UNITY NEEDED TO STOP BNP’S FESTIVAL
A potentially very worrying situation is developing with the rally to stop the BNP’s festival on 16th August.
Nottingham Stop the BNP and other local campaigners have been working to build this event continuously over the last 9 months for this event. See http://nobnpfestival.wordpress.com . Over the months with the help of the Searchlight network they have got together many supporters in the immediate vicinity of the site.
These local activists have been in negotiations with the police since mid July and have police agreement for a protest starting at 9:00 a.m.
But concerns are growing about the rally planned for later in the day. Originally the national Unite Against Fascism (UAF) organisation agreed to work with the local campaigners to organise that rally.
However, the UAF have continually snubbed and failed to respond to any of the local campaigners’ communications . In particular the local activists are now worried that have had no assurances that any speakers arranged for their rally will be allowed, many of these were agreed before the UAF rally was announced. An email from Notts Stop the BNP campaign sent to the UAF on Monday has still not been replied to.
The FBU has been the union primarily responsible for allowing the local activists to produce the 12,000 leaflets they have distributed.
It must be of great concern to evenryone in the labour and anti-fascist movement that a direct request made from Dave Green of the FBU National Exec for a Notts Stop the BNP speaker was refused by UAF organiser, and SWP central committee member, Weyman Bennett.
But local activists are also concerned that UAF has not confirmed that they will allow speakers from
1) the Searchlight/ Hope not Hate campaign
2) RMT General Secretary, Bob Crow who announced that he would come and speak at the rally
It is vital that the campaign against the BNP festival should give recognition to the brave local people in the area of the festival who have consistently campaigned over the last year against the BNP. But the failure of the SWP/UAF leadership to even acknowledge correspondence, and to snub the local activists who have been building this event is cause for concern.
Local activists are asking that trade union colleagues endorse the request for a united rally on the day and the request that the UAF agree as a priority at the rally to speakers from
1) Notts Stop the BNP
2) Searchlight/ Hope not Hate
3) Bob Crow and
4) The Amber Valley Stop the BNP group
This is probably an extremely naive comment, but what gives UAF the right to determine the speakers at the rally? This is a local initiative that UAF are supporting and the local groups should decide and offer UAF a platform.
As far as I am aware, UAF have tried their best to split and ruin the demo with sectarian antics at every turn. This isn’t a game or about point scoring. It is about stopping the BNP.
If UAF want to carry on messing about, that’s up to them, but they’ll soon find the trade union affiliations drying up and the movement not having anything to do with them. The SWP should stop putting their needs above that of the movement. Have they really learnt nothing in the last year?
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 13 August, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
Could you post a full list of intended speakers at the rally as it stands?
Comment by tomj — 13 August, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
It is absolutely shameful. When it comes to this demonstration surely the more of us there, the better. What are the reasons behind the SWP’s sectarian actions?
Comment by Chris S — 13 August, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
1)Good on the local campaigners for initiating this event - and putting on the pressure earlier to deny a licence to the fascist festival etc. UAF are clearly latecomers…but their support is also needed.
2)About the time of the demo - the local campaign said 9am - UAF unilaterally said 11am.
3)BUT (hate to say this) maybe 11am is a better time? Gives people travelling from across the country more time to get there? Isn’t 9am a wee bit early? And the fash-fest starts the day before - its not like we all need to be there from 9am to pickets it and stop them getting in? Or is it?
4)As a general point UAF led by SWP are clearly being sectarian in refusing to negotiate and cooperate with the local campaign who have put in all the hard work to initiate the protest.
5)Hope the day goes well in the end. Real chance this years actions will stop this revolting nazi shit happening next year!
No Pasaran!
Comment by Lancaster Says No Pasaran! — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:49 am
I agree - what gives one lot of your supporters the right to decide who can or who can’t speak at a public rally?
But then, what gives you the right to decide who can or cannot hold a legal festival?
You may not like what they have to say, but who are you to decree they cannot say it, and then complain when you are treated the same way.
Smells just a tad of hypocrisy I’m afraid.
Comment by Francis — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:43 am
Would this be the same UAF/SWP who saw it fit to lecture Stoke SP on the need to build unity in the anti-fascist movement? The same UAF/SWP who preferred to turn up at Stoke’s gay pride last weekend with their own stall and material, instead of working through the local UAF *affiliate*, who was already covering the event?
Pathetic, comrades. Pathetic.
Comment by Phil BC — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:28 am
Unless a full list of speakers can be provided, I will assume that there is already a broad and balanced list of speakers intending to speak. Therefore why do further speakers need to be invited? Hardly seems ‘a potentially worrying situation’. But then I suppose if you were to draw such sensible conclusions it doesn’t give you the opportunity to bash the SWP.
Given that the police have finally given the go-ahead it looks like all systems go - good luck to everybody taking part.
Comment by tomj — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Tomj
Waht gives the swoppies the right to decide what is a broad and ballanced list of speakers, u=overruling the wishes of the FBU, and not even consulting with the locally based anti-facsist campaigners?
The local campaigners has already organised speakers, ,including Bob Crow, and Searchlight, as well as the locally based anti-BNP groups. the local campaign. This local campaign has the support of the RMT and FBU, as well as other unions
The national UAF/SWP then later unilatterally announced their own rally, and have not cooperated with the locally based campaigners.
It is the UAF/SWP that will not provide a list of the speakers for their rally, and will not confirm that the speakers already organised by local anti-BNP groups will be allowed to speak.
It is simply extraordinary that the trade unions continue to fund UAF, when UAF at a national level is run mainly a vehicle for promoting thr SWP, and not for building unity against the facsists. But I can assure you that the penny is beginning to drop.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:39 am
The UAF rally is taking place at 11am.
http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=80710
The Notts Stop the BNP organisation that Andy supports has advertised its own rally at 12.30pm. That’s the one Bob Crow is advertised to speak at.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2650
So what’s happened here? Has Notts Stop the BNP cancelled its advertised rally, or what?
My impression is that Notts Stop the BNP made a tactical blunder in calling for a confrontational “mass picket” at the Red White and Blue site. They just gave the police an excuse to intervene under the Public Order Act. Not only has the “mass picket” been restricted to 30 people, but this has also had a knock-on effect on the rally, with the police limiting numbers there to 700.
http://tinyurl.com/5u66e9
Looks to me like UAF’s refusal to back the “mass picket” was correct, and that the insistence by Notts Stop the BNP on going ahead with it has had the predictable result of giving the police an excuse to suppress the right to protest.
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Anon - this isn’t about taking the moral high ground, or proving that UAF has the superior tactics when it comes to organising against the BNP - clearly they haven’t as has been proven over time.
If UAF were so concerned, then they should have been involved from the start and actually bothered in building a grass rots campaign. To tail a campaign and then bowl in at the last minute, claim it as theirs and totally divide the campaign is sectarian and stupid.
UAF/SWP should practice some of the unity they preach about and put the needs of the movement above their own. This is serious, it is not a game.
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 14 August, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Well, not having the full details on the background to this, I’m open to persuasion. But, to me, the “mass picket” looked like an ultra-left stunt from the start.
Surely it must have raised problems in terms of winning wider support in the labour movement?
The fact that the advertised speaker at the Notts Stop the BNP rally is Bob Crow - who has no roots in the area and is not exactly representative of the mainstream of the trade union movement - suggests to me that there were indeed problems in winning wider local support.
I also notice that the Stop the BNP’s Red White and Blue Festival website refers to “concerns that the Midlands TUC had about our protest being legal and safe”.
http://tinyurl.com/574d36
The role of Searchlight in this also intrigues me. Given the emphasis they put on getting trade union and Labour Party backing for anti-BNP campaigns, I’d have expected them to have adopted a rather more critical stance towards the mass picket proposal.
But, then again, Searchlight are not exactly averse to organising counterproductive stunts of their own, are they?
http://tinyurl.com/5n5nb3
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Here is the advertised list of speakers at the UAF rally, by the way:
Judy Mallaber - MP Amber Valley
Jerry Bartlett - Deputy General Secretary NASUWT
James Eaden - NEC member Midlands Region UCU
Kirit Mistry - Derby Race Equality Council
Lee Baron - Regional Secretary Midlands CWU
Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra - Assistant Secretary General Muslim Council of Britain
Representative - UNISON Midlands Region
Dave Green - Midlands Region FBU
Baby J - Derby Love Music Hate Racism
UAF have also circulated this letter from West Midlands TUC:
Dear Colleagues
Along with Weyman Bennett of Unite Against Fascism (UAF) I have just met with senior police officers responsible for dealing with the protest scheduled for Saturday 16th August 2008.
After lengthy and sometimes difficult discussions we have managed to secure agreement with the Police for the following protest march and rally.
Meet at Codnor Market Place from 11am for a march that will set off at approx 11.30am.
The short march through Codnor will be followed by a rally of local and national speakers back at Codnor Market Place.
The rally is scheduled to end around 1.15pm. Coaches should aim to vacate the specially provided parking provision no later than 2pm.
This is the only protest supported by the Midlands TUC. There is nothing else that has been sanctioned by the Police or that I am in a position to recommend colleagues to attend.
Further details for this event will be circulated early next week by the organisers of the event UAF. We will do our best to make sure this information is circulated widely.
I’m sorry for the delay in getting this information to you. I hope that you will appreciate that there have been a number of difficulties which has led to the TUC having to get more closely involved.
I hope that we can get a good trade union turnout to what I now believe will be an effective and safe protest against the BNP.
Regards
Roger
————————–
Roger McKenzie
TUC Midlands Regional Secretary
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
That should of course read “Midlands TUC” not “West Midlands TUC”. Where is the Midlands, anyway? Somewhere north of Watford I hear.
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Well the point here is not that the UAF may have come up with a list of worthy speakers, and gained support for their initiative through the movement.
The issue is that they have sidelined the local campaigners, and declined to have speakers representative of those local people who have been campaogning against the Red White and Blue festival
Quite the opposite of “Uniting” against facsism, they have played an utterly divisive role.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
So, just to summarise, what appears to have happened is that Notts Stop the BNP antagonised mainstream labour movement organisations by pressing ahead with their plan for a confrontational “mass picket” outside the Red White and Blue Festival site. UAF, meanwhile, set about organising an anti-fascist rally in cooperation with the Midlands labour movement.
The result is that the Notts Stop the BNP “mass picket” has effectively been banned by the police - by being restricted to 30 people - while UAF have put together a broad-based platform for the rally, featuring a local MP and representatives from the Midlands trade unions, Muslim community etc.
So Notts Stop the BNP have had to call off their own rally and are demanding that they should have speakers on the platform of the much more representative rally that UAF have organised.
Have I got that about right?
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
keep digging, andy . . .
Comment by Adamski — 14 August, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Is it official RR policy that funding should be switched away from UAF towards (???) or is that just your own innovation Andy?
All this is very silly.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
No Anon, that’s not about right.
If UAF had been interested in unity and building broad support for the opposition to the RWB Festival, they would have been involved from the start. Then, in the planning meetings they could have argued their case - maybe even got majority support.
As it is, they ignored letters and didn’t get involved until the last minute. Instead of working with the local initiative they have tried to make out as if it is a UAF event, thus taking the credit - and possibly an attempt to justify the trade union affiliation money they get.
Their role has been one that has divided the campaign and strengthened the BNP. Instead they insist on unity with trade union bureaucrats and dominating the rally. This is nothing to do with fighting the BNP and all about their sectarian needs. Don’t be surprised to see trade union affiliates begin to dwindle
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 14 August, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
It is all very worrying that the SWP could not back a confrontational mass picket against fascists. I have heard stories of the IS kicking the shit out of the NF back in the day now they can’t even get involved in a locally organised and maybe slightly confrontational picket.
This idea that we need to keep that anti fascist movement as broad as possible is nonsense why do we need to keep right wing idiots like Sir Teddy Taylor on board?
Fuck me if all we have to offer against fascism is a walk round the market and a couple of speeches then we may as well stay at home. SWP members members at Oxford were at the front of trying to break in, how do they feel now that their leadership could not even back mild confrontation and a picket.
If the SWP actually did beleive the BNP are Nazi’s they would be doing more than trying to shit on local campaigners, split the movement and have jolly little walk.
Comment by Chris S — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
These hysterical tirades about how everyone is a splitter is the last thing the anti-fascist movement needs surely. grow up.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Re #17 No its not “official RR policy” to call for unions to stop funding UAF. Nor do I think will it become so. I agree with Andy on many things, but not on this one. His obsession with “exposing” UAF is in marked contrast with his toleration of the thug Terryfitz whose bigoted views have been amply demonstrated by his own comments on this site. The toleration of those views by Searchlight goes a long way to explaining why many of us are deeply suspicious of it.
Comment by Birmingham Respect Member — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Dont care about who speaks
just how we stop it
Comment by Yim — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
#23 Not that your stupid trolling deserves a reply, but I am more than happy to be in the same organisation as Andy. On this matter, I disagree with him. Now run along and play somewhere else.
Comment by Birmingham Respect Member — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
JohnG, What do you call the SWP organising a seperate demonstration to local anti fascist campaigners?
Comment by Chris S — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
#23 …it seems #23 was deleted (rightly), which is why I appear to be replying to myself!
Comment by Birmingham Respect Member — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
#23
Thanks Birmingham respect Member, I deleted the comment you are responding to :o)
With regard to toleration of Terry Fitz, I am pretty tolerant of most people commenting here, it doesn’t mean I agree with them - I have deleted one or two comments by terry, but on the whole I prefer people to make their own minds up.
My own view is that the fight againt the BNP needs local campaiging, by people a grassroots base in the area. I don’t really care under what banner they call their campaign.
And there is a case to answer over this event, that a national level the UAF failed to liaise with the local activists, and instead imposed their own outcome, which is not the way to nurture the grassroots activism we need to deal with the BNP.
I am not opposed to the unions funding UAF, but the funding should be conditional on UAF being accountable and inclusive.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 August, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
The issue here is whether you think it’s a good idea to organise a narrow leftist campaign against the BNP which may get support from the likes of the AWL and the smaller more militant unions - RMT, FBU - but which repels the mainstream of the labour movement.
Or is it more effective to build a broader less confrontational campaign that can get the trade unions, Labour Party and faith groups on board?
In any case, the “mass picket” tactic has failed even in its own terms. The police have invoked their powers under the Public Order Act and it isn’t going to happen.
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Here’s the latest report from BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7561108.stm
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
And once again Andy gives, at best, half the story. One might even get the impression that he doesn’t care about the issues - he only cares about finding any stick, no matter how weak, to beat the SWP with. Not that anyone should be surprised - he is good friends with David Toube by now, after all, based on their mutual hatred of the SWP.
Comment by christian h. — 14 August, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
johng - These hysterical tirades about how everyone is a splitter is the last thing the anti-fascist movement needs surely. grow up.
Why is it that every time the SWP have their hand in something that divides the movement, their supporters then come out with appeals for unity?
I agree with the need for unity as do NSBNP, which is why they agreed to support the UAF march as well. It’s a shame that UAF can’t show the same sentiment. They have excluded local campaigners at every opportunity and are putting sectarianism above the movement.
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 14 August, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
anti fascist fighter, is it correct that the “mass picket” was declared illegal by the police and not supported by larger unions? Yes or no. If the answer is yes, do you still want to claim that this is what UAF should have supported in the first place? If so, how is supporting an action that doesn’t have major union backing and will not happen anyway a show of unity? Are you now demanding, after your own plans fell through, that UAF add your speakers to the billet on short notice, yes or no? Why don’t you engage with concrete points instead of sucking up to Andy with your abstract SWP-bashing?
Comment by christian h. — 14 August, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
How is it that serious people on the left can continue to undermine anti-fascism with these childish tirades.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Christian h - incredible. The fact is that had UAF been involved from the start, they could have had some influence in shaping what happened. Instead, they have parachuted in at the last minute to try and take the credit. UAF ingored e-mails from NSBNP and NSBNP even went to UAF National Conference. It took until July 25th for UAF to bother meeting with local campaigners and have since then met with police and called their own action, not involving local campaigners.
The local campaign - which has involved trade unions believe it or not - has had some success. The campaign has led to refusal of a licence for music and alcohol for example.
johng - it is not these ‘childish tirades’ that are undermining anti-fascism. It is the sectarian attitude of the UAF that is dividing and undermining the movement.
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Look these divisions are not new. The whole local/national divide, the whole physical force/populism divide and everything else. OK so you believe that a section of the anti-fascist movement hasn’t taken your local campaign seriously enough. You think if they had been more centrally involved from the start you would have been more succesful. Who knows? Its also true though that you dismiss the involvement of important forces as ‘trade union bureacrats’ etc. This is all unneccessary and unhelpful from any or all points of view. Its well known that traditionally anti-fascist work in Britain has been tremendously fractious. Everyone shares a responsibility for that. But basically if your own local initiative has run into problems its childish to blame other people who decided they didn’t think your tactics were useful. People ought to be able to work togeather even when they disagree, and this is what people should be working towards. If you are successful enough, however sectarian other people are, they will invite you. Go back to the drawing board and ensure that you are successful enough next time. Thats the sensible approach. UAF is not responsible for the problems you have had with your picket. Take responsibility for your own difficulties. And put them right.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
johng - you are being entirely disingenuous here. NSBNP tried for unity and to get UAF involved from the start. UAF chose to ignore that, ignore e-mails, NSBNP even went to UAF conference. Still nothing.
Next thing they are meeting with police - just UAF and the ‘trade union bureaucrat’ - and arranging their own demo. They finish at 1.15pm as they want a short demo and photo opportunity. The police have agreed to a 5pm finish for those who want to stay by the way.
Isn’t it funny that the most divisive organisation in the movement malkes appeals for unity when their behaviour and approach leads to the opposite. People are thankfully drawing their own conclusions
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
A few facts
The SWP do not in Nottingham join in with the Stop the BNP campaign although they have supported us on occasional actions such as the one we organised when we stopped Griffin speaking last October. An activity that they later pretended to have organised themselves.
The Notts campaign began its work to deal with the RWB in Jan with a national conference attended by over 100 people. There were 3 or 4 local SWPers in attendance. UAF were invited, as our conversation with SWP activists after the last RWB festival led us to believe that, this year, they might do something about the festival. They chose however not to attend our meeting.
We sent numerous emails to UAF between Dec and May. There were never any responses. We held a follow-on national meeting in May, some local SWP/UAF branches attended. We talked about the formula then that was adopted: asking those organisations and activists to try and make it by 9 where that was possible but to have a rally later in the day, we provisionally planned it at 12:30.
Most of the BNPers coming in on the 16th are expected between 9 and 11. Our intention was to make our opposition known to them and discourage people attending the event. We obviously realised that those travelling afar couldn’t be there early.
UAF never consulted with us or notified us of their plans. In the week before the 10th June demo we again tried to get them talking to us. They didn’t.
On the June 10th demo we gave out thousands of our leaflets adverting our picket and our later rally. There was no mention of the RWB action from the platform at all. Not until some of us got hold of Mrk Serwotka to ask him to advertise it, which he did.
I don’t want to go into all the difficulties that the UAF have created for us at the moment. We will put all the evidence together after the 16th if we feel that is necessary. What the Notts campaign wants on August 16th is a united rally with the aim of building the significant campaign that has been going on in the area for the last 6 months in particular. At the moment we are awaiting a response from the UAF whether they will accept any of the requests from any of the campaigns that have been active in the area in the local Stop the BNP network.
UAF has done no work in the area of Amber Valley (the area where the festival is and where the BNP have been getting councillors elected).
They don’t have a UAF branch in Nottingham, they last attempted to meet in April 2007. They have a branch in Derby which is very weak and in some difficulties. Some fed up with the SWP/UAF machinations have set up a Derby Stop the BNP campaign which is organising transport, through ASLEF support, to the 9 start.
We want a rally that people, particularly those locally, can come away from knowing what has been done, who is doing it and how they can join in. How we can repulse the BNP from the working class communities in the area.
We feel that the attempts to undermine the earlier picket and organise a rally which tries to ignore the local campaigns is not helpful.
Comment by Dave Matthews — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Why do you need our support? Why not just get on with it?
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Johng - it is clear that the local campaign which initiated the protest has had some success, which we should all acknowledge. Especially their efforts in putting on the pressure to get the fascists denied an entertainment and drinks licence for their hate-fest. This is a victory, and is part of the good and sustained work done by the locals.
If the local campaign hadn’t done anything, then there would be no protest at all - just like last year. I don’t think the UAF would have initiated this. Now it is welcome that UAF have now joined in - after months of trying to pretend no protest was planned. But they have done so in an arrogant and sectarian manner. It now looks like you and your comrades are trying to find political excuses for why you have behaved thus, in a post hoc rationalisation of events.
If you want to build the SWP, it helps to win the respect of other activists, and not just try to ignore and marginalise them.
Now - all is well that ends well - and hopefully whatever happens on the day - with either one or two protests, with either or both militant anti-fascism and legal rallies - all this should have the effect of making it difficult for the BNP scumbags to hold this event at the same venue next year.
But in general - the SWP have not been very impressive in their recent anti-fascist events - despite it being announced as major turn after the disappointing collapse of the Respect / Left list initiative earlier in the year.
Now, if you want to pretend that your leadership is perfect, that’s fine - but many of us independent activists have good reason to be critical - get used to it.
Comment by No Pasaran! — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Has the Green Party been fully mobilised to stop the BNP?
Comment by ANIN — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
Whatever happened to respecting a “diversity of tactics”? If NSBNP want to organize a more confrontational picket - that’s their choice. Good for them.
But that doesn’t mean that UAF or anybody else has to either support or build it. Ditto if the UAF wants to organize a less confrontational, more mainstream approach.
During the anti-capitalist movement I recall there would often be a big main protest and there would be a wide array of civil disobedience organized through affinity groups, etc. Each action served different functions and different constituencies and everybody understood that. Nobody demanded that the mainstream unions bring their members to a lockdown - it wasn’t going to happen (actually, some anarchists did but the unions ignored them). Nor did they expect the unions or mainstream organizations, NGOs, etc to organize the logistics or legal work for the CD. People took responsibility for their tactics and strategies. When they didn’t - as when the Black Bloc would try to impose their idiocies on everybody - people made it clear they weren’t welcome.
Comment by redbedhead — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
We are getting on with it! But is that the response you normally make to requests for solidarity?
How could you support? Well obviously a national mobilisation of UAF would help. Or was all the sloganising of ‘Smash the BNP’ on June 10th just empty rhetoric? The RMT London region are sending a full coach with Bob Crow!
And doesn’t the SWP pretend to be democratic? Aren’t your UAF leaders accountable for what they do? Or do you agree with them in denying the oxygen of publicity to real, local anti-BNP campaigns that aren’t under your control?
Comment by Dave Matthews — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Sorry last message was a reply to johng
Comment by Dave Matthews — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
no pasaran wrote: “it is clear that the local campaign which initiated the protest has had some success, which we should all acknowledge.”
Nobody has said or argued otherwise. What is being argued is that everybody should work through NSBNP, which doesn’t follow. What’s more, if NSBNP is so rooted and successful locally and UAF are completely non-existent and irrelevant locally - why all the fuss? Surely, on this account, the UAF has nothing really to offer and the NSBNP doesn’t need them for their event to be a success.
Comment by redbedhead — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
redbedhead
That the UAF is not supporting the picket is one thing. Unfortunate but please don’t try and have it both ways. Does UAF believe in ‘Smashing the BNP’ made the clear slogan and repeated rather tiresomely on the June 10th demo?
Or is it against mass pickets of fascist events?
If you’re telling me that is the former then fine.
I believe in mass pickets and Lewisham is a fond memory and something we should be trying to replicate. If UAF isn’t the national network to mobilise for such things in the future then at least we know where we are. And UAF shouldn’t be dishonest with its sloganising.
What I find infuriating is that the UAF, having tried to manoeuvre to try and get the only legal rally on the day, then excludes the people who organise on the ground from the rally which has been promoted as a unity rally.
Don’t worry our event will be a success. But attempts to continually set up rival UAF campaigns is a constant disruption that we don’t need. Just off to do yet another leaflet drop in Codnor. No just kidding, we did it this morning.
Comment by Dave Matthews — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
# 43 - listen ‘redbedhead ‘ matey - I would rather we all worked through UAF - which we have all financed and helped build - cos we need a single, powerful united front against fascism. But just read your post #43 again. It sounds like you think UAF is SWP private property. And that’s how Weyman & the rest of the CC are behaving as well, with this demo and others.
Lets hope we can all remain united in UAF!
Whatever happens, we are all gonna escalate our actions against the BNP scumbags, under whatever banner, using whatever means are necessary.
Comment by No Pasaran! — 14 August, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Comments from johng and redbedhead say it all really. This is how far things have deteriorated in UAF/SWP thinking.
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
What the fuck / goodness gracious me! Just found out Redbedhead is based in Canada! Thanks for your international solidarity comrade! And your specialist knowledge of what’s happening on the ground! Obviously informed by loyalty to the IST / SWP’s politics and leadership you are granted an omniscience which outweighs local experience and knowledge. Of course I’d trust your judgement over people like Dave M who has been leafleting Codnor today!
Comment by No Pasaran! — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
gosh its terribly shocking isn’t it. again. for goodness sake grow up.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Sorry, JohnG, yes, I’d better grow up and realise the infallibility of your leaders. Of course their behaviour in this instance has been exemplary and perfect. Send me a membership card ASAP!
Comment by No Pasaran! — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
“What is being argued is that everybody should work through NSBNP, which doesn’t follow.”
Actually, what is being argued is that UAF should have the courtesy to reply to emails. They have staff but they can’t even be bothered to reply to serious requests for united working.
Are you happy with that?
Comment by factual — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
“gosh its terribly shocking isn’t it. again. for goodness sake grow up.”
Do you think that UAF should be serious in its dealings with other groups?
DO you think it’s right to just ignore repeated requests for united action?
“its terribly shocking” = johng stock response when he has no argument.
Comment by factual — 14 August, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Wise move from UAF. Looks as though lessons have been learned from the Welling debacle.
Why then have ‘Searchlight’ gone along with a confrontational “mass picket” when they were so against and critical of similar activity at Welling?
Comment by Theo Saurus — 14 August, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
factual: I am sure that it is very regrettable that email courtesy was not observed. Have’nt you got a picket to arrange?
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
“I am sure that it is very regrettable that email courtesy was not observed. Have’nt you got a picket to arrange?”
Nowt to do with me. I don’t agree with the picket. I’m more interested in your absolute refusal to deal with what people say.
Just look at the terms you choose to use. UAF deliberately ignored several approaches by the main organisation in the area. You won’t say you think it’s bad, you won’t say that UAF should do better. You just say things like “I’m sure that it is very regrettable”. Are you a Starbucks customer services manager responding to a complaint, or a socialist trying to get unity on the left?
Your childish response really shows that you have no argument.
UAF had the chance to act in a unified way with the local groups that are leading the charge. UAF didn’t have to take part in all the activities. But it refused to even acknowledged that anyone else was doing anything.
You are so unpolitical that all you can do is give childish responses.
UAF is run mostly by the SWP. Fair enough. It’s done good work. Aren’t the SWP supposed to be the ones most interested in the biggest show of unity? If so, why didn’t UAF even reply to emails? Don’t you think that would be a simple bit of unity? To have a discussion with the other activists involved?
Don’t you?
Comment by factual — 14 August, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
I think the problem with the fetish for “local organisation” is that the local organisation may well be influenced by ultra-leftists who make major tactical blunders. That would appear to be so in this case.
The plan for a confrontational “mass picket” was misconceived from the start. The support of the labour movement as a whole for such an approach was never going to be forthcoming, and it was entirely predictable that the police would impose an effective ban on the picket.
UAF does seem to have had a much better grasp of what was necessary to build a genuinely broad-based protest. Unfortunately, the tactical ineptitude of the much-vaunted local campaign has provided the police with an excuse to restrict this broad-based protest to 700 people.
As has been pointed out, Searchlight’s role here is indeed difficult to understand.
Based on Andy’s account, it does seem that Searchlight backed the NSBSP “mass picket” as against the UAF-promoted broad-based rally. The mainstream trade union movement, however, threw its weight behind the UAF’s approach.
If this is an accurate picture of the situation, then Searchlight has made a major miscalculation - particularly in view of the importance they attach to the support of the trade unions and Labour Party for anti-BNP campaigns.
In the recent London elections, Searchlight played a more effective role than UAF in my opinion. Here, however, UAF’s approach has been superior.
Which does rather undermine the efforts of anti-UAFers like Andy and Mark P to promote Searchlight as the only effective vehicle for resisting the BNP.
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
“Based on Andy’s account, it does seem that Searchlight backed the NSBSP “mass picket” as against the UAF-promoted broad-based rally. The mainstream trade union movement, however, threw its weight behind the UAF’s approach.”
Wrong, again. The local things came before UAF decided to get on board. And is the RMT and FBU not part of the mainstream union movement? I think you are confusing “trade union bureaucracy” with “trade union movement”.
Perhaps if UAF had responded and decided to get involved in a non-sectarian way, it could have influenced the local group in a positive way. But it didn’t. It ignored requests for meetings and discussions. Is that the right way to get maximum unity?
“UAF does seem to have had a much better grasp of what was necessary to build a genuinely broad-based protest. Unfortunately, the tactical ineptitude of the much-vaunted local campaign has provided the police with an excuse to restrict this broad-based protest to 700 people.”
How many people went to the “major national mobilisation” in London a few weeks back? 2,000 people?
Comment by wrong — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
I’m a bit worried by the constant references to the trade union bureaucracy in this context. Don’t we want them on board? Is it the job of anti-fascists to ‘expose them’? Counterposing left wing unions and a few no doubt worthy officials to more broadbased trade union involvement doesn’t seem a very healthy approach.
Comment by johng — 14 August, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
“How many people went to the ‘major national mobilisation’ in London a few weeks back? 2,000 people?”
Less than that, by some accounts. In that case it was the SWP, who initiated the thing, who made a major political miscalculation. Few people outside of the SWP would dispute that, I think.
But in the case of the Red White and Blue festival protest, UAF has taken the right line, from what I can see.
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
no pasaran - besides your nationalist broadside against me being a little embarassing - for you - your arguments are not very convincing otherwise.
Should the UAF have returned your e-mails? Maybe. I don’t know anything about relations between your group and the UAF. I don’t know what your group represents, what your political record is like, etc. Does this mean I think the UAF is the SWPs private property? No, and you oughtn’t to create straw arguments if you want to be convincing. I never said that, nor do I think it. That doesn’t mean UAF doesn’t have a very public, oft repeated strategy of mass mobilizing, as opposed to “radical” mobilizing. And if that is its mandate, why should it build an event that is focused on a “militant” confrontation at the gates of the BNP event which will only bring a minority of the people who would otherwise be mobilized?
Yes, yes, I know, as Dave M says: “I believe in mass pickets and Lewisham is a fond memory and something we should be trying to replicate.”
Well, sorry, mass pickets are just a tactic (albeit an important one) and aren’t always possible, just like a general strike. In principle, I’d like there to be a general strike against the Nazis, against the war and against capitalism. Guess what, it ain’t gonna happen and calling for one, like a stopped watch, just makes you look foolish when nobody shows up.
And, so, now here you are: you’ve found yourself stuck in a situation where you didn’t do the groundwork and didn’t assess the political terrain as to what was possible in the present climate - and the police have banned your event, which means most ordinary people who don’t want a bust-up with the cops won’t show up. That’s a drag. Wish it weren’t so. But don’t blame UAF for that. Even from all the way over here in Canada I could have told you that might happen.
Comment by redbedhead — 14 August, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Updated list of rally speakers from UAF:
Judy Mallaber - MP Amber Valley
Jerry Bartlett - Deputy General Secretary NASUWT
Bob Crow - General Secretary RMT
James Eaden - NEC member Midlands Region UCU
Kirit Mistry - Derby Race Equality Council
Lee Baron - Regional Secretary Midlands CWU
Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra - Assistant Secretary General Muslim Council of Britain
Representative from UNISON Midlands Region
Baby J - Musician and Derby Love Music Hate Racism
So Bob Crow will be on the platform after all. Celebrations all round, I think.
Comment by Anon — 14 August, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
Just so no parasan can get really upset, I should mention that I’m based in the US, have never been a member of any IST or former IST organisation, and still think it’s quite funny when Andy - who spent days denouncing the LMHR festival in London in the Spring - now claims UAF is being “sectarian” for, if I understand the accusations correctly, ignoring the local organizers.
(By the way, if UAF had taken part in the discussions from the start and refused to support the picket because of “trade union bureaucrats” that are part of UAF, and then done their own thing - or, even worse, voted your action down - wouldn’t you have said “hey, they parachuted in and are steamrolling over the local organizing”? Come on, be honest now. I’m guessing maybe the UAF people thought they had better things to do than sit through endless meetings devoted to accusing them of “popular frontism” and such.)
Anyway, I really hope you all have success with your actions, whatever they may be.
Comment by christian h. — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:07 am
“Which does rather undermine the efforts of anti-UAFers like Andy and Mark P to promote Searchlight as the only effective vehicle for resisting the BNP.” - Anon
Firstly I’m not ‘anti-UAF’ i’m pro the broadest coalition against the BNP based on local, community-led campaigning.
Secondly why don’t you bother to visit www.searchlightmagazine.com There you will find none of this juvenile posturing about who’s speaking at which rally and/or picket and at what time. In fact deservedly it gets not a mention. Instead just getting on with the business of stopping the BNP where it matters, where they stand in elections.
Thirdly, to most intents and purposes this is an unseemly spat between two campaigns dominate by the Far Left, the SWP and the AWL. Anyone with an ounce of sense would understand that. There’s right, and wrong, on both sides but if anti-fascism is left in the hands of a Far Left pursuing campaigns to their own ends then the BNP will become more, and more successful because the opposition we develop will become narrower and ineffective. Bit sad really.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Oh its the duck and cover mob? Surely not.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 8:39 am
“Oh its the duck and cover mob? Surely not.” John G
No, its political honesty in the face of the juvenile antics of two far left grouplets who really deserve one another. Check out www.searchlightmagazine.com, you’ll find it entirely free of this spat-filled stuff, its called grown-up politics, a difference Mark Steel brilliantly documents in his new book. What a breath of fresh air!
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Quite why Birmingham Respect Member has used my name I don’t know but as I am in the frame let me set the record straight. I don’t work for Searchlight but over the years, like thousands of other anti fascists, have turned out on events they have organised. They have consistently had the right line on how fascism in its many forms should be countered and their tactics of local campaigning is the main reason why the BNP have not made the breakthrough that Griffin and the leadership have been predicting for years.
These tactics totally paid off in the recent London elections which saw the BNP vote increase by a half of one percent. Throughout the London wide campaign UAF did nothing whatsoever except try to sabotage the Hope Not Hate campaign particularly in the Borough of Hackney where much of the SWP leadership live. For an organisation like UAF which is based in London to do nothing whatsoever sums up the whole thing. Their claim to have put out a million and a half leaflets is a lie that everone is aware of.
I have seen the backstabbing and betrayals for nearly forty years. Anything the SWP central committee cannot control they will destroy. I have said before and I will say it again, you must decide not who you can work with but who you cannot. Forget about united fronts and sectarianism, concentrate on being effective. Just look at the divisions that exist over this issue just on this site alone. All of this has come about because of the opportunism of UAF and for no other reason.
People should start waking up as to why it is allways UAF/SWP that causes the divisions. Is it just their control freakery or is it as some people have said over the years that it cannot be a coincidence that everything they touch they wreck and that they are one of the most useful assets the state has?
If I am hostile to the SWP it is because I have seen their lies and deceit for the best part of forty years and nearly ended up in prison because of their opportunism in 1976. What is happening here is,however, important in defining tactics against the BNP generally. The UAF march to nowhere will be about as effective as their pathetic march through London to protest at the presence of Richard Barnbrook in London’s City Hall. Having done nothing to prevent him being elected they then demanded that he be removed something which is legally impossible.
It is good to see that people are now seeing through the whole rotten charade and maybe some good will come of it all.
Comment by terryfitz — 15 August, 2008 @ 9:13 am
Actually Mark P I was asking whether this was an AWL initiative. The AWL have had an interesting debate about whether they would approve the bombing of Iran over the last few weeks, and henceforth I refer to them as the duck and cover mob. The only juvenile thing about this spat is the wierd obsession some in RR seem to have aboutencouraging splits into the anti-fascist movement, in this case by posting any or all attacks on the SWPs presence in UAF, from anyone at all, regardless of the politics involved. That really is juvenile.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 9:26 am
“The only juvenile thing about this spat is the wierd obsession some in RR seem to have about encouraging splits into the anti-fascist movement,in this case by posting any or all attacks on the SWPs presence in UAF, from anyone at all, regardless of the politics involved. That really is juvenile. ” - JohnG
Mmm. Actually I don’t entirely disagree. The point I was making however you deftly choose to entirely ignore. This is in large measure a spat between two far left grouplets, SWP and AWL, doping themselves and anti-fascism precious few favours. Its about time those involved in this dead-end of politics owning up to their being right and wrong on both sides, in fact the entire closed culture of internecine warfare is the number one reason for turning off popular involvement in the Left. Chronicled brilliantly by your former fellow party member Mark Steel.
Now have the guts to be self-critical, just for a change.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 9:44 am
I’m self critical when warrented. It seems to me that in this case it is this site which should be a little self-critical. There have been two posts recently around anti-fascism, mainly involving attacks on the SWP and its involvement in the anti-fascist movement. Fair enough. Except that the politics of those doing the attacking were really quite far removed from that associated with this site, and in other circumstances, they would likely have come under attack here. Thats a bit silly, although its clear that many of those otherwise hostile to the SWP have spotted that this is all a bit of a distraction.
Now I think, in terms of the Respect split, there clearly were issues connected to emphasis on locality in political work, and it would be foolish not to admit that these both involved substantive differences, and that, beyond the namecalling, these were genuinely tricky issues. To translate this dispute universally to every campaign going, whether around anti-war work or whether around anti-fascist work, without much regard for the different kinds of politics involved, whilst it may give short terms satisfactions, strikes me as a bit destructive.
I’m all for building alternative methods of working. But I’m not for translating the zero-sum nastiness of the respect split into every single field of left wing endeaver (up to and including attempting to stop unions funding such work, without being too clear about any alternative). This strikes me as unusually destructive behaviour, even by the rather poor standards of the contemporary British left.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 10:34 am
1) The AWL is not anything to do with the left, it’s a right-wing organisation that in the past fortnight has come out in support of the bombing of Iran, and in support of Western aggression in the Caucuses.
2) Do you expect me to have any respect for Mark Steel, a man who has written a book solely to disparage his former mates and (even more disgustingly) to slag off his ex?
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Jill you really don’t get it do you.
His book is a startlingly honest critique of the political culture he was a member of for several decades. You sem incapable of recognising this while wilfully disparaging everybody and everything else.
As for his relationship. This is even more unusual, a male socialist painfully recounting the impact of the break up of his relationship on his partner, their kids and himself,
JohnG.
You are a past master at moving the goalposts. You recognise the political necessity for self-criticism and then immediately choose to blame everyone else. However hard it is to admit, rightly or wrongly, large numbers of organisations and individuals after working with the SWP choose to distrust it. That is a legacy you seem determined to ignore.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 10:54 am
JOhn
“There have been two posts recently around anti-fascism, mainly involving attacks on the SWP and its involvement in the anti-fascist movement. Fair enough. Except that the politics of those doing the attacking were really quite far removed from that associated with this site,”
Interestingly though, one of those posts was from Phil BC, who is a regular though infrequent contributor to this site and was posted in his own name, and as such are hardly “far removed” from the politics of this site. Phil may have different views fro, me, but is as entitled to post here as I am. I don’t think I personally even made a comment on that thread.
In the present case, the article entirely avoids the question of whether the 9:00 o ‘clock start was a good idea or not.
The question for me is about how the national UAF campaign relates to local campaigners, and how trust and unity in action in the anti-facsist movement can be built over the longer term.
From where I am standing there have been a number of times recently where UAF have behaved as if they are a wholely owned subsidiary of the SWP. And that is extremely damaging. It is also an issue where we might hope the unions who fund UAF may take responsibility for adrressing
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Mark P: “This is in large measure a spat between two far left grouplets, SWP and AWL, doing themselves and anti-fascism precious few favours.”
Actually, as has been demonstrated in some detail on this thread, it’s a conflict between two different approaches to building an anti-fascist campaign.
The UAF approach was to organise a broad-based anti-BNP rally in co-operation with the Midlands labour movement.
The other approach, pursued by Nottingham Stop the BNP and its allies, was to call for a mass picket outside the festival site.
The UAF approach succeeded in putting together a representative platform, with speakers from the trade unions, Labour Party, the Muslim community and the local Racial Equality Council.
The NSBNP approach resulted in their mass picket being rejected by the Midlands TUC and then being banned by the police under the Public Order Act.
Searchlight, judging by Andy’s account, supported the NSBNP approach.
Perhaps Mark P might follow his own pompous advice about the need for self-criticism and explain to us how Searchlight came to make this mistake?
And further to the need for self-criticism, can Mark P tell us when Searchlight are going to admit that they made another blunder in allying themselves with Terry “billericaydickhead” Fitzpatrick and announce that they have broken all links with him?
(For those who missed the discussion about Fitzpatrick on earlier threads, his recent efforts at bolstering the BNP and promoting racist hatred against Salma Yaqoob and other political representatives from the BAME communities can be consulted here, here and here.
Comment by Bob — 15 August, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Mark P, the funny thing is that I have never ever heard you being self-critical about anything. Indeed you seem the very vanguard of the vanguard when putting foward your criticisms of everyone else. Who knows you might be right.
Andy, yes its true that the poster is a regular on this site, and indeed that he has a perfect right to post on it, but his politics on anti-fascist work represent a very different tradition to that which many in RR belong to, and indeed some of them pointed this out. In both cases many here felt that despite their disagreements, even with some of the anti-fascist initiatives of UAF, in this case they had got it about right.
Now we’re discussing what seems to have been an AWL iniative. And yes, yes I see your raising the question of funding again. Perhaps Andy you ought to put yourself foward as an alternative recipient? It would actually be better politically then not raising any alternative at all.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 11:48 am
John
I am suggesting that the unions withdraw any funds from UAF, I am suggesting that the unions use their clout to prevent some of the silliness.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
His book is a startlingly honest critique of the political culture he was a member of for several decades.
You could argue the same thing about Nick Cohen’s book. You’d be talking rubbish there as well. The realisty is that Mark Steel hasn’t been active politically in any way, shape or form for several years and has been unwilling to lift a finger to do anything other than self-promote in that period.
The reality is that you enjoy promoting him as it helps your rather dull agenda of attacking the party at every turn.
However hard it is to admit, rightly or wrongly, large numbers of organisations and individuals after working with the SWP choose to distrust it. That is a legacy you seem determined to ignore.
And a far larger number retain an excellent working relationship with the party, notwithstanding obvious tensions that arise over analysis, strategy and tactics. Your complaint, as always, is that the SWP refuses to do everything Mark Perryman and Andy Newman demand (including your belief that any anti-fascist initiative must be pre-approved by the lacklustre John Cruddas), when the reality is, why the hell should we? Go and build your own party to do that, it can’t be any less successful than Marxism Today.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Actually Bob #72,
Searchlight can speak for themselves.
But whereas I am generally all in favour of mobilising the official movement, and the labour party in particular in the anti-BNP cause, it is not clear how a platform of the great will actualy help to undermine the BNP on this case.
What in my view is essential is that local people have the opportunity to make their opposition felt, and that the contrast is clearly made between BNP activists coming from all over Britain, compared to anti-racist local residents who stand up and say they don’t want the RW&B festival in their area.
Generally I am not in favour of simply accepting that we should accomodate around the police, who can then manipulate protest to within the channels pre-approved by the state. That is not to say we should not make every effort to negoiate with the police and find a compromise, but sometimes we have to just do what is right.
In terms of stopping the RW&B festival for next year, even a small protest at the gates with local people prominenetly involved will be more persuasive with the local newspapers and radio, and with the local authority who need to give relavent permissions, than a larger rally involving the great and the good.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
“Mark P, the funny thing is that I have never ever heard you being self-critical about anything” John G
For goodness sake do you bother to read ANYTHING anybody else writes? My position is that since 1997 the Left has suffered a massive defeat at the hands of Blairite-Brownist new Labour. That the failure to establish anything like a credible if minority electoral challenge is a collective failure. That any attempt to renew the left using a pre-existing culture of organisation is entirely doomed.
I’ve argued that consistently for many years in books, articles, blogs etc. As I consider my self on the Left I of course entirely share this blame, the difference is a recognition that the Left is much a part of the problem as the solution.
There. Is that self-critical enough? Now you tell me what you would be self-critical of in terms of the SWP’s stunning failure to develop as an organisation over the past 11 years. I won’t hold my breath.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
It doesn’t really read as being self critical at all Mark P. Its criticism of other people who fail to have reached your own level of insight on this. This is rather re-enforced by the fact that for someone like me, who is today, really much too old, its an argument almost identical to the one you were putting well….lets just say a long time ago. It doesn’t actually cost you anything and your not really doing anything other then advocating the kind of politics you’ve believed in for decades. which is absolutely fair enough. I do that as well.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
sssshhhhh!
Comment by SECRET FACEBOOK GROUP — 15 August, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
John G you don’t really read other’s postings do you.
OK. I’ll spell it out. The Left, which I inciude myself as a tiny individual part, has proved totally inadequate to developing an electoral alternative to New Labour in England. In Scotland and Wales the nationalist parties effectively fill this space. In large parts of England the BNP (642 wards contested in May, 13% of the vote, compare this to either varieties of Respect) has filled this space with their hateful politics, on a more optoimistic reading the Greens have been modestly successful, certainly far, far more successful that Respect.
If we continue as we are, and again I include myself, the Left is heading towards terminal decline. The party I was once a member of, the CPGB (the ‘real’ one, not the Weekly Worker 50 or so quaintly like minded Leninists) dissolved itself, its politics imploded post 1989. I hold the tradition I was part of culpable for this sorry mess but I wouldn’t excuse virtually any other part of the Left. Together we’ve made a complete mess of the best opportunity ever to build an alternative to Labourism. The question we should be asking ourselves is, how did we reach this awful situation?
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Yes I accept all this Mark P, the trouble is that your argument is identical to what you have been arguing for more then a decade. I’m not doubting your sincerity, I just would not, subjectively, count that as self criticism.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
having just finished Mark Steel’s book , i must admit i was open mouthed at the sections dealing with Galloway , Respect and the SWP - the book could be a post and thread of its own here i feel
- i am sure that virtually everyone who has left ( voluntarily or otherwise ) the SWP over the years will recognise his depiction of an organisation that is falling apart whilst lying to itself and everyone else about the state of affairs. Very simple questions need to be asked of SWP ‘loyalists’ here ; how have you lost between 50 and 75% of your members over the past few years? , how does everything you become involved in end in a sectarian bunfight ( SA , UAF , RESPECT ) and more importantly failure for working class people? and how , how on earth , does the incredibly unsuccessful ‘ leadership ‘ remain in place? , every conference has the same group of people making predictions and promises that are always wrong ( usually through self inflicted wounds )- i was a member of the SWP and employee of East End Offset when it went belly up and lots of good socialists lost their jobs and homes through a misguided political perspective , but even worse left with outstanding wages unpaid and no help from the organisation , many left the Party at that stage and many more stopped paying subs to recoup the wages lost - this is the behaviour of the organisation that is in the forefront of fighting fascism in this country??? , my God be afraid , be very afraid
Comment by sheffielder — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
I’m not going to comment on the rest of this self-pitying nonsense, but the idea that the SWP has lost 50 to 75 percent of our membership over the past few years is complete bull.
Comment by chjh — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
chjh - thing is it could well be bull. You’ll never know though due to the SWP creative membership figures. It could be true in terms of turnover?
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Well actually you do know. An organisation that had lost that number of people would not have been able to organise an event like Marxism for a start (before you start no I’m not suggesting that Marxism as an event leads to immediate proletarian revolution). There are plenty of other such indexes.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
One difficulty with Mark Steel is that he clearly became completely out of touch with a number of these indexes and tended to judge stuff on the basis of what the party had been like when he was active. We all do it, but this was apparent to me when I read the IB piece. I too think that everything was really very much better when I was 25.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
I’d add that if the party really had lost that number of members, our sectarian friends wouldn’t be bothered about the party any more.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
From The Socialist
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6336
THE PROTEST against the far-right, racist British National Party’s “red, white and blue festival” in Derbyshire will go ahead on Saturday 16 August from 9am as planned. Hundreds are expected to participate, including residents from the surrounding areas and many trade unionists.
James Newton, Notts Stop the BNP
This is a major step forward from the situation last year when there was no organised protest and local residents had to register their objections and complaints individually. This year the BNP are under much more pressure and have been denied the easy cooperation they had from the police and local authority last year.
They have been refused a licence for selling alcohol and playing live music. Local residents told the Nottinghamshire Stop the BNP campaign (NSBNP) that this was entirely down to its campaign which had included a 60-strong protest and a formal objection (although ruled out) to the licence, and which led to objections too from East Midlands Unison and Derby UCU.
Trade union support for the campaign has been strong, particularly from East Midlands Fire Brigades Union and rail unions RMT and Aslef. The national RMT conference supported the NSBNP protest and the RMT national executive donated £1,000 to the campaign. The Aslef executive, a regional officer and two branches donated funds to sponsor a coach from Derby.
The police have invoked sections 14 and 14a of the Public Order Act for what we understand is the duration of the BNP’s event, which gives them enormous extra powers. It is rumoured they have cancelled all police leave in Derbyshire. They identified an ‘official’ protest area about 1.5 miles from the BNP site. Footpaths are being closed and anyone caught ‘trespassing’ will be subject to arrest.
To arrange such an exclusion zone is a denial of our democratic rights. The police aim to try to limit and control the anti-BNP protesters, and agreed with Unite Against Fascism (UAF) - who had announced their own separate protest - a march from the ‘official’ protest area to a place nearer the BNP site, though still almost a mile away from it.
In the interests of unity, NSBNP will support this march. The police also agreed with UAF that 30 people will be escorted to near the entrance to the site for a token protest and photograph opportunity, whilst the main body of the protest marches back.
Unity needed
THE STRONGEST opposition to the BNP festival would be a united protest, which Notts Stop the BNP has campaigned for over months. However the national UAF leadership, led by members of the Socialist Workers Party, chose not to cooperate with the local campaign, calling their own protest instead, and even, it appears, campaigning within the trade unions for support for the NSBNP protest to be withdrawn in favour of the UAF one.
There is justifiable anger in the local campaign that UAF has tried to elbow our campaign aside. NSBNP has made numerous attempts to contact UAF, including travelling down to its national conference in March and sending emails.
It was only on 25 July, after announcing their own protest that UAF was finally prepared to meet members of the campaign, but they did not make a commitment to holding a joint protest rally on 16 August. At the time of writing, NSBNP is still campaigning for a united protest and rally where both campaigns can have invited speakers.
On 8 August UAF negotiated arrangements for 16 August with the police without involving NSBNP. They arranged a protest assembly time of 11am and for the rally to conclude at 1.15pm. When NSBNP subsequently met with the police, the police stated that the protest could continue to 5pm, so it appears that the UAF (together with Midlands TUC) deliberately arranged a very short event.
Is this because UAF’s last-minute demonstration is more of a photo opportunity to gain media attention and justify the trade union resources they are given, than a serious attempt to oppose the BNP and build up solid, local anti-BNP campaigns?
Their actions are in contrast to the NSBNP protest which was called well in advance and has been publicised and built for consistently in the local area, amongst the trade unions and in the anti-racist movement.
To build a successful, strong campaign against the BNP, the anti-racist and union movement needs to consider whether the UAF is suitable for support. As well as its lack of cooperation with the local campaign, there are other questions to consider.
For instance, in order to keep the trade union-Labour relationship smooth, UAF does not raise that a major reason for growth in the BNP’s support is the alienation created by New Labour’s policies. Meanwhile we are suffering under those policies.
Comment by Neil — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Membership figures were always a part of publicly available materials at CPGB Congresses. And they were in such headlong decline it is unlikely they were ever inflated!
The contemporary Far Left on the other hand has a preference for secrecy which actively generates an internal control culture, the SWP is but one symptom of this.
The annual Marxism event is clearly nothing like the size used to be. Reducing it to 3 and a bit days is one marker of that, the other the ever-decreasing use of the largest rooms.
As for party membership. Its not so long ago the SWp was claiming to be on the verge of 10,000 members. Now it, plus allies, attracted well short of 2000 to its setpiece ’stop the witchunt’ petition, so its hard to take any claim of a membership figure much higher than 2000 seriously.
Do these things matter? Well the success or failure to attract members is a measure of an organisation’s success, to retain members even more so. This is less true of an electoral organisation, Respect’s success in winning one or more MPs and building its number of councillors is immeasurably more important than recruiting members in my view. Respect’s difficulties lie with its timidity in grasping this fact and being transformed by it. The SWP on the other hand is heavily dependent on recruitment to maintain its activist base, with massive membership turnover and the total stagnant at under 2000 is deeply problematic in this regard.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
The problem in relying on Marxism as a way to guage your membership is that you don’t know how many of those there are members and the figures for attending are unreliable. That you can put it on is great, but also could indicate a party with lots of money, members on high salaries that can pay large subs.
Surely far better would be to have transparency re. membership figures. Regular updates in party notes or something, like other organisations do.
Personally I think 50-75% is high, but their have been losses. Maybe this figure reflects turnover.
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Bob,
I seem to have rattled your cage. Would everyone look at the links and tell me if I am wrong. I make very specific allegations of sectarianism and corruption non of which are dealt with.
I will return to something which was deleted last week. I hope everyone out there will forgive me if I call the SWP leadership scumbags,which was why I think I was deleted. People posting here may know that I was disgusted by the use of a picture of Blair Peach at the last Marxism gab fest. I knew Blair and know that he despised the SWP leadership which had suspended him, and hundreds of others, from membership of the ANL which they controlled.
Harman,Holborow and others know this but continue to say that he was one of their members. Nothing built on lies can succeed and UAF is built on lies. When it was formed as a back door deal between the SWP and Ken Livingstones Socialist Action there was no discussion prior to the announcement. There has never been an election for officers and with the demise of Red Ken and self styled “black nationalist” Lee Jasper it is now totally controlled by the SWP.
Once again I would urge all posting here to actually look at the amount of effort that is put into political point scoring and suggest that the same effort should be put into combating the BNP. We cannot have unity with those who would destroy us.Ignore the SWP/UAF and get on with the job in hand.
Several people have mentioned the fact that the unions are pulling the money from UAF and that is true, the powers that be have realised that they have been duped. The attack on Jonh Cruddas is also typical of these low lifes. John is one of the few people in the Labour Party to have said that unless the real concerns of white people are addressed then the BNP will continue to make inroads.
Let me give you a little example of how the UAF are doing the BNPs job for them. At the last elections in Barking and Dagenham the BNP put out a leaflet saying that priority in housing was given to asylum seekers. This is untrue and the last asylum seeker got council accomodation nine years ago.
The local anti BNP group Barking and Dagenham Together put out a leaflet pulling the claim apart. Guess what UAF and their national disorganiser Weyman Bennett did. The made a banner saying “Asylum Seekers Welcome Here” and hung it off a foot bridge on one othe roads into the town centre. Are these people mad or are they actually on the other side?
I am waiting for an attempt at a rebuttal of the facts that I have put out in this post and others.
Comment by terry fitz — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
To be honest, the membership figures are none of your business - but party members find them out every year at national conference. Since your only interest is in attacking the party, this won’t make an iota of difference to you.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Jill - they don’t. They get an unsubstatiated, inflated figure. If you’ve been to Conference then you’ll know that
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Jill - they don’t. They get an unsubstatiated, inflated figure. If you’ve been to Conference then you’ll know that
What a load of crap. What would count as substantiation for you - for every member of the party to come up to you individually and personally introduce themselves?
In any case, our membership and organisation is none of your business. If you don’t like what we do, sod off and build a party yourselves. You clearly have all the answers, so I’m sure you’ll be flocked to.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Terry
When you say: “John is one of the few people in the Labour Party to have said that unless the real concerns of white people are addressed then the BNP will continue to make inroads.”
I think you are in danger of over-simplifying what Jon has said, that may prove hostage to fortune.
JOn has pointed out that the government is negligent in not addresing the social impact of immigration that largely falls upon already deprived areas, that do not then get a commensurate increase in resurces to deal with the increased housing need, demand for school places, school students who don’t have English as a first language, etc.
JOn has continually pointed out how impressed he is by the people of barking and dagenham, by their tolerance and their ability to cope with change and diversity.
The BNP prosper in such areas becasue the governement create a climate of hostility to immigrants, while simulataneoulsy providing no additional resources to aid those areas where immigration is stretching local abilities to cope.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Mark P suggests that this is essentially a spat between the AWL and the SWP. However, I do detect a definite tendency amongst Respect Renewal members to promote the work of Searchlight, whilst simultaneously slagging UAF and LMHR.
I suspect that this is part of a relatively uncoordinated effort to obtain stronger institutional bonds between Searchlight and RR.
Many on the left will look at the SWP’s relationship with UAF and LMHR with great jealousy. Some LMHR gigs and events are hugely successful in terms of attendance, whilst the UAF have access to great dollops of trade union cash.
Oh how a relatively small political party like RR would like this level of power, influence and wonga. So let’s sidle up to Gerry and his pacemakers, and we may be in with a shout regarding Searchlight’s “educational purposes” pot of cash.
Comment by An Amateur Anthropologist — 15 August, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Jill - recent history has proved that the SWP lie about their membership figures. Honesty and democracy is something I value in an organisation that is trying to influence the movement. If you don’t, fine.
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 15 August, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
#96
“I do detect a definite tendency amongst Respect Renewal members to promote the work of Searchlight, whilst simultaneously slagging UAF and LMHR. ”
You detect wrong then.
I think it would be fair to say that 9 out of 10 Respect members who expressed an interest said they preferred UAF.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Jill - recent history has proved that the SWP lie about their membership figures
No it hasn’t - and what a ridiculous and pointless thing to claim. And as I said, our size and organisation has nothing to do with you.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
#98 You mean 9 out of 10 Respect Renewal members, right?
9 out of 10 Respect members declined to join RR
Comment by Adamski — 15 August, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Ok Jill, obviously I imagined the inflated membership claims and the ‘witch hunt petition’? And the criticisms in the IB’s, including from Mark Steel?
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Ok Jill, obviously I imagined the inflated membership claims and the ‘witch hunt petition’? And the criticisms in the IB’s, including from Mark Steel?
The first one you imagined, the other two are not evidence of falling membership numbers. Indeed Mark Steel hadn’t been active for several years, so he would have no idea as to the size of the party.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
Indeed Mark Steel hadn’t been active for several years, so he would have no idea as to the size of the party.
That is true
Though if he had been active in the SWP for years he would still have no idea as to the size of the party.
My expereince as an SWP branch secretary or SW branch paper organiser, is that you would be sent a list of “members” in your area that bore absolutely no relatioonship to the actual (much smaller) membership, and I don’t think this practice changed much over the last twenty years.
Though it did get worse in the late 1980s when the SWp stopped doing annual reregistration of all members.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
” Our size and organisation has nothing to do with you.’ Jill St Custard
You really don;t get it do you. Cultivate practices based on secrecy, loyalty interpreted as following the party line, actively discourage internal debate and what do you end up with a party culture of control. So when such organisations collide with broader coalitons founded on a much more open, fluid model of democracy a tension is inevitable. Anmd in every single case the SWP and similar organisations have failed to grow despite often playing a key role in these broad coalitions.
The SWP and the late 1970s ANL. Followed by decline of the party not growth. The Militant and the Anti Poll Tax Federation in the mid 1990s. Ditto. The SWP and Stop the War in the early 2000s. Ditto. The SWP and The Socialist Alliance, SSP, Respect. Ditto.
The record is of relentless decline, stagnation at best, spurts of growth that lead to huge turnover of members. The defeat of the left 1997- is a collective failure, but to pretend the SWP’s failure is only a matter for its own membership betrays an incredibly inward, secretive cult of organisation.
Never mind, personally I cannot see any future whatsoever for a renewal of the Left that has anything whatsoever to do with these remnants of the Leninist far left of which the SWP is just one part and until we break out of this ghettoisation the broad outside of Labour left will get nowhere.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
But then Mark, you think John McDonnell is ultra-left and not worth bothering with.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
#103 “a list of “members” in your area that bore absolutely no relatioonship to the actual (much smaller) membership”
Occasionally when several people joined at once the real figure actually approached the paper one.
Comment by skidmarx — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
one further very brief question to Jill , are you seriously , in the real world seriously , stating that it is in the comrades imagination that the SWP claimed 10,000 members throughout the 90’s ( if you are old enough )and all the way through to around 2005 , if you are you are lying and therefore very qualified ( if not over qualified ) for CC membership !
Comment by sheffielder — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Nope, I’m saying that your claim that those figures were made up is rubbish.
Comment by Jill St Custard — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Mark P # 104 makes a point that I noticed along time ago.
Back in the days when I was building the SWP, I noticed that our local branch would often have its greatest success at recruitment when we kind of stood alone. Building prominent paper sales, branch meetings and ‘united fronts’ that involved ourselves as the only organised force alongside a collection of isolated individuals fairly new to left politics.
Then people would join saying ‘your the only ones doing anything around here’. People would join based upon our general left activism, and only later would they become convinced revolutionary socialists with SWP politics - if they stayed around and didn’t drop out.
When we were building broader movements involving a plurality of left groups and established individual left activists - people wouldn’t join the SWP so easily - as merely belonging to the general left group satisfied their needs.
In fact we would sometimes consciously ’steer away from the swamp’ in order to rebuild ourselves after engagement in such broader movements.
I was wondering if these were the thoughts of the SWP CC after the debacle around Respect/Left Alternative?
But back to main point on this thread - lets unite against the fascist b*stards!
Comment by Larry R — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
“Mark, you think John McDonnell is ultra-left and not worth bothering with” - Jill St Custard
More dodging the issues raised eh? No I have never described John McDonnell as ‘ultra left’ and I’m not sure ‘not worth bothering with’ actually means and I certainly never wrote that in any case.
What I did say was that in my view he is both deeply unimpressive and his support a tiny fraction of what Tony Benn attracted inside and outside of the Labour Party in the mid to late 1980s. The former is a totally subjective view but one I’m honest enough to admit to. The latter surely entirely uncontroversial.
The bigger issue, which you’ll no doubt choose to duck. Is why the 200,000+ who have left the Labour Party since 1997 almost without exception chosen not to join any of the existing left groups and parties, including respect. And just as importantly why couldn’t the conditions be created particularly in 2003 which might have led to 4-5 Labour MPs, and perhaps tens, hundreds of councillors breaking with Labour to help form a new, broad party. Part of that failure lies with the enduring ‘reclaim Labour appeal. And part of it lies with the deeply unattractive options outside Labour on offer. Until we have the honesty to engage with both these problems nothing whatsoever will change for the better.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
for the record it was me who described john McDonnell as “ultra-left”
I admit that this was an unhelpful description and I worthdrew it, but what I was getting at was that JOhn McDonnell’s project is to consolidate the existing hard left, without any serious engagement with the broader coalition building needed for the left to advance in the labour party.
Hence his boycott of the Compass conference on the grounds that he wanted nothing to do with anyone who voted for 42 days detention without chrage, rather ineptly overlooking the fact that some LRC MPs had voted for 42 days, and a total of nine of the MPs who had nominated him for leader ( a third of them!) had voted with the government over 42 days.
While I understand why people criticised my use of the word “ultra-left” I still think that implicitly saying he wanted nothing do do with his own MP supporters was pretty silly
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
so if the 10,000 figures were genuine
, do you still have 10,000 members? , if so why have they never joined any of the versions of Respect? , if not , where have they gone? , surely they havent all joined the Tories ?
Comment by sheffielder — 15 August, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Mass struggles are when your working with people to try and achieve something, not simply trying to recruit. Its a tautology to suggest that when all you do is recruit people you recruit more people. Its why emphasis is always laid on preparing for the future in quieter periods and its true. One thing I always found a bit odd was the claim that all the SWP did in Respect or STW was to try and recruit people. It certainly wasn’t my experiance of STW, indeed I think we were a bit slow on this.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
maybe you recruited more than the Tories in Tower Hamlets though? or maybe not? surely if people are attracted by your policies after working alongside you then you will attract new members , not lose them?
Comment by sheffielder — 15 August, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Yes JohnG # 113 - sometimes in practice there seems to be a contradiction between building the SWP and building the general mass movement. Sometimes the SWP does act very generously, genuinely building the mass movements - at its own expense. But there are limits!
So to have taken Respect forward in current conditions, the SWP would have had to make greater sacrifices and compromises - the tendency towards ‘liquidating itself’ into merely building the broad movement. Last year it quite understandably drew back from doing this, when it saw that it would have to subordinate its politics even more to accommodate to the Galloway letter. It understandably had to preserve itself, and revert to its older modus operandi.
But therefore, the SWP could not really become the nucleus of a broad left realignment - the costs to itself would be too high.
Clarity on this would have saved us all a lot of grief! Those who want a new broad left of labour party would know not to try this with the SWP. And we would have all been saved the name calling, Rees’s slander of people like Linda Smith, etc, or Galloways nasty attacks on ‘Russian Doll’s. etc. We would have been save the pretence that the SWP was continuing with Respect. etc.
Now, theoretically, a revolutionary organisation should be able to build itself by building the mass movement - dialectics init? But the whole history and m.o of the SWP, inherited from the downturn etc, makes this unlikely.
Comment by Larry R — 15 August, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
#111 Andy, When you think of Compass, which MP do you instantly think of…? Jon Cruddas. And when such a leading light decides to support the erosion of civil liberties by voting for 42 days then it has an impact on Compass. Trickett at least resigned. Also, remember the majority membership of Compass were opposed to 42 days and so Cruddas run roughshod over the membership.
Cruddas… came up through the union bureaucracy, pro-war, 42 days…need I go on
And Gregor Gall is right to point out that Cruddas aint that left wing in the scheme of things (look at his voting record). The Johnson/Cruddas ticket being touted is, for example, a nightmare ticket but a TU bureaucrats dream.
John McD. didn’t turn up to Compass conference. Yes, again, as I have argued, was a tactical error but in the scheme of things…so what. It is easily mended. So it seems to me that you are using McD’s “crime” of not attending Compass conference as a distraction from really examining the piss-poor politics of Jon Cruddas. Talk about taking things out of proportion!!
Actually, if I was John McD. I would be well pissed off with these MPs who talk left but can’t deliver. Again, in the political scheme of things this is nothing compared to the sell-out class politics of one Jon Cruddas.
How many more chances are you gonna give Cruddas before the penny drops?
If you are going to turn it into a John McD. v Jon Cruddas then John McD. is a reliable and good socialist, what’s Cruddas?
Oh, and discussion and engagement with the whole left is what I support and so does the LRC. This is a defining moment for the left and a time we should be putting forward our own socialist policies and politics cos we have them and are an alternative to NL. Why should we have to scrabble around for a so-called suitable candidate whose politics are suspect but hey, “he’ll do” stance. I do seriously want to give my gag reflex a rest and instead not have to compromise our politics to suit some untrustworthy sell-out politico’s agenda.
And yeah, ultra-left was indeed unhelpful (and I argued that before when you said it) and if you are going to use terms like that explain them in a better context then just accusing, implicitly, John Mcd. as being “silly”.
If he’s silly then gawd only knows what Cruddas is..
Oh, and btw sorry if this is off topic on this thread but I just wanted to respond.
Comment by Louise — 15 August, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Sheffielder, the factional battles amongst TH councilers is hardly a reflection of the relationship between the movement and recruitment on the ground, if your interested in a serious discussion. Whilst I think its true that the SWP was not willing to liquidate its politics I don’t think this had anything to do with the question of recruitment, and nor do I think its true to say that the SWP in Respect spent all its time recruiting. The stock stereotype of swp members doing nothing but sell the paper and recruit rather then building the movement just wasn’t true and it was a bit disapointing to hear people regurgitating this standard stuff. If there are discussions to be had about all this it had nothing to do with that. In any case I think the argument which suggests that left wing organisations cannot exist within broader formations or is likely to be a block on the growth of any such formation is wrong. Its wrong in principle and wrong in practice. But that I guess is a difference (yes I know RR does not formally say this, I mean the argument being put foward here which actually implies it). I think components in an alliance will have different priorities and that is a reality which has to be dealt with if you want such things to fly. I think adopting a party model too early will restrict growth. Obviously we’ll see if this is true.
John Rees did not, incidently, slander Linda Smith (as far as I can work out this is entirely fictional, and arose from a closed meeting in which John had to explain why he was not backing Linda Smiths campaign: because she’d asked him not to, as she’d conceded the charges). Somebody wrote a bit of a silly post on something they’d heard and it became the scandal of the moment repeated again and again by everyone but the SWP members.
I think a revolutionary organisation can grow out of mass struggles but I don’t think this is a straightfoward process and I don’t think success in such movements can be judged purely in terms of recruitment. However its surely true that the eventual debacle was not a success for us. But we’re recovering.
Comment by johng — 15 August, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Do I need to go through the ins and outs of Syhleti politics to explain yet again how Tower Hamlets Respect started off as a corrupt organisation that was used by Bangladeshi businessmen. Please let me know, I am down Brick Lane at the moment. Salma to join Labour within the next three months. The bets are already being taken.
Comment by billaricaydickey — 15 August, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
JOhn
“Somebody wrote a bit of a silly post on something they’d heard and it became the scandal of the moment repeated again and again by everyone but the SWP members. ”
No - jj - who is certaily an SWP member, and I believe is an SWP full timer, who used to work at the centre, specifically and repeatedly accused a certain trade union official of being a ballot rigger.
It was repeated by SWP members commenting on this blog.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 August, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
I wonder when we will see marches by the Left and the Tu’s against the massive gas/electricity/water utility rises, the housing crisis, the welfare reforms, in fact The union bosses at Warwick 2 have supported NL’s draconian benefit reforms which will impact most heavily where the Far Right gets its support.
wrong end of the telescope imo, tackle the issues, less grandstanding and the far right will decline.
Comment by frenetic — 16 August, 2008 @ 12:11 am
So how did it go?
Comment by johng — 17 August, 2008 @ 11:33 am
600 people at the uaf rally, 70 at the awl spoiler. should be a report on the socialist worker website later.
Comment by Dave Festive — 17 August, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
quel supris.
Comment by johng — 17 August, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Everything I say should be taken seriously.
Comment by Dave Marsh — 17 August, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
I wonder when we will see marches by the Left and the Tu’s against the massive gas/electricity/water utility rises, the housing crisis, the welfare reforms, in fact The union bosses at Warwick 2 have supported NL’s draconian benefit reforms which will impact most heavily where the Far Right gets its support.
wrong end of the telescope imo, tackle the issues, less grandstanding and the far right will decline.
Comment by frenetic — 16 August, 2008 @ 12:11 am
One of the best posts I have seen for a long while
Comment by Roy — 17 August, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
I was there. I estimated there were 150 people at the ‘AWL spoiler’ and 400/450 on the march.
Comment by Brother S — 17 August, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
‘AWL spoiler’?!
I assume that is a mistake comrade?! awl were part of the notts stop the bnp campaign. there was only one group of ’spoilers’ there, and we all know who that was.
paul
coventry
Comment by Paul Hunt — 17 August, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
just seen comment from ‘dave festive’
you are having a laugh aren’t you?
how did you work out who was on what rally?!
the ‘awl spoiler’ as you call it was in fact the notts stop the bnp campaign that involved different socialist groups, labour party members, anarchists, trade unions everyone apart from the swp / uaf who played a disgusting role yesterday.
it will live long in my memory the sight of weyman bennett lecturing on unity, then martin smith of swp cc attempting to split the march, which could have made things very dangerous.
pathetic
paul
coventry
Comment by Paul Hunt — 17 August, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Is there a report of the demo anywhere?
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 17 August, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
AFF
im looking forward to hearing how SWP spin it. according to an swp member at the end yesterday, the reason why martin smith tried to split the demo was to try and trick the police. apparently this meant he couldn’t go and tell the notts organisers as this may give the police too much warning?!
perhaps we should talk about how the swp stopped the demo because they didn’t want notts stop the bnp placards at the front?
paul
covenry
Comment by Paul Hunt — 17 August, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
No because it would spoil the anti-swp hatefest quite obviously.
Comment by johng — 17 August, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
johng
for the record it was a good protest, built by months of hard work by notts stop the bnp. as you know they spent a great deal of time trying to get uaf on board, but uaf ignored them until very recently. uaf support was welcome and certainly brought extra people to the event.
attempting to bypass and control a campaign, putting peoples safety at risk was not welcome.
why did uaf ignore the local group? and by the way this isn’t about ‘national vs local’ but about a national group trying to dictate terms to everyone else. that is what is unacceptable.
hopefully we can build on this demo for future years and make the protest even bigger.
paul
Comment by Paul Hunt — 17 August, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
johng - there is not an SWP hatefest as you call it. People don’t dislike the SWP for no reason. They are disliked by people because of the role they play in the movement and peoples experience of them.
What they did in terms of yesterday is just one thing. And it seems any attempt to criticise them is met with comments like ‘witch hunt’ and ‘hate fest’ rather than dealing with the issues
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 17 August, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
what issues are they exactly? I’ve never been able to work it out. In the first place, objectively, the only difference between other groups and the SWP is that they are larger (this may of course make us more obnoxious). But I really don’t understand the purpose of people endlessly being obsessed by the SWP and its misdemeanors. I have yet to see anything positive come out of such discussions (for anyone).
Comment by johng — 17 August, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
I very much agree with Paul’s comment #132. I am a local and am full of admiration for the consistent work of leafleting and organising that the Nottingham group have done over the past year in the Eastwood to Ripley area.This does not mean that they are always right in their tactics but the UAF treated them neither with candour nor consideration.The demonstration was a success overall.There were some unfortunate tensions in the heroic struggle to get the UAF banner in the front of the demo. This was childish and it would have been far better if the march had been lead by the Amber Valley people so that the slur that we were all out of area renta-mob could have been countered. Sadly the report in the Derby Evening Telegraph gave prominence to the internal tensions.The UAF caravan will move on and we will be left to continue the fight against the BNP presence in an area which is still one of growth for the fascists. So mainly it was a positive day, but it might have been considerably better if the London based fulltimers had dealt with the locals as equals who were to be discussed with - and even argued with - rather than as an obstacle to be out manoeveured.
Comment by badger — 17 August, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
johng - how about answering some of the points made about the demo yesterday?
paul
Comment by Paul Hunt — 17 August, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
“why did uaf ignore the local group?”
Perhaps because the local group was dominated by sectarians like you, Paul. Evidently the Midlands TUC and the labour movement generally took the same view as UAF.
And who were the “anarchists” who were part of Nottingham Stop the BNP? Were they connected with the idiots who tried to break through police lines to reach the RWB site and got themselves arrested?
Comment by Anon — 17 August, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
anon
and you wonder why people feel the way they do
im glad you have clarified what the swp feel about notts stop the bnp. im sure aslef, fbu, and the rmt enjoy being called sectarians.
why do you think notts stop the bnp are sectarian?
paul
Comment by Paul Hunt — 17 August, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Sorry paul what ‘points’ where they? I didn’t see any.
Comment by johng — 17 August, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
swp cdes are being extrememly daft here to say the least. why do they parot their cc ‘line’ so unthinkingly? why do they slander the notts stop the bnp?
simply put, the swp weren’t involved with notts stop the bnp because it was a genuine united front which they therefore couldn’t control, in part because the swp are weak in the east midlands.
the number of local activists and groups (and local unions) involved in notts stop the bnp massively outweighs the few swp hacks in the region who are the only people active in the phantom uaf groups.
as we have seen all too often in the past, the swp attempts to destroy anything it cannot fully control. their healyite / stalinist type behaviour will become more frequent as the movemnt grows and re-energises and the swp become a smaller sect, ever more isolated and on the fringes of the labour movement.
best wishes,
ks
Comment by ks — 17 August, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
I’m not slandering anyone. The fact is that there was more trade union backing and a bigger turnout from UAF then from the local campaign. Its a shame that people could not work togeather more constructively. There is not a lot else to be said.
Comment by johng — 17 August, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
There was a reasonale turn out on the Notts Stop the BNP rally, 300-400 and then about 150-200 came over from the UAF assembly point. Obviously I didn’t count every single person or ask everyone which publicity had attracted them but there is absolutely no reason to beleive that the UAF contingent was bigger0- it was obviously (somewhat) smaller.
We should certainly all work together but the UAF co-ordinator insisting that the UAF banner lead the march and then stopping it until police moved people holding Notts Stop the BNP placards was disgraceful and taking off a dlegation of 30 hnad selcted people- without any consultation with the rally- was also shabby.
There was a sizeable demo but the tactics were poor. Reports here
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2261
http://infantile-and-disorderly.blogspot.com/2008/08/bnp-rally-goes-ahead.html
Comment by Jason — 17 August, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
johng g, has jason made points or not? you willing to reflect on his post? or offer an answer?
Comment by non partisan — 17 August, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
No, that is johng usual form. Disappearing as soon as he has to deal with real issues. Either that or label any criticism as an attack.
And yes it is a shame that people couldn’t work together more constructively, but we all know who is responsible for that in this case don’t we?
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 17 August, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
#142 “There was a sizeable demo but the tactics were poor.”
I’m not sure I’m ready to take lessons on tactics from someone who refers us to an article that states:
“It later emerged that a smaller group of around 70 anti-fascists had got to the site earlier that morning and put up a determined fight leading to 33 arrests, as police showed once again their complete determination to protect a field full of fascists by any means necessary…. The bravery of these activists is to be applauded.”
Personally, I think the stupidity of these activists is to be condemned.
The BNP has recently been mispresenting itself with some success as a mainstream political party that has nothing to do with violence. It is a party with its full complement of fascists and thugs which, borrowing a tactic used by Le Pen’s FN, tries to turn the tables on its opponents by denouncing us as thugs and fascists.
How does it assist the fight against that party to try and attack a BNP festival which, to further the BNP’s new respectable image, is prominently advertised as involving families with children?
Answer: it doesn’t. Nor does trying to break through police lines to get to the festival site. It just plays into the BNP’s hands.
In contrast to Nottingham Stop the BNP, the far left and the anarchists, the organisation that has shown an elementary sense of tactics throughout this, in my opinion, is UAF.
Comment by Anon — 17 August, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Anon, so attacking fascists and disrupting their events is off the cards? How can you call the BNP nazi’s and then have a little walk with the police against the Fascists? Is it that you don’t beleive that the BNP are Fascists, because surely if you did. You would know that a little peaceful demo is not going to achieve anything…
Comment by Die Rote Fahne — 17 August, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
anon
do you think it is good tactics to
- not be involved in and ignore a genuine united front of left wing groups, independent anti fascists, labour party members, trade unions (for eg fbu, aslef, rmt to name but a few)
- to refuse to speak to the people that had been in the local area for months organising a campaign
- attempt to start a demo, thus splitting it, when the main rally is still going on
- get the police to stop the demo and attempt to remove unsuitable banners (notts stop the bnp placards - what was wrong with them?)
if you think these are good tactics then i can see why you post anonymously
paul
Comment by Paul Hunt — 17 August, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
But why engage with “anon” someone who doesn’t even have the courage to reveal their identity. What use will they be in the anti-fa struggle.
The behaviour of the SWP is nothing new, they’ve made a habit of calling the cops to deal with the BNP in recent years.
Comment by bill j — 17 August, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
“a genuine united front”?
A genuine united front would include mainstream, not-very-leftwing trade union leaders, Labour MPs etc.
What you and your co-thinkers evidently prefer is what was once known as the “united front from below” - a classic idiocy of Third Period Stalinism.
So we have “anti fascist fighter” telling us that what we need is an alliance with the “trade union movement”, not with “trade union bureaucrats”.
And the Socialist Party thinks that an effective anti-fascist campaign must centrally involve propaganda against the Labour government - which of course excludes all but the most leftwing Labour MPs.
And the tactic adopted by Nottingham Stop the BNP was to call for a “mass picket” outside the RWB festival site which lost you the support of all but the hard left of the labour movement and ended up, entirely predictably, being banned by the police.
Going on endlessly about an anti-fascist campaign being organised by “local people”, like some comic character out of The League of Gentlemen, is just a convenient way of evading criticisms of your own sectarian stupidity.
Comment by Anon — 17 August, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
anon - do you have a name by the way?
how would you have done it differently?
why didn’t uaf / swp come to the democratically run conferences held by notts stop the bnp and argue your case (you had invites) ? if you were confident in your ideas then you should have attempted to win people over, shouldn’t you?
on the SP, they do not think that ‘an effective anti-fascist campaign must centrally involve propaganda against the Labour government - which of course excludes all but the most leftwing Labour MPs.’ this is nonsense. something on the lines of notts stop the bnp seems a start, uniting around a couple of slogans, slogans that help cut across the support that the bnp has.
of course ‘don’t vote bnp’ will keep even the most right wing union leader, new labour, tory or liberal mp on board, but will it help undercut the bnp? what do you think anon?
as i said before this actually isn’t a debate about local or national. the people that uaf brought to the rally were welcome. notts stop the bnp attempted to get uaf on board from the start, emails and phone calls were made but to no avail - uaf refused to speak to the campaign. it is about trying to undermine an already implanted group and dominate and control the event for your own advantage.
thanks
paul
Comment by Paul Hunt — 17 August, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
#150: “on the SP, they do not think that ‘an effective anti-fascist campaign must centrally involve propaganda against the Labour government - which of course excludes all but the most leftwing Labour MPs.’ this is nonsense.”
See the Socialist Party statement reproduced above (#88):
“To build a successful, strong campaign against the BNP, the anti-racist and union movement needs to consider whether the UAF is suitable for support. As well as its lack of cooperation with the local campaign, there are other questions to consider.
“For instance, in order to keep the trade union-Labour relationship smooth, UAF does not raise that a major reason for growth in the BNP’s support is the alienation created by New Labour’s policies.”
Comment by Anon — 17 August, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
No Anon doesn’t have a name. Because Anon is a figment of his (i’m guessing) own imagination.
Comment by bill j — 17 August, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
(Hysterically Laughs at SWPers responses)
Anon, you actually agree with UAF having the Police stop the march to put their signs at the front? You actually agree with the March taking of before the NSBNP Rally was finished, instead of either waiting or telling us that the march would begin? You actually think it is fair to send a delegation of 30 unelected people up to the front for a petty photo op? You think it was right for UAF to completely ignore the local campaign and to not co-ordinate with them at all?
How you equate the Notts Stop the BNP campaign with Stalinist third-periodism I don’t know. UAF is more interested in Unity with Big Business representatives than unity with the Workers Movement. The growth of the BNP is caused by Working Class alienation from the main political parties and lack of an alternative, allying with the very people who are causing this problem is ridiculous popular fronist nonsense.
I would Like to ask as someone who was there and actually witnessed this SWP led farce were you (anon/Johng) actually there?
Thanks
Allan
Comment by Allan — 17 August, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
hallelujah
Comment by jacqui — 17 August, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
You know, I’ve been going through these posts, it has took a while to get through, I never new Mark Steele feelings about his ex was so relevant to building an anti fascist movement, but i guess you learn something every day with socialist unity.
Post 137: “Evidently the Midlands TUC and the labour movement generally took the same view as UAF.”
Is that really something to be proud of? If my own regional TUC is anthing like the Midlands one, it doesnt really represent anyone. It is virtually impossible to get anyone new elected onto the regional committee, so you have the same old self serving professional committee goers dicking around putting on events for Such Good Causes, as long as its not going to cause anything like a stir. It turns out men are paid more than women on average, so I think they are gonna put on a BBQ.
That is not to say that there is no role that decent socialist activists can play within the Midlands TUC (you have to cover your arse on this “unity” forum), but a body like that is not to be what you pivot your campaign around. Especially when trade union branches, who are likely to be much better at mobilisng their members, are already more than happy to be involved in a local initiative. Its Just Sillyness!
They do, however, sound quite important, so what they want, is what UAF should do!!!
Bitching aside, I do find the whole thing quite disappointing. On the other hand, as I am to young to remember Socialist Alliance and am fortunate enough to work in an area where the SWP are frankly all right (for the most part), it has been really interesting for me to see what they are actually like in practice, when they are not waving BUSH NO1 TERRORIST placards.
Comment by jacqui — 17 August, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
There is a dismal, arrogant predictability about this account.
The cavalry rides into town led by a couple of professional officers from the big city who insist on controlling all the events on the day. It’s a standard procedure evident in every campaign in which the SWP becomes involved.
Whatever the alleged defects of the local organisation its members are the ones who have to live with and react to a strong fascist presence. The obvious thing to do is work with them to build a militant, rooted anti-fascist campaign that is rooted locally and can sustain itself rather than antagonise them with a weekend of revolutionary tourism.
Comment by Liam — 17 August, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
The SWPs control-freakery is tragic both in this case and in the bigger picture. How will new layers who witnessed this mess respond? Do the SWP believe they can organize against the far right this way, or hope to build the movement in the coming period with these methods? This short sightedness - a neglect of the dialectic - can only be detrimental. Why must the workers when going into struggles like this have to fear elements on their own side? Look at the movements around Europe today and through history who have challenged fascism – they have more to fear from the bureaucrats than the fash. The SWP are a break on the movement. I only hope their eventual collapse occurs before their damage is lasting.
Comment by Rob — 17 August, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
#148 “The behaviour of the SWP is nothing new, they’ve made a habit of calling the cops to deal with the BNP in recent years.”
True. But this perhaps underestimates a further degeneration- actively asking the cops to deal with a part of the antifascist demo they don’t like. True calluing the cops as they did for example outside Manchester town hall in October 2003 gives the cops carte blanche to deal with the antifascists whi;lst protecting the fascists bu7t it is relatively new for them to ask the cops to do their dirty work, isn’t it?
Actually I wouldn’t be very surprised if the answer’s no and there are other examoples. But I wouldn’t let them off the hook too lightly is all I;’m saying.
Comment by Jason — 17 August, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
Some pix here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bolshie/
Leftie blogs please feel free to use them.
Comment by paddy garcia — 18 August, 2008 @ 12:50 am
You lot are pathetic. If the UAF is so shit and you’re all so brilliant and local and rooted - how come they got more people out? Could it be that they’re better organizers coz you’re all just interested in talking to the rest of the left with “perfect” slogans and all the appropriately pure actions (always physically confront the BNP; never negotiate permits with the cops, no, no, that would be unrevolutionary!)
No wonder UAF wouldn’t talk to you, you’re a waste of time.
Comment by redbedhead — 18 August, 2008 @ 4:56 am
redbeadhead: 160
“If the UAF is so shit and you’re all so brilliant and local and rooted - how come they got more people out? ”
but read above: “There was a reasonale turn out on the Notts Stop the BNP rally, 300-400 and then about 150-200 came over from the UAF assembly point. Obviously I didn’t count every single person or ask everyone which publicity had attracted them but there is absolutely no reason to beleive that the UAF contingent was bigger- it was obviously (somewhat) smaller. ”
redbeadhead: “No wonder UAF wouldn’t talk to you, you’re a waste of time.”
The authentic voice of the SWP speaking to local people from the area?
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 August, 2008 @ 8:07 am
#161: “but read above: ‘There was a reasonale turn out on the Notts Stop the BNP rally, 300-400 and then about 150-200 came over from the UAF assembly point. Obviously I didn’t count every single person or ask everyone which publicity had attracted them but there is absolutely no reason to beleive that the UAF contingent was bigger - it was obviously (somewhat) smaller’.”
Of course, some people will just believe what they find it convenient to believe.
Alternatively, see:
#122: “600 people at the uaf rally, 70 at the awl spoiler.”
#126: “I was there. I estimated there were 150 people at the ‘AWL spoiler’ and 400/450 on the march.”
Or for that matter #128: “how did you work out who was on what rally?!”
Comment by Anon — 18 August, 2008 @ 9:32 am
That’s all very well but were you there? Unlikely as you don’t give a name. #122- this is so at odds with what happned can o nly be fantasy or a lie I’m afraid.
There was good local rooted campaign. UAF is a national campaign. We need both.
We need both to be bigger.
We also can’t gloss over the fact that UAF co-ordinatiors, Weyman Bennett for example, stopped the march to insist the UAF banner was at the front and totally undemocratically asked police to select 30 protestors as a delegation.
Most importantly we need to have rooted campaigns against poverty housing, against privatisation, against poor services for quality services under the democratic control of working class communities. By slow patient and sustained systematic work we can build up the base of support against the BNP further.
Comment by Jason — 18 August, 2008 @ 9:55 am
‘Or for that matter #128: “how did you work out who was on what rally?!” ‘
May be fair point- (though if granted totallyt takes away any points about UAF being bigger!) but when I called (I wass the guy near the front with a loud voice) for a vote on the delegation and most of the crowd pushed for one it was obvious we (even just defining we as people who wanted the demo to proceed) were in the majority.
But you don’t have to take my word for that- may be I was wrong. Shouting isn’t that democratic a way to establish a majority. Voting, though, is. Repeated calls for a vote were ignored.
Comment by Jason — 18 August, 2008 @ 9:59 am
This is a repeat of the Manchester experience. At a recent UAF re-launch meeting, although the overwhelming majority of the meeting wanted to set up an elected steering group, the SWP officers refused on the grounds that we could sort things out over e-mail. Strangely, quite a few people were left off the e-mail list.
Its enough to make you paranoid, if you didn’t actually know the type of organisation you were dealing with.
Comment by bill j — 18 August, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Well I think after this latest, shameful debacle, the SWP have shown their true colours and will no longer be trusted in leading roles in the anti-fascist movement.
They really have sunk to an all-time low with the disgusting role they played on Saturday. Shame on them!
Comment by anti fascist fighter — 18 August, 2008 @ 12:15 pm