he never understood left-wing politics. Before his defection he once went to a local demonstration against Hospital privatization and muttered something about ‘how we don’t want to be like chips’ his bizarre and incredibly soulless speech sounded somehow ‘wrong’. His defection was not surprising.
The problem is as Ally says, we need to completely reassess who runs for elections. We need people who are committed to doing the following, IN ORDER: 1) building a left alternative to Labour and belief and passion for left-wing politics politics 2) becoming a politician to do achieve goals for the party. At the moment our councillors priorities are reversed.
Those in RR who think this is a defeat only for the LL and that any problems RR suffer are purely the SWP and LL’s fault are beating a dead horse that does nothing but further divide the movement, mainly because only a few hundred members of RR take them seriously.
The fact is a remarriage of Respect coupled with various other alliances such as SP, CP and CFANWP is desperately needed just so we can have the man/woman power to actually start wooing the unions. Once we have the unions we have the potential for a Left-wing party and we have a center point for all mass movement that challenge the right-wing status quo.
Comment by Futurecast — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:47 am
When I said I agreed with Ray, I was referring to his description of the split. Councillors who defect from a left party to New Labour when the going gets tough should not be welcomed back. We need to get people elected who are serious about building a new left party and not just looking for an easy way to step up their own careers.
Comment by Jon — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:59 am
I could be wrong because I don’t know the motivation behind the defections but it appears to me that part of the reason for the defections is because these councilors believe there is a strong possibility that neither Renewal nor the LL would have been able to get them re-elected at the next election. Unfortunately, due to the slump in both our votes, they could be right.
There is also the problem that factional fighting has resulted in Renewal appearing unappealing to LL councilors and vise versa. So in order to retain their positions and carry on local work these councilors believe the Labour Party in that area is the only viable option.
It’s important to remember that however far New Labour has gone down the neo-liberal pathway it still retains some members who are on the left and who we can work with. I hope these councilors retain that willingness to work with both Renewal and the LL.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:08 am
Ray - you do spout some crap. “The slump in both our votes”? Do us a favour and tell the truth for once!
Respect actually topped the poll in two wards in Tower Hamlets and Newham in the GLA elections and came very close in several others, each ward electing three councillors in 2010. With two years to go before the elections, there is every chance of Respect winning a number of seats in both councils. Technically there was no slump in the “Left List” vote because it has never stood before. What happened was that Left List initiative miserably failed to split the Respect vote significantly, but scored a derisory vote in most parts of London.
If you had an ounce of political humility, you might question how it is that Socialist Worker came to publish this article and what the consequences were. Sadly your delusions prevent you from any reflection on the SWP’s disastrous course.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13432
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:34 am
both sides are suffering from the broader social and political dynamics that created the split and which continues to create a centrifugal tendency towards disintegration…
redbedhead, that is just wool and you know it.
On a related thread I saw Rees called an ‘important figure’, here he’s become a ‘broader social force’. I’d definitely agree in calling the man a ‘centrifugal tendency’ that’s a given.
The Kautsky-ite fsck-wit bears complete responsibility for this fiasco and until SWP members and supporters stop covering for him and his ilk no one is going break out of the mess.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:35 am
I see there are 30 SWP public meetings listed in this week’s Socialist Worker, including meetings on the theme “Is British Politics moving to the Right?” and very appropriately “Is Labour finished?”.
The solitary Left List event is a pub quiz.
(Anyone got suggestions for alternative questions to ask in the quiz?)
Remarkably there is not another single reference to either Respect or Left List in the paper and no reference to Left List’s result in the Forest ward by-election in Waltham Forest has appeared in either Socialist Worker or on the ‘Left List’ website.
Looks like behind the scenes they did know this was going to happen and have already thrown in the towel.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:50 am
In case anyone should have any doubt about who is responsible for this, the minutes on the ‘Left List’ website are clear.
“Minutes of National Officers’ Meeting - 9 June 2008
11/06/2008
1. In Attendance: Richard Brackenbury, Elaine Graham-Leigh, Michael Gavan, Lindsey German, Jackie Turner, John Rees.
Apologies: Chris Bambery, Salvinder Dhillon.
2. Councillors
John Rees gave a report on recent developments and responses, and discussion is ongoing.”
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:53 am
This really couldn’t have happened to two nicer political parties.
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 7:31 am
As a Labour Party councillor in a Hackney ward adjoining Tower Hamlets I welcome the 4 councillors applying to join the Labour Party. I trust that once accepted into the party they will continue to campaign against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, fight against PO closures, camapign against NHS privatisation etc.
I hope that like me that they will join the Labour Representation Committee.
Comment by Barryb — 25 June, 2008 @ 7:32 am
The three left list councillors had indicated before may 1st they were going to seek membership of the war parties. And the SWP sat on it and did nothing other than Rees telling his fellow Left List fuckwits that “discussion is ongoing”
I am more than surprised how MIchael Gavan can allow himself to be manipulated in this way, especially on the poor showing of the left list in the elections. Has he asked himself why the rest of the left and progressive movement don’t see them as an alternative.
Why the accepted abandonment of left principles by four councillors and supported by the scurrilous John Rees and the weak SWP cc under the smokescreen of ” discussion is ongoing”
Is John Rees and the scabby SWP cc above judgement and reproach. When the reckoning does comes it will be a healthier time for the left and progressive movement
Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 25 June, 2008 @ 7:45 am
You want the day to come sooner when you settle the score?
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 7:49 am
I doubt whether Lindsay German or John Rees could look more shocked than both did at the count on 2 May. Michael Gavan stayed for at least twice as long as either of them.
I still don’t think anyone has named a Ward where the “Left List” outpolled Spoilt papers.
Comment by Alan Ji — 25 June, 2008 @ 7:53 am
Why don’t you guys try violent revolution instead of electoral politics?
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 8:03 am
Anticapitalista and Ray, the SWP’s two representatives on this blog so far, are a sad spectacle.
Anticapitalista does not want us to “celebrate”, ie comment on, what’s happened because it’s bad for the whole of the left. This comes from someone who continued to deny that the three Left List councillors were in negotiations with New Labour even after it appeared in SWP party notes.
It isn’t their departure now which is damaging the whole of the left. Most people regard these numpties as a joke. It was the split last October and November, in which Rees was the cheerleader and orchestrator of the press conference in which the then four councillors (SWP member Ahmed Hussain had yet to join the Tories) tried to maximise damage on Respect. Anticapitalista has supported this disastrous split all along and his opinions are worthless because of that.
As for Ray, he’s absolutely right. He does know nothing. The motivation behind the four councillors splitting was two-fold. First, at least three of the four Left List councillors, and Shahed Ali who stayed in Respect only because he hated the SWP, were strongly hostile to Abjol Miah criticisng the appointment of a new white male chief executive of Tower Hamlets council when there were better qualified candidates from the BME community, one of whom was a woman. They were embarrassed this broke council protocols and would play badly with white voters. This was the biggest political split during the period when the councillors were still together.
Secondly, Oli Rahman wanted to be the parliamentary candidate in Poplar and Limehouse and both Rania Khan and Kumar Murshid wanted to be the parliamentary candidate in Bethnal Green and Bow, despite the fact none of the three had even the remotest chance of winning the seats. Lutfa Begum, Rania’s mother, signed up large numbers of friends and acquaintances to try to secure the selection of her daughter, who had the backing of the SWP. When the three of them were clearly not going to be selected, they and Ahmed Hussain decided to resign the Respect whip. By the way, Kumar Murshid, who encouraged the split to pursue his own pathetic ambitions, is reported to have left the Left List and to be setting up his own party, presumanbly with just the two members, him and his wife.
So the split never had anything to do with right/left divisions amongst the councillors other than the fact that, if anything, the splitters, or most of them, were on the right. Rees knew this but cynically turned a blind eye to what was really driving matters as part of his revenge on George Galloway for challenging his authority and the fact he had not been elected himself to the council 18 months previously.
Rees and the SWP have played a major role in screwing up the historic breakthrough Respect represented in its 2005 and 2006 election results in Tower Hamlets. Ironically there has been a de facto alliance on this between the SWP and New Labour, with Rees joined in his attempts to destroy Respect (George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob) by Jim Fitzpatrick, New Labour minister and MP for Poplar.
Fitzpatrick is petrified he might miss out on his big pension if he is turfed out, like Oona King was, at the next general election. He can read the opinion polls like everyone else. He knows New Labour are on the floor and unlikely to get up. And he has a growing Tory presence in his constituency as a result of Canary Wharf and the government’s housing policy which has seen yuppy developments springing up at the expense of housing the working class people of Tower Hamlets.It has therefore been his top priority to screw Respect, at least ever since George Galloway was selected to contest Fitzpatrick’s seat at the next general election.
Fitzpatrick has spent hours he does not normally spend on his constituents flattering and wooing Rahman, Begum and Khan. It has even been floated with Rania Khan that she could be in line for a cabinet position in a New Labour council. Anyone who knows Rania Khan’s talents will know this is not a serious proposition for the foreseeable future. Whilst most ordinary Labour members despise these turncoats like the rest of us, Fitzpatrick was determined to recruit Rania Khan and Lutfa Begum to his camp as they represent wards in his constituency. That is why so much pressure was put on regional officers despite the fact ordinary Labour members don’t want the carpetbaggers.
No-one can pretend these defections are good for the left, especially with the local press spinning it for New Labour. The question is whether Respect still has some fight in it to give New Labour a run in two years time. The fact is much of the bad news was already out there in the May elections (the three councillors stood against Respect after all as the Left List) when Respect’s vote stood up remarkably strongly. Moreover, the news for New Labour is just going to get worse and worse with the economy hitting the skids. It therefore remains much too early to write Respect off, IMHO.
As for Ray and anticapitalista and the other SWP apologists, a period of silence and reflection would now be desirable, especially if you don’t know what you are talking about and are unable to give an honest account of the SWP’s appalling role in this debacle.
Comment by sergo — 25 June, 2008 @ 8:03 am
#28 Barryb. I’m sorry to say you are just engaging in wishful thinking. Do you really believe New Labour regional officers would be welcoming in people they thought were going to be a left-wing pain in the butt? This would be entirely contrary to the ambitions of the four in joining New Labour.
Comment by sergo — 25 June, 2008 @ 8:07 am
The old model of building Respect depended heavily on rallies, high profile events and brokerage between factions. At no point under the old leadership was there a meaningful attempt to develop an internal political life or to integrate newly recruited members into a political framework. Quanity rather than quality was at a premium in growing the organisation and all the serious political thinking was very deliberately restricted to a tiny group of people who presented their ideas about “the next big thing”.
That is a lesson that those of us who remain committed to building a class struggle left of Labour alternative have to absorb.
Comment by Liam — 25 June, 2008 @ 8:28 am
The last year or so must go down as one of the worst in the SWP’s history. They have had the embarrassment of the dodgy Dubai cheque with their now aborted trade union initiative OFFU. They engineered a disastrous split in Respect followed by a humiliating electoral debacle. They had a very low turnout at the Bush demo organised by their showpiece front Stop the War, although even that looked good, given the amounts of effort that went into building them, compared to the miserable turnout on the LMHR demo the following week which was intended to raise spirits and distract attention from the election fiasco. Now their trophy councillors have abandoned them, so that’s one SWP councillor to the Tories and one to New Labour. Is there a common thread here? I would have said John Rees and Lindsey German, but LMHR was Martin Smith and Weyman Bennett. Truly testing times for revolutionary socialism’s finest.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 25 June, 2008 @ 8:46 am
The roots of this go back to the SWP’s complete misreading of the significance of the anti-war movement that emerged in 2002/03. At the time the movement was characterised as anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-New Labour. These strands existed, but they did not amount to a movement of people ready, willing or able to engage in the difficult and ideologically demanding work of breaking the hold of Labourism over the British working class.
The SWP thought otherwise. And in an attempt to make reality conform to their flight of political fantasy they engaged in a series of profoundly unprincipled political alliances and adventures.
And now their project lies in ruins. I never thought it would work and did not take part in it. However, what has happened is bad because it reinforces the idea, that has already deep roots in the working class, that there can never be a credible alternative to Labour. It will further demoralise, demobilise and depoliticise the working class. For that reason the SWP, and all those who stood with them and should have known better, should hang their heads in shame.
Comment by MikeX — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Didn’t someone suggest an SWP tour T-shirt, once?
Socialist Alliance 2003
SSP
Solidarity
Respect 2007
Left List 2008
Comment by Madam Miaow — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:26 am
No JJ, JohnG or Dave Festive this morning?
Comment by martin ohr — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:38 am
#36 Presumably it is also the fault of the SWP that the deputy-leader of Respect Renewal in Tower Hamlets “Cllr Ali, Respect’s strongest performer on council committees, could no longer stomach his colleagues’ politics” and let’s not forget that according to Liam’s blog, the current Chair of Tower Hamlets Respect Renewal is a ballot rigger and vote buyer (in his report of an AGM over a year ago). Let’s be clear, a senior figure in Respect Renewal who was Abjol Miah’s deputy has now departed. A little humility from the supporters of RR is in order especially given the rumours that were flying around a few months ago about Newham RR councillors on the verge of defecting. These aren’t the first defections from Respect in East London & I suspect that the next batch defections will be from RR.
Another Respect councillor in the past who was promoted by George Galloway defected to New Labour. Didn’t a vice-chair of Respect who was similarly promoted by your wing defect to the LibDems?
I am certainly very astonished and disgusted that Oli Rahman and Rania Khan have defected to Labour, as they seemed to the best of a bad bunch of the 12 Tower Hamlets Councillors. Certainly, I wonder what was going on in their heads as the Labour Party doesn’t seem a natural move for socialists.
What is clear is that a methodology has been indicted in Tower Hamlets, I believe that we in Respect/Left List are starting to break with that methodology, it’s a painful process, but there will be no more shortcuts or concessions to those who dilute class politics.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:39 am
#40 Prize for most pathetic blog of the week. You really are a fool. And would that methodological break be the one which brought such great results in Wales?
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:49 am
#41 If votes are the only criterion then Tower Hamlets must rank as a socialist success story, such great results, maybe we can get Kevin down to explain to us the secret of making the big time . . .
According to Ger mature politics means that a guy who stood for the Tories one year can stand for Respect the next because that’s inner city muslim politics.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Sell your soul to communalism and identity politics and this is the result. I hope that Lindsey “Shibboleth” German is happy.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:03 am
A methodolgical break that includes Rees saying a couple of weeks ago ‘we are doing our best to help them withstand the pressure’ so after trying to keep them- they break from you- and you declare;
What is clear is that a methodology has been indicted in Tower Hamlets, I believe that we in Respect/Left List are starting to break with that methodology, it’s a painful process, but there will be no more shortcuts or concessions to those who dilute class politics.
How about those who corrupt the record of class politics with stunts, manouvres, and downright lies?
Adamski come on you expect people to take you seriously?
Although i would add that the defection of the deputy leader of RR does indicate problems, and those who are attacking SW should also note this, electoralism has this drag on everyone involved, but there is hiding from the idea that last august was a left right split is nonsense adamski?
Comment by non partisan — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:09 am
“These aren’t the first defections from Respect in East London & I suspect that the next batch defections will be from RR.”
Well Adamski, they certainly won’t be from the Left List, you have no-one left….
Comment by TH Respect Survivor — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Careerism and opportunism seem to be the mark of these defectors.
There can be no future for any socialist (ie: left of labour project) if we on the ‘left’ can’t get beyond this.
As an outsider to TH can anyone enlighten me as to why the deputy leader of the Respect councillors went the same way: Was it simply careerism ? Or something more complex?
If as the article says, ‘Coun Ali could no longer stomuch his colleagues politics’; what on earth was he doing there as deputy leader, bidding his time until NL offered an opprtunity ?
Will there be a press release from TH Respect ?
And what for the future ?
More of the same ?
Or does Respect carry on fighting the good fight and building a sounder and bigger base locally ?
Comment by Halshall — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Perhaps to reflect the full enormity of the damage done to the SWP/Left List the headline should have been “Local councillors defect to Labour - End of World approaching”. I notice the East London Advertiser has trouble telling the difference between the two Respect organisations. Maybe there were some voters who did the same after all.
Comment by skidmarx — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:34 am
At least there has been a clarification and at least the councillors didn’t join the tories….The clarification is that the SWP in the words of Salma Yaqoob “Took at Step Backwards” when they engineered the crisis in Respect… The Sectarian Gamble did not pay off… RESPECT can be rebuilt… but it will be a very long time before the SWP can be trusted to participate in this project without a complete and honest confession of their sins.
Comment by mark anthony france — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:47 am
I notice the East London Advertiser has trouble telling the difference between the two Respect organisations.
That’s hardly surprising, given that Oli & friends went on calling themselves ‘RESPECT the Unity Coalition’ or else ‘RESPECT - Independent’. Of course, they wouldn’t have been able to call themselves ‘RESPECT’ the next time they’d stood for election - no wonder they were worried about their political futures.
Comment by Phil — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:58 am
“I notice the East London Advertiser has trouble telling the difference between the two Respect organisations.”
Deliberately, in order that the terminal damage to the SWP’s project should rub-off as much as possible on Respect itself. Or so they hope. What you would expect from the bourgeois press? It certainly gives the lie to the allegation that Jeory was in some way pro-Respect, which SWP hacks bizarrely accused him of earlier when he revealed the initial talks that Oli Rahman, Rania Khan, Lutfa Begum (and at that time Ahmed Hussein) were having with other parties.
“As an outsider to TH can anyone enlighten me as to why the deputy leader of the Respect councillors went the same way: Was it simply careerism ? Or something more complex?”
I doubt it was *simply* careerism in these cases. Destructive sectarian conduct such as that from the SWP has its own logic, in demoralising people who, if the project had been properly and coherently led from the beginning, would likely have been valuable representatives of Respect. This is the ultimate indictment of Rees’s attempt to smash up Respect in East London: while he has demoralised one or two elements who opposed him, the people his wrecking has most demoralised and damaged are those who were his tools in splitting Respect. Demoralising these people and driving them to New Labour, which Respect was formed to fight, is Rees’ main achievement in Tower Hamlets since last August. It’s a devastating turn of events, and leaves him completely naked.
Comment by ID — 25 June, 2008 @ 11:12 am
#50 And what leadership did the East London Respect MP show? According to Liam of Tower Hamlets RR after his election he wasn’t seen for months and months in his constituency. Liam movingly described how in his tenants group on a white working class estate people thought Galloway was a hero during the election when he spoke at community meetings where they hadn’t seen a politician for years, but then within 12 months his name would be jeered by the same people who had loved him. This surely should be mentioned when we produce the balance sheet of accounts.
How could we demand that our councillors were accountable to the members, when the MP and most high profile figure in Respect was accountable to none?
What has happened in Tower Hamlets is a tragedy and all the working class people who were inspired by Respect have been betrayed totally, in fact, the cause of socialism - the greatest cause in the world - has been besmirched by these events.
But I do not think that the SWP leadership can be solely blamed for this debacle, they themselves seemed to have been aware of the monster that had been created and have been trying to break with the approach of short-cuts and backroom deals with Galloway.
Who believes that it is acceptable for a guy to stand for the tories in one election and then Respect in the next? John Rees or Salma Yaqoob/Ger Francis?
That’s the brutal truth.
Don’t mourn - Organise!
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 11:46 am
If you were to look at the Tower Hamlets council agenda for this evening, you would see that six out of twelve motions are being tabled by Respect with Shahed Ali proposing one and seconding another. There may well be differences of political opinion on wider matters between Shahed Ali and some of the other councillors but there does not appear to be much difference on the central issues they deal with and which unite them on the council. I for one do not believe the claim that he just can’t stomach his colleagues’ politics any longer. He has simply made a calculation about how he thinks he can maximise his chances of re-election. However, I think ID is right about the background to how we got here.
Comment by sergo — 25 June, 2008 @ 11:48 am
#51 Don’t be ridiculous. Rees has not broken from a method he pioneered in Respect when he stood in Birmingham and did whatever dirty deals he could to secure the support of the PJP (now I believe liquidated into the Lib Dems). It just didn’t work for him in Tower Hamlets so he decided to smash everything up. He has only partially succeeded in that aim but mainly succeeded in discrediting and demoralising the SWP.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 25 June, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Just bravado, bullshit and pathetic hackery, I’m afraid. Adamski is playing the rather odd role of trying to provide the SWP with left cover where the SWP’s mainstream apologists have understandably been made silent by embarassment.
“the cause of socialism - the greatest cause in the world -has been besmirched by these events.”
This is just chutzpah. Like the old story of the man who murdered both his parents pleading for sympathy on grounds of being orphaned. Some of us are still fighting for what Respect stood for. But 100% of your ‘left wing split’ from Respect have gone over to the other side. All the left-wing posturing in Adamski’s postings are pathetic cant.
Comment by ID — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Where did it all go wrong in Tower Hamlets? We had 12 councillors and an MP. This is what Liam of Tower Hamlets Respect Renewal was saying in the months running up to the split:
June 2007:
“This cynical self-serving self-publicist is rapidly sailing to the outer shores of contempt. He’s abandoned his constituency to do a talk show four nights a week. As I keep insisting he’s been invisible in Bethnal Green since the start of the year.”
May 2007:
“That joker isn’t funny anymore”
When he was looking to get elected George Galloway put in a lot of hours speaking at meetings in the constituency. He did a couple on this estate and he was terrific. If things work out he won’t be doing any of those for a while. He has got himself a TV show on Rupert Murdoch’s SKY 187 from Monday to Thursday. Respect is encouraging its members to support the venture.
There is a meeting on my estate this evening to start organising a campaign to stop it being transferred to an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO). Once upon a time inviting the MP to get involved would have been an obvious next step. I don’t think I’ll suggest that tonight.”
March 2007:
“Sitting MP George Galloway has been invisible in the constituency since Christmas. Neither his own nor the Respect website give much clue to his whereabouts.”
July 2006 (Liam accuses the current Chair of Tower Hamlets RR of corruption):
“Since everyone else with an interest in these things is discussing last Tuesday’s AGM of Tower Hamlets Respect I’ll add my opinion.
The outgoing officers submitted a slate of candidates for the new committee. As is their right some members submitted an alternative slate. This slate aimed to replace some SWP members, chair Glyn Robbins and me. This would have been unproblematical had it not been for the fact that the candidate for chair [Current Chair of Tower Hamlets RR - Ed] had submitted application forms and paid the membership subs of forty-five new members.
The officers judged that some of the new membership applications could not be accepted due to insufficient information. This caused an uproar which lead to the members of the alternative slate and their supporters refusing to enter the meeting.
My resolution proposing that the meeting endorse an attempt to find a compromise and move to vote on the slate was accepted. A helpful amendment instructing the officers to resolve the matter was also passed.
The real issue was the political conception of what Respect should be. In my view the alternative slate [That was to become Tower Hamlets RR - Ed] represented an attempt to limit the organisation to a pressure group in Tower Hamlets. The slate of which I was a part has some idea of the organisation developing into a national mass party. The differences between my views and those of the SWP are rather murky to the challengers.
At the meeting George Galloway saw his function as being to articulate the feelings (opinions is too strong a word) of the challengers who refused to discuss the issues. This brought him into comradely but clear disagreement with the SWP members who argued principled positions about the probity of packing meetings and buying votes.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
It is really depressing that lots of people here are still more interested in score-settling than in facing the key fact: many Bangladeshi members of Respect in east London (both RR and RLL) are NOT SOCIALISTS. Until we ask ourselves why the Left abandoned both principle and long-term strategic sense by recruiting and promoting these characters, we won’t make any progress.
I should declare an interest. My partner is a socialist of Indian origin. He rages against the kind of parochial, unprincipled, self-seeking muppets who dominate Bangladeshi politics in the East End and who flocked to Respect. When Galloway won BG&B I was delighted but he warned me it would all end in tears - and he was right, with knobs on.
Comment by Ally — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
#56 you’re right, of course, hence I said that what had been indicted in Tower Hamlets today is a methodology
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
‘Methodology’ being a euphemism.
Comment by Ally — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Liam was simply wrong, getting cause and effect the wrong way round. If there was packing meetings and the like going on in Tower Hamlets, it was the SWP leadership who introduced that into Respect. Unfortunately, its a tactic that did not begin with Respect, as many activists in all sorts of different milieux know very well. The SWP squealed particularly loudly because some Bangladeshi militants decided to counter them in some cases with similar tactics. Tough shit. If these tactics had not been introduced in the first place, there would have been nothing to imitate.
Comment by ID — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Better still: if you guys hadn’t formed a party which then pumped out the poisonous lie that there was a Global War on Muslims, and that only you would protect them, and if you hadn’t fronted up your party with a Scotch refugee on the make, who then went on to make you all look like clowns … not only would you not be where you are today, but you’d have done the population of BG&B an enormous favour.
You’ve acted like a sparty version of the BNP. You whipped up paranoia and hatred. You treated British citizens of Bengali origin as if they were a bloc, to be used as fodder for your frankly weird and nasty trotty politics. And now - surprise surprise - it is all over.
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
#59 So is the current Chair of Tower Hamlets RR a “Bangladeshi Militant”?
From all accounts, he is a middle aged chap who owns a few restaurants and according to TonyC didn’t know how to Chair a meeting for a long time. I don’t live in Tower Hamlets, but Liam who was on the committee of Tower Hamlets Respect doesn’t just say that he packed a meeting, but that he was buying votes. Personally I can’t afford to fork out half a grand to pay for people to vote for me to be the Chair of the biggest branch of my organisation, so I find this a little unfair - espcially as I assumed my party was a coalition of the poor, opressed and workers?
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
#60 Any comparison between either wing of Respect and the BNP is untenable, please withdraw this slur.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
The current chair of Tower Hamlets Respect apparently fought in the Bangladeshi war of independence. But, hey, he hasn’t red Walter Citrine and is is only just getting better at chairing a meeting so there’s no way we want him then. You are truly pathetic, Adamski.
Comment by Nas — 25 June, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Asking David T to withdraw any ’slur’ is bizarre. He is a professional anti-Muslim hate-monger. You might as well ask Nick Griffin to withdraw a ’slur’.
Yes, the chair of Tower Hamlets Respect, which fights against war, privatisation and racism, is indeed a ‘Bangladeshi militant’. As are many others in Respect. Some on the other side of the split should also be so described. Including, say, Kumar Mushad. I note that Adamski doesn’t deny the time-honoured SWP-leadership tactic of packing meetings. Hypocrisy, as they say, is the homage that vice pays to virtue.
Comment by ID — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
No, I won’t.
1. The SWP, RESPECT and the BNP all see Muslims as a “bloc”.
2. The SWP, RESPECT and the BNP all operate by whipping up hatred and paranoia. The BNP tell its voters that jews, muslims and blacks are out to get them. The SWP and RESPECT’s ran campaign after campaign rehearsing the lie that there was a War on Muslims.
3. RESPECT Renewal has senior members of the fascist party - rejected by the vast majority of south asians - Jamaat-e-Islami, at its highest level (i.e. Miah). The SWP was in alliance with this fascist party, until they were knifed.
4. The SWP tours around, publishes, and defends Gilad Atzmon: who claims that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion acurately describe Jewish Power today.
5. All three parties are populated by marginal and nasty cranks, who can’t get themselves elected.
So, basically, the comparisons are very close indeed.
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
@ 60 If you are an unprincipled, war mongering cynic, David T, you would look at it like that. Most people on the left would be more forgiving and acknowledge that Respect was an attempt to regroup the left and build an opposition to a cynical, war mongering, neo liberal New Labour who you are an apologist for.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
We shouldn’t make any ‘demands’ of David T, except this one: “fuck off back to Adolf’s Place”. Since he posted something similar about Sami Chakrabarti (of all people) as a lead item on his blog last week he can’t complain about the use of the vernacular.
Comment by ID — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Asking David T to withdraw any ’slur’ is bizarre. He is a professional anti-Muslim hate-monger. You might as well ask Nick Griffin to withdraw a ’slur’.
Oh, this is rich coming from Ian “Dave Dxxxxxx” Donovan, who knows full well that I have little if anything to say about Islam or Muslims.
The only point I’d make about Muslims is that they’re overwhelmingly the victims of the Islamist parties which his party - RESPECT Renewal - has cultivated. Jamaat-e-Islami slaughtered Bengalis during their War of Liberation. Which, incidentally, is another similarity between the BNP and RESPECT: the BNP idolise Nazism, RESPECT defend Islamism, and specifically, the Islamist grouping which slaughtered huge numbers of Bangladeshi Muslims.
Is this the same Ian “Dave Dxxxxx” Donovan who once warned Trots against allying themselves with “fanatical, ultra-religious movements with ‘anti-imperialist’ pretensions, particularly in the muslim world”? Yes I do believe it is!
(Of course, when I make precisely the same point, Donovan now defames me as a “professional anti-Muslim hate-monger”)
So, what went wrong mate?
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/402/anti-imperialism.html
Face it, you backed the wrong horse. You became exactly the thing that you warned against, back in October 2001. And now your project has failed.
Well, ha ha ha.
PS: I told you so.
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
“who knows full well that I have little if anything to say about Islam or Muslims.”
That’s a fucking joke. He is like Dr Strangelove, trying desperately to control his Nazi-saluting arm, the moment anything vaguely Islamic is mentioned. Keep lapping up those ‘bodily fluids’.
Comment by ID — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
#65 #68 Sorry, i see you are a moron.
Yes, if only Respect had backed Israel and supported US troops in Iraq as the lesser evil . . .
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
I think the big question is where do we all go from here? For RR to pretend this isn’t a setback for them as well is just silly. So what happens now?
Comment by Kent&CanterburyDan — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
By the way, I really don’t mind what you say about me.
The people who appear to have it in for me are the following:
Neil Clark: A pro-serb fantasist
Richard “Lenin” Seymour: A student from a failing far left sect
“Lady” Renouf: A neo Nazi and friend of David Irving
Ashghar Bukhari: An Islamist, and funder of David Irving.
Bob Pitt: a member of the collapsed rape-cult, the WRP
and Ian Donovan and his mates!
You might ask yourself: are you sure you’re on the right side here?
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
“Yes, if only Respect had backed Israel ”
RESPECT would have backed Israel if it thought Jews were stupid enough to vote a bunch of hopeless trots into council seats.
But they’re not.
And neither are Bangladeshi Muslims.
PS: “Donovan” - a pretty pathetic comeback from a man who describes Muslims as “fanatical, ultra-religious movements with ‘anti-imperialist’ pretentions” and who supports political parties which slaughter Muslims. You racist.
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
It would be interesting to know how Liam thinks residents on his estate view George Galloway’s input as local MP now. One of the reasons Respect’s vote held up and even improved in East London may well be due to the good service residents get from Galloway’s constituency office.
This day-to-day work on the ground will continue, despite the latest careerists jumping ship. It’s especially a shame that Oli Rahman went that way after finding himself isolated by the Left List strategy, as he didn’t start out as a careerist. I have to agree with other posters that the cynical lies and manoeuvres Oli witnessed from John Rees & Co must have contributed to the idea that political principles are secondary to personal political advancement and not ‘losing face’.
Comment by steph — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
“The people who appear to have it in for me are the following:”
And your mates, David? Harry/Simon Evans who passes off his not so distant past Stalinism as youthful japes and as nothing more than a winding up of Trots.
Comment by Darren — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Isn’t it wonderful seeing the left, sitting on its bean-bags, in collective group therapy. Let’s face it all this kind of cross-changin, puffing yourself up, standing for ‘our’ people, back-stabbing, and rantin’ and a ravin’is par for the course in *any* local council. We were sitting in the pub recently after a Trades Council Meeting, when Andrew Cann, son of deceased Labour MP Andrew Cann, came by. He is now leader of the Liberal Democrats and a close friend of a former Labour Councillor, now Liberal, and utter pillock, Chris Newby who was at one time a member of the old CPGB. The Head of Arts and Culture on Ipswich Council Judy Terry, a Tory, and enemy of all progressive humanity, applied to join the Labour Party during an acrimonious divorce, with an leading Tory Councillor (I know since as Branch sec at the time we ‘lost’ the application). One of the leading right-wing Tories, who was expelled in complex circumstances formed an independent Conservative Group with another Tory hard-liner, and now lives in Spain, came back during the last but one election to camapign.. for Labour. I could go on, but my point is that all this is not unique to the more overtly communalist politics of Tower Hamlets. Hell, my parents were members of the North Islington Labour Party for a while, and to get to join that (even though they were already members of the LP for since the war) was like being invited to join the Masons.
Let’s face both wings of Respect were, and remain, complete tyros when it comes to local politics.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
David T - good stuff, but baiting and then scoring points on this thread is verging shooting fish in a barrel.
Comment by Jonny Mac — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Adamski,
Your lack of understanding of the documented facts since August 2007 and your incredulous backwardness in not even asking your SWP cc and the bankrupt John Rees for honest transparency, show you up as nothing other than a troll.
Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
#76 Andrew Cann? I remember him! my parents used to vote for him, till they changed the constituency boundaries. I grew up in Stowmarket just down the raod. But surely, we precisely expect a left alternative not to engage in this kind of bed-hopping as we believe we are qualitatively different?
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Jonny Mac
Good point. I’ll shut up now.
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
#79 I have an idea that his name Jamie Cann MP? Remember his poster in our window. How times change, my parents were solid Labour, now will never vote Labour again.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
@ 74 Steph, one of your leading Renewal councilors has defected and you’re still complaining about the SWP. The defections are a clear signal that perpetuating the fued is damaging all of us.
If Respect can’t retain counsilors in what is supposed to be one of two strongholds there needs to be a serious reassessment of tactics and strategy by both sides.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
The sad thing about all of this is the lessons were there from the start. Lots of people on the left criticised RESPECT because of what would inevitably happen, and now it has. Sadly it doesn’t look like the SWP or Galloway side will actually learn any political lessons but carry on with more of the same.
Comment by Dan — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Adamski, have you seen the composition of the various Labour Cabinets, hoppy-hoppy, say I. The only way we’ll get out of this is to have the kind of serious left-union based party of the sort projected by the Committee for a New Workers’ Party (not that that’s exactly without problems). In any case don’t toss back your pint of Green King yet in celebration of this coming about.
As for Andrew Cann, he was actually Branch Secretary of the Central Ipswich LP Branch I was Sec of for about eight years. Normally you don’t get out of being Branch secretary excpet by either (1)Moving, (2) Dying, (3) Resigning. Andrew Cann got booted out for being a very very difficult person (politely said). His renegacy is widely said to be due at its origins to him blaming the Labour Party for his father’s (the MP Jammie Cann)death from chronic alcholism. How they were responsible for, say, the fact that Jammie could drink six pints to my three at lunch time at the pub next to the Old Tolly Cobblers Brewery and then, unlike myself who returned home, going out campaigning with trips to plenty of pubs on the way, is beyond rational explanation.
Oh yea, and the Labour Party made a mess up of the Regent Theatre - formerly the Odeon (or some such local issue).
Hey, that’s local politics.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
Sorry to add yet another post: I did (3) resigned and joined the Socialist Alliance.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 25 June, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Is it just me or is there a suggestion that the principal players in this drama, are incapable of having their own autonomy and it is only through an involvement with the SWP or Galloway, that they have larnt duplicity, careerism and self-seeking? Don’t they have their own histories?
Comment by Sue R — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Personaly I think this is a fucking disastor for the left, Left-list was already preaty well dead but the defection of the Renewal councilor as well raises serious questions about the viability of Renewal as well.
Unfortunatly it looks like we’ve pissed all our hard work for the past however many years down the drain.
Time for a restart?
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Joseph
Look at the votes ward by ward in Tower Hamlets:
http://www.strategicvoter.org.uk/doku.php?id=boroughs:tower
It is clear that in a difficult election, Respect performed well, and if it places itself at the centre of a progressive coalition as the best places anti-war party to beat labour - and this attracting Green party and anti-war lib dem voters, then Respect can still win a lot of seats in TH and can and shoudl be aiming t be the biggest party.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
As is often the case I find myself in some agreement with Kiselo. I don’t really think any of the defections are about ‘opportunism’. If you set up a broad electoral organisation which involves, as it must, many with reformist politics of one kind or another, this is based on the premiss that is possible to achieve the kind of practical things which had traditionally been associated with the dominant reformism, but which that reformism no longer seems capable/willing to achieve. If that coalition falls apart, and to lesser or greater extent, neither side seems a viable vehicle for achieving anything practical, people will return reluctantly to the only vehicle available. In reality this is what is happening, and I don’t think any of us have an appropriate response or analyses of the way foward at this time. Which was also the case way back in the period before August when we surrealistically decided that bloodletting and fraticide and what Glynn Robbins referred to as ‘the blame game’ would be the way foward. Since then we’ve spent most of our time painting everybody else in the rottenest light as possible. Now the choice is between ever diminishing circles or some sort of fresh re-assesment. Sooner rather then later.
Comment by johng — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
Johng, is this your personal opinion. Someone told me earlier that the line wouldn’t be issued by the CC till after 2pm. SWP might have sloppy politics but getting a line reversal out is still ruthlessly efficient.
Comment by martin ohr — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Time for a restart?
How can we fight for a working class political voice?
Before the start of the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party conference, the CNWP is hosting a discussion on the way forward for the left and the fight for a working class political voice.
Speakers confirmed so far include:
Bob Crow, RMT general secretary
John McInally, PCS vice-president
Dave Nellist, Campaign for a New Workers’ Party national chair
Simeon Andrews, Labour Representation Committee secretary
Rob Hoverman, RESPECT co-ordinating committee
Dave Church, Walsall Democratic Labour Party
Mike Davies, Alliance for Green Socialism chair
Sunday 29 June 11am - 5pm. South Camden Community School, Charrington Street, London NW1
Comment by Neil — 25 June, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
To be honest, Andy, I think you’re in cloud cuckoo land with that. Today’s defection is a disaster for both sides - far more for my side than yours, particularly in the short term. But the idea that Tower Hamlets will return any left-of-Labour councillors or MPs in 2 years time without people on one or both sides of the split relating attracting or joining with much broader forces than we do right now is a fantasy.
I’m just not sure how many (if any) members of RR accept that the resignations and defections of councillors to Labour (not simply confined to the 4 who split during the crisis but also including Wais Islam, Shamim Choudhury and now Shaeed Ali), the split, the relationship to Ken Livingstone etc. are related to political issues far broader than simply that John Rees decided to smash Respect. You can believe that whilst also recognising that there are other processes at work.
I’m gutted. Hopefully there are enough other people (like Joseph for example) who recognise that this is a massive blow to both sides in the long term and everyone needs a rethink.
Comment by Randy Newman — 25 June, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Adamski says that I’m still blaming the SWP for the Respect councilllor’s defection, and to some extent I am - for the culture they brought to the pre-split Respect. But it’s not about blame and recrimination, the analysis relates to the future even more than the past. We need to criticise our past way of operating in order to learn from it and rectify it. Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it, and we can’t ‘restart’ without examining our errors.
Galloway put it well when he spoke of the policy of anathematisation that we used to operate in Respect. Once John Rees (and the other white socialists) failed to get elected to Tower Hamlets council, the leadership lost all interest in developing the councillors politically as Respect councillors, choosing instead to relate only to those who were potential SWP recruits. Astonishingly, there was no document whatsoever in the Respect national office in Tower Hamlets that related to council work. A wedge was driven between Oli Rahman and Abjol Miah, the better to bring the former closer into the SWP’s orbit and push the latter further away. I fell for this tactic myself for a long time, whereby the councillors seen as ‘non-SWP material’ were left to go their own way and behave like any other traditional councillor, undisciplined and unsupported by the party.
Respect in Tower Hamlets now has a lot of work to do in order to turn that situation around. Excellent and committed socialist councillors like Mike Lavalette are not ten a penny, and as we are making a conscious decision in Respect locally to unite socialists and left-leaning Muslims, we need to have a lot more discussion about policy so that our diverse inputs create unified policies that are understood, approved, argued for and acted on by all. We certainly need to give our councillors more political support.
Maybe we won’t succeed in time in overcoming the damage from the awful situation in Respect in Tower Hamlets, but we’ll certainly try, because the stakes are high and we desperately need to offer an electoral alternative to the BNP in East London and nationally.
Comment by steph — 25 June, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
#93 I’m not on the ground in Tower Hamlets, so I can’t really comment. You are correct that reflection is needed.
But it seems a little odd that our councillors needed a political education, I would have thought that to be eligible to stand to be a tribune of the oppressed they would have had some credentials? You know, like understanding basic socialist principles, is that not the way you played it in Tower Hamlets? Sometimes the way you people seem to speak it is as if the Councillors were children who needed their hands held. What if they didn’t want to be “politically developed”?
Anyway, why should the SWP take all the blame for the debacle? What about the MP? Shouldn’t George Galloway have been working closely with the councillors as a coherent group and holding regular meetings where he and the councillors reported back to the members and dialogued with the grassroots of the organisation, alongside the National Secretary, John Rees, but as Liam alleges months went by with out our MP being seen in the constituency, and everyone knows George Galloway would never consent to being accountable to the membership.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Everyone needs political education all the time, up to, including - and now especially - the leadership of the SWP! The councillors are people who want to do worthwhile things in the community like fighting privatisation of our housing estates. They don’t necessarily have English as their first language.
As Adasmki says, Galloway shares some the blame (as we all do) for letting the polarisation develop as far as it did, but I can assure you that he constantly tried to build bridges at our most fractured meetings, and at least he eventually tried to bring situation to an end with his critical letter - with the result of the SWP ‘going nuclear’.
Comment by steph — 25 June, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Adam: “But it seems a little odd that our councillors needed a political education,”
Actually being a councillor is a very difficult task, as you have to respond to a lot of practical local to which there are no black and white answers, and seek to maintain pragmatic working relations with a lot of people that you disagree with politically.
But Adam we all look to your successes in wales, and stand back in deference at what you have acheived.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Randy Newman proposes a rethink. I’m not sure what rethink he wants the rest of us to undergo, but if I were an SWP member who had loyally echoed the leadership line about there being a ‘left/right’ divide inside Respect, never mind the crap about ‘witchhunts’ and ‘communalism’, recent events would certainly make me rethink the political arguments I had been fed.
The collapse of the so-called left group of councillors in Tower Hamlets confirms this split was never about ideology. It was about control. The SWP split Respect solely out of fear that they were losing control of it. They abdicated their political responsibility in the pursuit of the narrowest sectarian goals. In the process their leadership lied to and manipulated their own members. Some reflection from SWP members on what recent events says about Rees and German, and the state of their own organisation, might be in order.
Respect has been damaged by this. But most of the damage was inflicted quite a while ago and as the recent London results highlight, our vote in East London is still very healthy. Our vote in Birmingham has not been affected at all. We have ridden a crisis that could have destroyed us. Instead we have emerged bruised in some places, but not beaten. The challenge now is to learn from the past, reconstitute ourselves and go forward to the 2110 elections. As regards better relations with the SWP, finalising the divorce would certainly help. The SWP should formally abandoned any association with Respect and let us both get on with our respective work.
Comment by Ger Francis — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
“Anyway, why should the SWP take all the blame for the debacle?”
Guess what? No one says it should!
Except that it refused to take any blame for anything that happened at all, leading up to, during or after the split. The only thing that was ever said was that external forces in society was driving things to the right and that Rees failed to spot them in time.
The other big thing is, loads of people have been critical of Galloway.
Except the SWP. No one in the SWP was allowed to criticise George before the split.
I criticise him now. He’s open to it. You could try it, if only you hadn’t blown every ounce of credibility by hitching yourself to the witch-hunt wagon.
I criticise myself to. And other Respect people. We have debates. Arguments. It’s a bit scary really, all this open debate.
So, your straw man falls over, once again: No one says the SWP is entirely to blame. Everyone in Respect is trying to work harder to build a more democratic political culture - the SWP didn’t care if George was around or not, we do - and we all feel confident about criticising each other.
The only black and white has come from the SWP side, which a) blamed every single thing on Galloway’s side of the argument, and b) has now written the Galloway side entirely out of history. Everywhere else on the left, people carried reports of Galloway’s letters on behalf of the Stop The War Coalition to the Home Secretary - except Socialist Worker, which now pretends he doesn’t exist.
One side in all of this proclaims its own innocence above all other considerations.
Me? I’m happy to admit my own mistakes and try to do better next time.
It’d be refreshing to see some of that coming from the SWP. But it won’t happen.
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
You know what, Andy? Coming from the leader of the Soviet of Red Swindon, that kinda shit doesn’t count for much.
Comment by Randy Newman — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Oh, did I tell you, when George wrote his letters after the Bush demo, I posted a comment on the wall of the Stop the War Facebook group. To be as neutral as possible, it simply quoted the first paragraph of this article and then gave people the link to the full article.
The admins of the Facebook group deleted the comment. I’m not even joking when I say all I did was quote the one paragraph.
Does this sound like humility from the SWP to you? The StW Facebook admins left a comment from HOPI up (it’s still there), but deleted one about Galloway.
What does that tell you about reflection and humility?
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
“Everyone needs political education all the time”
This is fundamentally true.
“The councillors are people who want to do worthwhile things in the community like fighting privatisation of our housing estates.”
Presumably every Respect member wanted to do this, only not the most capable fighters for our class were being selected to stand as candidates it seems to me but other factors like social status etc. were being factored in.
I have heard that Galloway didn’t build bridges towards the demise of Respect, but rather went nuclear!
There is also a blurring of class politics that took place in Respect. For example, how on earth did it come about that people were standing for the Tories one election and Respect the next? This happened in both Brum and East London, in Birmingham this has been defended by Ger and Salma. Such shenanigans discredit attempts to build a left wing alternative.
What am I to think if I am a solid trade unionist, politically serious, a fighter, a socialist. I’m considering joining this new party, Respect. I join to campaign for my local candidate, I realise I recognise the name - oh yeah, he stood for the anti-working class Tories last time!
If votes is all you care about then follow that path, but in the longterm it undermines everything we are trying to build, and no new party is gonna be built on that foundation.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
Adam, remember, we know who you are and your political record, you are neither of these things: ” solid trade unionist, politically serious,”
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
#96 Yes, from Wales, I look at Respect’s strongest branch in East London and wish we were like them! Maybe if I really get it together politically I can look forward to us having an electorally succesful party where the deputy-leader of Respect Wales joins New Labour.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
“I have heard that Galloway didn’t build bridges towards the demise of Respect, but rather went nuclear!”
Look Adam, right at the start of this, me and others in Tower Hamlets tried to tell you that you were being consistently lied to by SWP members and supporters about what was happening.
We explained how there was a process going on where history was being re-written, and the smallest comments were being blown out of all proportion, as part of a split dynamic.
You always, every single time, chose to believe that we were being dishonest.
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
#102 So you think it’s okay that a guy can stand for Tories in one election, Respect in the next, and then maybe New Labour the following time?
Your resort to personal abuse exposes your inability to respond with a political argument.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
#100 Tony, pot to kettle etc
Who are you to complain about people deleting things just because they disagree with them. Also someone delete an advert I posted to the Respect facebook group for an entirely relevant meeting and a thread on the discussion board, dare you say this wasn’t you?
Comment by martin ohr — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
#104 Tony, I’m sure you are speaking in good faith, and sincere, but I’m afraid that I can’t see eye to eye with you.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Adamski does not know what he is talking about as usual. There was no Respect candidate in Birmingham who previously had stood as a Tory candidate. There was one who had previously joined the Tories for a few months simply to support a friend. It was not ideological. Nobody at the time, including the SWP, felt that his nomination should be disbarred for past membership of other political parties. Adamski won’t agree with his comrades on this because he occupies the lunatic wing of the SWP. He was one of the stooges who most enthusiastically regurgitated the ‘left/right divide’ line about Tower Hamlets. If he had any shame the only comment he would be making here would be to apologise for being so dumb in swallowing it.
Comment by Ger Francis — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
#108 Well glad that’s cleared up. Most people who support our ideology don’t usually join the Tories, oh well! I’m not a member of the SWP or its lunatic fringe.
TonyC will be glad to hear that a recent press release from our local anti-war group alluded to George Galloway and Dreyfus.
Comment by Adamski — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Adamski - if you want to raise the question of tories joining Respect, I suggest you answer my post from November 2007 on an earlier thread. I presume that at the Respect/SWP conference last November, you raised this issue, that you are so exercised about, with the Calderdale delegation, which I would guess would probably have consisted entirely of SWP members? Sajid Mahmood committed suicide on the eve of his trial for breaching election rules, by the way.
“In regard to the issue “Tories jumping on the Respect bandwagon”, there is of course the case of Sajid Mahmood in Calderdale. He was a former Tory Party Council candidate who left the Tories, joined the Labour Party, then joined Respect in November of last year. By May he was standing as a Respect candidate in the local elections doing very well but has also been arrested over a ballot rigging accusation.
There has been no raising of this issue in the debate in Respect … but is that much of a surprise? … apparently his election agent in May was an enthusiastic SWP member and Socialist Worker itself carried an interview with him, not mentioning that he had stood for the Tories in Council elections, just emphasising that he was resigning from Labour.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10173
Now I am in favour of welcoming anyone who joins Respect if they support its policies. But it’s a bit cheeky and somewhat hypocritically late in the day for the SWP to now say they are concerned about providing a refuge for ex-Tories. Why didn’t they raise this when they were in the driving seat and why did they interview and let one of their members act as election agent for a former Tory council candidate?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 15 November, 2007 @ 5:19 pm ”
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1026
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
“dare you say this wasn’t you?”
Dare I? DARE I?
Fuck me!
Problem is, it’s an irrelevant question really, isn’t it. If, as you say (and I’ve no reason to disbelieve you), you posted something on the wall of a political party you are totally opposed to, don’t you think that’s entirely different to a quote from a vice-president of the Stop The War Coalition being deleted from the Stop The War Facebook group?
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Jesus, that looked messy. Just trust me when I say it was very cool use of both the “strong” and “em” tags.
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
“There was one who had previously joined the Tories for a few months simply to support a friend”
I admit, out of some great material today, this line got an actual belly-laugh from me. Yes, how often has one of us joined political parties to support a friend? I do it all the time. If you don’t, you must of o’ dem “ultra-lefties”!
Comment by Dustin the Turkey — 25 June, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
David T has you lot pegged. You thought by selling British Muslims the tosh that they were the subject of a war against Islam that you could get them to vote in a bunch of silly Trots and get your revolution on the cheap. What a joke. You’ve been played for fools.
You think the greater body of anti-war Muslims have even the vaguest sympathy with socialism as you lot see it?
It’s pathetic. Not only have you destroyed your own cause, you’ve actively propagandised and spread the lie that Muslims in this country are the targets of a concerted campaign of state Islamophobia, and in the process worsened community relations and fanned the dangerous sense of victimhood that contributes towards radicalisation.
Comment by Mephisto — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
#89: “some sort of fresh re-assesment”
John… you paint a picture in which the defection of the councillors was inevitable in the circumstances of the split, diminishing returns &c, due to the nature of blocking with ‘reformists’, but of course you must carefully avoid saying anything about how that situation arose and who might be responsible. The sentiment is touching, but the sense is one-sided.
Maybe it’s time for the parties in this divorce to switch emphasis from pointing out the problems of the other side and start to put their own houses in order. For you that might mean the SWP doing something about that smug-looking opportunist-bureaucrat-windbag pseudo-dialectician John Rees, who strategised and commanded the operation on the SWP side and then mishandled every single aspect of his responsibilities, turning the SWP into a laughing stock when he wasn’t making them an object of scorn. Even if you suppose that the original strategy was a good wheeze, the execution was pathetic.
But any accounting is unlikely to happen, as Rees seems to be above public criticism (despite the fact that, as far as I can tell, he’s widely despised by the party rank and file.) The argument seems to be that if someone creates a crisis that would be a bad time to criticise them because, well dear, there’s a crisis and the children will get scared if the boat starts to rock. ‘Democracy’ and ‘accountability’ in the SWP are like that raincoat with the yawning great holes in it - bearable… until it rains.
Of course Rees may get his wrist slapped from on high if the rest of the CC decide to risk Lindsey Belgium’s wrath. After that, though, it’ll be business as usual - for the purposes of morale, an unpopular manager will be temporarily shunted sideways to run the bookstall (ISJ?) before returning to the front bench once his period of penitential reflection is done. I accept that SU isn’t really the place to discuss this, but then neither (for the reasons I’ve mentioned) is the Tomb, so I don’t expect you to reply here - but perhaps the rank and file of the SWP might like to quietly but forcefully start to promote a more radical solution with regard to John ’see me, I’m Trotsky, me’ Rees?
Yes, I know that the SWP is weakened and maybe a little shocked and traumatised, and plenty of people are waiting to put the boot in, but wouldn’t that be a good time for the members to show that they capable of more than just saluting the flag on demand as they retreat - perhaps even drawing some conclusions about their own collective responsibility for ‘events’? It’s just a thought…
Comment by Andy Wilson — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Ger wrote a long critic about the SWP including complaints about honesty.
Post 97 states “Our vote in Birmingham has not been affected at all.”
Fact Sparkbrook 2008 (3031) 2007 (3514)
Springfield 2008 (1920) 2007 (2092)
Mosely and Kings Heath 2008 (327) 2007 (1013)
Nechells 2008 (781) 2007 (1013).
I give these facts not to score points but to illustrate the split weakened both sides. I would have a different analysis to Ger as to the cause. It was ineviatable that any project that united a quite disparate group of forces, many new to electoral politics, would have different pulls and tensions. The SWP concerns about Tower Hamlets, and to a lesser extent Birmingham, was about the pull of electoral politics.
The fact that Oli, Rania, and Lufta have joined New Labour just shows how strong your politics have to be to withstand this pressure. Ger ignores the fact that Respect Renewals Deputy Leader in Tower Hamlets also joined shows Ger isn’t willing to face up to this issue.
Comment by Anonymous — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
There was one who had previously joined the Tories for a few months simply to support a friend
That’s nothing
You have RESPECT executive members who are supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami (e.g. Miah). You ran a candidate in the Euro elections who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (e.g. Altikriti). And your major funder and executive member was a founder of the Islamic Party of Britain, which advocated executing homosexuals (e.g. Dr “Dancing Cows” Naseem)
And you’re worried about some of your lot joining Labour?
Comment by David T — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Andy W, why is anyone in the SWP or the Left List going to listen to you when you have no insight into how both side were involved in the breakdown of Respect?
John and Joseph are right that both sides have lost councilors and we need to question why this occured. Either they defected because they are completely unprincipled which I doubt very much or because they are fed up with the feud and the local Labour group appear the only viable alternative.
Blaming Rees doesn’t explain why Renewals councilor left in unison with three LL councilors. Isn’t it worth reflecting over why councilors from both sides defected at the same time? The fact that LL was in talks with the three before they left demonstrates that there was an attempt to resolve this. What I’m surprised about is that no one in Renewal appeared to be aware of their own deputy leaders feelings on this matter.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Andy Wilson
The alternative to that - and I’m afraid all my experience shows it’s happening - is a two-fold process:
i) A number of longstanding SWP members with great experience and some respect in the movement become thoroughly demoralised and retreat for political engagement.
ii) Other members become more and more embittered so that it becomes extraordinarily difficult to have a reasoned discussion about an increasing number of things.
There are plenty of matters to reflect on and Steph has outlined them very clearly. But it is simply no good comrades in the SWP telling us all to look deep into ourselves if they continue to promote the palpably false narrative which they were given, and accepted wrongly but in most cases in good faith, that this has all been about a left/right split and that, as johng put it, those of us who were expelled from the SWP were to the right of the “left councillors”, one of whom has joined the Tory party, with the other three crossing the floor to join New Labour this evening.
And tonyc above is right: I don’t expect the SWP leadership and Socialist Worker to be fond of George Galloway, but they will only continue to damage themseleves if they pretend that he simply does not exist when, contra the claims by John Rees, he is engaging across the piece politically, viz being not only the only MP to attend the Stop the War protest in Parliament Square, but pursuing on behalf of the movement the behaviour of the police at it.
This is a significant story and it seems it could be picked up by more news organisations over the next couple of days.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 25 June, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Kevin Ovenden: “i) A number of longstanding SWP members with great experience and some respect in the movement become thoroughly demoralised and retreat for political engagement.
ii) Other members become more and more embittered so that it becomes extraordinarily difficult to have a reasoned discussion about an increasing number of things. ” That’s an extraordinary admission to make
Comment by martin ohr — 25 June, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Ray asks, “Andy W, why is anyone in the SWP or the Left List going to listen to you when you have no insight into how both side were involved in the breakdown of Respect…”
Because he’s right.
A cornerstone of the SWP’s argument for it’s own existence was that the structure and feedback mechanisms built into the party were the best defence against political waywardness and opportunism that existed in reformist organisations.
Seriously, what is the point of having an organisation that can’t publicly be seen to correct the total failure of its leadership’s actions?
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 25 June, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
“Picked up by more and more organisations over the next couple of days”.
If the cars been in a crash, it might now be a wright off!
Comment by Jim lawrie — 25 June, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
“Just a thought — is Oli Rahman the registered owner of the Left List name?”
Yeah, but he’s resigning it from what I understand.
Comment by man in the know — 25 June, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
You fucking wankers.
Comment by marcus — 25 June, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
“Because he’s right.”
Because you say so? Not good enough. You need a convincing argument but you’ve never put one forward. It’s just more of the usual innuendo and rumour that Kevin engages in.
Don’t bother making the same Pavlovian response because it won’t wash. Your councilor defected too - probably because he’s sick of the feud. He claims as much in the article. Unlike the LL who were in talks with the 3 before they defected, Renewal apparently had no idea it’s deputy leader was so demoralised that he arranged to defect in unison with our councilors. Just who is in touch with reality?
There’s nothing to learn from raking over the split except that everyone is sick of it and it’s destroyed the credibility that Respect had pre-split.
I think marcus says it best when he point out what we all are for perpetuating this feud.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Hopefully the defection of Oli Rahman will make the SWP leaders abandon their vain desire to stand in Poplar at the next election and seek to wreck Galloway’s candidature. It is clear the defection of the three LL councillors represents the loss of all LL’s remaining credibility in Tower Hamlets.
Its sad that many SWP members put a great deal of effort into RESPECT and all their hard work has been thrown away by the antics of their leadership. SWP comrades and independents that have followed the Rees leadership into LL should now reassess their positions. The development of the LL Councillors shows LL was not a principled bloc. Also RR supporters are not rightwing witchhunters. There is a home for many LL/SWP supporters in RR.
Comment by George T — 25 June, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
As Radiohead once said “ambition makes you look ugly”. Oli hang your head in shame.
Comment by Kevin E — 25 June, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
“You need a convincing argument but you’ve never put one forward. It’s just more of the usual innuendo and rumour…”
Ray, events have bypassed, ‘convincing’ arguments.
Some solid SWP union activists are are in direct line of fire. They face real witchhunts.
Do you think Rees’ leadership has put them in a stronger or weaker position to defend themselves? Do you think the past year has placed the SWP in a better or worse relationship to others on the Left? Do you think the case for building a revolutionary socialist party is easier or harder to make?
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 25 June, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
“Andy W, why is anyone in the SWP or the Left List going to listen to you when you have no insight into how both side were involved in the breakdown of Respect?”
I don’t dispute that. I addressed myself to the SWP because that is the side most worth addressing; because no matter what their problems are, they represent a tradition that is still worth rescuing imho and, perhaps, has the potential at least to start to address it’s problems.
Your councilor defected too
I don’t have a councillor involved in this dispute. Neither does the esteemed BatterseaPowerStation. For fsck sake, stop using this dispute with RR as an excuse not to yank the beam out of your eye. It is not your responsibility to ‘fix’ RR, but it clearly is your responsibility to fix your own tradition. I was addressing myself to the fleeting possibility that you might take this responsibility seriously.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 25 June, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Andy
A honourable intention in attempting to address the SWP members as to where the current CC has lead the organisation. I’m some what less optimistic because I think its past the point of no return as regards that ‘fleeting possibility’ Especially as there appears no challenge to Rees who you could only describe as the Jacques Tati of the left.
The best way to pull bodies out of the wreckage is providing an alternative, a liveley and vibrant Respect mk 2, it’s that possiblity, Its one that allows those escapees to use their brains again without being jumped on by the ‘machine’
That’s part of the Manchester experience, I’m sure there are other examples around the country.
Comment by Richard Searle — 25 June, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
“Renewal apparently had no idea it’s deputy leader was so demoralised that he arranged to defect in unison with our councilors.”
Ray is, as usual, hopelessly wrong when he says people in Respect didn’t know about Shahed. It’s a typical Ray post - a strong allegation made from no evidential base at all.
Actually, Shahed has been threatening to leave for a loooooong time, before the split, and mostly made his mind up to go once he didn’t get selected as a candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow (he did that thing that people often do in local politics - claimed the selection was rushed and that he wasn’t given a chance, despite a) the selection having been called weeks before but postponed cos of the split, b) the decision to have the selection being taken at a proper TH committee meeting which he was invited to, c) everyone being mailed about the selection, d) local leafleting being done for the selection and e) no one being allowed to become a member on the night).
So, we knew there was a risk, we knew he was likely to go (it was reported in the local press months ago!), people at local and national level were involved in talking with him. It’s a refreshing change from the past, where John Rees would suddenly announce to the officers’ group that a councillor had defected.
There’ll be different views on why he did it. Ultimately, if people think he did it cos of the split, they should ask themselves why they did so little to prevent that split. You can’t have it both ways - there is absolutely no way that anyone in the SWP can claim that they tried to prevent the split - at any point: Beginning, middle or end.
Personally, I think he did it cos he wants to advance in politics, and decided he couldn’t do it via Respect. Like many in local politics, he believes that he is the important one, not the party or the politics. It’s a problem all parties face - Oli too believes he’s much more important than he is.
Oh and by the way, a certain tonyc has been saying for the last few weeks, “If Shahed goes, he’ll do it at the same time as the others”. So, wrong all round really, Ray.
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
“…but it clearly is your responsibility to fix your own tradition. I was addressing myself to the fleeting possibility that you might take this responsibility seriously.”
Andy, how many SWP comrades does it take to point out that you’re wrong? Patronise us all you like with platitudes about wanting to save the SWP but I prefer Rees and German to the unaccountable and undemocratic Renewal and their apologists any day. While you lay the blame at the doorstep of Rees you will get nowhere with our comrades because this is a completely unfair and biased assessment akin to a witchhunt.
As a kid I attended Sunday School where usually the people who lectured us about yanking beams out of our eyes had no insight into their own defective vision.
Even though you claim to have nothing to do with Renewal (apart from having absolutely nothing critical to say about them) no matter how many times you repeat the same opinion that doesn’t make it correct.
Perhaps you should give up lecturing us about your unbiased position in all of this and face the fact that you have as much of an agenda as everyone else and it’s not about saving the SWP. You’re offering a cure where there is no illness. It’s time to move on comrade because you’re flogging a dead horse.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
The SWP concerns about Tower Hamlets, and to a lesser extent Birmingham, was about the pull of electoral politics. The fact that Oli, Rania, and Lufta have joined New Labour just shows how strong your politics have to be to withstand this pressure.
You can’t have it both ways. If the SWP’s concern in TH was about the pull of electoral politics, there has to be some explanation of why the splinter group endorsed by the SWP so spectacularly succumbed to that pull. Losing 2 councillors out of 8 to Labour isn’t great, but it’s a bit better than losing 4 out of 4 - one of them to the Tories. I don’t think RESPECT have any lessons to learn from LL in this department.
And Oliur Rahman isn’t just any councillor; this is the Chair of RESPECT/SWP (elected unopposed) and Leader of the Left List that we’re talking about. In the circumstances, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call for a period of reflection* and a certain amount of modesty from the LL cheerleaders.
*Just to be precise, this means reflection on the problems of LL and SWP specifically and the causes of those problems. “We’re all struggling, we’re all facing setbacks, let’s move on” doesn’t hack it.
Comment by Phil — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
“Do you think Rees’ leadership has put them in a stronger or weaker position to defend themselves? Do you think the past year has placed the SWP in a better or worse relationship to others on the Left? Do you think the case for building a revolutionary socialist party is easier or harder to make?”
I think you would do well to ask these questions of the people who split from Respect and formed Renewal. I believe that Rees leadership has been very good. As you well know the CC rather than Rees lead the party. The split has had very little impact on the SWP as an organisation.
The fact that your whole focus is on the internal workings of the SWP demonstrates that you are missing the wider picture. Despite attempts by Renewal to witchhunt us the rest of the left continues to work with us. The perpetuation of the feud by Renewal (if it even appears on the radar of the rest of the left) is seen as counterproductive and rather sad. No one in the SWP even refers to the split any longer. That’s probably why only a few comrades bother posting here. The rest of the left, including the SWP have moved on and are concentrating on activity.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
Yeah, it reminds of you of Blair on Iraq doesn’t it - let’s move on and draw a line under this conflict, please (I beg you!), and don’t dwell on the details of all the lies and betrayals.
Precisely because (as they like to say in academia) the SWP used to be the most important and credible organisation of the left it’s important that they admit to their mistakes, adjust their course, and begin to rebuild trust. Personally I don’t think I will ever be able to believe a word that the SWP says ever again, even after 30 years of supporting them (up until they split Respect), but it could be a different story with younger people, so I genuinely hope that they pull back from the brink and regain their integrity.
Comment by steph — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Andy, how many SWP comrades does it take to point out that you’re wrong?
So far it only seems to be you, Ray.
you claim to have nothing to do with Renewal (apart from having absolutely nothing critical to say about them)
Good grief. Do you know who Andy is? Even if you don’t, have you read anything he’s written here over the last few months? Even if you haven’t done that, have you read the comment you’re actually responding to? Quote:
I addressed myself to the SWP because that is the side most worth addressing; because no matter what their problems are, they represent a tradition that is still worth rescuing
I think you’ll find these are not common opinions among RESPECT sympathisers.
Comment by Phil — 25 June, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Ray, or whatever your name is
I noted your posts over several months. I never responded, but your last one, #135 just demonstrates what utter prize pillock you are. If you want to go continue with notion that ‘the split has had very little impact on the SWP as an organisation’ you’re welcome to wallow in your own dillusion. I’m quite impressed by your utter refusal to face reality.
Comment by Richard Searle — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
but I prefer Rees and German to the unaccountable and undemocratic Renewal and their apologists any day…
Ray, forget Renewal for a mo’. Even with a lesser of two weavils approach there isn’t a purchase for Rees ’strategy’ any more. If you continue to be hog-tied to the calculations that led up to this disaster you’ll simply confirm yourself as daft.
Even if Renewal rolled up and disappeared tomorrow morning, the SWP remains a suspicious object for folk who once may have had a lot of time for it. At each and every turn during the last year Rees has made arse-backward calculations that have left genuine activists stranded;
OFFU cheques from PFI merchants, 2am denials of the inevitable, the Left List fiasco, standing against Hanif in the east end, petitions against the “witchhunt” by Renewalists…
That last one, the witchunt petition, was a fscking disgrace in a situation where genuine trade union activists’ necks are on the block. In fact the whole “Left List” gambit - and that’s all it was - was a disgrace.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
I would like to move on to Ray, but if we can’t get some kind of handle on the past its hard to see how we can do so.
You accuse Respect Renewal members of refusing to acknowldge that their side is suffering to. Well I can’t speak for others but I certainly acknowledge it. I think that after all that has happened the loss of another comrade from the tower hamlets Respect group is a big blow.
However, you don’t seem to want to face reality yourself, you claim that “The split has had very little impact on the SWP as an organisation.” and that “No one in the SWP even refers to the split any longer.” - I just can’t believe that you think either of these things is true!
The left as a whole is weakened by these defections and I don’t think anyone should crow over them.
I am at a loss to think how anyone can think the Left-list is a goer now and I am keeping my fingers crossed that Renewal can pull through this. I would love to see something new emerge from the “Convention of the left” though I’m sceptical that it will.
Anyway we live in hope.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
“No one in the SWP even refers to the split any longer.”
Ray - you are a liar. You know that this is not true - or have you left the SWP? Can you not just for once tell the truth.
“Despite attempts by Renewal to witchhunt us”
Oh please - that would actually be criticism. Witchhunt? - that pathetic canard cuts no ice any more. Do you expect to lead a revolution if you think a few crtical comments constitutes a witchhunt?
“The rest of the left, including the SWP have moved on and are concentrating on activity.”
Your self-delusion is touching - if a little pitiful. If you really have moved on do us all a favour and take your self-pity elsewhere.
Comment by TLC — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
I feel a bit sorry for Ray and salute his determination to argue on against the numerical weight of responders even if he is making some slightly dubious claims.
For some light relief anyone who wants to be mildly bemused should have a gander and the bizzare rantings of ‘gary duncan’ on Mark Steel’s blog. I’m suspicious that he anit in fact real. http://www.marksteelinfo.com/pt/blog/default.aspx?id=12&t=Eloquence-on-the-net
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Does anyone now believe that Ray is a real person? A couple of times, s/he has been tested and found so far removed from reality that there really can be only one explanation: Elaborate trollery.
Bravo to the SWP loyalist who created the character “Unity Is Strength” and worked so hard to turn him into “Ray”, hoping he wouldn’t be discovered (sorry to do that to you, “Ray”, but your language is fairly consistent…)
It can sometimes be worth replying to trolls, but we just need to be honest here - anyone claims to have been in the party for nearly 2 decades, is in east London and who thinks that no one in the SWP refers to the split any more (I got a text from an SWP member about it today!) can only be a fake person.
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
Please don’t encourage Gary by posting on Mark’s blog in that thread (post elsewhere - it’s a good blog). This Gary Duncan bloke, who got something like 90 votes for the Left List on May 1, has puked all over the comments box, and I think even Mark is scared to look, lest he collapse in hysterics and decide to give up comedy forever.
Meanwhile, have you all bought your tickets for Mark’s Respect fundraiser on July 17? If you haven’t, go here now and order some!
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Fair Point Tony, lets all leave Ray alone now and go and watch Newsnight
Comment by Richard Searle — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
Oh Richard, you misunderstand! I just think we should know what we’re dealing with, cos then we can have some fun.
Newsnight? That Jeremy Paxman is just a troll.
Comment by tonyc — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
Don’t feel sorry for me. I’ve no problem responding to all the one sided anti-SWP comments on SU. It’s par for the course. I don’t mention I visit SU to fellow comrades (SWP and others on the left) otherwise they’d think I’d lost the plot.
And don’t let rational discussion get in the way of a chance to ridicule anyone who doesn’t agree with you. I’m used to that level of debate from certain people on SU. The playground insults are occasionally amusing but leave the comedy to Mark Steel.
I’d probably take them more to heart if Renewal had more than a tiny representation on the anti-Bush and LMHR demo’s.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
“I’d probably take them more to heart if Renewal had more than a tiny representation on the anti-Bush and LMHR demo’s.”
No you wouldn’t - you’d just think we’d turned up to witchhunt you. Go to bed Ray. It’s time you moved on.
Comment by TLC — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Anonymous: You have a point and I should have explained myself better. Did the issue of the split come up on the doorstep or feature in the media in Birmingham? No. (It was within this context I was referring to). Does that mean we were completely unaffected? No. Our internal operations in two wards were effectively suspended for a number of months and key personnel lost valuable time engaging in a faction fight which would otherwise have spent focusing outwards.
It is not true to say that I am unaware or unwilling to face facts about the pull of electoral politics. We have to deal with these pressures all the time in Birmingham, it is the nature of the terrain. Despite that I don’t think there is a single shred of evidence that our political principles have been compromised.
Comment by Ger Francis — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Ray: no one, but no one, could have had a “big turnout” for either the anti-Bush demo, small, or the LMHR demo, terribly small given it was the SWP priority as opposed to the one the week before. Are you going to accept that you were wrong to accuse Respect in Tower Hamlets of not knowing about Shahed Ali’s defection? It’s the point blank refusal of people in the SWP like you to do elementary things like that that leaves so many people feeling uneasy about working with you.
Comment by Nas — 25 June, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Just come across this article:
http://quefaire.lautre.net/articles/08rees.html
by John Rees.
It’s a reply to a response to the publication in French of a transcript of his meeting (sinister and chilling according to two very long standing SWP members at the time) at Marxism 2007 on Strategy and Tactics (which spent an, at that time, inexplicable amount of time on justifying expulsions).
Anyway, in this reply Rees points out that the context of his speech was the need to prepare the members for a coming left/right division on Respect, which was already underway, according to him.
This all casts further light on the decision by the SWP central committee a few weeks later to “go nuclear” in response to a letter from George Galloway which had not yet been written.
I think SWP members should honestly ask themselves: “Back in July 2007, were we as a party really discussing frankly a left/right divide in Respect and the consequent need to prepare for a split?”
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 25 June, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
“Are you going to accept that you were wrong to accuse Respect in Tower Hamlets of not knowing about Shahed Ali’s defection?”
No. You made a big thing on SU about our three councilors defecting but not a murmur about your own. After reading the contempt tonyc has for your own deputy leader no wonder Shahed Ali made the comment he did.
The fact that many of you are treating these councilors as class traitors rather than individuals desperate to extricate themselves from a pointless feud will not build bridges among the left in TH. It also demonstrates how unrealistic your expectations are about the future relevance of Renewal.
Blame the SWP all you want but this won’t endear you to anyone else on the left nor will it solve the problem of the gradual disintegration (this could speed up at any time) of Renewal. Renewals reliance on electoralism is a weakness that is exacerbated by it’s tiny size.
Perhaps you could turn this around by dropping the feud but judging from the predictable response of your leading members in this thread I doubt it very much.
Comment by Ray — 25 June, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
Well that put’s a whole new twist on the phrase “Excuse my French”
Comment by TLC — 25 June, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
“The fact that many of you are treating these councilors as class traitors rather than individuals desperate to extricate themselves from a pointless feud will not build bridges among the left in TH”
You really are a fool ‘Ray’ - if all they wanted to do was to “extricate themselves from a pointless feud” they could have stayed as independents or resigned their seats. As it is they joined the Labour Party - or in one case, the Tories. That’s not extricating themselves - it’s joining parties of war and privatisation.
Comment by TLC — 25 June, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
this should be interesting…
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/cu/Marxism%20fringe%202008.htm
I can’t even begin to imagine what his line is going to be.
Comment by Dave — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:08 am
Mais je dis qu’on peut y arriver par un processus dialectique et démocratique de débat dans une organisation révolutionnaire et qu’une telle unité, une fois atteinte, augmente l’efficacité de tous les révolutionnaires.
Bleurgh…
Oddly, I thought the translation to French would make him sound less pompous… ho hum…
Or ‘o ‘um.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:09 am
“it’s joining parties of war and privatisation.”
Isn’t that the same party whose leftwing members Renewal is quite rightly encouraging you to work with?
Comment by Anonymous — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:14 am
157 is me (as if you couldn’t tell.)
Comment by Ray — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Not just the leftwing members, Ray.
Your point is?
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:24 am
@ 159 My point is the councilors who defected shouldn’t be written off and describing them as “class traitors” is unhelpful.
Comment by Ray — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:32 am
Everyone. This is ridiculous. Why are you all doing this? Is this changing anyone’s mind about anything? Don’t you think you should all look away from the screen and do something in the real world to build what you believe in?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a staunch supporter of one of the sides in this discussion… But does anything of what you are saying actually matter?
I don’t know how quite to express this… but am I the only one to realise how stupid this all looks? You are as likely to achieve left unity through masturbating as arguing here.
Comment by Tom Franks — 26 June, 2008 @ 1:37 am
Hold on everyone.
There are claims that the four did not join the Labour benches at the Tower Hamlets Council meeting last night.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 26 June, 2008 @ 5:39 am
Now here I actually agree with Ray’s last point (#160) as having been a member of the ‘party of war and privatisation’ till recently. In my view, there is no point trying to do anything in the labour Party at present, so those who organise on the left there are in a weaker position than those organising outside, but Ray’s right - labelling people class traitors per se is unhelpful and frankly childish.
The inevitable outcome of the split was that some would gravitate back to Labour.
Comment by Howard T — 26 June, 2008 @ 5:54 am
Tower Hamlets Tory Councillor Peter Golds says that the 4 councillors sat on the opposition side of the Council Chamber at last nights Tower Hamlets council meeting and did not vote with Labour throughout the meeting.
Comment by Barryb — 26 June, 2008 @ 7:47 am
163 - Howard, the person who used the term ‘class traitors’ was in fact Ray. He was being childish and unhelpful as per normal. They are not ‘class traitors’ - whatever that means - but they are very stupid. Leaving a left-wing anti-privatisation party to join a party that is pushing privatisation in Tower Hamlets is hardly a positive step. Leaving an anti-war party to join the party that prosecuted the war is a retrograde step. It is not the same existing LP members staying in that party with the hope (possibly in vain) of changing it for the better in the future - unless you think that the LL three are on some entryist project.
Since Respect has previuously asked - on numerous occasions - for the LL councillors to rejoin the main Respect group it is clear that they hadn’t be written off. But they have made their own choices. In the end if someone want to put their own personal advancemenrt in front of the principles and politics of their former party then they will generally be treated with contempt. And quite rightly so.
Comment by TLC — 26 June, 2008 @ 8:40 am
Shahed Ali confirmed in a press release yesterday afternoon that all four had applied for membership of New Labour, none has refuted the story in the Advertiser and regional officers have confirmed their applications will now be accepted. They stayed put last night because they are not yet Labour Party members but that is a technicality.
The Tower Hamlets council Labour group is deeply divided between a faction around the newly elected leader Lutfur Rahman and his very upset predecessor Denise Jones, who herself is the prtoege of the reviled Michael Keith, dumped out of the council not once but twice by Respect. Rahman has been pilloried as a member of the Islamic Forum of Europe and word has it he may face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Jones faction has a majority, which it is hoping to get from its new recruits.
This is all part of a very dirty deal going on behind the scenes in which the four are trying to secure their selection for the 2010 elections over Labour loyalists who have been patiently waiting their turn. No principles, just brute self-interest. Sickening.
Comment by sergo — 26 June, 2008 @ 8:47 am
I should add that this dirty deal, brokered by government minister Jim Fitzpatrick, should not come as a surprise to the Left List councillors former comrades in the SWP. Lutfa Begum made a speech to 250 London SWP members last September at the start of the witch-hunt against critics of the leadership’s demonisation of Galloway.
In that speech, she stated Fitzpatrick was better than Galloway and no Muslim would ever vote for him. Prviately she had threatened to campaign for Fitzpatrick against Galloway if her daughter was not selected as parliamentary candidate. That was the same meeting of SWP members only in which now Tory councillor Ahmed Hussain called Galloway a mad dog.
All of this was passed over in favour of the SWP leadership’s wider interests of smashing up Respect. With the ignominious departure of their three remaining Tower Hamlets councillors to New Labour, the SWP leadership has reaped what it had sown.
Comment by sergo — 26 June, 2008 @ 8:58 am
I love the RayBot’s translation of what I said.
I’m impressed by the Bot’s ability to twist any term into anything it wants.
Perhaps it is actually the collective consciousness of the Central Committee, and it somehow has the ability to write posts.
For fun, google this (with the quotes, and including the site: bit) “unity is strength” site:socialistunity.com
You’ll have hours of fun watching the degeneration and lying of someone who doesn’t actually exist, and who now really doesn’t like admitting that “Unity Is Strength” was its former online personality.
PS anyone wanting to find older stuff on SU, don’t use the site’s search facility. It’s rubbish. Just go to google and type your search terms, put a space, then site:socialistunity.com - it’s so much better, and it’s where you’ll find JohnG claiming that Kev and Rob are to the right of Lutfa Begum.
Comment by tonyc — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:00 am
So, who’s gonna translate all the French for me? I’m just a humble working class boy who barely speaks English.
I think someone should translate it. Let’s prove Chris Harman right about the 3 levels of intellect in the party - the grunts, the writers and the thinkers.
I’ll translate the RayBot for you in return - that is unless he, um, earns himself a RayBan.
Hmm, word fun. I’m gonna collect all his works together into a book that you can read while in the bath. It’ll really help you relax and unwind.
I’ll call it RayDocs.
Comment by tonyc — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:06 am
#151 “I think SWP members should honestly ask themselves: “Back in July 2007, were we as a party really discussing frankly a left/right divide in Respect and the consequent need to prepare for a split?””
Or maybe praise the cc for the foresight to see that you were going to knife the party in the back? Eh bien.
Comment by skidmarx — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Let yahoo translated for you, not perfect but readable.
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fquefaire.lautre.net%2Farticles%2F08rees.html&lp=fr_en&btnTrUrl=Translate
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:21 am
The Islamic Forum of Europe or IFE was described privastely by Professor Callinicos and other SWP Central Committee members as “extremist” and “fundamentalist” as they sought to demonise most of the Respect embers in Tower Hamlets and to persuade SWP members that Galloway supped with the devil.
The IFE is a primarily religious organisation with members in different parties and none. Lutfur Rahman is a long-standing Labour Party member with no known extremist or fundamentalist views whatsoever. Dr Abdul Bari, another IFE or former IFE member, is the pretty moderate general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britian and ironically one of the advertised speakers at the LMHR/UAF demo last Saturday.
Describing the IFE as extremist and fundamentalist is flirting with Islamophobia. It’s the kind of thing the Alliance for Workers Liberty specialises in. But it fitted the SWP agenda which coincided with the agenda of the members and supporters of the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
Comment by sergo — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:25 am
@skidmarx, #170: “Or maybe praise the cc for the foresight to see that you were going to knife the party in the back? Eh bien.”
Yeah, sure, the letter from George Galloway to the Respect National Council really looks like he knifed the party in the back.
You guys sure don’t know how to deal with even the mildest criticism, do you?
Comment by tonyc — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Pat Carmody, union activist in the CWU, has been sacked. He needs our support (yeah, this is me, who has smacked him around on here, saying that).
I was gonna suggest that if someone here knows him, they can get in touch so we can offer our support. He’ll be at the NSSN on Saturday, so maybe Andy can have a chat with him about the shape of the fight etc. Maybe RMT in London can help.
I clicked on a link, and this is what I read from Merlin Reader, SWP member and post worker, about some group or other, last Friday:
“Maybe the other side is seriously organising against us, reading SW and alerting employers. They’re certainly doing sweet FA re: the fascists. As usual.”
Anyone got any idea what he could be suggesting, and about who?
Comment by tonyc — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:46 am
#173 You are being a little disingenuous, Tony. In politics what is not said is as important as what is said. Though when you read what is said you see that GG identifies a number of issues, and then proposes a bureaucratic solution. The old leaders are replaced with new leaders. It is clear that the Letter was the first gambit in an effort to construct a new leadership for Respect around GG, Salma Yaqoob and allies, or as George Galloway stated it more openly in the later stages: “Leninists can have no place in the leadership of Respect”.
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:46 am
#174 If you want to support Pat Carmody why don’t you just suggest that rather than peppering your excellent proposal of solidarity with the salt of another barbed attack on his political organisation?
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Adamski: I think tonyc was making the entirely legitiamte point that Pat Carmody shoudl be supported, but it does his case no good for a well known SWP trade unionist to insinuate that people like tonyc or George Galloway have been grassing up SWP members to hostile employers in an attempt to get them sacked. I think you really out to take that up with Reader.
Comment by Nas — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Perhaps supporters of the Awami league do have rather solid reasons to be distrustful of members of the Jamaat-i-Islami and their allies. Such as described in Tower Hamlets. That is since they not just were collaborators with the Pakistani Army during the war of national liberation but continue to fight against the Awami league, kill leftists, covertly and overtly support the religious cleansing of Hindus. It would be interesting for anyone who wants another side of Bangladeshi politics reads Taslima Nasrin’s Shame - and she attacks those forces which abandoned secularism. But then she’s just an uppity women who spoke out of turn. And has paid for it with persecution and exile.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:17 am
#178 I think judging members of a British muslim organisation solely by it’s parent organisation in Pakistan or Bangladesh or elsewhere is not really a very marxist approach to thinking about these things.
For example, I may be a member of a group that is linked historically to the Muslim Brotherhood, but in Britain my politics will be shaped in the political context here: Racism, poverty, the demonisation of Muslims, war and attacks on civil liberties. I may participate in a social movement against war where I start to organise with people from different political backgrounds that mean that I am along way from the roots of the parent organisation in a far off country.
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:26 am
#170 Who needs to knife the SWP Central Committee in the back when they have done such an excellent job of committing hara-kiri themselves.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:30 am
#175 and #179 - What a funny fellow Adamski is. Such nonsense in 175 and such good sense in 179. How does he manage it?
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:32 am
#175: “In politics what is not said is as important as what is said.”
So, the question for today is: why does everyone else here blatantly persist in ignoring the things that were not said? They clearly pertain to the key issues since, in an attempt to suppress the truth, they weren’t mentioned. QED. And yet they ring out perfectly loud and clear in the mind of Adamski (though in stern and threatening voices.) Confess…
Comment by Andy Wilson — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:41 am
In the words of Slavoj Zizek:
“In March 2003, Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophizing about the relationship between the known and the unknown: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the “unknown knowns,” the things we don’t know that we know-which is precisely, the Freudian unconscious, the “knowledge which doesn’t know itself,” as Lacan used to say.”
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Indeed, Andy Wilson: I’m so glad that the SWP CC had the foresight to purge the traitors working for Galloway or volunteering to be an unpaid National Organiser for Respect on the grounds of what they did not say rather than on the obviously bourgeois, empiricist, unscientific, undialectical, just… just un-Reesian grounds of what they did say. I’m told some of the SWP’s young intellectuals are rather keen on various Maoist philosophical texts.
Comment by Nas — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:51 am
Sorry, Andy: I was wrong there. The expulsions and split all took place after a bout of Lacanian analysis, presumably conducted by Professor Callinicos, with the assistance of a cultural critic.
Comment by Nas — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Thomas A Kempis in the middle ages once wrote of ‘a shadow’s shadow - a world of shadows’ . . .
I realise my original formulation was a little oblique. All I meant is that in life you generally read between the lines, in politics especially so. And politics is a continuation of war by other means. As Wittgenstein taught me, “philosophy is the struggle against the bewitchment of our senses by means of language”
Whatever side you take in the split, I don’t believe that Mr Galloway’s aim was just to make a mild criticism. He himself speaks of “a crossroads” and his original letter contains evidence of an attempt to create a new reformist leadership in Respect in the form of a committee in which the SWP would play a minor role.
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:20 am
#183: Slavoj Zizek is a menace.
Zizek cares as much for the facts as you do. His theory too is is built so as to prevent it ever being shown to be wrong, so it doesn’t surprise me in the least that you’ve been studying this dismal wannabe ‘Leninist’ - you’ll certainly find plenty of ammunition there to support your phantastic politics and to justify almost any wheeze that might occur to your leadership.
But, please, spare me.
Still, it will be fun to read in a future history of the SWP how that party stayed one step ahead of the game throughout an entire historical period by the careful use of psychoanalysis. What would Cliff have thought? To put it mildly, he never struck me as being a man much influenced by Freud…
Comment by Andy Wilson — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Perhaps when Adam is saying that what is not done and said that is just as important as what is actually done and said, we should judge his own ability as a class fighter when he did nothing when his employer didn’t pay him for two months, and then ran off without ever paying him.
solid trade unionist my arse.
Comment by Dear Koba — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:27 am
#187 I was quoting Zizek in jest. Personally, I don’t take Zizek seriously as a political analyst, but he is a good introduction to Lacan, he has become a little over-prolific and repetitive in recent years. (I’m not employing the term ‘repetition’ in a technical psychoanalytic sense)
Trotsky was apparently interested in Freud, and played Chess with Adler in Zurich.
Also, I should once again clarify, that I’m not a member of the SWP.
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:32 am
#188 Dear Koba, are you the same guy who had a reputation of being a marxist who only occasionally deigned to point his armchair in the direction of history?
Your claim is bogus. A few years ago, I was recruited at a job centre to a dodgy company who did indeed not pay any of the employers for a month and then vanished. The circumstances were very bizarre and like something from a novel - but I have no reason to discuss them in depth with an anonymous psoter here. To say I did nothing, is not correct, I and another ex-employee set up a group and had a couple of meetings with around 50 people, we also got the support of Alun Michael MP, there was a court case, there was people who were sent to prison.
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:43 am
People seem to hark back to the RESPECT split last year in Tower Hamlets and question whether it was left/right. The argument at the time was that RESPECT council leadership were not sticking to RESPECT principles. Remember, the T stood for trade unions (Rahman, a trade union activist was unhappy at business leanings) and the E stood for equality,(the females were unhappy at some alleged male chauvanism), that’s where the left/right argument focussed.
The SWP have clearly suffered here and there must be question as to whether they were too keen to drive this notion of ‘radicalised Muslims’ and the ‘far left’ being drawn together. Then again, at the same time, the SWP were highlighting the dynamics within the electoralist formation, the fact that people can simply join to obtain council influence and ditch any socialist principles accordingly. That’s how the argument with Galloway evolved and the SWP have sadly been proved right.
In the longer term it is RENEWAL that faces harder questions, simply because for years the SWP have invested far less in electoralism. The fact is that RESPECT gained some pretty impressive successes on the back of the war on terror, however the war is now far less an electoral issue. The problem now is, how does RESPECT RENEWAL continue to enjoy council election success and the ‘influence’ that many members appear to yearn. It is certain that candidates will be far less inclined to hold to left wing principles, indeed one cannot really see much of an accountable mechanism. The posters on this board who sit on the RENEWAL national committee seem happy to accomodate right wing ideas whilst leading candidates boast on their websites about getting the backing of business leaders (as did RENEWAL ally Livingstone to no effect). Meanwhile Galloway will just do his own thing with no accountability - surely his motive for ditching the SWP in the first place.
Comment by stuart — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
“the SWP have sadly been proved right” - by the defection of the national chair of their front organisation, another councillor, and both their SWP councillors (one to the Tories and the other to New Labour). Oh please. As for electoral pressures, if a party that claims it is the embryo of a force that could lead a world revolution cannot navigate its way through local politics, well… make your own mind up.
Comment by Nas — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Electoral politics is for reformist loosers. We have said this all along. We have now demonstrated this in practice and the class has learnt a valuable lesson. This is how you break peoples illusions. So long suckers!
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
It is clear Adam that you are engaged in a very different political project than anyone’s orginal concept of Respect.
I wonder what will become of you once the SWP puts the already half-dead Left List out of its misery?
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
#193
Actually this was very funny - thanks Adamski
BTW am I to assume that a massive tory landslide is the SWP CC’s masterplan?
Comment by Socialist for Davis — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Post #193 was a joke, I must make clear . . .!
It is pretty clear that Respect Renewal is dead in London, George Galloway won’t be an MP after the next general election.
Our project will be to carry on building the movement.
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
In the longer term it is RENEWAL that faces harder questions, simply because for years the SWP have invested far less in electoralism.
In other words, the SWP may have marched their troops to the top of the [foot]hill and marched them down again, but that’s OK because they were never serious about hill-climbing.
The defections are depressing, but for RESPECT I honestly don’t think they change much. RESPECT always was going to have a struggle to establish itself, build its cadre and develop its line, with or without the SWP. All that’s changed is that now we know it’s going to be without.
Comment by Phil — 26 June, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Well in a way yes, Respect has the harder task becasue it has the greater ambition - to make a real difference to the political mainstream.
The SWP have suffered enormous damage to their reputation with the rest of the left and within the trade unions, but if their ambition is to muddle along as a propaganda group, then their task is quite simple.
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 June, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
#196 I agree Galloway was only init for himself, anyway Kevin and Rob will be on the dole and an other so-called reformist left project arrives at the burial ground of shipwreck’s!
Comment by Jim lawrie — 26 June, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
#199 I don’t believe that George Galloway is a careerist, nor a revolutionist, but I can’t see the circumstances that brought stunning success in Bethnal Green and Bow being repeated. This is unfortunate because to many in that summer of 2005 it seemed as if politics was being redefined from the bottom up, and we all remember when George Galloway and John Rees seemed to hint that we were going to see something akin to George Lansbury and the Rebel Councillors of Poplar or Militant in Liverpool in the 80s.
Respect was born out of the anti-war movement, let the new movements against food price rises, fuel price rises, the credit crisis give birth to a new fighting coalition of the working class
Comment by Adamski — 26 June, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
#200 Not a careerist’ TV an radio show’s say’s he is, whilst his constituents struggle to pay their increasing food and utility bills!
Comment by Jim lawrie — 26 June, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Adamski
While I agree the whoole respect project was still born when Monbiot dropped out it does actually have elected reps in london unlike LL
It may be on the way out but it has proven more durable thena the SWP which is now a dead org
Comment by Friend of the Poor — 26 June, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Adam - if you want to move on from Respect and the Left List abomination, that’s fine. Sadly we are bound to lose people no longer interested in continuing the project and put off by the whole experience with the SWP. But please do not get in the way of those people who feel that there is still some mileage to go in building something in the here and now. I would rather you were with us than standing on the sidelines, but it’s your choice. Some of us never saw Respect as the finished goods, but rather work in progress. If Respect is able to build itself sufficiently to act as a catalyst for the creation of a wider broad left party at some point in the future, then hopefully our paths will cross in the same organisation again.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 26 June, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
What a very sad fellow Jim Lawrie is. At least he’s got his ferret to keep him company while he waits the conversion of the masses to revolution. I wonder if he has joined the SPGB yet. They really need him.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 26 June, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
#197 “RESPECT always was going to have a struggle to establish itself, build its cadre and develop its line”
What fecking cadre? What fecking line (apart from What George says goes)? Sorry if I’m reducing the level of debate again.
The references to psychoanalysis and philosophy seem to (deliberately) miss the point.Kevin Ovenden makes it appear that he persists in the belief that there is a layer of SWP members who will be won over to his view of the history of the Respect split: that he and Rob were continuing to do the party’s bidding right up to the point where they were expelled, and even that the way he has supported his new boss on every issue where he has disagreed with the party then and since (Tibet,abortion,etc.) would still have been backed by “the party of Foot and Cliff”. The SWP’s narrative, that he was asked to carry the party’s politics to Galloway rather than the other way round,and when he failed to do that was asked to stop working for Galloway which he refused, and was then expelled because he clearly wasn’t a supporter of the party any more, is far more believable than his assertion that the “Rees-German” gang has hijacked the party and that when members wake up and smell the coffee they will realise that he has taken the right path.
Comment by skidmarx — 26 June, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
skidmarx
Try to deal with politics. The strategy pursued by the SWP has been a disaster. A signficant number of SWP members recognise that and the fact that the party’s view of the Respect split is wrong. That isn’t at issue. It’s more doubtful whether those members will do anything about it.
And please - don’t try to make this about Tibet or abortion, as if they were the questions Respect was split over, or over which Oli Rahman led four councillors away. George Galloway had the same positions of those and most other questions when it was announced from the chair at Marxism 2008 that he, alongside John Rees, was one of the greaetest political leaders in the world (before anyone starts, that is not a form of words I would have chosen).
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 26 June, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
#204 Sad! What is sad is you Respect dreamers that muddle along somehow hoping that this or that reform will somehow make the profit system behave humanely-something it has never done, and never will!
Comment by Jim lawrie — 26 June, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Nas @ 192 wrote of the SWP:
“if a party that claims it is the embryo of a force that could lead a world revolution cannot navigate its way through local politics, well… make your own mind up”.
I think that just about says it all.
Comment by Dave — 26 June, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
“Try to deal with politics. The strategy pursued by the SWP has been a disaster. A signficant number of SWP members recognise that and the fact that the party’s view of the Respect split is wrong. That isn’t at issue. It’s more doubtful whether those members will do anything about it.”
Skidmarx is right Kevin, try dealing with reality. You were expelled along with a couple of other comrades because you were trying to undermine the CC at the behest of Galloway. No one in the SWP agrees with what you did. No one believes your self-serving story that you were trying to save the SWP from the evil CC.
Since then you’ve shot yourself in the foot with your duplicitous attacks on the SWP. Even if there was a desire by comrades to reform the SWP they wouldn’t be knocking at your door for support because they wouldn’t have any trust in you.
Comment by Ray — 26 June, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
#203: “Our project will be to carry on building the movement”
Great - and when you have finally ‘built the movement’ perhaps you could pop back over here and give us a shout - I promise I’ll drop whatever I’m doing and pop along to the opening ceremony. It’ll be a fine day out with lots to celebrate, I’m sure. As an aside, what do you propose the rest of the left do in the meantime?
Comment by Andy Wilson — 26 June, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Ray
That’s right, no one believes the heretics, everyone agrees with the leadership. Thankfully, that just isn’t true. What happens as a result of that, who knows? But it really is not true as many people with longstanding good friends in the SWP know.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 26 June, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
“You were expelled along with a couple of other comrades because you were trying to undermine the CC at the behest of George Galloway…”
Discipline’s a funny old thing, eh?
And who decides whether or not you’ve been undermining the CC?
That’s right, the CC.
Following ‘adamski’s’ earlier remarks, I’d ask whether Freud, Lacan or Wittgenstein could help out here?
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 26 June, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Ovenden: “George Galloway had the same positions of those and most other questions when it was announced from the chair at Marxism 2008 that he, alongside John Rees, was one of the greaetest political leaders in the world (before anyone starts, that is not a form of words I would have chosen).”
When was this? Are you posting from the future?
Comment by martin ohr — 26 June, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Marxism 2005. I imagine there won’t be the same introduction at Marxism 2008.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 26 June, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
#206 “And please - don’t try to make this about Tibet or abortion”
Why not? Are you embarrassed that you are so far from revolutionary socialism now that you are working fulltime as the Mouth of Sauron? I’ll ask the same questions Rob wouldn’t answer: Do you think these issues aren’t important? Do you secretly hold the same views as the SWP but can’t express them because of your job? If you have fully gone over to the Dark Side, why not admit it and then much of the debate about how your views differ from the SWP’s can move on?
#213 Maybe Kevin is delusional enough to think that he will be chairing a meeting at Marxism 2008.
Comment by skidmarx — 26 June, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
I believe that Ray must be referring to me and Nick Wrack as well as Kevin Ovenden when he says “you were expelled along with a couple of other comrades because you were trying to undermine the CC at the behest of Galloway”. Kevin and I were in fact expelled for refusing an instruction from the Central Committee to stop working for George Galloway. Nick Wrack was expelled for refusing to withdraw his name from nomination as Respect national organiser. I was offered a job with the SWP as an alternative to working for George Galloway, an offer I felt I had to refuse.
I am absolutely sure that Kevin, Nick and I did not undermine the Central Committee and just as sure that we were not working at the behest of George Galloway to do so. Indeed, from my knowledge of events George did not want to undermine the SWP Central Committee. He just wanted it to see sense.
However Kevin, Nick and I did disagree with the strategy the SWP Central Committee were pursuing which was in effect to go to war with George Galloway. I expressed my disagreement with members of the Central Committee privately and we all did so in closed meetings of SWP members. In our view the course being taken by the Central Committee was bound to end in disaster. I rather think we have been proved correct both in our analysis and our prediction.
Comment by rob hoveman — 26 June, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
#216 I just don’t believe your account of events is at all credible, as can be seen by the way you went on the offensive against the SWP. You may be sure in your own mind but noone else is going to be.
Comment by skidmarx — 26 June, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
#212: “Following ‘adamski’s’ earlier remarks, I’d ask whether Freud, Lacan or Wittgenstein could help out here?”
Can Wittgenstein help? What a daft question. Didn’t you notice that Wittgenstein tackles the whole question of Democratic Centralism in his best know work? - “This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule”.
Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, #201
Comment by Andy Wilson — 26 June, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
skidmarx
Ok. So you don’t believe Rob’s account. Fine. Let’s see what dispassionate observers think about the account and the attendant predictions of the SWP Central Committee’s course of action leading to a) an unnecessary split b) the weakening of Respect, a very successful electorally-based intervention by the left and c) the weakening of the SWP.
You can choose to believe whatever you wish, Dark Sides and all (which, incidentally, is as fanciful as the talk of principled left/right divisions motivating all of this). There’s a significant number of SWP members who don’t go along with this guff. Let’s see how it all pans out over the next couple of years.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 26 June, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
but skidmarx, as we know at the time the CC issued an ultimatum to rob and kev, they were talking about unity. hpw unity is achieved by breaking with the party’s only MP in a deeply symbolic action - it says that we cannot work with you George - is beyond me.
those expelled from the swp were done so to engineer a split. simple as that. all this nonsense of witch hunts and the other stuff that followed is a sign of the swp cc losing control and also shows poor judgment on their part. this was the swp excercising bureaucratic centralism and shows their continued failure to prove themselves capable of playing a leading role in any movement.
thankfully they wont be trusted to do so in the future
Comment by me — 26 June, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
#216: “… the way you went on the offensive against the SWP”
Speaking as someone else who has in the past gone ‘on the offensive against the SWP’, I can only say - they started it.
I have spent many a happy hour contemplating how it is that, once you are expelled from the SWP, their loyalists are genuinely astounded that you fight back (such a thing would presumably never have occurred to them, being such naturally passive and compliant souls.) I often imagine the expression on their faces when they hear about it - I imagine it to be like that on the face of a fat bully you have just kicked in the nuts after he started prodding at you, demanding your dinner money.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 26 June, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
#218.
You know better than that. §202 provides the answer: “Obeying a rule is a public practice.” (my emph.)
It’s been slightly amended over the years though. I think Pat Stack and Martin Smith’s methods of looking into people’s minds first and asking questions later is perfectly legitimate.
Especially when done behind closed doors or, rather, privately…
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 26 June, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
anticapitalista: are we going to get any apology from you for your constant taunting that these defections were not going to happen? I’m sorry to everyone if they think that raising this is lowering the tone. It’s just that people like Ray, anticapitalista and johng seem to think they can come out with any old rubbish and when they are caught tell the rest of us to move on, or be denounced as sectarians for holding them to their word.
BPS: interesting your raise Pat Stack. I wonder what he makes of all this. After all, he’s rubber stamped all the expulsions. No need for him to stop now.
Comment by Nas — 26 June, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
I’m confused. Should I support the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea?
Comment by Jonny Mac — 26 June, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Poor Pat. Sitting at a Disputes Committee meeting with 10 pages of Socialist Unity postings, trying to decide if someone was someone or someone else, before expelling them anyway when they said they would not campaign for Lindsey German.
We should probably remember that there were more than 3 expulsions from the SWP over this.
It’s just that SWP members aren’t gonna be told about it til the next conference - what a happy coincidence that the last expulsion happened a few weeks after the last one.
Comment by tonyc — 26 June, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Anyone who thinks that George was just mounting mild critcism rather than seeking to lessen the influence of the SWP and marginalise John Rees is engaging in a flight of fancy. The only way the SWP could have avoided a split would have been to do whatever George wants.
Comment by Anonymous — 26 June, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
Sorry which Pat is that? Incidently whats the ‘rubbish’ I come on here with? Unsure what you mean Nas. And incidently I’d stand by the idea that someone who signs letters effectively portraying the split as an attempt by a small trot group to ‘take over’ an existing formation in a local paper, is to the right of people who abide by the norms of the labour movement. No apologies there I’m afraid.
Comment by johng — 26 June, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
the only way the swp could have avoided a split was to engage in talks rather than act in a childish and sectarian manner. going on the offensive, lying to members, expelling experienced comrades - and in the process of doing so sending the message that the swp can’t work with galloway - hardly signifies an attempt at unity!
the swp had been looking for an excuse to split respect and galloways mildly critical letter gave them the smokescreen they needed. it’s just that their exit strategy didn’t go quite as smoothly as planned.
tonyc - i didn’t realise there had been more expulsions, just people leaving. it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest though as this is the path the swp are heading. recent history shows their complete incompetence at leading any movement.
Comment by me — 26 June, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
@ 216 I’m sure butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, Rob. But no one in the SWP (and much of the left outside it) believes your version of events. Renewal are not making many friends by whitewashing what happened or pretending that their/Galloway’s political direction is unassailable.
That’s probably why Galloway got booed again at the anti-Bush demo in contrast to the good reception that German and other speakers received. Credit to Galloway that he didn’t let that unnerve him and gave a good anti-Bush speech. While our comrades don’t participate in that sort of behaviour it’s evident that people on the left are ambivalent about what Galloway stands for concerning a whole range of issues.
This is Renewals Achilles heel and no amount of SWP bashing will this cover up.
“I imagine it to be like that on the face of a fat bully you have just kicked in the nuts after he started prodding at you, demanding your dinner money.”
Andy W stop feeling sorry for yourself. It’s unedifying. You seem to be the one in shock that SWP comrades stood up against the witchhunting of our CC. I suppose that’s because you condescendingly believe we are naturally passive and compliant souls who’ll swallow your guff. It’s usual during a dispute for people to take sides and I wonder why you find this so difficult to accept?
Comment by Ray — 26 June, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
#223 Nas, when you tell me exactly what you meant when you said that the SWP CC had “nothing but contempt for the Greek comrades”
Comment by anticapitalista — 26 June, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
You seem to be the one in shock that SWP comrades stood up against the witchhunting of our CC.
Ray, do you know who Andy Wilson is?
Comment by Phil — 26 June, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
I know who Andy is. Do I get a free milkshake?
Comment by johng — 26 June, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Incidently I don’t think its true that the SWP was “looking for a split”. If it was its doubtful that Socialist Worker would have come out with those articles claiming that rumours of a split were untrue. It doesn’t make sense.
Comment by johng — 26 June, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
the witch hunting of your cc? don’t make me laugh, there was no witch hunt of the swp cc. unless mild criticism counts.
Comment by me — 26 June, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
#229 Ray is clearly one of those Marxists who can somehow penetrate to the reality of things even though he wasn’t there and doesn’t know what was said and done. However, my version of events, as Ray calls it, just happens to be the truth.
Sadly, some SWP members, including members of the Central Committee and Ray apparently, have shown a callous disregard for the truth in recent months, witness the scurrilous claim in SWP party notes that Kevin and I had denounced the SWP to individuals and organisations outside the SWP prior to our expulsions. When we asked the national secretary Martin Smith for evidence of this lie, none of course was forthcoming. What a shame to see Ray, whoever this is, continuing this unprincipled smearing with patent falsehoods.
Incidentally, as Ray knows so much, perhaps he would like to explain why, if I was denouncing the organisation and undermining the Central Committee, they offered me a full-time job with the SWP shortly before expelling me. Doesn’t quite add up, does it?
The fact is that the SWP leadership’s strategy and tactics over the last year and more have been an utter disaster for the SWP, never mind anyone else. And on this, if nothing else, Kevin, Nick and I have been completely vindicated.
Comment by rob hoveman — 26 June, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
230 Gladly, anticapitalista: the SWP CC has contemptuously regarded the leadership of the Greek organisation as out of step with London-thought for many years. Chris Nineham was openly - I mean audibly - contemptuous of the two comrades you had leading your anti-war work at the International Peace conference in 2005. No leading member of the Greek organisation has been promoted by the SWP for many years at its events or in its publications. In reponse to questions in Respect, leading SWP members openly said that they thought you should all be in the Coalition of the Left and were being sectarians. Now, I imagine this arrogant dismissal will change, at least outwardly. The SWP CC is in a hole and will be launching a charm offensive in all sorts of directions. If I were you and your comrades, I’d beware the Brits bearing gifts (I doubt your leadership would let Rees set foot in one of your conferences - I bet you haven’t had the pleasure of his company or the other half of the power-couple for a good while, ever wondered why that might be?). Then again, a degree of independence of thought is bound to put you in the dog house again. So be careful: look at the SWP’s intervention in Turkey. Not a pretty picture.
Comment by Nas — 26 June, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
Johng, It is apparent to all of us that you are consistently delusional. I reference back to all the documentation from August 2007 which you are trying to write out of history. What about Rees french ocument connection.
Your silence is deafening, its crystal clear that Rees wanted to not opt out of the coalition but wanted to destroy the Pariamentary, trade union and community base of Respect. the documents prove it
If you keep up this hostility, you forfeit the right to call yourself a progressive left
Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 26 June, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
229 - I am in the SWP and I believe Rob and so do a lot of other people. Ray you are either a full timer or a hack and no-one dares say what they think in your hearing or you wouldn’t say such rubbish.
Comment by DrDoolittle — 26 June, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
#229. …You seem to be the one in shock that SWP comrades stood up against the witchhunting of our CC…
I don’t know about Andy Wilson (though I have a passing notion as to who he is) but for me it was a complete surprise that SWP members supported their Central Committee throughout the dangerous exchange of letters in 2007.
When Rees accepted a cheque from a PFI company it was, rightly, not seen as ‘undermining the CC’ but a simple error of judgement. Those who genuinely undermine the CC by disagreeing with their tactics have been soundly dealt with.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 26 June, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
johng a progressive left? He’s an armchair arsehole. Propagandists are useful in any movement, in fact they are essential, but he isn’t even that. He’s a cut and paste marxist who doesn’t know his Trotsky from his Stalin.
Dr D: Ray is neither a full-timer nor a hack. He is in fact a groupie. This time next year he’ll be asking the CPGB to shag him.
Comment by Realist — 26 June, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
#229: “you condescendingly believe we are naturally passive and compliant souls who’ll swallow your guff. “
Come on, son, pay attention: you are passive and compliant souls who swallow the CC’s guff. Really - kids today have the attention span of gnats.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 26 June, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
“Ray, do you know who Andy Wilson is?”
Are you castigating me Phil for disagreeing with an prominent ex-member? Considering the cult of celebrity that exists in Renewal it was only a matter of time before one of you would try to pull rank by proxy. Not that it stops any of you attempting to eviscerate the reputations of Rees and German on a regular basis.
“I am in the SWP and I believe Rob and so do a lot of other people. Ray you are either a full timer or a hack and no-one dares say what they think in your hearing or you wouldn’t say such rubbish.”
Good for you! What do you want me to do about it? If you’re claiming that my opinion prevents you from arguing yours then that’s pretty pathetic. Your get out clause that I’m a full-timer won’t wash because as I’ve repeatedly stated I’ve never worked for the SWP. Full-timers have better things to do than get involved in a interminable spat like this. Apart from “Dodgycheque” who used to post here attacking everything SWP and claiming, rather unconvincingly, that he was in the SWP you are the second so-called “SWP comrade” I’ve come across who supports Galloway instead of the SWP. Two comrades in 9 months are harldy the floodgates of dissension opening as Kevin intimates (but never specifies.) The ex-comrades with an axe to grind don’t count considering their own personal agendas.
We’ve even got Nas lecturing a Greek comrade about his own organisation. Quite frankly I don’t know why any of you bother defending your position considering you’ve got it all worked out and know our own organisations better than we do. The condescending debating style used by many of your leading members wouldn’t engage anyone let alone convince them of your argument. And you lot have the nerve to question Rees’s social skills.
@ BPS Yeah, it was a complete surprise that we would defend ourselves against trot bashing. I could dig around for some of Andy N’s (a member of Renewals leadership) scathing attacks on so-called “Trotskites” but I can’t be bothered.
Comment by Ray — 26 June, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
“Dr D: Ray is neither a full-timer nor a hack. He is in fact a groupie. This time next year he’ll be asking the CPGB to shag him.”
After nearly 20 years in the SWP I’ve never seen the level of debate reduced to the playground taunts used in this thread. Are you actually a socialist?
Comment by Ray — 26 June, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
“Come on, son, pay attention: you are passive and compliant souls who swallow the CC’s guff. Really - kids today have the attention span of gnats.”
It is typical on this blog that as soon as someone speaks the truth about how we in the SWP are just getting on with the work of building the movement, they are likened to gnats. Remember that people like to kill gnats. It shows the level of immaturity amongst Renewals leaders that they now want to kill people in the SWP, who are out there building the movement.
The rest of us are out there building the movement. We don’t the time to come on blogs arguing with your nonsense. You can play your games weith someone else.
I don’t get drawn into your petty squabbles. I am out there building the movement.
Comment by The RayBot — 26 June, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Are you castigating me Phil for disagreeing with an prominent ex-member?
No, I’m pointing out that you were talking to Andy W. as if he were a RESPECT supporter, which he fairly obviously isn’t. I’m not castigating you, just pointing out that you were making yourself look silly.
Incidentally… the witchhunting of our CC? You’re going to have to clarify your use of this word ‘witchhunt’. Who’s been sacked, who’s been expelled, who’s been sued, who’s been smeared in the press?
Comment by Phil — 26 June, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
after 20 years in the swp you’ve never seen debate.
trot bashing? what total garbage. can you provide any evidence of this trot bashing you’re on about?
Comment by me — 26 June, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
“trot bashing? what total garbage.”
I rest my case. You people want to continue this damaging feud, fine. But the rest of us won’t stand by and wait for your witch-hunting.
We’ll be out there building the movement. Arguing on a blog can be productive when we’re discussing tactics on how to fight the nazi’s, but Renewals witch-hunting serves only to deepen my resolve to fight the nazi’s and new labours Party of war.
I won’t get drawn into this cycle of trotskite bashing and witch-hunting. I’m out there building the movement.
Comment by The RayBot — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
From the Respect - Left Overs website.
Respect/Left List statement on Tower Hamlets councillors’ defection
26/06/2008
It with great regret that we have learnt that Tower Hamlets councillors Oliur Rahman, Rania Khan and Lutfa Begum have left Respect. Press reports suggest they have joined or are going to join New Labour. Respect Renewal councillor Shahid Ali is also joining New Labour.
The Respect councillors were elected on a platform of opposing the occupation of Iraq, the government’s privatisation policies, the transfer of housing stock, the introduction of ID cards and the retention of the Tory anti-union laws.
It is regrettable that they have now turned their backs on the people who elected them.. The councillors’ desire to retain their seats should not have been put before the interests of the people who originally voted for them.
The recent split in Respect has created conditions in which New Labour can seek to regain the initiative in Tower Hamlets but Respect/Left List supporters will continue to oppose New Labour and the other establishment parties. We know that many in the working class movement look on the decline of the Labour government with mounting concern and desparately want a real left alternative.
We will continue with our efforts to help create an alternative left party that working people can look to for a defence of their living standards and their trade unions. A party that struggles against war and the racism it breeds.
Comment by JFK — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
‘The recent split in Respect has created conditions in which New Labour can seek to regain the initiative in Tower Hamlets’
Would that include the Rees backed resigning of the whip?
Comment by me — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Well, Rees certainly helped new Labour’s friends when he sent his press calling notice to Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch.
Comment by tony — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Since today we’ve already had Zizek, Lacan, Freud and Wittgenstein, why not go the whole hog and explore together Immanuel Kant’s THE ANTINOMIES OF REES, SON!
Thesis: It is wrong to call us “naturally passive and compliant souls”. The SWP rank and file do not blindly follow their leadership but are independantly minded souls who think for themselves and hold their leaders to account.
Antithesis: we are all completely united about the expulsions last year, the spilt in Respect and the handling of the aftermath, disastrous though that all may be. There is no dissent and nothing to talk about here, “No one in the SWP even refers to the split any longer.”
(Sorry, but there is no… Synthesis)
Comment by Andy Wilson — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
oh come on ME (246) - isn’t it obvious. The trot-bashing is legion. GG told some trots to ‘fuck off’ and he made passing refernce to Russian dolls (Trotsky was Russian you know.
Those trots in the ISG were made to give up their paper in order to be allowed to stay in Renewal.
SWP CC members MB and WB were allowed to speak at the Renewal conference (a fiendishly cunning plan to make them look like fools) and leading members such as MS and EH were allowed to sell SW at that conference so tellingly showing them how few people there wanted to buy the best and most honest left paper the world has ever seen. A strategy designed to demoralise. So underhand you must agree.
Meanwhile across the country former SWP members have been forced to recant their past views while parading naked with ice-picks before being allowed to take part in Respect’s renewal.
Now quit complaining. We all know a trot-bashing witch-hunt when we see one.
Comment by Defend the Trots — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
“We all know a trot-bashing witch-hunt when we see one.”
Yes we do, and the fact that in your post you’ve given the full names of comrades who are normally shy and quiet and would not want to be witch-hunted by the gutter-dwellers in Renewal, shows that your poor attempt at “humour” is just another weapon in your arsenal of intent to destroy everything the SWP stands for.
Comment by The RayBot — 26 June, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
242 - Ray I said you were either a full timer or a hack - if you deny the former then I guess its a hack. You repeat the stupid lie that is preventing comrades from speaking out - you are either with Galloway or the SWP. Reminds me of Blair saying you are either with Saddam or the War. How stupid and sad that internal debate is stifled this way. Speaking out gets you labelled a Galloway supporter and expelled. Very sad.
Comment by DrDoolittle — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
I’ve been re-reading this thread and have come to realise the great advantage that the SWP and its supporters have over all of its critics when judging the impact of this latest development: they can never be proved wrong.
Galloway and co. (Wrack, Hoveman, Ovenden, Francis, et al) presumably have some specific goals in mind - holding BG & B, taking Poplar, winning a few more seats on TH council, winning a few seats elsewhere or at least steadily lifting the vote. Whether or not they are likely to be successful in this is another matter, but one can at least see where they’re heading. (This isn’t electoralism as such, btw, just goal setting.)
But the SWP operates outside of time and history. It cannot be wrong because the obvious interpretation of an outcome (say the defection of a bloc of its councillors being a disastrous showing) will always be reinterpreted dialetically in the party’s favour (the fault lies with broader social and political dynamics). There is always a principle that is more important than the situation one finds oneself in. Bad decisions are never made by the party (and therefore can never be criticised). There is always a bigger picture, and that bigger picture will aways be defined by the SWP. Sometimes this involves a crude tinkering with recorded evidence (yesterday’s shibboleths being today’s principled stances, for example), but most of the time that’s not even necessary. Wellington’s dictum - ‘Never apologise, never explain’, has now become party policy.
Comment by Dave — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Interesting post, Dave. And it really rings true.
The explanation at the beginning of the split was that Muslims were retreating from activity, and that worried by the retreat from militancy, Galloway was moving with them to the right away from the SWP. In other words, nothing the SWP had done or could do had caused this.
This ignored every point of Galloway’s criticisms, the answers to which were lies (for example, that OFFU hadn’t lost £5,000 but had made a modest profit).
Once the split had happened, the only mea culpa was when Rees said that he realises now that the signs of a move to the right should’ve been reported sooner.
Other than that, the entire split is put down to everyone else in Respect being pulled by or reacting to the wider changes in society.
The SWP is entirely absolved of any blame - there was nothing it could do. After all, it is merely the revolutionary party, as you say, outside of time and history, riding the moment in the hope of influencing things, pulling away just at the right time when things go wrong.
If people wonder why sometimes we get exasperated at the SWP’s behaviour, it is precisely because it inculcates a superiority complex in its membership and its method that says that by definition it cannot be wrong on any level other than temporary tactical ones. The rest… it’s just capitalism, y’know?
Someone in the SWP contacted me recently, saying he had come to realise, having spent time with a whole bunch of SWP members all of whom were totally opposed to the leadership but none of whom were openly arguing in the party, that there is something structurally wrong with the SWP.
When I spoke to Kevin Ovenden about this, he told me about a private meeting with a loooooooooong standing SWP member just before the split, who wanted to meet to discuss what he should do. This comrade told him that they agreed with him, but basically, this is the SWP - we know it’s shit, we know we can’t argue, but it’s all we’ve got, so resign from Galloway’s office and wait for a better time.
At that point, Kevin too decided that there is something structurally wrong with the SWP.
There is. It’s not its conception of what’s wrong with the world or how we want to put it right. It’s its conception of its place within it and how it should operate.
Comment by tonyc — 26 June, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
tonyc - “…Kevin too decided that there is something structurally wrong with the SWP.
There is. It’s not its conception of what’s wrong with the world or how we want to put it right. It’s its conception of its place within it and how it should operate.”
If you think that - and Dr. Doolittle and other comrades think that - then you either fight your corner or quit complaining. For god’s sake it’s not like the SWP runs a gulag or can even get you fired from your job. I can’t believe that people claim that they want to overthrow the capitalist state and the bosses - with all their political, financial and military power - and yet you can’t stand up to Rees, German and Smith? How do you challenge your union leaders even? What’s more I can’t believe that people say they believe in the politics of the SWP, are proud of its past history, see its importance to building a socialist movement, dedicate years to it, and then don’t bother to fight to save it when they believe it is in trouble. tonyc, you weren’t kicked out (neither was Ger), Kevin et al didn’t even bother to appeal their expulsions. None of you have any right to criticize anybody in the SWP for challenging or not the CC.
As for the 6-year olds on here like Raybot, defendthetrots, etc. Well, you must know you’re dumbasses and it must give you pleasure so, I guess, have fun.
Comment by redbedhead — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
you either fight your corner or quit complaining
Both alternatives have the great merit of keeping criticism of the SWP hidden from the outside world. Actually Tony is fighting his corner - outside the SWP.
None of you have any right to criticize anybody in the SWP for challenging or not the CC.
Can you name anyone who does have that right? Just for comparison, you understand.
Comment by Phil — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
#257 Redbedhead - are SWP members allowed to fight their corner? That is let the whole membership know their views? Or are only the CC allowed to know their views?
Fair enough point if there is internal democracy inside SWP, but the impression is that no one is allowed to organise except the CC.
So how do the members fight their corner?
Comment by Howard T — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
“you must know you’re dumbasses ”
Takes one to know one - na,na,ner,na,na!
Anyway thanks for the permission to have fun, Mr Bedstead.
Comment by Defend the Trots — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
I can’t believe that people claim that they want to overthrow the capitalist state and the bosses - with all their political, financial and military power - and yet you can’t stand up to Rees, German and Smith?
I think it’s called a paradox.
I haven’t been able to work it out.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
Phil - “Can you name anyone who does have that right? Just for comparison, you understand.”
Well, of course, you can do whatever the heck you want. But, in terms of credibility, why should anyone listen to someone who disparages people who don’t fight the CC but themself didn’t fight the CC?
And as for fighting them from outside the SWP. Well, you can’t have it both ways and say that what you want to see is a stronger, better SWP but you’re not willing to stick and fight for it. Because the example you’re giving, if followed, would lead to the SWP’s dissolution, not the correction of its problems, structural or otherwise. Though, maybe tonyc doesn’t care any longer what happens to the SWP, in which case, never mind…
Comment by redbedhead — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
howard t - “So how do the members fight their corner?”
Party councils, in the branches, in the pre-convention period - including fighting for the expansion of the period of factions, if you think that needs to happen. The constitution is open to alteration. Is it difficult? Sure, the party would have no stability if it weren’t - though shouldn’t be too tough if there’s a silent army of dissenters just too afraid to raise their heads at present. But if you think it’s tough in the party, ask Tony Staunton, Yunus Bakhsh, Glenn Kelly, et al, how tough it is in their union. Or Karen Reismann in her workplace. The party’s small potatoes compared to that.
Comment by redbedhead — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
BPS - “I think it’s called a paradox.
I haven’t been able to work it out.”
Have you tried LSD? Yogic flying?
Comment by redbedhead — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Let me attempt to describe the paradox. You want a revolution. Who has been the most credible revolutinary party for the last 30 years? The SWP. Who leads them? Rees, German, Smith. If you criticise them you get expelled (or at least sent to Coventry, and villified by people you thought were your friends). But you want a revolution……..
Comment by DrDoolittle — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
#263 - I’ve never been in SWP, so I genuinely do not know, but it seems that there are time limits (around party conference) for voices to be heard. Enlighten me - how does a comrade raise a question outside her branch outside the conference period?
It seems that it is difficult to propose an alternative strategy as this would destabilise the party. What if the party is already distabilised by the leadership, how can you deal with that?
Comment by Howard T — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
264. Have you tried LSD? Yogic flying?
Of course! Now stop being sooooooooo 20th century.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
Blimey,
I was just at a National Shop Stewars Network meeting in the railway club in Bristol, and I went for a pee, and realised that the person standing next to me in the gents was Chris Bambury.
I thought I was being stalked or possibly halucinating, but it seems he was addressing a (pitifully small - i checked) SWP public meeting in the same building.
Comment by Andy Newman — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
howard t - There are ongoing debates/discussions within the fractions and within the branches - or there ought to be. The fractions are the places where comrades get together to work out the plan/perspectives in a particular struggle, coalition, etc. That means that the specific application of the general perspective that has been agreed at the annual convention can be debated on an ongoing basis. The overall perspective, or structural questions to the party, constitutional questions, etc. can be debated at the annual convention, which is the highest decision making body.
However, people have to take responsibility to raise the debate in those forums.
Dr. Doolittle - No offense but I think you’re overstating the case. For crying out loud, stand up for what you believe in, if you think there’s specific things that need to be fixed, fight to fix them. If the party’s got problems and you do nothing, you have only yourself to blame if the party is a blunt tool and can’t play its role in the struggle. People need to have some courage of their convictions. Take some responsibility.
Comment by redbedhead — 26 June, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
#268 A bit apolitical, that one Andy. SWP have small, medium and large meetings. The point surely is who are they working with and where are they going?
Comment by Howard T — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:00 am
BPS - “Of course! Now stop being sooooooooo 20th century.”
Sorry. Have you tried CYBER LSD? Yogic surfing?
Comment by redbedhead — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:00 am
Andy - but did you see his willy?
Comment by redbedhead — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:01 am
And more importantly did you compare it to your own?
Ah, the true measure of a socialist…
Comment by redbedhead — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:02 am
# 268
And it was Bambery who made such a big deal about the alleged Skegness cottaging!
Comment by Skeggy Veteran — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:07 am
redbedhead, no offense, but you dont live in this country. Come over here and try it and you’ll see what I mean.
Comment by DrDoolittle — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:07 am
#270
Well - a good example of how they are working, is that there was a regional meeting of the NSSN in the bar, and none of them came over to talk to us, despite the fact there were a half dozen serious trade union militants there who represent something.
Then Linda, a leading SW member in bristol, called Dave C over for a private word and told him that UAF were going to Corsham this weekend to run a stall, and asking him to come. He said she should come over and talk to me becasue I have already asked Bristol UAF (on behalf of my GMB branch) that if they are going to parachute into Corsham from bristol, can they please speak to me for local intelligence first, as my GMB branch covers the area, and we have local contacts and info. She declined to talk to me, and UAF have declined to respond to my e-mail. After all why would you want to involve local trade unionists.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:08 am
#269 I understand all that, coming from the IMG tradition which was democratic (it collapsed because of the stupidity and sectarianism of ‘turn to industry’ - internal democracy is no guarantee). However what I am trying to get at is how can any group who thinks that the leadership has ‘lost it’, act? What you have stated is discussion about implimenting the leadership’s proposals, which loyal comrades would surely do. What is missing is any mechanism to be able to start a political debate if the leadership is off the rails.
Also, do minorities have representation on the CC?
Comment by Howard T — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:10 am
Very sharp comments earlier by Dave and tonyc.
Redbedhead, true to form, doesn’t even know that Ger Francis was expelled from the SWP - but as tonyc so well put it the Revolutionary Party exists out of time and space, events, as we naturally understand them, therefore don’t exist, so the empirical facts deriving therefrom don’t get a look in either. (Incidentally, I forgot to mention at the weekend that the time it took the anti-fascist demonstration, which included floats, to pass a fixed point on Tooley Street, London SE1, was 5 minutes and 20 seconds: a supremely irrelevant point, I know, in assessing the size of the event, but interestingly it’s the kind of dipping our toe in grubby and always misleading surface appearances which we once used to do on Socialist Worker.)
[Note to BPS: I think in this pre-Kantian noumenal world we have no way of knowing whether there’s such a thing as a paradox - so the question doesn’t arise.]
DrDoolittle grasps the mentality very well. One might add that in 1968 most members of the Communist Party in Britain looked at what happened in Czechoslovakia, hated it, knew it did not advance socialism, disagreed with Moscow and stayed in the party, because it was the subjective factor inside the proletariat.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:13 am
276 Andy - that explains SWP a little better. I can identify with that!
Comment by Howard T — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:13 am
#278 Thats the clincher “pre-Kantian noumenal world” that just about sums up the entire discussion all 48hrs of it. Or it would do if I knew what the fuck that pompous prat Ovenden was talking about.
Comment by DuncanB — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:31 am
I was thinking about this issue a few months ago - the manufacture of evidence to support the cc’s view is a phenomenon known to many of us, both through conscious full-timer bull-shit, but also the subtle pressure to self-censor of the evidence doesn’t support the latest line. Or the bullying phone calls from the centre demanding that you spin on a six-pence to implement the latest wheeze, and the only way to get them off the phone is to agree - even when you have no intention of doing it. Many of the old lags in the party simply can’t be bothered to argue with the keen tyro on the phone from the centre, easier to go “yeah, yeah” for an easy life
And it is becasue the party exists outside of space and time, becasue the judgement of the party is not subject to external evidence - no-one knows the memebrship, the number of papers sold, or has any objective basis for judging whether things are going well or badly.
There is an interesting discussion of this very phenomenon in Ernst Gellner’s “Nations and nationalism” where he talks about ow the devolopment of mercantile capitalism led to the birth of concepts of objective standards of evidence - and this was reflected philosophically by Hume, Kant et al.
In contrast, Gellner’s description of Guild masters under feudalism, is strikingly similar to the SWP CC.
“The most striking trait of pre-modern, pre-rational visions: the co-existence within them of multiple, not properly united, but heirarchically related sub-worlds, and the existence of special priviliged facts, sacralized, and exempt from ordinary treatment …..
[They] would have been hard put to it to single out a solitary, isolateable criteria of success. Profit for them would have been merged in a number of inseperable other considerations, such as maintenance of their position in the community”
The SWP have indeed created a sub-world that judges external events by their own self-referential criteria, and where certain facts - the eternal correctness of the cc - the religious faith in working class self-emancipation - are all incapable of refutation, and maintaining the prestige of the ruling caste within the party is one of the main driving factors
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:32 am
DuncanB
Get a sense of humour - or at least a satire detector.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:42 am
The party leadership as guild masters? You’ve been drinking, haven’t you?
“The SWP have indeed created a sub-world that judges external events by their own self-referential criteria, and where certain facts - the eternal correctness of the cc - the religious faith in working class self-emancipation - are all incapable of refutation, and maintaining the prestige of the ruling caste within the party is one of the main driving factors”
Religious faith in the working class self-emancipation!? This is not something derived by digging thru the innards of a chicken, Mr. Scientist. The self-emancipation of the working class is derived from an analysis of the strategic location of that class within the process of production - in contrast to other classes, such as the peasantry and the bourgeoisie. Not only does the w.c. have the power to emancipate itself but thru that action it transforms its consciousness for the very material reason that certain forms of consciousness are necessary to achieve liberation - the concrete understanding and application of social solidarity, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, broad-minded understanding of social forces, etc. Self-emancipation isn’t simply a wank.
And believing that, in fact, self-emancipation is key doesn’t mean I follow every dot and comma of what the CC writes and says.
You have created this strange theoretical structure to justify your argument about the horrors of the CC - phone calls in which they WON’T GET OFF THE PHONE TILL YOU AGREE! Good Lord - those guild masters, they’ll burn your house down. Have you never had a telephone solicitor? “I’m sorry, I have to go to dinner.” “I’m sorry, I can’t talk right now.” God, you Brits have been horribly oppressed. I now see the light. Monty Python had it right!
Kevin - I stand corrected on the detail of Ger’s departure. But it is just a detail. And your knowing the history of the CP in 1968 doesn’t justify your own passivity in the face of your perception of errors by the CC, nor that of tonyc, et al. James Cannon smuggled Trotsky’s critique of Stalinism in the Third International out of Russia under the noses of the GPU in a Teddy Bear. When he split from the CPUSA they had to face break-ins, beatings, the loss of work and positions in the labour movement. Yet you can’t stand up to the CC? Tell me what methods of repression they have used against you? What horrible acts of violence. The CP in 1928 or even 1968 was a whole different kettle of fish than the SWP today. And if you can’t tell the difference, you’ve lost the plot.
Comment by redbedhead — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:58 am
James Cannon smuggled Trotsky’s critique of Stalinism in the Third International out of Russia under the noses of the GPU in a Teddy Bear.
I once smuggled a leaflet by Andy Wilson into the heart of the SWP’s operations in London, in an old sock.
Few SWP members ever spoke to me again.
I blame the sock - and the leaftlet.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:24 am
BPS - Next time wash the sock. Or try something in a pair of fishnet stockings. Also clean.
Comment by redbedhead — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:39 am
And you know the funny part? Despite all of Kevin’s claims he had to be expelled before the Freemason like nature of the CC could be exposed. I’m waiting for Lord Voldemort to make and appearance in his gripping fantasy. It’s bound to be Rees.
Comment by Ray — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:25 am
Ah, Capt. Redbeard, you’re trying too hard. While I have no criticism with you exploiting a perceived weakness in your opponents’ politics (if you can’t stand up to John Rees, how the hell would you have stood up to Stalin?), you blunt it by trying to use it in every argument you encounter, even when that’s not the point your opponents are making.
Andy’s citation of Gellner is important and valuable. It’s unfortunate that you appear to have entirely missed the point of what he and others here are getting at - ie. that the SWP has developed a mentality/dialetical method that can never be falsified…
The party does increasingly see itself beyond time and history. Andy’s reference to the absence of verifiable facts is confirmation of this. Let me also put this to you: generally, when responding to critics, the SWP will - quite rightly - go into chapter and verse to show the weaknesses of its opponents’ arguments. But never is a similar rigor applied to its own errors. Even if every single piece of evidence points to a catastrophic misreading of the political situation by the party leadership, this simply will not be acknowledged in any way that would further a debate on the issues. The party cannot be allowed to lose face, and critics cannot be allowed any information that might further their cause. Instead, a vague non-language is used to mystify situations.
So, for example, in Tower Hamlets, no correspondence will be entered into on the argument that Rees’s claim of a right-wing stampede within Respect has been undermined by the subsequent right-wing stampede by his own favored councillors. Instead, sympathisers such as those on here tell us that a “methodology” is “indicted”. And that’s your lot. No ‘how, why, when and where’ details will ever be released. It’s impossible to argue against such evanescent responses, which is just what the party wants. Nothing to see here. Just keep moving please.
(BTW, while your John Rees v. Stalin argument is interesting, it pales against the implications of a similar challenge Nas proposed earlier in the thread - if the SWP can’t effectively navigate its way through local politics, how on earth could it play a role in world revolution? You might like to consider that…)
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:58 am
“There is always a principle that is more important than the situation one finds oneself in”
I’d certainly hope so.
“Bad decisions are never made by the party (and therefore can never be criticised)”
Not at all true.
“There is always a bigger picture, and that bigger picture will aways be defined by the SWP”
I’d certainly hope so.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 8:18 am
“Kevin et al didn’t even bother to appeal their expulsions. None of you have any right to criticize anybody in the SWP for challenging or not the CC.”
See I just dunno what to do about people like you, redbedhead. Aside from the way you decree that I “stalk” an organisation merely because I read its leaflets, you exist in such a narrow world, even when so many people have given you the same story about something outside that world, you won’t believe them.
Kev and Rob were not allowed to fight their corner in the party. There has been so much said about this, it’s unbelievable that you can still come out with shit like “they didn’t even appeal” as a condemnation.
They were told there were documents that proved they were denouncing the party to ISO organisations, and those organisations had put in written complaints. I know this cos Martin Smith told me and 3 other SWP members. I pushed and pushed this, cos this was after the expulsions. I said “You never even told Kev that those were the charges - you never even asked him to comment on the documents. Are we interested in democracy or not?”
Martin did what Martin does, and moved on - there was to be no discussion of suddenly made-up “documents” that “proved” someone’s guilt and would be used, post-facto, to justify an expulsion.
Martin told me he refused to accept me as a party member, despite me paying my subs. He refused to let me be a delegate to a party council, despite my branch wanting me to go (my entire branch bar one was against the CC).
You have seen all of this, I’ve posted the emails, there’s been huge amounts of discussion.
Yet we’ve come back to “you stay and fight or you shut up”.
There is no means to fight inside the SWP. Even when I tried to fight on a local issue - an instruction from the three CC members who came to a tube workers’ caucus, to wreck a motion for the RMT to consider standing candidates in elections (I disagreed with themotion but felt that the right tactic was not to wreck it but to talk seriously about alliances) - I was totally ignored.
I don’t mean “I fought my corner and lost”, I mean none of the CC members - Bradley, Smith and German - would even respond to my arguments. And when my prediction of the outcome came true, Michael Bradley told me he had no idea I objected. They refused to debate with me, and when I turned out to be right, refused to accept that I had ever tried to debate.
Long-standing SWP members were told that I was only in the party to wreck it, and members were told that I had never paid any money into the party. Any contribution I had to the debate was therefore deliberately put through the “tony’s a traitor” filter, despite the fact that I never said a thing publically until I left.
And you well know that this didn’t just happen to me. It happened to Mark Steel. It also happened to others. Bureaucratic manoeuvres were used to keep people out of the debate, and Kev and Rob and Nick were expelled without even a hearing.
Did you not know that by now? Kev and Rob wrote detailed emails to the CC, having been smeared in front of 200+ party members at the start of the split, as part of the move to make people hate them.
They never got a response. I heard Martin Smith lie when he said he had sent an email reply, but he preferred not to do things by email so he wouldn’t send them a copy of the email but would talk by phone. Kev referred the matter to Pat Stack’s disputes committee but never got a hearing.
Is this how the leadership works if it wants democracy? Claiming to have replied to an email, the reply never turns up and then they refuse to send a copy?
Kev and Rob’s last letter to the CC was published here. It damns all those who claim they were undemining the party as the liars they are.
There was no reply. Ditto Nick Wrack’s communications.
And then there was a meeting - 5 minutes. A 5 minute chat in which Kev and Rob were not allowed to even present their case. They were simply told that they were to resign from Galloway’s office or they would be expelled.
Does this sound like they were allowed to fight their corner?
After the massive - and you were part of this - smear and lie campaign against them and their politics, they realised that they would never get a fair hearing at an appeal. The documents Martin Smith told me proved Kev’s guilt turned out not to exist. No complaint by foreign organisations was ever made. It was all a lie - do you think that with the CC prepared to sink to such levels, Kev would get a fair hearing?
Did you know that when you’re up before the CC or DC, you are not allowed to bring a rep? We sweat blood to make sure our bosses allow union reps in - yet an organisation that has the power to demand that you resign your job (and therefore risk losing your home), and is supposed to live the politics it wants to create, refuses to allow you representation.
Do you think Kev and Rob would’ve got a fair hearing? They didn’t. I didn’t. People in the SWP didn’t. Why waste time on it?
And now you, from such a distance, condemn them cos “they didn’t even appeal”.
How about the rest of the pre-conference period? Y’know, the period where we’re supposed to be able to debate and convince other members?
Well, I wasn’t allowed to go into other branch meetings, cos Martin Smith declared that I wasn’t a party member. I was told I couldn’t put a document into the internal bulletin. Mark Steel’s contribution, which could have decisively shaped the debate right at the start, and was delivered in time for the first IB, was deliberately held back (they admitted this, so please don’t deny it).
When I went to a meeting for London comrades only, people supportive of the CC from outside London were allowed to attend - but not those against.
How can you say there was a chance to debate this? You are part of an international organisation, the heart of which did everything it could to stop debate, to silence dissent - c’mon, they could’ve waited 2 months to expel Kev and Rob, but they did it by the time the first pre-conference bulletin came out, so the leading members who were against the CC never had a chance to put their case.
The lies that were told during the split were breathtaking. Weyman Bennett, on film (so you can’t say it was a lie!) said that we were only allowing SWP members to our conference if they ripped up their membership cards of the SWP (this was Weyman, speaking at our conference. Um.)
I was removed from the east London mailing list on the grounds that I didn’t pay local subs. No one else, including a leading SWP blogger who never paid subs, was taken off any mailing lists - cos he was supportive of the CC. It’s not even a rule that you only get local information if you pay local subs, except if you’re against the CC. Does this sound like an open and democratic organisation?
And the witch-hunt petition. Do you think that, given that the SWP was claiming there was a witch-hunt and asking its membership to sign a petition saying so, that this would create an atmosphere of open debate?
All of this is the same sort of method that led to the poison in Tower Hamlets. I don’t care about the Left List councillors, they were finished the day they chose the wrong side, which is why Oliur was trying to get a deal with the Lib Dems months ago. But the poisonous method of the SWP has made the job of those who really want to build a broad left alliance massively harder.
Which is what they intended, and which is what you supported and continue to support to this day. Not once have you ever paused and said “every single person on the other side has a consistent message about how they were treated - maybe there’s something in it” - see, I’ve never lied to you, but you’ve decided to label me in the “don’t believe him” box. That’s fine, you’re entitled to that. But Kev? And Rob? And Nick? And all the other people who post here? We’re all lying?
As to “stay and fight or shut up complaining”, a few things: 1) I fight for revolutionary politics. Your people have retarded the potential for working class growth in a difficult period. I am entitled to fight for the SWP to change its ways when its actions affect my work; 2) the SWP has tried, and continues to try, to wreck Respect in east London. Until it stops, I will continue to do what I can to expose the duplicity and lies - I am a revolutionary and I don’t lie to the class; 3) If you or anyone else so supportive of the SWP CC are real marxists, you will stop and reflect at how little self-criticism has gone on here, and how (as said above) there has been no attempt to look at whether anything went wrong inside the party. The entire explanation is externalised - it’s about wider society, “Communalism” (you guys turned to Islamophobia as part of your smear campaign), Labour, “massive pressures”.
Ex-members have a right to speak about it, cos it affects the local and national political situation. While there is an organisation whose leaders have done so much damage and continue to damage the left, it will be held to account by the experts - those who were driven out by sneers and smears and lies and bitter campaigns designed to make them get the hell out.
You can choose to think I’m entirely wrong if you like. But maybe you could privately reflect on why so many people have exactly the same view as me.
How come you can’t see just how many people have this experience, and are entitled to do something about it?
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 8:35 am
why should anyone listen to someone who disparages people who don’t fight the CC but themself didn’t fight the CC?
Hence the question - who would you recommend we listen to? Refusing to do what you’re told by the CC isn’t enough, you’ve got to fight the CC! Being expelled isn’t enough if you don’t appeal against your expulsion - fight the CC, rebellious comrade, or lose all credibility!
OK, then. Who’s actually done it - who’s fought the CC sufficiently to retain credibility? And are they actually regarded (unlike Tony, Rob et al) as credible figures, whose criticisms of the SWP are considered in a serious and fraternal spirit?
Comment by Phil — 27 June, 2008 @ 8:43 am
“yet an organisation that has the power to demand that you resign your job”
I would certainly hope so. And the decision about whether people should resign, say, their position on a trade union executive, is a political decision of the leadership of the organisation which the individual has voluntarily joined. Its not a trade union question. I would be utterly opposed to such a decision being made on any other basis.
“Weyman Bennett, on film (so you can’t say it was a lie!) said that we were only allowing SWP members to our conference if they ripped up their membership cards of the SWP”
Again this is not a ‘lie’ it is a sign of how deep the political differences are. If you formally exclude the SWP as an organisation from an alliance but suggest that individual members are welcome (the delegation allowed in to explain their side of the split is hardly relevent here) the only way in which this doesn’t count as an exclusion of the membership is if you assume they have no loyalty or commitment to their own organisation.
Now I’ve seen Kevin and Rob’s letter to the CC. As Tony knows I was very upset to hear about their expulsion. But when I saw that letter it was clear to me that they not only had political differences with the CC but had effectively resigned from the organisation (yes, yes I know there is a lot of lampooning of words like ‘effectively’ but in politics you have to make your own judgement about peoples intentions: and that letter demonstrated that there was no serious intention to have an internal argument).
And by this stage it was clear that there was going to be a vicious faction fight inside of Respect and that Kevin, Rob and indeed yourself, where on the other side of it. Now nasty things happen in faction fights (including the extremely unpleasent insinuations in Kevin and Robs public pronouncements to local newspapers, which most comrades saw as vindicating the CC’s judgement on these questions) but in the end its pretty clear that you can’t have a situation where leading comrades are on the other side of a polarised argument about excluding the SWP as an organisation from an electoral alliance.
And throughout the whole period where even independents who didn’t want a split were denounced as SWP stooges etc, it simply isn’t compatible with membership. Its why, of all the arguments its possible to have about this split and its consequences (and there are many), I find Tony’s claim that the circumstances of Kevin and Rob’s expulsion and his exclusion, are somehow a decisive moral or political question, a most unconvincing argument. The circumstances that led to the divide are the key political questions.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:12 am
John G : #291
You see John, it is the norm in democratic organisations to accept that there will be tactical or even strategic differences between people who share the same essential political goals and philosophy; and who see the membership of the party as a valuable political asset, but who disagree about some decisions being taken.
People don’t “effectively resign” becasue they want to serious fight to change the direction of the party if they think the party is on the wrong track.
This is a serious descent into Healyism.
And what do you think about Linda - a leading member for Bristol - declining to talk to me (in my Wiltshire GMB Race Officer capacity) about the anti-facsist work that trade unions in Wiltshire have already done in Corsham - becasue Bristol SWP have decided (on behalf of UAF, with no consultation with any one else) to parachute into Corsham.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Johng: “And the decision about whether people should resign, say, their position on a trade union executive, is a political decision of the leadership of the organisation which the individual has voluntarily joined”
that’s an interesting definition of democratic centralism. I can see the centralist part, but the democracy is missing.
Decisions are by the whole organisation democratically, where necessary these are taken by delegates, executive committees, party secretary where they are extremely urgent, but always the decision is by the organisation as a whole. It’s easy to see why the SWP is in such a mess if members allow the ‘leadership’ to substitute for democratic descision making, because they don’t understand elementary parts of revolutionary organisation.
In the case of the swp expulsions, the leading committees were right to demand that the gallowayites stick to party discipline, and move to expel them if not, but the decision to do it still rested with the membership as a whole rather than the ‘leadership’ did it not?
Comment by martin ohr — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Johng, please put the facts in your post. We all know truth is a stranger to you.
Lies were spread by the SWP cc regards tonyc. Its disingenuous of you to write otherwise.
Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:48 am
More dreck from the SWP School of Falsification…
tonyc writes: “Weyman Bennett, on film (so you can’t say it was a lie!) said that we were only allowing SWP members to our conference if they ripped up their membership cards of the SWP”
johng responds: “Again this is not a ‘lie’ it is a sign of how deep the political differences are.”
No, it is a lie. It wasn’t true. It may well also be a sign of how deep the political differences are, but it is a lie. There is no obligation to lie when political differences are deep. But johng seems to think this doesn’t matter, and is happy to confuse the issue further by trickily redefining bald statements and verifiable occurences to suit his interpretation (a split always equals a threat, a political difference always equals an ‘effective’ resignation).
tonyc wrote a pretty compelling condemnation of the SWP’s behaviour in this dispute. johng chose to pick out a few items and even then couldn’t address them without distorting their meaning, and - once again - falling back onto the abstract and vague (”nasty things happen in faction fights”), to defend his organisations’ cruddy and uncomradely dealings.
In religious cults this is sometimes known as ‘telling lies for Jesus’. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt - perhaps johng doesn’t yet realise what he’s up to. Pretty much everyone else does, though.
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:49 am
#291 “Now nasty things happen in faction fights (including the extremely unpleasent insinuations in Kevin and Robs public pronouncements to local newspapers, which most comrades saw as vindicating the CC’s judgement on these questions)”
Could johng expand on this?
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:01 am
Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending of begining,
On an ever spining wheel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind.
Comment by Jim lawrie — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:07 am
It is important to understand how deep the culture of lying goes in the SWP.
I remember a national Steering committee meeting of the STW coalitioon in 2005, where a national demo was being buit, and hris Nineham had just made a ludicrous lead off about how this demo was going to be one of the biggest ever, and that allegedly six coaches had been booked by Birmigham central mosque, etc.
I felt that a little realism about the actual state of STW as a national organisatin mighht be helpful so i said I didn’t recognise this description. I had spoken to Chippenham CND, and Bambury STW, Bath STW and farindon Peace Group, and people were not coming, as they were weary of demos. And that Bristil STW were finding it hard to sell coach tickets
To whch Lindsey german replied that she had just spoken to Bambury STW and Bath STW that morning and they were both putting coaches on.
When i got back I checked, and they weren’t putting coaches on, and Lindsey hadn’t spoken to them. But her claim that she had spoken to them discredited some evidence from me that didn’t fit the SWP’s preferred narrative, and also allowed Lindsey to isolate someone telling the truth as “being unhelpful”.
We all know these stories
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Yes Andy we all know those stories from all parties and from all organisations. To be honest, this example, designed to add to a ‘weight’ of evidence, seems a bit grasping.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:15 am
The “culture of lying”. God almighty.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Jim
You have me at an advantage, because i am not prepared to debate with you about the ethics of lying while charges are hanging over the heads of members of your organisation for perjury .
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:27 am
I’m not going to expand on the letter Kevin et al sent to the local press, precisely because its unhelpful to constantly harp on about these things. But its a matter of record, and to many comrades, demonstrated that the CC’s judgement about what was going on was largely correct. Whatever the judgements about that, its clear that in a faction fight of this kind you can’t have senior comrades continuing to work for prominant political figures who want to see the SWP at best marginalised, and at worst, driven out of the electoral alliance they had been centrally involved in setting up. Of course Kevin or Rob might not have seen it like that, and might not have believed that this was the trajectory. But political differences do involve different judgements about the significance of particular arguments and particular actions. Once it had become the trajectory many comrades who were sympathetic to Kevin and Rob imagined that they would recognise they’d made a mistake. The letter I refer to, far from registering anything of the kind, was part of the very thing they were denying was going on. Hence the growing divide even in terms of agreeing about the basic facts of the matter.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:31 am
#300
JOhn
10000 members?
It is interesting that one of the changes that the American ISO brought in after the break with London was to discourage the cult of “full-timer bullshit” (their description not mine)
Yes - the SWP has a culture of lying, becasue there is no system of external verification of what the full-timers tell the national secretary, and their job security and prestige depends upon them providing information that supports whatever the latest line is.
You know thhs, why try to pretend otherwise? (another form of lying by the way)
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:33 am
er Dave, no it isn’t a lie, and nor is it dishonest, and nor does it have anything to do with past religious figures. I do not accept the claim that you can combine excluding an organisation from an electoral alliance with claims that you are not excluding individuals as members of that organisation. If anything I’m rather stunned by TonyC’s disengenuity here.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Hi JohnG, tonyc here. Could you maybe read my post and deal with the points it made instead of half-extracting points and then failing to answer them?
Many thanks.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Oh because I do not think the SWP has a ‘culture of lying’ this makes me a ‘liar’. Can I join RR now? It being so free and open and all.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:36 am
299 Jim,
How this for an example of grasping “10,000″ attended the 21st june anti BNP demo and police snatch squads were still arresting protestors from the previous week anti bush demo. f(rom Lenin tomb) and ( the figures from the SWP).
BTW how many people got arrested?
Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Actually TonyC I was hoping you’d respond politically.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:37 am
@278
Has anyone ever seen Kevin and Richard Seymour in the same room? I think we should be told!
Perhaps they should have ‘post off’ at dawn.
Comment by alan — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:40 am
johng: Did Weyman Bennett say that RR was only allowing SWP members to its conference if they ripped up their SWP membership cards?
Yes or no?
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:45 am
“The “culture of lying”. God almighty.”
A Central London organiser claimed that a tube worker was, during the election, campaigning for the Left List, when in fact he is implacably opposed to the SWP leadership. He claimed it because a former SWP member put to him my case that the tube group had collapsed.
He claimed he used to be my organiser and that I had had no involvement in the party for 3 years. He claimed that other tube SWP members (in addition to the one who stood as a candidate) were involved with the left list.
All of this was a lie. I had no idea that the guy was ever my organiser (a nice bloke as it happens) - everything I did was done through the industrial side. The person he said was campaigning for the LL, he said that because it fatally undermined my argument.
You know about the lies that were told about me, and you know that lies were told about Kev. You know that lies were told about Mark Steel.
You know that lies were told about OFFU. You know that lies were told about the membership figures.
Martin Smith sat through a tube caucus and lied about the last few Tower Hamlets Respect committee meetings, suddenly making up a deadline of 5.30 for nominations for conference to go in - and we told him he was a liar. He lied about paperwork showing Kev denouncing the SWP to ISO comrades. He lied about written proof of Kev mis-stating the SWP’s case to Galloway.
You know that at 2am one day, a press release was put out lying about Ahmed Hussain when everyone else in Tower Hamlets knew he had gone.
Yes, there’s a culture of lying. I’ve just given you a tiny glimpse. Those are lies that I know about. Do you think these are all isolated incidents?
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Yes and it was entirely true. And the idea that it was a ‘lie’ is entirely ridiculous.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:50 am
“Actually TonyC I was hoping you’d respond politically.”
This is code for “let’s not talk about what actually happened, let’s just theorise”.
How can you read my responses as anything other than political?
Try answering the things I said to you, instead of refusing to even acknowledge them and saying things like “this isn’t a trade union issue” when I asked you about people bringing reps to meeetings.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:51 am
I happen to think RR has a ‘culture of lying’. They are for instance refusing to acknowledge that their deputy leader has gone over to new labour. You see how easy it is to play this game Tony? Personally I prefer not to.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:52 am
PS John, one SWP member I know of who came to our conference has been expelled by your friend and mine, Pat Stack.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:53 am
“They are for instance refusing to acknowledge that their deputy leader has gone over to new labour. You see how easy it is to play this game Tony? Personally I prefer not to.”
You’re an embarrassment to critical thinking, John.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Again Tony your inability to understand that I am utterly opposed to people bringing ‘reps’ into such a meeting, and utterly stunned by your attempt to compare this with an employment situation, is an inability informed by what are obviously our entirely different politics. You can call me a ‘liar’ all you like but we just fundementally disagree.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Only one person here is lying. The rest of us are out there building the movement.
Comment by The RayBot — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:56 am
JohnG is wrong in post 302, it is not “a matter of record” that the “CC’s judgement about what was going on was largely correct”: that is a factional polemical position. Reading Harman’s account in the ISJ I thought for the first time that I didn’t just disagree with him, but that he was being actively dishonest. I thought that the petition circulated by the SWP last october was a petition of lies. So I think there is a strong strand of dishonesty in the SWP - the culture of exaggeration is only part of it. I think I understand the lies - the existential threat to the SWP involved in the difficulties of Respect and comrades’ belief in the overriding importance of the need for ‘the’ revolutionary party clearly overrode any petty concerns about honesty.
The problem we face is whether we can be friends with or even work with people who have been lying. I think we can, but others strongly disagree.
Comment by Matthew — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:00 am
“Again Tony your inability to understand that I am utterly opposed to people bringing ‘reps’ into such a meeting, and utterly stunned by your attempt to compare this with an employment situation, is an inability informed by what are obviously our entirely different politics. You can call me a ‘liar’ all you like but we just fundementally disagree.”
I don’t call you a liar because of that - jesus, what is with you? You simply failed to respond to my point and went off at a tangent.
It’s quite simple. People should be allowed to bring a representative to what are extraordinarily tense and stressful meetings. The person should be an active SWP member, of course, but the idea that the three people who can control your political future should be allowed to entirely dominate the meeting - they have all the paperwork, all the information, there are 3 of them and one of you, you don’t know the charges, you cannot know how to present a defence, etc. - is outrageous.
If we’re positive and serious about our politics, we would have nothing to hide about allowing reps or friends into such meetings.
Why would anyone be against allowing a member under threat of expulsion to bring someone with them? We know that in the workplace, it can boost confidence and help people think more clearly.
Surely if we’re serious about the need to sometimes expel people, the onus is on the leadership to make sure that the person under threat gets the fairest, least stressful hearing?
Sad that you disagree with that, John. But like you say, those are the differences in our politics - I think that authority should be accountable and should have to answer for its power at all times, even if we like and trust that authority. You don’t.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:02 am
“In the case of the swp expulsions, the leading committees were right to demand that the gallowayites stick to party discipline, and move to expel them if not, but the decision to do it still rested with the membership as a whole rather than the ‘leadership’ did it not?”
An amazing case of appearing to oppose bureaucratic abuses, while in reality supporting them. The common factor - hate Muslims, hate Galloway, support anti-democratic abuses as long as they are against ‘Arab-lovers’ and Galloway supporters. Is this AWL support for ‘party discipline’ supposed to be some kind of exemplar of something to do with Leninism. Because I am pretty certain that Lenin’s gut reaction to the likes of Ohr, were they contemporaries, would be to put class traitors like him in front of a firing squad.
AWL scumbags go from pimping for imperialist troops in Iraq to pimping for the SWP leadership. How does John G like being supported by Zionist pigs and thinly disguised neo-cons? What’s next, applause from David T or Melanie Phillips?
Comment by ID — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Tonyc has given an excellent account of events. Johng is again throwing sand in the eyes, chucking out inunendo but refusing to provide specifics “because it’s not helpful”.
My advice to everyone dealing with him is, don’t waste your time. I choose these words carefully: he spreads falsehoods, from the beginning of his forays into describing events in Tower Hamlets which he was not witness to; then he is shown categorically to have spread these second hand untruths; far from acknowledging that, he repeats them and more and disingenuously calls on everyone else to move on.
Johng is a liar over these issues.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:08 am
“You have me at an advantage, because i am not prepared to debate with you about the ethics of lying while charges are hanging over the heads of members of your organisation for perjury”
Ouch. I dont see how that affects the sort of lying that you are referring to. Bureaucrats lying for the sake of pushing through decisions. Tp pretend that this is somehow a trait that belongs solely to the leadership of the SWP may suit your agenda (thats if your version is correct) but it reads like a desperate, grasping attempt at smearing the SWP and is the tactic of the playground buly or the Big Brother House.
“pssst, did I tell you that John Rees says you are a prick, honest, and he said that he thinks you look fat in those shorts. And once he said that he was late for a meeting because he missed a train beacuse of traffic on the way to the station, when I know - for a fact - he was late because he had to go to the loo at the station for a shite. Can we trust a man who has an inbuilt capacity to lie and cheat like this?”
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:10 am
#321, Thanks Ian, your kind words are much appreciated as usual.
Comment by martin ohr — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Kevin,
What’s the feeling on the ground in TH regarding the broader impact of the Respect (Unity Coalition) councillors’ defections? Do they have local support networks that are likely to go over to New Labour, or is there any chance of RR winning back the people in these networks?
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:16 am
“#321, Thanks Ian, your kind words are much appreciated as usual.”
Its a pleasure;-)
Comment by ID — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Dave
Got to go now - and I’ll try to give a more extended response later, because there’s lots to say about what is happening post the defections, including of Shahed Ali.
But, directly on your question: the total Left List vote in Oli Rahman’s ward (he was the most established councillor of the lot, elected in 2004, not 2006 and receiving some infrastructural support from the SWP) on 1 May was, I think, 66 or thereabouts.
They don’t have a local network of support. They are utterly dependent on taking sides in the vicious three-way infighting in Tower Hamlets Labour Party.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:27 am
“Far more depressing than the turnout on Saturday, however, has been the sectarian squabbling and repetitive point-scoring that erupts over every discussion of anti-racist organising (or almost any other form of organising) these days in the left-wing blogosphere. The participants have long since lost any sense of how they appear to the 999,999 people in every million who have not the slightest interest in their internecine catfights and wish only that they would go away and rattle some other tin roofs rather than keeping the rest of us awake at night.” (http://plattitude.blogspot.com/)
Stop it. All of you.
Comment by Harrods — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Jim
#323
It is true that “atrocity stories” are an unfortunate aspect of how left grous anathemetise opponents and rivals.
But the point here is that when acting in a broad united campaign like STW Coalition, for the leadfing SWP members to tell lies about the evidence in order to support their political analysis is actually damaging to themselves, and the broad campiagn they are trying to build.
Even is we assume good initentions, politics does require some honest assessment of the actual state of affairs, and if you find your self in the position where you are excluding eveidence because it contradicts you preferred narrative, then it is time for reflection about where you are going, and what you have become.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:35 am
#329 “It is true that “atrocity stories” are an unfortunate aspect of how left groups anathemetise opponents and rival”
You obviously don’t think it’s that unfortunate or you wouldn’t engage in it so readily.
It’s interesting that you should bring up the ISO earlier. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their split with the SWP the ISO clearly continued to believe the same things after the split as it did before. With Kevin,Rob et al there seems to be a clear divergence between the theory that they were ongoing supporters of the SWP’s politics forced out by a cruel and dishonest cc, and the practice whereby they won’t admit to an inch’s difference with George Galloway’s politics, which I think we can all stipulate are a considerable distance from the SWP’s.This is why I thought it apposite to quote Tolkien - “The Lieutenant of Barad-duer he was, and his name is remembered in no tale;for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: ‘I am the Mouth of Sauron’.
#219 “Let’s see what dispassionate observers think” I think I may be the closest thing to one you’ll find here. I came to this subject with sadness knowing that comrades I’d known 20 years ago and the SWP couldn’t both be right.
#206 “it was announced from the chair at Marxism 2008 that he, alongside John Rees, was one of the greaetest political leaders in the world” You might not choose those words, but whereas this seems to be the SWP trying to be nice to someone it’s in a coalition with, you seem to have swallowed the substance of it wholesale. He’s not the Messiah…
#221 “I have spent many a happy hour contemplating how it is that, once you are expelled from the SWP, their loyalists are genuinely astounded that you fight back ”
I feel some sympathy with what your saying, but do you think a revolutionary organisation is going to say together if its members don’t have a considerable amount of party-mindedness?
Comment by Anonymous — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
“Liar!Liar!Pants on fire!”
Gosh,what a level of debate.
It’s a relief the Respect car crash is coming to an end .
Maybe we get on to fighting the payfreeze,trying to stop a war , opposing fascism and racism . You know those sort of things that aren’t quite as important to people round here than arguing about who said what at meeting but have to be done .
R.I.P Both bits of Respect.
You won’t be missed.
Comment by fed up — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
#330 I’m sorry, that last comment is from me (not whoever posts as “me”)
Comment by skidmarx — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Kevin - Those elections had more to do with the simple fact that Renewal could use the RESPECT name. You know it, I know it.
Comment by Hanif Leylabi — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
#329 “It is true that “atrocity stories” are an unfortunate aspect of how left groups anathemetise opponents and rival”
You obviously don’t think it’s that unfortunate or you wouldn’t engage in it so readily.
It’s interesting that you should bring up the ISO earlier. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their split with the SWP the ISO clearly continued to believe the same things after the split as it did before. With Kevin,Rob et al there seems to be a clear divergence between the theory that they were ongoing supporters of the SWP’s politics forced out by a cruel and dishonest cc, and the practice whereby they won’t admit to an inch’s difference with George Galloway’s politics, which I think we can all stipulate are a considerable distance from the SWP’s.This is why I thought it apposite to quote Tolkien - “The Lieutenant of Barad-duer he was, and his name is remembered in no tale;for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: ‘I am the Mouth of Sauron’.
#219 “Let’s see what dispassionate observers think” I think I may be the closest thing to one you’ll find here. I came to this subject with sadness knowing that comrades I’d known 20 years ago and the SWP couldn’t both be right.
#206 “it was announced from the chair at Marxism 2008 that he, alongside John Rees, was one of the greaetest political leaders in the world” You might not choose those words, but whereas this seems to be the SWP trying to be nice to someone it’s in a coalition with, you seem to have swallowed the substance of it wholesale. He’s not the Messiah…
#221 “I have spent many a happy hour contemplating how it is that, once you are expelled from the SWP, their loyalists are genuinely astounded that you fight back ”
I feel some sympathy with what your saying, but do you think a revolutionary organisation is going to say together if its members don’t have a considerable amount of party-mindedness?
Comment by skidmarx — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
#302 “I’m not going to expand on the letter Kevin et al sent to the local press, precisely because its unhelpful to constantly harp on about these things. But its a matter of record, and to many comrades, demonstrated that the CC’s judgement about what was going on was largely correct.”
As the SWP Central Commoittee’s judgement on just about everything over the last year seems to me to have been proved completely incorrect by any impartial standards of what is correct or incorrect, this letter must have been pretty important, especially as johng has indicated that it vindicated for him the CC’s judgement about which he might have had the odd qualm or two. I am still dying to know in what way this letter, whatever it said, really proved their wisdom and Hoveman and Ovenden’s infamy.
As for the SWP itself, it really does seem to be in quite a lot of trouble. It is now barely above the water line in Birmingham and Manchester and has virtually disappeared in Nottingham and in Newcastle. Sheffield and Leeds still have something it seems, but Bristol stands out as an area where there is still a reasonably active and coherent group, even if the coherence is largely in its hostility towards Gerry Hicks. But if they are managing only a very small public meeting with the editor of Socialist Worker, things don’t sound too promising there either. As for London, perhaps this is just a straw in the wind but the 1968 all London rally with Chris Harman had just 150 people at it. The SWP is not about to disappear but seems very down at heel. Of course, they have Marxism to look forward to, which SWP party notes says is going to be the biggest and best ever, especially with Rees doing the keynote speech on Why You Should Be A Socialist, in case you needed reminding.
And news arrives from Tower Hamlets of most ironic public meeting title this week - Is British Politics Moving to the Right? with Chris Nineham. Bet that was good. The answer, presumably, was no but some of our friends seem to have.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Anonymous: your point seems to be that if people are not in an SWP-style “party” their politics must be evil. Pathetic. The biliousness of your comments rather undermine your self-appointed status as the closest thing we are going to get to a dispassionate observer. It’s true, the SWP leadership and the people they expelled couldn’t both be right. So who’s turned out to be right as events have unfolded? Harman et al with their, ahem, “left councillors” (one a Tory the other three joining not only New Labour, but, as will shortly become apparent, the most right wing of the three factions in the Labour council group in Tower Hamlets) or Hovemen, Ovenden and Wrack who predicted that the SWP CC’s approach would lead to an unnecessary split, not based on a left/right divide, which would set back the building of a left of Labour alternative and severely undermine the SWP?
I don’t really care what discussions Ovenden has had with Galloway about abortion or Sex in the City. They pale into insignificance compared with the utter recklessness of Rees et al busting up Respect just as Labour enters a profound crisis, the economy becomes rather ugly, and the BNP make steady and dangerous advances.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
#333 The point Hanif is that if they had substantial personal networks, surely they would have turned out to vote for them. Their miserable vote is why they have gone off to New Labour.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
“I feel some sympathy with what your saying, but do you think a revolutionary organisation is going to say together if its members don’t have a considerable amount of party-mindedness?”
That puts things in a box they’re not meant to fit in.
I expect party members to be loyal. But the first duty of a revolutionary in a revolutionary party is to question and challenge and debate with the leadership. You cannot hope to lead the class if you are not willing to challenge your own politics.
So, I have no issue with people being loyal to the party, with them wanting to hold a party together. But it’s surely pretty obvious by now that this loyalty is blind.
It’s not political. It’s not revolutionary. There’s no socialism in it. Marx would be horrified by it.
Even you fall for it, with your claim that Galloway “knifed” the SWP CC in the back with his mild letter (did you read it again? You really should - George Galloway’s letter to the Respect NC).
Leaders should have their feet held to the fire by the members. This is understood and accepted by socialists when we operate in unions, but in the SWP there seems to be no acceptance of the notion that revolutionary leaders are just as susceptible to being pulled by other pressures. So there’s no attempt within the party to really challenge, critically, what’s happening.
So, I expect people to be loyal to their party. But loyalty, right now, means fierce arguments with the leadership, not quiet acquiescence, which you know is what’s happened.
Do you really think that the almost unanimous votes at Party Councils and conference this year is the result of everyone roundly agreeing, having had full debate over the issues and a chance to express alternative opinions and thrash them out? Do you think SWP Party Notes ever told people the truth about what was going on? Do you think that Socialist Worker has given less-active SWP members a real picture of things?
Loyalty is fine. It’s good. It’s necessary. Blind faith isn’t.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
333 Yep. They stood as “Respect (George Galloway)” - and I think the identification with George Galloway had something to do with vote they got. Lindsey German’s literature went into every home in London, as part of the mayoral booklet. All those people who identified her and the SWP with Respect, as opposed to George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob, got more of a chance to know she was standing than Galloway was. She got 17,000 votes.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
“Kevin - Those elections had more to do with the simple fact that Renewal could use the RESPECT name. You know it, I know it.”
No, Hanif. The Respect name was built on the public face of George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob (remember them? You had a nice discussion with them and then wrote a public story which lied about it?) - hard work was of course put in by the SWP and others, but the name only became the name because of George Galloway. We know this because Lindsey German got more press and TV coverage than Respect ever got before, so if people wanted to vote for her, they were under no illusions about how to.
You know it. I know it.
Just like you know that it was right for you to defend “the infamous ’sodomy’ remark” nonsense against the ultra-left a year or so ago, and you know it was wrong for you to attack Galloway using the very same formulation just a few months ago.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Just had a look at Respect/Left List’s statement on the TH councillors’ defection to New Labour.
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1965
It doesn’t really say much, but I am confused by this passage:
“The recent split in Respect has created conditions in which New Labour can seek to regain the initiative in Tower Hamlets…”
Given that the split was meant to have been on a left/right basis, with the right represented by Galloway and co., I might have expected some of his people to cross over, but not the Left List/SWP members.
So what are these conditions, and how did they work to lure a group of SWP members over to the Labour Party?
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
The fissure and weakening of the pole of attraction to the left of Labour that Respect once represented Dave. Its quite simple really. On their own neither side has proved strong enough to constitute one. In that situation both will suffer losses of this kind, regardless of formal ideological considerations.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
#340 The cult of personality in the George Galloway/Salma Yaqoob Party si becoming astonishing.
Certainly George Galloway raised the profile of Respect, having elected representatives makes you appear more convincing to people.
I think most people vote Respect because they want to vote for a party that broadly stands for some of the things that Old Labour stood for - you know that, I know that. Some of them admire George Galloway for the stances he has taken on war and imperialism.
But I suspect that many of the people who voted, for example, for Ray Holmes in Bolsover had never heard of Salma Yaqoob and maybe they knew GG as the guy who made a fool of himself (and us) on a celebrity reality tv show.
In actuality, many working class people and many people on the left are ambiguous about George Galloway. Take the example of somebody on the left from Swindon, who spent most of 2007 criticising Respect’s only MP on a site called Socialist Unity.
How many Respect members have met people who broadly agree with what Respect stands for, but then have to get sidetracked into a discussion over people’s dislike towards the personality of its only MP? (or their perception of).
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the conduct of the SWP in the split, many serious leftists have chosen not to join the Respect Renewal split because it posits a politics based on tailing bankrupt social democracy rather than building an alternative based on our class and it’s power: The articles that appear on your site promoting English nationalism make me sick (but evidently Kevin Ovenden can live with those politics) - one almost expects the new Respect Renewal literature to come with your own pin-on St George’s Cross, the slobbering over Ken Livingstone to the point of a Respect MP being photographed with his arm around him, the unaccountability of an MP who handpicks the GLA candidates rather than the membership, the sudden appearance of Eurocommunists like Mark Perryman in it’s leadership, the cult of personality promoted by TonyC and Ger, the continued emphasis on votes at the exspense of the struggle of our class at the base of society.
As Gramsci said, “When the old is dying but the new cannot be born, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it’s time to build a new fighting coalition of the working class based on our class, and its needs, and its power, and a programme related to that.
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
“I think most people vote Respect because they want to vote for a party that broadly stands for some of the things that Old Labour stood for”
But that cannot be what causes people to vote Respect, Adamski. Otherwise they would vote in similar numbers for other left parties that present broadly the same policies: the Socialist Alliance and Left List, for example. But they don’t. As for your venom about the debate over the cross of St George. The people you attack can speak for themselves. But you fail to understand that people can have different points of view. Respect is not a bureaucratic centralist organisation which must have a common line on everything. And yes - xxxxxx Mark Perryman (who was a member of Respect back in 2004 and 2005 when your chums in the SWP wouldn’t have a word said against it). Why on earth is it a cult of personality to recognise that two political personalities, Galloway and Yaqoob, have a reach that is very important for the left?
“The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it’s time to build a new fighting coalition of the working class based on our class, and its needs, and its power, and a programme related to that.”
Well blow me down. No one, on the left has drawn that conclusion over the last, say, 150 years. Such concrete thinking, such nuanced response to political developments - the south Wales working class are so fortunate to have such prescient leadership.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
342 well then, that’s a great achievement of John Rees’s stewardship of your party through the Respect experience then. So what’s next? Waiting for the “resistance” to Gordon Brown to pull together the forces for a stronger left of Labour formation? There’s an element of truth in that, but there’s a truth you and every other SWP member are going to have to confront, sooner or later. When you pop in to those meetings of radicalised trade unionists who are sick of paying money to Labour, or angry students, or left wing activists who want to build such a formation, you will doubtless get up and be enthusiastic for it and for working together. There may be some applause for your intervention. But someone, almost certainly nothing to do with Respect, is going to ask, “But weren’t you in such a formation? In fact, weren’t you in two, one of which you broke up for the other? And didn’t you bust that one up to?” There is a left outside the SWP, johng. And it is not going to wipe out history just because your central committee has decided to move on.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Adamski: #343
“In actuality, many working class people and many people on the left are ambiguous about George Galloway. Take the example of somebody on the left from Swindon, who spent most of 2007 criticising Respect’s only MP on a site called Socialist Unity.”
Firstly, there were actually very few artciles here about either galloway or Respect before last August.
Secondly, my criticisms of george were wrong, becasue I beleived his media appracnces meant he wasn’t serious about politics any more. Basically John Rees and Lindsey german had made the same assessment, which is why they thought they could have Respect without galloway. They were worng, I was wrong.
Thirdly, my politicakl problem with respect was its dominance by the SWP, not any particular prpbem with GG, so when it looked like the infleunce of the SWP might be reduced, I joined again - pretty much straight away.
In short, don’t use me as an example of someone put off Respect by Galloway, I was put off Respect by the SWP.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Adamski speaks with a passion rare in such a cess-pit, where Renewals leaders dish out pearls of wisdom to witch-hunt the SWP while the rest of us are out there building the movement and moving on from this damaging split which has been a damaging split for all of us.
It’s clear to me that people the calibre of Adamski have a real future as we rebuild the movement after Labours wars and pay freezes. Adamski understands more than the rest of you that we need to move on from this damaging split and stop threatening to kill gnats, as Ger Francis does every time he posts on here.
As for Nas, all I can say is, if you want to move on from this damaging feud, you can. But not with me. I’ll be out there building the movement.
You can join me if you want. But only if you want to move on from this damaging feud.
Comment by The RayBot — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
“In short, don’t use me as an example of someone put off Respect by Galloway, I was put off Respect by the SWP.”
And you claim there wasn’t a witch-hunt! Here we have an open, complete admission by Andy that his sole aim was to expel the SWP from Respect.
Well it didn’t work, Andy, and all Renewal is left with is a shattered wreck of an organisation, while the Left List continues to grow as we rebuild the movement.
Comment by The RayBot — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Then again Both George and Salma enjoyed popular support, the one nationally, the other locally, because they became a focus of popular opposition to the war. Salma seems to have been able to consolidate locally out of this popular opposition whilst with George matters are less clear. In any situation leaders who become the focus for popular opposition to unpopular opposition are obviously very important in electoral terms. But in retrospect it also seems true that the old Respect Unity Coalition was more then a sum of its parts, and with fragmentation, both are much more diminished then either loss of popular figureheads, or on the other hand, numbers on the ground, might have led either side to believe. I think its pretty foolish for anyone to imagine that ‘their side’ were the only side that contributed important things to the mix.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Here, we’re experiencing a weird phenomenon on the Respect website right now.
Thanks to George Galloway’s letter re the Bush demo, we’re getting our highest ever weekday viewing figures - at least half of which is coming from police discussion forums, and particularly from the Army Rumour Service forum.
We’re a broad coalition indeed.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Dave: Did Weyman Bennett say that RR was only allowing SWP members to its conference if they ripped up their SWP membership cards?
johng: Yes and it was entirely true. And the idea that it was a ‘lie’ is entirely ridiculous.
Good grief. Tell me that wasn’t really you, John.
Comment by Phil — 27 June, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
“I think its pretty foolish for anyone to imagine that ‘their side’ were the only side that contributed important things to the mix.”
Lucky no one is saying that then. But once again, it’s cool how you can see into other people’s imaginations, John.
And how cool that you’ve been able to ignore every single point people are making! Good training.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
We really should publish the film of Weyman Bennett’s speech - so that you can all see the vanguard leadership in all its glory.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
#346 Well whatever Andy you still have indulged and given free rain to the mother of all sectarian squabbles! And what good has this done!
Comment by Jim lawrie — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Well nobody is denying the role of George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob in building Respect electorally, but members of RR seem to reduce an entire party, its membership, its votes to two people.
It’s clear that in the future we are going to have much stronger party mechanisms to make sure our elected representatives are accountable to the class. The SWP must cease its opposition to the workers wage, and never let an MP or Councillor be unaccountable to the membership again. These measures suggested by the Comintern may also help:
* The leadership of the party must “systematically inspect” the quality and organisational abilities of its parliamentarians.
* These parliamentarians must “subordinate all their parliamentary work to the extra-parliamentary work of their party”.
* They must not use their positions to “build up business connections with their electors”.
* In short, elected representatives must be “responsible not to the atomised mass of voters”, but to the party that they claim to stand for
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
349 - RayBot, it is bad form to post under johng’s name.
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
“Secondly, my criticisms of george were wrong, becasue I beleived his media appracnces meant he wasn’t serious about politics any more. Basically John Rees and Lindsey german had made the same assessment, which is why they thought they could have Respect without galloway. They were worng, I was wrong”
Actually Andy this is a bit wierd. Given that almost everyone had this impression, might it not be that this ‘mistaken impression’ had something to do with ‘mistaken behaviour’ on the part of George? Unless faith in people regardless of what they do is in some sense a political virtue? George should always have been defended against the more scaberous attacks, but it is true that his behaviour demoralised many, including his closest supporters. If this caused misunderstanding and difficulties for his supporters, does he not bear a small measure of responsibility for that? As well as for many of the tensions that developed as a result of this?
I don’t think anyone wanted Respect without George but at a certain point (and I can, as well as probably can many others, remember when) any responsible leadership would have begun to think about the possibility that there might be such a possibility. Kevin has written here of individual discussions he had with CC members. I just get the impression that there would have been little choice but to think about what we, as a component of the coalition, would do if the situation got any worse (I am however not LYING about this, or on the other hand accusing anyone else of being a LIAR).
Given that the left is quite small, its resources are not large, this kind of thing presented difficulties, in the same way that this split has caused serious damage. I think there is a tendency for people to forget quite how small we are. I just remember in the immediate build up to the split being quite amazed that after all this, George was complaining about the lack of proper service. It did just seem, and this is an honest reaction, just a bit of a blinkin’ cheek really. For the terrible crimes we’re accused of (ie not putting in enough effort, must try harder), its very unclear that responsibility for this debacle is not somewhat more evenly spread then the post-split rhetoric on this site would have it.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Adamski: #355 “It’s clear that in the future we are going to have much stronger party mechanisms to make sure our elected representatives are accountable to the class.”
No such thing is clear at all.
A majority of the Left List’s steering committee are SWP members, a vast majority of the Left List’s memberbership are SWP members.
And accountability “to the class” - such a bewildering concept, when the vast majority of the class neither know nor care what you are doing, and given the opportunity vote for anyone except you.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
“Well nobody is denying the role of George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob in building Respect electorally, but members of RR seem to reduce an entire party, its membership, its votes to two people.”
No. We don’t. We simply acknowledge that there are some major strengths there. The SWP refused to do so - indeed, tried to push Salma right out of the picture and removed Galloway from a London leaflet last year.
You know this, but it suits you to mischaracterise what we do, as you’ve done from the start.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
“These measures suggested by the Comintern may also help:”
Adamski really hits the nail on the head hear. Those who compare him to a gnat, ready to be swatted while sucking the blood from your hero George Galloway, should apologise now and take note of the kind of strategic thinking Renewals leaders are incapable of.
Comment by The RayBot — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
“Given that almost everyone had this impression”
Who had this impression, and where was it expressed? I know some people did, but not in the SWP, where there was not a single criticism of George’s media appearances - not until the 7 September members’ meeting, where suddenly John Rees started talking about George’s salary.
Still, John, I guess bad things just happen in faction fights - and who started them, and who should be the better and more honest brokers, doesn’t factor into it.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
“Last Novemeber a left palestinian activist in Beit Sahoour siad to me: “Galloway is still useful to us internationally, we know he is an arsehole in the Uk, but he still gets publicity for us”
Two Iraqis i know here in swinodn are now embarassed that they sent photos of themsellves with galloway back to their family” - Andy, May 2007
Who changed Galloway or Andy?
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
355 No they don’t seem to do that, Adamski. It’s that the leading non-SWP members in Respect, prior to the split, rightly said that Galloway and Yaqoob were central to the party. The SWP played a role, but Rees and German wildly exaggerated their own importance.
So, of course, the split is damaging. But Respect has proven it can win seats and consolidate - Birmingham and East London. The SWP/Left List is finished. No amount of placards handed out on a demonstration is going to change that. 56 votes in a byelection which was in one of your strongest areas. The loss of all your councillors in London. The loss of your chair, registered leader and nominating officer (to lose them once might be considered a misfortune, twice looks like carelessness), the defection of Kumar Murschid to… well, the partisans of Kumar Murschid, the loss other trophy Bangladeshi recruits, the demoralisation of your cadre, the shrinkage of your party in East London, the infecting of your anti-fascist work by the sectarian methods you’ve imported from the Left List… if that was me, I’d give it up as a bad job.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Marxism 2008 - Sunday John Rees on Strategy and Tactics. I wonder if his speech will now be changed by the events in Tower Hamlets?
Comment by Kevin E — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Another example of where I had to defend Galloway against Andy:
With regard to galloway’s sleeze, this is a question of him having become a media celeb, who is not serious about politics , but is serious about money and self-promotion.
We cannot build anything serious based upon lack of democracy, and David Brent type celebrity.
Comment by Andy — 3 August, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
With due respect, other than his ill-advised Big Brother appearance, it is hard to substantiate the claim that Galloway is obssessed with becoming a media celeb.
Liam Mac Uaid on his blog continually attacks Galloway’s media career, but with the exception Big Brother, Galloway is using TV and Radio as a platform for left wing politics (or his brand of this)
You can be snobby and turn up your nose at Galloway hosting a radio phone-in show on TalkSport Radio, but the show has the biggest weekend ratings on the station and thousands of listeners many of whom phone-in and say that they originally hated him but now agree with his political views. He regularly puts anti-war arguments to an audience who probably wouldn’t attend left wing political meetings or read the Morning Star (though they might do now).
His show has featured long interviews with Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Jonathan Neale from Campaign against Climate Change, Lindsey German, Venezuelan MPs, Andrew Gilligan, Michael Rosen on Zionism and anti-semitism, Cllr Michael Lavallete giving a live interview from Occupied Palestiine etc.
I can’t see what the problem is.
Comment by Adam J — 3 August, 2007
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
But your points only confirm what Andy said - that he thought Galloway was no longer serious. He now says he was wrong about that. Your archive-digging only backs Andy up.
So, the problem for you Adam is, you’ve always believed you’re a bit smart and can do this “quoting” thing and this “keep asking the same question” thing and this “parody” thing - but you can’t. You end up looking silly. You’re just not that bright.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
#363 The question is, Are their 3 socialist councillors in Birmingham? If so then I’m glad, but I fear not. One of your winning candidates produces literature indistinguishable to the LibDems, in East London we hear a RR Councillor boast that business leaders support East London Respect. You can win seats (well in two areas in the whole of Britain), you can consolidate - what? You don’t exactly seem to stand for much accept some warmed over social democracy half baked in platitudes.
I’m happy to work in a united front with George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob, but not one led by their politics. In the case of Salma Yaqoob I’m a little vague what she stands for, I know what she’s against.
The trouble with Respect Renewal is you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything (or anyone).
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Actually Tony your quite wrong. I can remember tensions about this much earlier. The very fact that we had to have internal arguments around the BB business early on expressed this (yes in branches, and indeed openly). Comrades had to be won round to continuing to defend George (and of course we had been at the leading political edge of these battles, not really about George, but about the war and Islamophobia. It was a problem Tony. And its quite wrong for you to have this air of injured innocence. The fact that we tried to keep these tensions under wraps, that there were disagreements about it etc, does not alter the fact that it was in fact damaging for many people who had to carry the arguments. We thought it was right to do so, and I still mantain it was, but please don’t re-write history this way. I can remember being worried that we might over-react and was for a long time unsure (I can remember thinking that George might just carry it off). These were emerging tensions and problems that any responsible leadership would have to have tried to anticipate. The notion that it did not cause problems is almost farcical (given that George himself was forced to acknowledge this indirectly in the piece he subsequently wrote for the paper). And yes bad things do happen in faction fights. Anyone unaware of this is perhaps less reflective then they ought to be about their own behaviour. The notion that EVERYONE might have been mistaken is a bit of a strange one considering we’re discussing politics, and that the successful pursuit of politics does involve factoring in what people actually think. If you do demoralise large bodies of your supporters the belief that in fact you’ve been operating to a cunning plan which will later confound them, can only be taken so far. In my view some of George’s behaviour was related to diminishing returns inside Respect itself which did pull him away from other valuable work he could have done, particularly in Tower Hamlets. This did in fact influence later events. On a smaller note I can remember having a bit of a row with an Egyptian friend who had previously been deeply supportive of George after the BB business. This was not an isolated problem. It was distracting and unneccessary that we had to engage in arguments like that, and it was a shame, given the volume of goodwill that had previously been built up. And no ‘who started it’ is a useless way of approaching these questions. As it happens I reacted rather negatively to one of my own comrades who put that argument recently. I don’t think ‘who started it’ is a factor for those whose central concern is the movement. In any political operation whatsoever the left will find itself working with people who will occassionally ’start’ things. You don’t, if you have a bone of responsibility in you, judge your response simply in terms of ‘who started it’. If you do your left with little but a string of arguments as opposed to a group of movements. Its why the extremely personalised nature of the arguments on these threads fills most independents with disgust, and most of our enemies with glee. Anybody with any sense ought to be able to understand this.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
#366 More lies from liar TonyC, you should change your name to pinocchio.
Andy hated Galloway, when GG was expelled from parliament rather than solidarity, he had this post with a photograph of Galloway standing by himself to say how isolated GG was (something most people would think was a good thing in Parliament). Hate turned to love, when Galloway attacked the SWP.
It’s neither here nor there, the point is that many workers are ambivalent towards GG in my experience.
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
So let me get this right: Andy Newman recognises he made a mistaken assessment, because he sees how reality has confounded it. His experience at his recent meeting in Swindon was that Galloway was still a big pull for a progressive meeting, was held in high regard by varius Muslim community figures, attracted an audience from his radio show and was an asset to the movment. So we must pillory Andy.
You, johng, Ray, and various other SWP members or sympathisers over this issue cling to a set of doctrines which have been proved wrong by events, utterly wrong - we could call it the Hussain-Rahman refutation. You are all to be commended for not letting experience get in the way of belief.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
“We really should publish the film of Weyman Bennett’s speech - so that you can all see the vanguard leadership in all its glory.”
I’m afraid I think might have got it wrong here - not the comment but the person who said it. My recollection was that it was Michael Bradley who made the point in an generally bumbling speech delivered from behind a think scarf (Weyman’s was even more bumbling and incoherent which is why they are so easy to confuse.) I do recall clearly however Richard Searle (someone of with over 25 years of SWP membership under his belt) pointing out in the next contribution what a load of tosh that claim was.
Comment by TLC — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Its not just Andy’s opinion though TonyC. What about the Palestinian refugee quoted, the two Iraqi’s, my Egyptian friend etc (multiply by many factors), then you had all those activists in workplaces who had to day in, day out, both stand up to the right with their ‘cat calls’ and on the other hand waste valuable time trying to bolster the morale of better people who were annoyed and embarressed by this situation, when they had far better things to do with their time.
It is a deep problem with your politics that you are capable of dismissing all this as if its simply a matter of some people being silly or having weak politics. These were real problems for real people, many of whom were central to building the valuable things without which our leaders on either side of this dispute, wonderful though they are, would not have a movement to bloody lead. Its elementry my dear watson, and its why I get a bit irate with the leadership fixation, which isn’t in my view a personality cult, just a bit of a oneeyed view of political movements.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
#370 presumably reality also confounded Andy’s claim last year that Ger “was and is a political thug” and explains the new political marriage between Andy and Rob who famously said to Andy “you were a tosser last time you flickered on my radar, now flicker off”.
If he is consistent to form, I predict that by June 2009, Andy will suddenly turn on GG and RR and be praising his new idol, John Rees.
And you wonder why many serious leftists regard Respect Renewal as an unholy alliance.
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
“You don’t exactly seem to stand for much accept some warmed over social democracy half baked in platitudes.”
You’re a deeply unpleasant fool Adam. It may have not reached the socialist heartland of South Wales where apparently revolution is imminant but in the rest of ther country a little bit of ‘warmed over social democracy’ would be a fine thing. It might give us better health care, an end to privatisation, more council houses, better wages and conditions at work, a youth club or two, even free school meals and free public transport.
There once was a day when ‘revolutionarires’ would claim to be the best fighters for reforms.
Still you think you’re better off without us. Great. We genuinely are better off without your sort of ultra-left posturing.
Comment by TLC — 27 June, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
“serious leftists”
Adam, surely you can’t be putting yourself into this category?
Comment by TLC — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
johng: tonyc isn’t “dismissing all of this”. Don’t take this the wrong way, but tonyc works in a tube depot and has had to carry political arguments in a more hostile environment than you in academia. This isn’t personal point-scoring johng, just a relevant fact. He has had to deal with reactionaries and with the kickback over things like Big Brother. Tonyc has distinguished himself with his brutal honesty: you with your hackery.
What were the diminishing returns in Tower Hamlets oh wise, evidence-free-zone Johng? Would it be the diminishing returns that led Galloway to say that he would stand in Poplar - you know, what the SWP leadership told you was the self serving electoral ambition which drove Galloway’s witchhunt of the left? Diminishing returns giving rise to electoral ambition - another day in the SWP bubble outside of normal time and space, and immune to logic.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
“little bit of ‘warmed over social democracy’ would be a fine thing. It might give us better health care, an end to privatisation, more council houses, better wages and conditions at work, a youth club or two, even free school meals and free public transport.”
You are right, but in the age of neoliberalism, you need people who are prepared to build mass movements to fight for these things not Councillors who are vague about what a trade union is and produce leaflets with no struggle in them.
Doesn’t it embarrass you that Respect Renewal in Brum produced leaflets that could easily pass for a LibDem leaflet, a leaflet that was to the right of the best traditions of old Labour, even.
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Adam #369
“Andy hated Galloway, when GG was expelled from parliament rather than solidarity, he had this post with a photograph of Galloway standing by himself to say how isolated GG was (something most people would think was a good thing in Parliament). Hate turned to love, when Galloway attacked the SWP. “
This is all simply untrue.
I have never hated Galloway. Indeed I have quite similar politics to George in many ways,and share a long term commitment to working with the Muslim Community, that in my case goes back some fifteen years, and I even share his love of cigars. You will also recall that way back in 2004 i was almost the only voice publicly arguing a case for Respect elected representatives NOT to take only a workers wage.
But as the Respect project seemed to be coming off the rails in 2005 and 2006, this was largelt becasue the wider movement saw Respect as being an SWP front, and I was disillusioned and disappointed in gallowayy for not standing up against this.
So I was absolutley delighted when he did, and I have been really pleased to see that I was wrong, and Galloway still intends to use his influence to build left wing politics.
Now in terms of the negative impact of galloway, i just had lunch with another Swindon activist who was very down on GG after Big Brother, but she has reassessed her view completely, and is now really keen to build Respect in Swindon. Things move on.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
“Would it be the diminishing returns that led Galloway to say that he would stand in Poplar”
If George Galloway was serious he would have stood again in Bethnal Green & Bow, by not doing so, he makes himself look like a Cowboy with no longterm commitment to his constituents. According to Liam, a member of Respect in Tower Hamlets he was barely seen in his constituency for months and has lost the respect he had won from many working class people. It is unlikely that he will be an MP again. It’s sad that someone with many talents and gifts that could be of use to the working class movement has squandered them.
It’s also sad that thousands of workers who wanted a new politics in East London have been betrayed, something for which we all will have to take some responsibility.
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
“produce leaflets with no struggle in them.”
I’ve often found these are the easiest ones to read. The ones with struggle in them make it hard to focus and they just refuse to go though the letter box.
Comment by TLC — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Adamski, you are giving your full support to an organisation that put out press releases and held press conferences claiming Oliur Rahman was attacked by supporters of our side, that our side sent hate email - claims which the police laughed at and then didn’t bother investigating, cos they couldn’t take them seriously.
The organisation you give your full support to has a national secretary who sent a press calling notice to Nick Cohen and David Aaronovich. That same national secretary was in touch with the media in an effort to discredit Galloway - thus assisting the state in trying to attack the left (Rees doesn’t matter to the media, Galloway does).
The organisation you give your full support to has a treasurer who wrote to the Electoral Commission calling on them to fully investigate George Galloway’s finances only a few months ago (February, to be precise).
The organisation you give your full support to arranged for Galloway’s constituency office phone lines to be disconnected, rather than realising that however nasty the split was, something like that mean that people may have ended up deported or homeless and therefore should be resolved outside of the fight (but they were ignoring our calls for negotiation, so…).
People can change sides and re-form allegiences - after all, I once thought JohnG was a man of conviction who really understood socialist politics, and that Richard Seymour would never lie in the service of the leadership. Now I think that people like Richard are utterly without principle and will trust him again (which will be fine, as he’ll be out of activist politics before too long).
These things happen. But somehow, it’s only *our side* that has to worry about this being a problem.
Your side had a candidate that claimed that George Galloway was essentially against Respect having a gay pride float and that Galloway attracted “extremist” Muslims while she didn’t.
You support people who physically attack our members - 3 times now.
You really have no credibility here. You’ve supported a bunch of liars and wreckers. I’m supporting a bunch of people who make mistakes and hopefully learn from them. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. I’ve been wrong about stuff. So’s Liam, Andy, Rob, everyone.
So don’t try it, son. You’re in with a bunch of people who have been willing to go as low as they have to to try to destroy us. That’s one thing that, however hot the blog posts get, we’ve never done and won’t ever do.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
adamski: he made a pre-election promise that he would stand in Bethnal Green only once and would make way for a Bengali candidate so that there would be elected Britain’s first Bengali MP. He rightly stuck to his promise. After the next election, Britain will have a Bengali MP. (Don’t kick off about the merits of that, just acknowledge that your ignorance has once again led you ridiculous claims.)
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
“It’s also sad that thousands of workers who wanted a new politics in East London have been betrayed, something for which we all will have to take some responsibility.”
It’s ok, Adam. We’ll look after Tower Hamlets, you look after your 36 voters.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
#378 So you share his love of his love of cigars hey! Do you share his love of Winston S. Churchill as well?
Comment by Jim lawrie — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Incidently, as part of the SWP school of falsification, it is worth looking at the historical precedents of the muck raking that Adam is doing, making huge efforts to find previous negative comments that Respect members made about each other in the past.
This reminds me of Kamenev’s pamphlet “Trotskism or leninism” from October 1924, when they pored over the archives to find letters from Trotsky and Lenin saying how much they hated each other. Eventually they found a letter from 1913 where Trotsky had described Lenin as a corrupt grubby lawyer.
This had the desired effect of using anathematisation as a substtute for debating the issues.
Obvioulsy Adam is no Kamenev, that would be far to great a compliment to him.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
adamski: I realise you are necessarily glued to your computer screen, but when you come back it would be refreshing if you acknowledged you were wrong over claiming that an announcment to stand in Poplar showed a lack of seriousness about the constituents of Bethnal Green.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
#382 I’m perfectly aware of Galloway’s prmise, I believe he was wrong to make that promise. He was also wrong to decide without consultation of the membership what the ethnicity of the next parliamentary candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow would be. Whether the candidate was a Bengali, Pakistani, White, Afro-Carribean etc socialist was up to the members. But how patronising and wrongheaded are Galloway’s ethnic politics?
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Yeah! I don’t care if they’re black, white, pink or yellow with blue spots on! As long as they don’t have to fight the class war with one hand tied behind their back!
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
#384.
To save Adam the bother of searching for things i might have written about Churchill: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=213
The victory of the Axis forces would have thrown the human race into a dark barbarism beyond our most fevered nightmares. Fascism was halted in the Streets of Stalingrad by the Red Army, and the hundreds of thousands of partisans who harried the fascist armies, in the Ukraine, Belorus, Italy, France and elsewhere. But let us not forget the paradox that for those brief few years Churchill and Roosevelt also fought fascism, and young men from Britain and America were the people’s soldiers.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
#389 This is the trouble, you simplify to support a reactionary conclusion. Yes, the British and American ruling class fought fascism, but not because they had a problem with fascism but because of inter-imperialist rivalry. The British and American ruling class didn’t care about the holocaust, they surpressed the info getting out into the public domain, America sealed its borders to Jewish refugees & the allies failed to bomb the trainlines to Auschwitz.
Incidentally, in some areas of South Wales, Churchill isn’t just remembered as a war-hero . . .
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
I support renewal, I think Galloway makes lots of mistakes (though still remains loads to the left of all the other MPs). Until recently (i.e. prior to split) it was mainly SWP members arguing with me that he was better then I thought he was.
Still, whatever his faults, having an MP is better then having no MP.
Just thought I’d drop that in.
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
#378 Do you also fancy yourself as a ladeez man, like George?
From now on the nickname is Gorgeous Andy!
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
adamski: we’re getting somewhere. On the evidence of 387 you were willfully missing the point in 379. His decision to stand in Poplar and Limehouse - endorsed by a unanimous vote of the unsplit Respect National Council - was not a disengagement from politics on the basis of diminishing returns, rather it was continuing committment to electoral politics and Respect. You can’t have it both ways.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
#390
Adam you really are an idiot, you will see from the brief article I linked to that I wrote;
“Many soldiers in the British army who wanted to fight Hitler were diverted by the bosses to serve Britain’s own sordid imperial interests in the Far East, but at the same time there WAS a people’s war here in Britain - a popular mobilisation that overthrew Mussolini and Hitler. There was a war in Europe against fascism, a just war. “
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
#393 I think it was a bad decision. I think it suggests to people in Bethnal Green & Bow that he has no longterm commitment to them. I suspect that it also led to a scramble for power and division in Tower Hamlets from those who would be the annointed successor.
“It was continuing committment to electoral politics and Respect”
It certainly might be, I have never been one of those who believes that GG is just in it for himself.
The evidence suggests that GG failed to consolidate and build upon the considerable respect and support he had built up in a stunning election campaign that should have been strengthened by the work of 12 fighting socialist councillors working alongside him backed up by the organisation as a whole. Liam speaks of a Galloway who was the hero of the estates one year, and then jeered ‘cos working class people thought he was just like other politicians. He let himself down because he has much to contribute and is not living up to his own potential role. As Glyn R said, “Coulda been a contender”
John Rees could have been Peter Taaffe to Galloway’s Derk Hatton (joke).
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Andy wrote: ““Many soldiers in the British army who wanted to fight Hitler were diverted by the bosses to serve Britain’s own sordid imperial interests in the Far East, but at the same time there WAS a people’s war here in Britain - a popular mobilisation that overthrew Mussolini and Hitler. There was a war in Europe against fascism, a just war.”
Actually I didn’t read the article you linked to, just your edited highlight. It is one of your better efforts. Though I still think that you romanticise a bit, and gloss over the different class interests involved.
We should mention of course that the just war against fascism in Greece brought . . . the fascists to power, and the role of the great powers in frustrating de-nazification.
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Oh god Adamski and JohnG are gonna make sure this thread gets diverted to what Trotsky had to say about vodka in Paris in 1974, so they can get away from talking about actually existing vodka.
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
The wisdom of Adamski:
Adam JohXXXes, 28/11/2007 http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1139#comment-20971 wrote:
Adam JohXXXes, 5th December: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1214#comment-23115 wrote:
Adam Johxxes 6th December 2007 http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1214#comment-23405
Adam JohXXXes, 30/11/2007: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1139#comment-21746 wrote:
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
adamski: your MO is now clear. Just ignore reality and live in the world of far left boilerplates and analogies. I’m sure Liam can speak for himself, but my understanding is that he’s rather looking forward to Galloway heading up an initiative on his estate. That’s definitely true of many teachers and those who care about education, given Galloway and Miah’s lead over opposing threats to close two schools in Tower Hamlets and their opposition to the closure of adult education facilities.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
#397
Andy, TonyC, Ger, Kev, Rob et al:
“it doesn’t matter if it is a black or white cat as long as it cathces mice”
Adamski:
“NO! What we need is a RED cat!”
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
I do hope anticapitalista drops in again. I have answered his point about the contempt the British SWP CC has for its Greek section. I wonder if he’ll now apologise for his repeated attempts to accuse me and others of making up the imminent defections of the Rahman and the remaining SWP councillor.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
#398 I explained the contradiction in two statements, I left voluntarilly and then was told a months afterward that I would never be allowed to re-join - in effect a retrospective expulsion.
As to:
“I tend to post on these kind of pages when I’m bored and my comments don’t always reflect a “thought-through” perspective or the finished article and sometimes even just reflect my mood at the time and sometimes I write stuff which is just a bit stupid!”
Don’t you realise that for most people SocialistUnity is a little light relief from waiting for the kettle to boil, or away to pass time at work if you sit behind a computer? If we want heavyweight stuff we go to Lenny. I congratulate you for having sucessfully colonised the territory once occupied by such august organs as the Weekly Wrecker.
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
interesting Adam, I can see that you can learn a lot from reading;
“Good post, Lenin” in the comments box there.
But if you don’t take the debate here seriously, then why do you involve yourselves in it?
In fact you see disrupting the debate that other people might want to seriously engage in as a bit of a larff, a sport of winding us up to see if you can get a rise.
But who does it damage? the reputation of Adam Johannes is already shot away after he carried the can for the SWP’s sectarian carving up of cardiff STW to try to exclude Plaid Cymru from having the chair.
In terms of building any serious left politics in Wales you are discredited, due to your vehement hostility to other political forces, as can be seen by the derisory votes, and lack of influence that you have.
We saw from Dear Koba’s comment here yesterday, that you have a reputation in cardiff as someone with little practical nous. But you are a great hero of the keyboard class struggle
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
SU Style Guide Q&A:
Q1: If accusations are aired by an interlocutor, what word best describes them via a vis the current state of knowledge of the person making those accusations?
A1: lies
Q2: If you find yourself unpersuaded by the claims of your interlocutor, what type of knowledge should they be said, sarcastically, to imparting?
A2: wisdom
Q3: Regarding this wisdom, what naturally occurring phenomena should particular instances of it be said to resemble regarding their integrity and quality?
A3: pearls
Q4: If criticism is aired of your political fraternity, to what type of hysterical medieval inquiry must such criticism be naturally compared?
A4: a witchunt
Q5: Irrespective of their political affiliations (or your own), what affective state is induced in you by the defection of a councillor originally elected as a Respect candidate?
A5: sadness
Q6: What term best characterises that part of the working class and its organisations with which your political ambitions are most concerned?
A6: the movement
Q7: And if this part of the working class is mentioned, what kind of constructive activity should always be proposed in relation to it?
A7: building
Q8: If your interlocutor insists on repeatedly pressing the same point, to what garden tool should his idea be compared?
A8: an axe
Q9: And what maintenance function should he be accused of habitually performing with regard to this axe?
A9: grinding
Q10: What reflective course is to be universally recommended to your interlocutor irrespective of his politics or affiliations?
A10: reassessment
Q11: How should the challenges we all commonly face be properly described
A11: tasks
Q12: And in what approximate direction do these challenges lie?
A12: ahead
Q13: If an election is held, how should the winning candidates be described?
A13: representatives
Q14: In recognition of the means by which they achieved their success, what word should you use to qualify the nature of the representation they offer?
A14: elected
Q15: If a story hostile to your party appears in a newspaper, what term best describes the class of phenomenon of which the particular newspaper is merely a typical example?
A15: the media
Q16: In the interests of clarity, what qualifying term should you always use to characterise this class of phenomenon with regard to its class basis?
A16: bourgeois
Q17: If JohnG is to be addressed, what word must be used that best describes him with regard to the generality of his discourse and its relation to the truth?
A17: a liar
Q18: Regarding your political opponents, what word best sums up your initial reaction to their treatment of your allies in this dispute?
A18: shocked
Q19: What is the precise nature of the truths which your opponents prefer to ignore?
A19: inconvenient
Q20: What word best summarises your opinion of the number of SWP members who are unhappy with their leadership’s handling of this dispute?
A20: significant
Q21: Which infirmity best corresponds to the nature of the loyalty your opponents exhibit toward their chosen political faction?
A21: blindness
Q22: What mode of enquiry or investigation best describes your own approach to the matters in hand?
A22: analysis
Q23: At what stage of your analysis should you claim to have arrived?
A23: final
Q24: Regarding the implications of this analysis, which subset of people does it reveal ultimately to have at least some responsibility for the split in Respect?
A24: all
Q25: In which direction is it absolutely imperative that we move next?
A25: forward
Tie-breaker Question: What is the name for a column of air moving round and round in circles causing devastation wherever it goes?
Answer: tbc
Comment by Andy Wilson — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
“johng: tonyc isn’t “dismissing all of this”. Don’t take this the wrong way, but tonyc works in a tube depot and has had to carry political arguments in a more hostile environment than you in academia”
Actually he was. I’m fully aware on the difference between a tube depot and a university, although thanks for pointing it out.
“the diminishing returns” refers to George Galloway’s own later comments on the failure to make headway referred to in his own August letter.
I must say I’m enjoying the ‘brutal honesty’ here. Its so invigorating.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
402 Adamski- SU is certainly light relief when we get to read your latest pearls of wisdom and fighting talk.
Just for a laugh, I wonder if you could post the text of any recent leaflets you have had a hand in drafting? Perhaps Left List election leaflets. You know I only want to see them so I can take the piss but I’m sure you won’t let me down…
Comment by bystander — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Stop stirring up ancient history about cardiff stw , Andy . It’s something you know nothing about and Cardiff STW currently has pretty good relations with many Plaid members.
This is not taking sides as I really don’t give a toss about the whole Respect bussiness anymore.
Comment by still fed up — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
That would be the Lenin’s Tomb that has had full and frank discussion about the stratgy of the left in Britain in the electoral and other fields, would it? Please. Someone who is well known, widely respected and even well liked on the London left dared to comment at Lenin’s Tomb that the figure of up to 10,000 on the LMHR march was a gross exaggeratin and that he, along with other left veterans, put the numbers at 2,000. The comment was summarily deleted. The SWP is simply not in a place where it can seriously debate these matters, because it sticks to a narrative of events over the last year - which include the dodgy PFI cheque and all that - which is at odds with developments.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
I fear we are going back and forth.
THe key thing is the question as to why Respect in Tower Hamlets, its strongest area, before the split and up to the present day, has eeen so many defections to bourgeois parties>
My own feelnig is that in order to get Galloway onboard who was a keystone to giving the coalition a media profile and credibility in terms of having an MP, the SWP watered things down programatically and this meant that all kinds of opportunism abounded and their was a lack of political clarity which meant that the broad coalition was like a house of cards - it expanded rapidly but lacked strong roots.
Socialist Resistance also have a point that more effort should have been done in areas of political education and cadre building.
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
If you know the difference between a tube depot and a university, try letting it inform your assessments of what tonyc is saying. I don’t read his as dismissing the blowback over Big Brother. You say you do, ok, it’s just that I am absolutely sure he had to deal with more of it than you.
If you’re going to claim you were referring to something Galloway wrote in his letter, at least have the honesty to quote it so we can see. Galloway’s point was about the mismanagement by the SWP leadership of Respect and its playing down of building Respect in favour of the SWP. Nothing to do with diminishing returns, which are about putting in the same or increasing effort for less and less gain. As anyone involved in Respect knows, the SWP input plummeted after May 2006. There was just one national piece of literature produced between January 2007 and June 2007. That’s not a diminishing return. It’s a diminishing interest, a diminishing commitment.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
adamski: yet more whistling in the dark. Still, you have nothing to fear about anything you are holding the programmatic keys to expanding rapidly, soaring to success, but succumbing to a lack of strong roots.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
#403 Oh dear, Andy are you not aware that Cardiff StW has a Plaid Chair who is also a good friend of mine ? incidentally the deputy leader of Cardiff Council also a member of Plaid sent a “good luck” message to us during the elections. Then there’s the other Plaid Councillor who I had lunch with recently. You don’t actually know what your talking about. You see people who disagree can actually work together.
As to Dear Koba, can we really take seriously what someone who posts anonymously about me while saying things that are factually incorrect?
Incidentally, I organise biggest and better Stop the War events than you!
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
People obviously seem a bit wound up by my references to Lenny, I was teasing, lighten up!
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Adam
If you have good relations with people on a face to face basis then good - (though i can assure you that I have heard things from reliable sources) Of course I am hardly suprised that Cardiff can organise better and bigger anti-war events than Swindon, given the different relative size, importance and composition of the two places.
But you should reflect on this.
If you have good relations with people in the real world, then perhaps you debate and discuss with them in a totally different way from how you do on here?
Which do you think is more successful?
On here people largely think you are an ultra-left idiot, incapable of having a serious debate.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Adamski in action, look and learn: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/554/cardiffstwc.htm
Get well, Leanne, but sod off
At an acrimonious meeting of Cardiff Stop the War Coalition on November 19, the Socialist Workers Party botched an attempt to take complete control of the local anti-war movement. In what was frequently a shambolic and ill-tempered meeting, it served as an object lesson in the present state of relations on the left.
What lay behind the attempted putsch was the SWP’s ludicrous desire to remove anyone from the local steering committee who was even slightly ‘off message’ and replace them with people who could be trusted not to rock the boat. Yet, bizarrely this did not mean simply dumping those to the left of the SWP. It also meant that they also sought to remove Leanne Wood AM, a prominent Plaid Cymru leftwinger.
A former Labour councillor, Sue Lent, was put up to challenge Leanne Wood for the position of chair. Unfortunately Leanne has been suffering from a bout of influenza and her absence enabled the SWP and its hangers-on in Respect to narrowly defeat her. But this was the SWP’s only success - if you can call it that. To cut a long story short (to explain in full the chaotic proceedings would be to risk the mental health of the reader), due to the normal bungling that is characteristic of the organisation in Wales, the SWP just failed to remove the other principal target of takeover, Pete Ashley of Workers Power, although he lost the officer’s position he had previously held. Indeed, to add insult to injury, after a complete cock-up in handling nominations, the SWP were unable to prevent Ethan Grech of the CPGB from taking the trade union officer’s position. Cheers, comrades.
So there you have it. There are now not one, but two ‘ultra-lefts’ on the steering committee. True, the SWP and its nodding donkeys still have a large majority, but it wanted a committee packed completely with people it could trust to do everything behind closed doors. No doubt it will still try, but this will now prove to be a slightly more difficult task.
Quite what possessed the comrades to remove Leanne from the chair is hard to fathom. Hardly an ‘ultra-left’, she is someone who has spoken from the rostrum at Trafalgar Square at the end of anti-war demos, has given publicity to the anti-war movement and has consistently championed many leftwing causes. One would have thought that the SWP would have cherished someone formally to its right and with a national profile.
Possibly, it is because the SWP in Cardiff is plain dumb. The SWP chair and its new Cardiff organiser (who tried to orchestrate the meeting) are neither of them the sharpest tools in the box. No wonder Cardiff branch of the SWP is smaller than in any other British city of a similar size.
Alternatively, it could be because Leanne has a record of working with all shades of the left in Wales, including the Cardiff Social Forum, which the SWP shuns. Perhaps she could not be trusted to keep silent about SWP manoeuvrings in the local anti-war movement.
More insidiously, it could have been an attempt, backed up by SWP leaders, to exclude anyone with a position of influence from criticising the SWP/Respect road show. It was curious that the only non-members of Respect on the SWP-proposed ‘slate’ was a comrade from the pro-Respect wing of the Communist Party of Britain (who to his credit voted not to exclude either comrade Wood or comrade Ashley) and Sue Lent herself. Possibly, they are hoping that assiduous courting of her could lead to her decamping to Respect.
If this is so, it is sectarian lunacy. Getting the grand total of 0.6% of the vote in the European elections, Respect Wales is hardly in a position to gain hegemony over anything at all. Instead all it has done is to cause a deep rupture in Cardiff STWC and exacerbated suspicions about the SWP. In doing so, the SWP has perhaps scored an own goal by exploding the myth that it wants a genuinely broad and diverse anti-war movement.
Cameron Richards
Comment by Dear Koba — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Nas this is ridiculous. Tony was in fact suggesting that there had been no tensions around Big Brother publicly expressed in the Party before the split. I was disagreeing with him. I have no idea what TonyC’s depot is like, or the kinds of arguments he had there, because he’s never talked about them here. I wouldn’t tend to jump to conclusions about different types of workplaces as both in composition and in political terms they tend to vary, the determining factor being the strength of trade union, and often, political organisation, rather then the nature of the trade.
Secondly I stated that my own feeling was that Georges behaviour during this period (which I believe was destructive and demoralising for many people) was partly shaped by the problem of decline which the movement was experiancing which he indeed was later (although not at the time) to blame the SWP for. If he was at the time blaming us, we wouldn’t have noticed because we were too busy defending him.
The constant attempts to portray simple disagreement as ‘lies’ or ‘distorting’ or the result of remote control hackery doesn’t say a lot about any commitment to democratic or pluralistic debate it has to be said.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
“my own feeling”
The johng get-out-of-jail-card which allows him to amke points which have no basis in fact but help him justify his own wierdy topsy-turvy world.
Comment by TLC — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
So George was wrong to talk about the problems in Respect then TLC?
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Back to 415.
It might not be clear what Adam Johannes’s role was:
“As a person Leanne is a decent person and as a firm supporter of the STWC deserved beter than the way she was treated by the SWP. I note that Adam J was then a member of the SWP and led the charge against her in part by repeatedly abusing his position as chair of the meeting in question.”
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1610#comment-38211
Comment by Dear Koba — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Andy Wilson # 404 - Very good! I see you’re a fan of Flann O’Brien.
Comment by steph — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
We look forward to Adamski’s explanation.
Was he the SWP member in the chair of the meeting that dumped leading Plaid Cymru left-winger, Leanne Wood AM, from out of being the chair of Cardiff Stop the War?
What was the reason for this sectarian folly?
Comment by Dear Koba — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
One of the frequent accusations that Adam Johannes makes of Tower Hamelts Respect is that meetings have not been chaired properly.
But here we have two seperate descriptions of Adam’s own chairing from different witnesses:
“Adam J was then a member of the SWP and led the charge against her in part by repeatedly abusing his position as chair of the meeting in question.”
“To cut a long story short (to explain in full the chaotic proceedings would be to risk the mental health of the reader), due to the normal bungling that is characteristic of the organisation in Wales, Possibly, it is because the SWP in Cardiff is plain dumb. The SWP chair and its new Cardiff organiser (who tried to orchestrate the meeting) are neither of them the sharpest tools in the box. No wonder Cardiff branch of the SWP is smaller than in any other British city of a similar size.”
We can all but wonder at the chutzpah of the man as he advises us all of where we are going wrong.
Comment by Dear Koba — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Comrades let us end this thread. It is getting too circular. Today Brown and New Labour say “it is business as usual”. Others in the great Respect/SWP saga say time to move on. No time to reflect, review, re-assess just move on. Of course this could end up in endless mistakes and repeats deja vu everywhere. Fast forward to 2020 two pensioners at a bar arguing about the Respect split - “that Galloway was a shit - no John Ress was a shit etc etc..”
Historians and others not involved in the split may have more insight. Those of us close to all of this are perhaps not able to have all the answers.
Let us move on but do not forget - the struggle as ever is out there.
Comment by Kevin E — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
#420: “Flann O’Brien”
precisely. if we were in the pub right now i’d be buying you a drink…
Comment by Andy Wilson — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Much against my better judgement I have to conclude that Andy Wilson is “funny” (although not always).
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
“Tony was in fact suggesting that there had been no tensions around Big Brother publicly expressed in the Party before the split.”
No I wasn’t.
“I have no idea what TonyC’s depot is like, or the kinds of arguments he had there, because he’s never talked about them here.”
Y’know, I used to write copious amounts on Lenin’s Tomb about this sort of thing, and copious amounts by email. Does your memory get wiped when someone leaves the SWP?
Comment by tonyc — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Can anyone seriously claim that either of these factions is particularly wonderful when it comes to the arcane art of ‘chairing’. And has the wonderful alchemy of these threads in turning folk who in real life we would probably react entirely differently to into synonyms of evil not been remarked at one time or another by most of us? I’ve been most struck by this when it comes to Adam Johannes (who is incidently, not actually an SWP member). If on occassion, I might have thought that Adam was a wee bit ultraleft (as it happens I might be a bit too right wing) what word would we use to describe someone who in real life reacted to someone who was a wee bit ultraleft in the way which some people on this thread have. Disproportionate?
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Adamski,
“Don’t you realise that for most people SocialistUnity is a little light relief from waiting for the kettle to boil . . .”
Christ, how many cups of tea do you drink a day? If I had my time again, I would have bought shares in PG Tips.
Comment by Darren — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
So what’s your game , dear koba.
Why the vendetta ?
The people you quote have always had personal and bitter apolitacal grudges against the swp no matter how they dress it up ( I have no problem with grudges with a political basis).
Note Cameron R’s use of “could it be’s ? ” and such like.
Ok so a meeting 4 years ago was a fucking mess , now can we cut out the gossip about cardiff stw . It’s a bit unseemly.
And for what it’s worth I wish every success to Swindon Stop the War. It’s bloody stupid to sneer at each others stop the war group just because of the bloody stupid mess in Respect.
Comment by getting really fed up now — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
Sorry Tony I’m an academic type and used to simply skip over all the stuff about workplaces. You know how it is. I was only ever interested in Islamophobia. More seriously though, you claimed that before the split there had’nt been publicly expressed worries about Galloway’s trajectory. I think this is untrue. I also think, as is often the case with me, your recollection of this might be distorted by the fact that, like me, you didn’t go to a lot of branch meetings (either SWP or Respect) during this period. Personally I’m aware that one feature of that period is that people were often buried in the particularity of their own situations (partly a function of the fact that it was possible to be involved in quite significant things at that level). But certainly I can remember the sense of crisis around this. And in fact I have specific recollection of you personally being rather upset by this (the one time we met in a pub). At the time I was what would best be described as vacillating on the question. But it was an issue, and your wrong if your suggestion was that it wasn’t. I don’t however think this makes you a LIAR. I just think your wrong about that. Which is a bit of a different thing.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
#423
Seconded.
Comment by getting really fed up now — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
#425: “Andy Wilson is “funny” (although not always).”
says the man who only earlier this morning called me a ’silly chap’ on ANOTHER, NAMELESS BLOG.
Eat the thin gruel of repentance, dog.
Comment by Andy Wilson — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
johng: lack of ability at chairing and producing a hand-written rather than neatly typed list of proposed delegates to a conference were two of the sins that Azmal Hussain committed in the eyes of SWP CC loyalists in Tower Hamlets. Jackie Turner and Sam James would talk of little else. But oh well, let’s move on, eh? It’s all a bit of fun and the whole left could learn a thing or two about chairing?
Q26: Two parter: what part of the time line gets what horticultural treament when you interlocutor reminds you of something you’d rather they didn’t?
A26: past and raking over
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
You will SUFFER for this MR Wilson (I only talk to him because he knows more then nothing about Buddhism).
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Well yes Nas actually. I agree.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
johng: blank sheet then. It all starts today. No past, so the future’s bright. Well, there is a past, but it was down to circumstances, objective events, with the only actor being something called “the Left” - a strange thing that Left. It sort of appears, after events, hovers, around gets blamed for everything and is told it needs to go off and learn from those events. But the part of it that is telling it most to do that doesn’t want to do it itself. You see, it commits errors only in so far as it is part of that Left, so, it isn’t really an autonomous part of the Left, except in so far as it tells the Left that the Left must learn from the Left’s mistakes. Poor Left. Lucky, special part of the Left to have such qualities.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
A couple of missing drips from the poor mouth:
Q27: Which Newtonian principle most adequately explains errant political choices by your opponents?
A27: A pull to the right.
Q28: By inserting what type of organisational component can said forces be resisted?
A28: A Central Committee.
Q29: In the unlikely encounter of a mismatch between a leadership’s predictions and subsequent results, to which distinct phenomena can the circumstance be ascribed?
A29: Broader social forces.
Q30: Which psychological trope best defines those who constantly cite individual responsibility for specific failures of tactical astuteness?
A30: Obsessed.
Comment by Anonymous — 27 June, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Apols. etc., 437 was me (I dropped my cookie)…
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 27 June, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
Given the uniterrupted radicalisation, with German and the Stop the War Coalition in the engine room, between 2001 and 2007, it’s jolly lucky those who doubted the CC’s infallibity weren’t dragged to the left - after all, the rest of society was apparently moving in that direction.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
“Even is we assume good initentions, politics does require some honest assessment of the actual state of affairs, and if you find your self in the position where you are excluding eveidence because it contradicts you preferred narrative, then it is time for reflection about where you are going, and what you have become.”
Indeed Andy, that was very big of you.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 27 June, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
I’m still waiting to hear what Kevin O has to say about Shaheed Ali’s defection.
But I suppose it might have got lost in the blizzard.
Poor old Adam blasted with shot and shell, but still trying to prove that he’s still standing.
Is this what the old IS tried to outlaw with their ban on factions back in 75?
I can remeember an old comrade saying to me at the time that IS conference had rejected 4 of the cc for re-election; WOW !
I guess they were dumped, and I understand that it’s never been repeated. Still that’s democratic centralism for you.
Comment by Halshall — 27 June, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
I am really very disappointed johng has not taken up my request to expand on the Ovenden/Hoveman letter, which apparently allayed any qualms johng had as to the infallibility of the Central Committee. I am told it was such important evidence of the perfidious two having plotted with George Galloway to undermine the SWP Central Committee, it was included without comment in SWP party notes. As someone who has the odd qualm myself about the infallibility ofthe SWP CC and who thinks thet did not really need anyone to undermine them as they were so good at it themselves, I honestly believe johng should do more to help me see the light.
Comment by alexander poskrebyshev — 27 June, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Andy: “Adam
If you have good relations with people on a face to face basis then good - (though i can assure you that I have heard things from reliable sources)”
Maybe you can name your reliable sources? Either on here or mail me. Put up, or shut up?
Andy runs a rather sectarian blog, I’m sure however that in the real world he too has done some good work in building the anti-war movement and despite political disagreements with his perspective has cntributed to this movement.
Of course, you can’t please all the people all the time, who doesn’t have critics from George Galloway to John Rees by way of Ho Chi Minh, but my record in the local anti-war movement is second to none, and I won’t be slandered by juvenile dwarfs. As Malcolm X used to open meetings, “Friends . . . and enemies”
Maybe, Andy, you should contact Cardiff’s first elected Muslim councillor for an interview on my role in the anti-war movement in Wales, or speak to Plaid Cymru’s Chief Executive who I approached to get involved in the work of the Stop the War Coalition and has spoken on many anti-war platforms and also made very generous personal donations to our local anti-war group on occasion.
In fact, not only I have played a key role in involving Plaid Cymru in the anti-war movement in Cardiff - from working closely with their first two elected councillors in the City in approaching them to speak at meetings, get involved to organising a stall for the Stop the War Coalition at Plaid Cymru’s National Conference (which I managed to negotiate a lower price for due to help from Bethan Jenkins AM) - I challenge Dear Koba to name anyone else in Cardiff who has done MORE in Cardiff to involve Plaid members in Cardiff in the work of the Stop the War Coalition!
Or maybe to talk about how he has involved Plaid Cymru in the anti-war movement?
Presumably it was Dear Koba’s activism that resulted in Plaid Cymru at Cardiff West Branch level (the branch which their 7 councillors in Cardiff are members of) affiliating to the Stop the War Coalition? (No, actually it was me who initiated this and built up the political relationship that led to our alliance being sealed)
Perhaps it was Dear Koba who was the activist who was in discussions with Bethan Jenkins AM on Plaid Cymru’s youth organisation, Cymru X, affiliating to the Stop the War Coalition?
Maybe it was Dear Koba who was corresponding with the Leader of the Plaid group on Cardiff Council about the visit of George W Bush to Britain recently.
Tell me Dear Koba was it you who organised the anti-racist rally when Shah Jalal mosque was desecrated by Nazis alongside Plaid Cllr Islam?
What anti-racist solidarity work are you involved in? Who do you work alongside? How many people have you got involved in activity to make another world possible? Did you work closely with this Plaid councillor in organising the biggest protest march in Cardiff since the Iraq War during the invasion of Lebanon? A march that was covered by Bangla TV and one of Britain’s main Bengali newspapers due to the good work of a friend of mine who is Chair of the Greater Sylheti association. Maybe Dear Koba and Cameron R were the two key activists who pulled this together?
Maybe Dear Koba can introduce me to the head of Plaid Cymru’s Women’s Section who also attended the march, can he name her? Was it you or me who personally invited her to attend? Maybe Dear Koba is friendly with Jill Evans MEP and it was he who asked her to speak on that march?
Maybe it was Dear Koba and not me who was invited as a personal guest by a Muslim Plaid Councillor to attend an Iftar hosted by Wales Bangladeshi Community?
You like Islam? Who gets our anti-war demonstrations announced in every mosque? Who gets buses to anti-war demonstrations from mosques? Who secured the support of the Muslim Council of Wales for an anti-war march? Who got the Chair of the Greater Sylheti Council in Wales involved in the anti-war movement?
C’mon Dear Koba, I’m outlining my contribution, please tell us yours?
You like Christianity? Who got demonstrations announced on Church newsletters? Who worked with Catholic peace groups in opposing trident?
Turning to the labour movement, has anybody secured more trade union affiliations for our local group that I. Maybe Dear Koba can tell us of his work in getting trade union support for Cardiff Stop the War?
To be lectured by Cameron R whose contribution to the anti-war movement in Wales is nonexistent is funny. Even more comical to be asked for “explanation” from someone too cowardly to use his real name. The CPGB have done nothing to build the anti-war movement in Cardiff, indeed they had an officer elected who disappeared after a month never to be seen again (he’s a nice guy, I should mention). If I’m wrong, I challenge them to lay out their concrete contributions, to tell me the broad forces that they have invovled.
To set the record straight,
What actually happened is this, after a very succesful meeting with 2 Israeli refuseniks that I had initiated, Leanne Wood AM convened a meeting of StW officers in a pub, at which she stated that she was going to be very busy in the coming months being shortly due to have a baby, she proposed having an AGM to elect new officers, she suggested that if we couldn’t find another Chair she would be happy to let us continue using her name, but she wouldn’t be able to be around very much, she also stated that she would be happy to be a Vice-Chair or whatever.
Most people got the impression that what she was saying was “if you can’t find another Chair, I’m happy to stay on, but really I don’t have time for this” and was basically asking us to find a replacement. Of course, the sensible thing to have done would have been to have contacted her to clarify these matters - but at the time I kinda assumed she would have more important things on her mind. If someone who is Chair of an organisation talks about maybe being the Vice-Chair this generally means that they are asking to be relieve of their responsibilities? Anyway, I and others were genuinely under the impression that she wanted to step down, indeed I was quite surprised and worried as we had nobody in mind as a successor.
Having requested that nominations be received IN ADVANCE of the AGM, none was received for Leanne. The SWP organiser of the time approached a former Labour Councillor who was an old pal of his.
On the day, Workers Power announced that they were nominating Leanne Wood. Now in normal circumstances I would be quite happy to support Leanne Wood, she is respected by quite a wide layer of people, but the individual’s speech moving the nomination seemed a little ridiculous to me, he basically said, “Leanne’s not going to be around, but she should nevertheless be the Chair”. It seems a little odd to nominate someone for a position and then say that they won’t be around to discharge their role? Especially as I was under the impression that she didn’t really want it. On that basis I voted for the alternative candidate on offer. I also suspect that some politricks were going on.
Unfortunately, alongside this, the SWP Organiser of the time had been involved in some other politicking that backfired which led to the AGM being conducted in an extremely unfraternal atmosphere with allegations in the run-up to it that the SWP were involving a coup and an article after written by Cameron R (who repeatedly heckled the Chair and disrupted the meeting) that he circulated around to undermine the very important work of Cardiff StW, an organisation needless to say which he had contributed nothing, and couldn’t care less about.
Now Dear Koba tell me exactly who you are, what your involvement has been in the anti-war movement, and what forces you have been responsible in bringing into this mass movement? - if you fail to answer this question then you have no right to say anything else: Put up, or Shut up!
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
“Is this what the old IS tried to outlaw with their ban on factions back in 75?”
yeah terrible nah? just think of the splendid time we could have had in the interim. Think of all we could have achieved.
Comment by johng — 27 June, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
#404 “Your syllogisms are fallacious being based on licensed premises” Flann O’Brien, At Swim Two Birds
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
johng: I’m just thinking of the splendid time you’re having now. Do you in all honesty reckon your party is bigger and more influential than it was 10 years ago. Reports are coming in of meltdown in Birmingham and Manchester. Sure, you’ll still have a presence, but you won’t be part of the vital elements of the left in those cities.
Comment by Nas — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Interestingly in Manchester, Respect and Left List seem to have polled quite similar results, Left List results would of course probably been even higher if they weren’t standing under a name nobody has heard of:
Manchester Left List results:
12.5% Rusholme
9.6% Gorton South
Manchester Respect Renewal results:
14.4% Cheetham Hill
5.8% Moss Side
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
“Reports are coming in of meltdown in Birmingham and Manchester.”
Reports from where? Reports from whom?
Didn’t Oscar Wilde once quip, “rumours of my death are much exaggerated”?
To paraphrase George,
“What’s going on?
WE’RE GOING ON!”
Anyway, I wish RR well, I personally think it will end in tears, recriminations and bitterness, but it’s your trip.
Workers of the world - Enjoy!
Comment by Adamski — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
It seems Adam that you can dish it out but you can’t take it.
Despite no local knowledge of what has happened in Tower hamlets, apart from what you have read on blogs, you are prepared to make such scurrilous accusations as this in this very thread - about an identifiable individual, the current chair of TH Respect:
You criticise Dear Koba for hiding behind a pseudonym to criticise you, but you yourself hide behind the pseudonyms Adam J and now Adamski, while criticising named individuals often on the basis of near complete ignorance of the facts.
Dear Koba can answer for herself/himself but the allegations are basically that you were a very poor chair, precisely the accusation you make such a meal of for the current chair of TH Respect.
This is your own account of the meeting in Cardiff:
Now you are not an innocent bystander here you were such a key part of the SWP’s operation in STW that you were chairing the meeting. Yet you describe the “politicking” by the SWP fulltimer as if it was something like the weather that you coould have had no influence over.
Clearly the fact that the meeting was a fiasco was at least in part due to your abilities as the chair? And given the fact that there had been a breakdown of trust, and te SWP were involved in “politicking” that was misfiring, then why was an SWP member in the chair? Clearly that was not a confiednece building move for non-SW members in that atmosphere?
You yourself concede that the SWP full-timer at the time was involved in an attempted coup: “alongside this, the SWP Organiser of the time had been involved in some other politicking that backfired” . So given that – the SWP had undermined the basis that people might trust them to be acting in good faith.
In the past you personally have pointed to the difficulties of the chair on controlling the second TH Respect selection meeting prior to the abortive Respect conference last year as evidence that Respect Renewal was undemocratic.
Yet it seems that you were – by your own admission – in full knowledge of undemocratic “politicking” by the SWP, that had poisoned the atmosphere prior to this meeting, yet proceeded, as an SWP member, to seek to promote that through the chair.
[Incidenty, it is not at all uncommon for individuals who are high profile to hold the formal position of chair, on the understanding that the vice-chair will actually discharge the duties.]
Of course this is all water under the bridge, except that you personally make exactly these same sort of allegations about people in Respect in Birmingham and East London.
I suggest that if you don’t like this sort of discussion about you, that you should leave off dishing out this sort of treatment to others.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
#429 fed up person
The question here is not what happened in cardiff STW, but the double standards of Adam Johannes, who will cme on here nearly every day slurring other activists, and dragging up stuff from the past, as he has done on this very thread.
He is clearly seeking to undermine working relationships and seeking tio discredit and undermine the credibility of those he is arguing against.
But when the same is dished out to him, suddenly we must throw our hands up in horror at the damage that might be done to cardiff STW.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
“Reports are coming in of meltdown in Birmingham and Manchester.”
“Reports from where? Reports from whom?” asks Adam
Reports from Birmingham and Manchester. Reports from people in Birmingham and Manchester. Where and who did you think?
What’s really bizarre is that the biggest cheerleader for the SWP on this site is poor old Adam - whose been expelled by the er…SWP. Sounds like Stockholm syndrone in reverese.
Comment by TLC — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
Adamski: “Didn’t Oscar Wilde once quip, “rumours of my death are much exaggerated”?
To paraphrase George,
“What’s going on?
WE’RE GOING ON!” ”
It wasn’t Oscar Wilde, it was Mark Twain.
It wasn’t George (at least not originally), but Harold Wilson.
Still, nice to see you make some honest mistakes for a change.
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
If, with the literate,
I am impelled to try an epigram,
I never seek to take the credit;
we all assume Oscar said it.
Comment by lenin — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
Taking time off from your GCSE revision Richard?
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Dave
If I recall correctly, Wilson said at the Labour Party conference in Scarborough(?) 1968(??), “Oh I know what’s going on… I’m going on, that’s what’s going on.”
For very many reasons I can’t see Gordon Brown saying anything remotely like that. Courage? Yeah, mine’s a pint of mild.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
I’ve just noticed that the Respect statement on the defections in Tower Hamlets can be found at the website here.
http://www.respectrenewal.org/content/view/333/6/
Comment by TLC — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
Did the Labour party hold conferences in Scarborough in the 60’s.
I’d be amazed.
Comment by anon — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
TLC - that’s a very good statement, with a degree of detail that is signally absent from the Left List’s version.
Which is the point that many on here have been making - the SWP and its supporters need to stop trotting out vague formulations about “conditions” or “broader social and political dynamics”. Of course, this suits them - they don’t welcome a debate, they don’t recognise the legitimacy of their critics, and they’re not willing to provide sufficient detail that might be open to unambiguous refutation.
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Anon and Kevin - according to Wikipedia, Wilson said it at a May Day rally in London in 1969
May I say, for the benefit of those who have been carried away by the gossip of the last few days, that I know what’s going on. [pause] I’m going on, and the Labour government’s going on.
“I am going on, your Government is going on—Mr Wilson”, The Times, 5 May 1969, p. 1
At a May Day rally in London, 4 May 1969. There had been a series of reports that Wilson’s leadership might be challenged.
Which prompts me to say:
Did Harold Wilson address May Day rallies?
I’d be amazed.
Comment by Dave — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Indeed Scarborough was the seaside resort of choice for Labour in the 1960s. Wilson made his famous ‘white heat’ speech in Scarborough in October 1963.
Always wondered when my Grade 1 CSE in History would come in useful.
Comment by TLC — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Dave
Thanks for looking that up. It had fixed in my mind as a Party conference in Scarborough. It was, nevertheless, a great put down. I saw it on a documentary a couple of years ago.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Celebrating may day was - IIRC - revived by the efforts of John lawrence through the London Trades Council.
John was of course an impressive figure, former editor of “Socialist Outlook”, and I believe leader of St Pancras council, and had an interesting political trajectory from the CP to Trotskyism, breaking with Healy to follow Pablo, and then rejoining the CP before becoming an anarchist and ending up living on a narow boat somewhere with Brian Behan.
Amazing that they managed to get Wilson to address the may day rally.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Wrong.
Not at a MAy Day Rally.
Not at Scarborough.
Brighton Conference 1970.
Comment by anon — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
Andy
I have to say that’s a level of detail that might inform a decent political short story. I hope it’s bloody true.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 June, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
Excuse a little bit of cross-pollination from another thread but I noticed that on the Marxism site that Lindzee G is described a “radical candidate for Mayor of London”.
Will the Left List soon be renamed The Radical List?
Comment by TLC — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:13 am
#462 There’s a pen portrait of someone who sounds a fascinating figure and only died six years ago here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lawrence_(political_activist). I don’t know if Andy knows if this is accurate and where else we can read about Lawrence’s history.
Comment by sergo — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:17 am
#459
“Did Harold Wilson address May Day rallies?
I’d be amazed. “
Dave,
I’ve remembering old film footage of Hugh Gaitskell addressing a May Day rally on Glasgow Green (maybe ‘60 or ‘61) where there were 25,000 in attendance.
Different days.
Comment by Darren — 28 June, 2008 @ 12:23 am
#445: “Your syllogisms are fallacious being based on licensed premises” Flann O’Brien, At Swim Two Birds”
fucking hell, Adamski - this is the first time ever I can say with complete confidence that you know what you are talking about. Come on in….
Comment by Andy Wilson — 28 June, 2008 @ 1:38 am
So who cares…? That both the Labour Party and the SWP are vehicles for cynical careerists is hardly ‘news.’
What next: Outrage as Trot/Leninist sectarian joins the Labour party in a shocking betrayal only repeated once every 48 hours. Jesus.
Comment by Sergioleonine — 28 June, 2008 @ 3:07 am
“The job facing socialists is to act as detonators for mass resistance against the plans of our rulers…”
Mr. Christopher Bambery (Editor, Socialist Worker, current edition)
Why am I seeing a bomb in a Bovril factory?
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 28 June, 2008 @ 4:02 am
Last September the SWP CC asked its members to believe that there was a massive witch hunt against the left in Respect. The right wing witch hunters included George Galloway, Ken Loach, Linda Smith, Salma Yaqoob, Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman, and Nick Wrack, who all still support the anti-war, anti-privatisation Respect. The persecuted lefties included Ahmed Hussain (now Tory), Rania Kahn, Lutfa Begum and Oliur Rahman (now New Labour). Does no one who swallowed this line at the time think its time to think again?
The SWP CC has always inflated numbers at its events, its paper sales, etc. It has alway contained rampant self-promoters and had a ‘not in front of the children’ attitude to members. These were irritating but marginal while the party’s perspectives were reasonably effective. This has changed. The SWP did not grow as a result of its activities in the anti-war movement; in many places it shrank. Everything it has touched since has turned sour.
Those who criticised the LMHR carnival for not being political enough were told to shut up. Now Martin Smith argues the same thing, but there will be no apology or humility.
SWP members steer clear of arguing against the CC. If you criticise the CC, you are labelled a witch hunter. It you criticise Stop the War, you are accused of giving comfort to George Bush. If you criticise LMHR, you are undermining the fight against Fascism. Marvellous. No criticism is ever legitimate. Anyone who raises criticisms gets hammered then cold shouldered, then excluded from the life of the party.
Comment by thin lizzy — 28 June, 2008 @ 9:19 am
The one thing sadly lacking in this whole discussion is any element of self-criticism from actors in the Respect project - after all, though Respect was the SWP’s initiative, plenty more piled into it: the CPGB, including Cameron, were in there, despite being split on the issue; if the SP hadn’t been frozen out and CPB voted narrowly against, almost all the UK non-Labour left would have been involved.
This shows all too clearly how the UK left has lost sight of the absolute fundamentals of class struggle, in particular rule number one: working class independence.
Maybe all those who have sleighted Workers Power over the years will respect the fact that WP ducked out of Respect as soon as the votes were taken at its founding conference.
However, as others have said here, the size of the anti-war movement and international “anticapitalist” protests and social forums profoundly disorientated socialists, and sadly that included Workers Power, whose wildly overoptimistic perspectives led to its calling for a new workers party and the building of local social forums - two of the policies which led to the split in the LFI and the founding of Permanent Revolution.
The problem with opportunism is that not only does it sow distrust in the working class (as so graphically described here) but, since comrades must justify the unprincipled turns, they have to talk the same kind of two-faced nonsense as bourgeois politicians. Lenin said it was essential for revolutionaries to tell the truth to the working class - a piece of advice almost entirely forgotten by the UK left.
Another aspect of Leninism we need to revive is the call for revolutionary parties to be cadre parties - i.e. all members to be fully trained, not just recruited on the basis they will sell a paper. This is essential for parties to work democratically.
The Cardiff STW AGM which kicked out Leanne Wood is a case in point. Despite Adamski’s protestations, Leanne was extremely unhappy at the way she was booted out, but why did it happen? Because she was a key activist in Cardiff Social Forum. The SWP were strongly opposed to social forums because (the line went) they endangered the STW coalition by dragging in other issues. But even though this was clearly not happening in Cardiff (the social forum was launched by STW but maintained a separate existence), local SWP supporters dogmatically, and quite unnecessarily hounded good anti-war activists who were also SFers out of the leadership of the coalition.
PR, of which I am now a member, do not have the illusions of WP in social forums. No united front can encompass anti-war activity alongside (eg) anti-deportation activity when (eg) victims of deportation, such as Kurds, may support the war. The classic workers united front remains the best way to organise mass struggles. But at least I am prepared to be self-critical in saying that - why can’t other socialists do the same and admit that Respect was wrong all along? Or that the project was not an anomaly for the SWP but the latest in a long history of opportunistic manoeuvres?
Comment by penderyn — 28 June, 2008 @ 9:32 am
I’m still waiting for someone to name a Ward in London where the “Left List” vote was greater than Spoilt Papers.
“The SWP played a role, but Rees and German wildly exaggerated their own importance.” Isn’t that, when it comes down to it, what the SWP is for? A small pond for a few people to claim to be big fish?
Comment by Alan Ji — 28 June, 2008 @ 11:22 am