JANE LOFTUS RESIGNS FROM SWP
As I understand it, Jane Loftus, President of the CWU, and the SWP’s most highly placed trade union militant has resigned from the organisation, according to my source:
Announced at Brent postal workers’ support group last night that, asked to choose between keeping her union position or making a self-criticism of her recent vote for the “interim agreement”, Jane Loftus has decided to leave the SWP.
is this organising for fighting unions in action is it?
Comment by Anonymous — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:00 am
oh good, another opportunity to launch puerile attacks on a trade unionist involved in an industrial dispute. For added value the person concerned has reportedly left the SWP.
Comment by All grades united in one common object — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:23 am
#2
Surely there is no criticism here at all of Jane Loftus, or of the CWU? this is only a factual statement.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Andy,
My sarcastic remarks were not aimed at the original post but rather at the first subsequent post
Comment by All grades united in one common object — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Please explain this to me Andy:
‘Announced at Brent postal workers’ support group last night that, asked to choose between keeping her union position or making a self-criticism of her recent vote for the “interim agreement”, Jane Loftus has decided to leave the SWP.’
To the uninformed this looks like a non-sequitor.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Friendly: I suspect there is a missing ‘it was’ at the beginning of the passage- then it makes sense.
Comment by RobM — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:47 am
This is the second time in fairly short order that this has happened. As I understand it, the two SWP members on the PCS executive votes for a deal that the party line was to oppose, with the consequence that one resigned and the other “made a self-criticism” as the Maoists used to say.
In individual situations you can make a case that the people on the ground in the union have a better grasp of what is possible or desirable than a party leadership outside a union. Equally you can make a case in particular situation that a union leader is being pulled to the right by pressure from the wider bureaucracy.
I think that a more general point can be made however about the SWP’s practice in the unions: It is seriously confused in theoretical terms and that works itself in confusion over practical issues too. By “confused in theoretical terms” I don’t mean that I disagree with their theoretical approach. I mean that their theoretical approach runs pretty much directly contrary to much of their activity.
They have an underlying theory based on rank and filism, and a past practice, based on that, which included avoiding taking elected positions in unions above that of steward or convenor. That past practice has been jetissoned in favour of an approach which includes, amongst other things, participating in broad lefts and seeking to gain positions on union executives. But while the practice has changes, the theory hasn’t really and the result is a certain amount of confusion.
One aspect of this is that they seem to end up with a few people in very senior positions in the unions, but without having a solid caucus behind them that can exercise oversight. They seem to be left to do their own thing… at least up until that thing attracts negative attention from head office.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
An elected union official’s loyalty should be first of all to the interests of the members of the union rather than the whims of aged student radicals immersed in the righteousness of dubious, circular, self-justifying theory.
The fact that their approach is so purile is probably due to the party leadership’s experience in the union movement being either via the play-time union that is the NUS or the relative job security that allows such vain egotistic shenanigans in the UCU.
I think Jane Loftus should be given a pat on the back.
Comment by Martel — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Hi RobM, no I mean why Jane, apparently given two choices, neither which was to leave the SWP, chose to do so.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
I have a feeling that Martel sets the bar pretty high for the trade union struggles he is prepared to support. At the same time he perpetuates this tired and false idea that students are particularly radical. Are they? Does NUS look very radical? Do the majority of students give a flying f**k about it? No.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Friendly lefty.
Clearly the SWP were asking Jane Loftus to make a self-criticism that she was not prepared to make.
And she has resigned from the SWP as a consequence.
The precise reasons why she felt that was her best option are unknown to us, so whether or not that is a “non sequitor” depends upon information that we don’t have.
People will draw their own conclusions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
well, at least that’s consistent. Good for the SWP.
Comment by c0mmunard1 — 19 November, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
9. I suppose implicit in ‘making a self-criticism’ is the idea of agreeing that she acted incorrectly and stating that in future she will support the party line or will resign from the union position- under threat of disiplinary action from the SWP. So she opted to jump before pushed.
Incidentally, I am sure I read on another blog (possibly Luna17) just yesterday that JL had been expelled by the SWP.
Comment by RobM — 19 November, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Though they will now have to reprint all those “why join the SWP?” leaflets with her face and testimony on.
Comment by c0mmunard1 — 19 November, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
re post 8, I think that the UCU members up and down the country being forced to fight tooth and nail for their jobs will be pleased to hear that they have ‘job security’. Someone should inform all the managements of FE colleges trying to make redundancies.
It is of course quite right that any union activist needs to look at the interests of the members when judging a deal. That’s exactly why its right to oppose the CWU interim deal, and why the swp was right to push the issue with Jane L cos she made the wrong call.
Comment by swp member — 19 November, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
#8 assumes, of course, that it was in the ‘interests of the members’ to support the interim deal. Apart from that, the argument makes perfect sense.
Imagine - aged student radicals arguing that the deal should have been rejected! How 1970s! I bet they still wear flared trousers and have never even heard of Little Boots!
As it happens, I was talking to the postman yesterday as he dropped off my mail and, astonishingly, it turns out that, despite all appearances to the contrary, he too is another of these crazed radicals! Honestly, they are everywhere these days, spreading their mischief…
Comment by Andy Wilson — 19 November, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
# 15 I think the key word is relative and as someone who works in the FE/HE sector I do recognise the recent wave of cuts.
SWP bods do love to revel in emotive language.
However I think I would rather defer to the unanimous CWU executive vote for postponing industrial action to conduct further talks rather than the analysis of the motley crew that run the SWP debating club.
What is their authority, apart of course from having read the Communist Manifesto in 1982?
Comment by Martel — 19 November, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
emotive language? what are you on about?
Anyway I’ll go for emotive language over sarcastic twaddle any day.
I think you should follow AW’s example and ask some actual ordinary posties what they think of the deal. They don’t seem to figure in your swp vs union exec polarisation.
Comment by swp member — 19 November, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
#18
“ask some actual ordinary posties what they think of the deal”
The interim deal was debated and accepted unanimously by the postal exec, which is an elected committee made up of lay members - i.e. “ordinary posties”, but who have been given the opportunity to deliberate the pros and cons of continuining with the strike or postponing it.
It seems to me their decision was sensible, consolidating what they have, not losing their members any more money, and keeping the strike ballot, and theirfroe strike option on the table.
Comment by Andy Newman — 19 November, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
#11 thanks Andy.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 19 November, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
revolutionaries shouldn’t be supporting the interim deal full stop, it’s for compromise, job cuts and goes against the wishes of the democratic ballot, selling out workers isn’t compatible with being a socialist so the swp has got it right this time
Comment by sapronov — 19 November, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
#21 ‘revolutionaries shouldn’t be supporting the interim deal full stop’.
Quite right, I remember Lenin and Trotsky having a lot to say about the interim deal.
Castro too won’t shut up about it, it’s all he ever wants to talk about.
‘Please, Fidel, tell us about the landing of the Granma.’
‘No! I want to tell you about how badly the CWU have got it, the treacherous sell-outs!’
etc etc
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 19 November, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Yes, I agree with #21, the fact that a leading SWP trade unionist could support the sell out raises questions but if (as it seems) the SWP leadership insisted that all SWP members should fight against the interim agreement is to their credit.
Comment by jimp — 19 November, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
what did the interim agreement actually agree? was their a membership wide vote on it?
Comment by ks — 19 November, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
Well I am not really sure what to think about this (?) I have been out of all this stuff for a while now so I really don’t know what’s going on in the SWP at the moment. I am a young mum, so to be honest I don’t even get time to brush my hair most days, never mind keeping up with all the SWP ‘gossip’. I am a former member of the SWP, I left after all that split rhubarb. After I was ‘told off’ for not voting a certain way in a united front meeting, I felt completely alienated and disappointed. I am only young and I am not very well read (!) So when I was asked to vote on something in a local united front meeting it didn’t occur to me that I wasn’t ‘allowed’ to abstain. A few days later at a party meeting, a comrade suggested to Martin Smith (I think) that something should be done as she felt it was a breach of discipline, or some such thing like that. Well anyway it really shocked me and felt me feeling disheartened. I felt that I had to leave the party. If even I, a silly naive kid from Norris Green could see that this certain comrade felt her position was so weak that she had to ‘fight back’ and suggest in front of a packed meeting that some sort of discipline was needed, I could see something had gone wrong. I have never had the confidence to speak at meeting so it wasn’t like I was constantly criticising the SWP and this was the last straw. Anyway…so can anyone tell me what’s going on like, with the SWP? It all seems too much to keep up with, splits, expulsions, suspensions, now Jane Loftus resigning
ta
Comment by Becky — 19 November, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
She voted to call off industrial action whilst it was starting to gather pace; fairly incompatible with what the SWP and all decent socialists were arguing for.
A shame but the outcome of either her leaving or being asked to leave was inevitable.
Pretty much it, really.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 19 November, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
At the national briefing of CWU branches last Friday there were around 4-500 lay reps in attendance. Despite concerns about implementation, not one branch promoted rejection of the interim deal. There is no opposition inside the CWU. It would be interesting to know what strike struggles the “rejectionists” writing on this thread have actually led.
Comment by StevieB — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
# 21 and 26. infantile remarks like this coated in reductionist reasoning show why Jane Loftus, and the others, were right to leave the SWP.
The SWP does not care about a good deal for the postal workers rather they care about seeking to escalate every dispute even if this is disasterous for the workers involved.
Lets not forgetted this is not calling off the strike action but postponing the action for talks. It is not ’selling out the workers’ which as well as being a painfully dull cliche is simply not true.
I see now why it is impossible to be a trade unionist and a member of the SWP.
Comment by Martel — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
#27 - Jane Loftus chose to sell out a strike!
Comment by jimp — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
StevieB - Jane Loftus chose to sell out a strike!
Comment by jimp — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
Who is it who doesn’t care about a good deal for the postal worker?
I suggest that would be the CWU leadership.
Comment by jimp — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
If she thought that the right thing to do was postpone/call off the strikes, whatever semantics frames your argument best, whilst the SWP were arguing against the calling off of strikes… then yes, it was right for her to leave. Though I add again that I think it’s an unfortunate shame.
As for tired twitterings of not caring about a ‘good deal’ for the posties, well, we’re all horrible aren’t we? Nasty little SWP puppets etc. Really kicks a lot of hard working tradeunionists and activists in the teeth. But maybe that’s the point.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
“The interim deal was debated and accepted unanimously by the postal exec, which is an elected committee made up of lay members - i.e. “ordinary posties”, but who have been given the opportunity to deliberate the pros and cons of continuining with the strike or postponing it.
It seems to me their decision was sensible, consolidating what they have, not losing their members any more money, and keeping the strike ballot, and theirfroe strike option on the table.”
Absolutely spot on Andy!
Comment by Karl Stewart — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
The London Shop Stewards Network hosted a joint meeting between London CWU and the London RMT the Wednesday before hand. It wasn’t a particularly big meeting but the general consensus from the posties reps was that concessions had been won.
Steve Hedley, London Secretary of the RMT made the point that of course trade union militant would like to see escalation to total victory but they must at all times keep the majority of the membership with them.
I think people should bear that advice in mind when commenting on the interim deal. We may agree or disagree on the deal but calling it a ’sell out’ is going too far. One can certainly be a ‘decent socialist’ and support the deal.
In any case the strike may well be back on before long.
You can read more about the meeting here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/602/8390
Also this is the SP’s view of the deal: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/601/8338
Comment by Neil — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
Maybe Jane will feel more comfortable joining the SP!
Comment by jimp — 19 November, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
“Jane Loftus chose to sell out a strike!”
I wouldn’t like to make that judgement from the outside.
It’s not easy to take continuous strike action and, if the postal workers had stopped the Christmas mail, there might well have been a public backlash against them.
Whereas, if they are forced to strike again after Christmas, they will be better able to pin the blame on the employers and government.
The crucial thing is the lack of mass opposition to the deal within the union.
This means that a longer term strategy is needed, something a socialist organisation should adapt to and provide leadership over.
It strikes me that this is yet another administrative expulsion by the SWP, that reflects the serious lack of political direction in the organisation.
Something that can only be averted by function branches, districts and union fractions with a degree of autonomy and life in them.
Comment by prianikoff — 19 November, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Fair bit of nonsense talked here. As a postie, I know that members are furious with the postal executive’s decision to call off the strike action for the interim agreement. I’m not talking activists, reps, officials, but working posties who can’t see what they gave up 18 days pay for. Whether or not certain reps at certain meetings were for or against the agreement, posties in large parts of the country are furious that they are still being disciplined because they are unable to complete their new heavier workload in their shift time, with no sign of a let up of pressure from management. In a few areas management have backed off, but they are the exception.
Many reps are now saying the agreement was good, but Royal Mail aren’t implementing it. Personally, I think that is rubbish, the agreement commits management to very little.
Several areas are now pushing that the strikes are reinstated, but executive is sitting on its hands. To reinstate the strikes would at least imply they were wrong to call them off.
Issue is not SWP versus postal executive, but whether Loftus (and others on the postal executive)were giving a lead to postal workers, rather than succumbing to the desire of the majority of the executive to call off the strikes for very little gain. SWP postal workers (and there are some) were embarassed by Loftus’ position. They have been here before when she failed to campaign against the 2007 agreement. Not surprised if they finally had enough.
Comment by Pete — 19 November, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Postman Pete’s insider knowledge is very helpful.
Exactly the sort of situation where a union fraction, rank and file organisation and paper can change the balance of forces in the union.
Comment by prianikoff — 19 November, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
“I see now why it is impossible to be a trade unionist and a member of the SWP”
Let me get this straight - being in the SWP makes it impossible to be a trade unionist, but Jane Loftus, a member of the SWP, nevertheless managed to become the president of the union at the same time?
As a Paul Daniels used to say: that’s magic!
Comment by Andy Wilson — 19 November, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Comment 33 “The London Shop Stewards Network hosted a joint meeting between London CWU and the London RMT the Wednesday before hand. It wasn’t a particularly big meeting but the general consensus from the posties reps was that concessions had been won.” Intersesting. 4 postal workers spoke, 2 defended the agreement and 2 spoke against. But the 2 who spoke against don’t get a mention here or on the SP website report. Of course, you could argue that the 2 who defended it are more representative, since they represent all London postal workers. On the other hand, they are fulltimers, whereas the others are present in the workplace, so who really reflects the views of the members?
Comment by Pete — 19 November, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Jane Loftus was not being asked to make a ’self criticism’, but to change her mind (which is very different)! She had either to do that, resign from the Party or be expelled. Her collusion in a pathetic and cowardly sell-out by Hayes et al (the worst since Gilchrist and the Firefighters dispute) was simply incompatible with Party membership. It is a pity, she is a loss to the organisation.
Comment by Jonathan — 19 November, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Some posters are desperately seeking to establish who speaks for the members. We know that no branches or divsions are campaigning against the deal. Yet these are bodies as active and representative of members as any section of the British unions. Actually what is going on is that these lay-organisations are presssing for the deal to be implemented. Some individuals like Pete may be against the deal. But they haven’t been able to persuade their own branches to oppose it.
Are we then talking about the collective collapse, not just of the CWU Executive, but of the workplace reps who have held up the union in very difficult years? If so, then posters like Jonathan and Jimp must explain this.
Perhaps they will find it simpler to accept that the interim agreement contains concessions which are broadly accepted by the activists and workers.
Comment by StevieB — 19 November, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
Its quite possible for socialists to say that a deal is a mistake even if a majority of members don’t agree. There is nothing unusual, strange or undemocratic about this. Our members and many other militants in the union argued against the deal and continue to do so. Jane took a different view. So she had either to change her mind or leave the organisation. She took the latter decision. Its a shame but thats life, and its not unusual or strange or undemocratic. And nor are such disagreements somehow ‘incompatible with trade unionism’.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Interesting to note another ex-SWPer of recent standing is opposing Mark Serwotka for General Secretary of PCS as the right wing candidate in a two horse race
Comment by GT — 19 November, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
I hope comrades will give jane help to come back to socialism after resigning from the lefts moonie cult the swp.
no doubt the central control commitee will denouce her
ps last saturdays succsessful anti facist demo worked because the scottish socialist youth
put down the basic rule get facists of our streets the uaf (swp) wanted to do the happy clappy glesga green gig
Comment by Anonymous — 19 November, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
#39
Is that the same Hayes at Marxism that the SWP were clapping? Oh, how the worms turn.
Comment by Larry N — 19 November, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
[THIS COMMENT FROM STUART IS A BARE FACED LIE - I HAVEN’T TIME TO REPLY TO IT IN DETAIL AT THE MOMENT BUT I WILL COME BACK TO IT - ANDY]
Andy Newman,
I think you are being someone inconsistent and opportunist.
You will recall that a couple of years ago (approx) after wildcat strikes the CWU exec recommended acceptance of a deal struck with management. The militants within the union, including some on the exec, argued openly against Hayes and against the deal.
Jane Loftus, as far as we could tell, did not speak out against exec (possibly because as president she wasn’t supposed to). You at the time on this site made a great deal of noise about how Loftus sat on her hands whilst other exec members campaigned against the deal. And you used that event to criticise the SWP, implying that the SWP should act against Loftus in some way. I recall Gregor Gall intervening to defend Jane.
I’m sure we could look back in your achives but I guess you will recall this anyway.
How do you justify the double standards? Are you simply looking at any given event and the apparent SWP role within it and then automatically taking the other side? Why so militant then and so moderate now?
Comment by stuart — 19 November, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
SPers here seem intent on attacking the SWP and not looking at their own record. If you read the SP statement on the interim agreement it is extremely weak, and they could certainly have lived with Loftus’ vote on the executive. Selective quoting from meetings adds to the point.
In response to StevieB (comment 40), I would point out that campaigning against the interim agreement wouldn’t mean a lot - it will not be put to a vote of the membership, precisely because it is only a framework for discussion rather than agreement as such.
Branches are pushing for the implementation of the parts relating to the return to work. You can’t push for the implementation of the parts about future job losses because there is nothing concrete there.However, some branches and areas are pushing for the reinstatement of strike action.
Whether any branch comes out against an agreement does not prove either way whether the members are for or against. When there was a ballot of the members on the 2007 agreement, very few branches argued against, but the vote was 60-40.
Comment by Pete — 19 November, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Pete, who is against the deal, says that campaigning against the interim agreement wouldn’t mean a lot.
Clearly not the view of “rejectionists” here who believe that this is a class divide - biggest sell-out since 2002 firefighters dispute, according to Jonathon. Although he will have difficulties explaining why there is no opposition in the CWU, when the FBU underwent a huge internal fight leading to a change of leadership. Or according to others the basis on which socialists should be expelled from their party.
Pete’s view is not shared by the London branches. Their division is taking implementation of the agreement very seriously. After all it allows for them to review and renegotiate imposed duty changes. These changes are much more significant than the return to work issues that Pete emphasises.
Any talk of reintroducing strikes seems to pivot around whether local managers are engaging under the terms of the deal or not. Such uneveness is to be expected, but hardly the basis for a national dispute. It may well be that this uneveness resolves itself over the next week or two - after all the national negotiations have recommenced in earnest under the new independent chair.
Finally Pete doesn’t know where the majority stands. Perhaps because he prefers the opinion of people who agree with him regardless of the majority who don’t? Or in other words because he can’t see the wood for the trees.
Comment by StevieB — 19 November, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Jonathan @ 39 and GT @ 42 THANKS. It seems like I am always the last to know the truth of what is happening in socialist politics. So, I have been trying to make sense of what Jane Loftus did that warrants such confused messages in this blog. I remember Gilchrist and the Fire dispute alright. I was apolitical then but I got involved with the firefighters at the Fire Station next to the GP practice I was working at. Not only did I spend a few hours with them after work in solidarity, but I told all my patients about the strike and asked them to support the strikers. When Gilchrist sold out, I was gutted. If that is what Jane Loftus has done; all I can say is; ‘Good riddence to bad rubbish.’ No genuine union leader sells out. I never knew Jane personally, but whenever she spoke at meetings, she was very conviencing. Only the devil knows how people like her change all of a sudden. Maybe it is true that money talks as they say!
Similarly, I know Mark Serwotka very well and so far I have faith in him. Anyone on the left who thinks Mark is a right wing candidate needs his/her head examined!
Comment by florence durrant — 19 November, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
florence durrant.
TA for sticking up for Mark S OUT OF ALL THE UNION LEADRSHIPS THE ONLY ONE THAT TAKES A WORKERS WAGE AND THE ONLY ONE WHO DONE A SELFLESS ACT BY STICKING “£40″ OUT HIS OWN POCKET TO SUPPORT THE WYNDFORD/ST GREGORYS OCCUPATION AT THE STUC CONFERENCE.
PISSING MY SELF LAUGHING ONTHE NO TRUE UNION LEADER BIT
THERE IS A LIST OF SELL OUTS THAT COULD GO ROUND THE EQUATOR LORD CHAPEL IS MY FAVOURITE
WHEN YOU SEE MARK AGAIN GIVE HIM THE WARMEST REGARDS FROM THE WYNDFORD
Comment by RIKKI — 19 November, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
just to clarify rob bryson is the right-wing candidate in the pcs general secretary election. Rumour has it he was once an swp member. Perhaps andy could start a thread about this election? I know pcs isn’t as big as unite but its a significant organisation and mark serwotka is a candidate that every socialist must support in this election.
There has been criticism of the SP’s position in 07 and more recently in the CWU. The SP saw the settlement two years ago as a mistake and led to a lot of the problems around the more recent dispute.
The SP could not understand why Jane Loftus as an SWP member did not work with her fellow EC members to campaign against the 07 settlement since this was SWP policy.
The SP does not see the current ceasefire as a sell-out, so has a different position to the one it shared with the SWP two years ago.
Comment by Anonymous — 19 November, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
Not a huge fan of the SWP , but the posties were sold out and Loftus was wrong. Shows the danger for socialists taking up high level union positions.
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 19 November, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
Interestingly not an issue worth discussing in SW paper.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/
Comment by Ian — 19 November, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
I agree totaly, and the sooner they bring in touchline cameras the better.
It was definately hand ball!
Comment by Brian Cant — 19 November, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
@52
yeah, I forgot about that.
the Irish were robbed!!
Really puts things in perspective doesnt it.
Comment by Ian — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
Loftus resigned after the paper came out. I know the SWP are super-diabolical but they can’t travel back in time either to change their newspaper or to eat your children.
There was however a very clear position put forth in the paper on the interim agreement, including a link to a petition, and clear opposition to the executive position.
Comment by redbedhead — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
It is true that Rob Bryson was an SWP member until about three years ago, I remember him at the SWP PCS fraction meetings. He has now abandoned any semblance of left wing politics, as can be seen by his genuinely appalling election statement (see: http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/elections_and_ballots/general-secretary-election-2009–candidates-nominated.cfm )
It is vital that Mark Serwotka is re-elected (though he’s not on a workers wage by the way, we haven’t won that argument in PCS yet, but he does donate some of his salary back to the union campaign fund).
Comment by Nick Bird — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
#48 - Florence, this is speculation, but it is easy to imagine that Jane was put under all sorts of pressure by the rest of the leadership and, spending a lot of time in their company, would be prone to seeing the logic of their argument. I’m not suggesting that socialists should never take union office, but it is a bit of a tightrope.
Comment by Jonathan — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
I know it would mean more surveylance cameras, but if Henry had done nothing wrong then he’d have nothing to worry about.
Comment by Brian Cant — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Jonathan@ 57, No worries. As I always say ‘The truth shall set us free.’ Yours is speculation alright, but time will tell which side Jane Loftus has taken. I speculate all the time, sometimes I am wrong other times I am right. That is what life is; it is a bitch because you get let down by people you trust most. Experience talking here. So, don’t take it to heart if tomorrow we find out that Jane Loftus is a saint!
Comment by florence durrant — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Florence - I fear we won’t have long to wait to find out …
Comment by Jonathan — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
@55.
They can though add things online!! Ahh, caught you there , didnt I!!
Comment by Ian — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
@58
Hes just as bad as Maradona!!
Comment by Ian — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:36 pm
The interesting thing about the SW article in this week’s edition is that it did not quote or mention JL, the most prominent socialist in the CWU.
Comment by Jimmy Jazz — 19 November, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
JJ - probably because the process was under way viz talking to her about the disagreements.
Ian - yes, they could. And if they were a sect that would have a theoretical tract about the crimes against Marxism she has committed. Fortunately, they are focused on the bigger issue of the struggle and the role of the executive as a whole in weakening the struggle - not on the membership status of a member of a very small revolutionary party.
Comment by redbedhead — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
I see the Petition by SWP calling for the strike action to resume has taken off with a mass number of signatures - a mighty 141 (23.00 @ 19/11/09). Even if they were all real names (Adam Crozier, Dave Ward, DHL worker & Postman Pat excluded) ITS A BIT POOR considering that there are 160,000 involved in this dispute. Out of touch you SWP boys
Comment by Anonymous — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
Comment by Anonymous — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:26 pm
Get yourself a haircut. It is not the SWP that has a problem with the Post dispute. It is people’s livelihoods. Many postmen like some of us have bills to pay and families to look after. The last thing they want is to loose their jobs, or to work 247 for tupence. So, whatever your problem with the SWP is, remember to masturbate before you open your gob!
Comment by florence durrant — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Andy on stuarts point-its not a barefaced lie. I can remember it. There were some comments at Liams blog as I recall. Now its true that you were mainly concerned to have a go at the SWP rather then matters of principle. But its a bit of a cheek calling it a ‘barefaced lie’.
Comment by johng — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Last week the SWP claimed they wernt saying it was a sell out just a tatical issue
this week it ios a sell out
All strikes end in compromise or defeat
you take you choice
and the CWU Exec took a strong line
of supporting the intrim deal
Shock horror Ultras say its a sell out
thats their job
no ones listening to them, because its always a sell out.
Union Unity first, last, always.
Comment by Sean — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
As I understand it, Jane Loftus, President of the CWU, and the SWP’s most highly placed trade union militant has resigned from the organisation, according to my source:
Announced at Brent postal workers’ support group last night that, asked to choose between keeping her union position or making a self-criticism of her recent vote for the “interim agreement”, Jane Loftus has decided to leave the SWP.
Comment by Sean — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
Genuine question….if it is absolutely clear that 90%+ of the membership support a deal which a union rep’s political group thinks is inadequate, is said union rep a “sellout” for going along with the clear wishes of the union’s membership?
I am not saying that is the case with post dispute, nor am I saying that Loftus was in the right - I am just commenting on the logic of some of the SWP posts here.
Yes, revolutionaries in union positions walk a tightrope - but one thing they clearly cannot do is substitute themselves for a rank and file mood that isn’t there.
Comment by Andy BH — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
comment by florence - I speculate all the time, sometimes I am wrong other times I am right.
Comment by Anonymous — 19 November, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
I understand that the activist meeting of CWU that voted was entirely in support of the interim agreement with isoltaed opposition.
The far left seems to hold on to this syndicalist, almost messianic dream of the general strike, forgetting how long it is since there was an all out national strike from any union. For CWU to win outright - as oppose to get a good compromise - they would need to step up the action to taht level.
Having supported the miners strikes in the 70’s and 80’s in every way in terms of solidarity, I cannot forget their determination. But my effort was solidarity, hardly losing any pay. In 1985 miners in great numbers lost their houses, let alone their jobs. It is easy for left revolutionaries to urge others to lose everything.
I give credit to the CWU for considering all the circumstances and deciding this is as good as it was going to get and they’ve dealt a blow to Mandelson, too. They also got some significant concessions. In any event, they decided their destiny and I would always respect that.
But of course the ranks of the CWU and one member of the SWP couldn’t possibly be right.
Comment by Howard T — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:06 am
“party decisions are binding on all, especially the CC and comrades playing leading roles in the struggle”
nuf said?
Comment by John Gray — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:19 am
I disagree with the SWP’s line, but I do think it’s important to pay credit to SWP members for the sheer hard work they’ve put in supporting and building support for striking postal workers during this dispute.
And Socialist Worker has also played a hugely positive role in supporting the strikers too - so let’s not forget that.
Along with the Morning Star - which has played an exemplary role - it’s been a consistent supporter of the union’s fight.
It is a pity that Jane has had to leave her party of 22 years for doing what she honestly felt was the right decision for CWU members, but rather than condemning the SWP for that, perhaps it’s the “democratic-centralist” system itself that’s to blame?
Shouldn’t it have been possible for her to have remained in her party and still done what she thought was right for the union?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:38 am
#45 and #67
I didnt actually criticise jane Loftus’s role
I did not imply that Jane Loftus should be disciplined by the SWP
Gregor gall did not argue against me.
All of those statements are bare faced lies.
What happened is that there were several comments on the blogs at that time arguing that “revolutionary” leadership was inherently better. this was at the time of the SWP breaking from galloway. And we were hearing all that JOhn Rrees shit, about those with the clearest vision and best understanding of what needs to be done, yada yada yada
I pointed out that while you were arguing this codswallop, Jane Loftus (a “revolutionary”) was being less militant than Dave warren (a “reformist”) in the CWU strike. this was reportage not criticism.
A number of SWP members called me a liar for saying this , so I was obliged to explain exactly what Jane Loftus’s position was. that she had voted no, but declined to campaign for a no vote, leaving it to a lay member of the exec. It was pitiful how many SWP members were prepared to deny that Loftus had declined to campaign for a NO vote, without any knowedlge of the facts, ir bothering to find out what the CWU’s rule book said.
I specifically said at the time that I was NOT criticising Loftus’s judgement, and that i DID NOT think that the SWP should tell her what to do.
It was however importnat to note both that jane Loftus was acting in a way contrary to the formal politics of the SWP; that SWP members were not informed about what was happening within their own organisation; and that the argument that “revolutionary” leadership is always superior was shown by this to be so much shit.
So what i argued is completly different to what Stuart and John G are dishonestly now accusing me of arguing.
Stuart furthermore argues that Gregor gall disagreed with me publically. This is a complete lie.
Gregor wrote an article IIRC critical of the CWU leadership’s recomendation of acceptance, which i published. In the comments to Gregor’s article Steve B wrote a scornful reply to Gregor, which Gregor felt, given his relationship with the CWU was unhelpful, so gregor made a formal complaint about it to Billy Hayes. Gregor neither criticised me, nor argue a different position to me.
For what it is worth, at the time I agreed with Steve B, that the value Loftus holding on to the President’s job might have outweighed the value of her campaigning for a No vote, and that as a non CWU member Ii was not in aposition to judge. That is not a contradiction with my politics.
My argument was not the rights or wrongs of Loftus’s position, I objected to what a load of hypocritics the SWP are, banging on about the rank and file and r-r-r-revolutionary leadership while simulataneoulsy calling me a liar on blogs for pointing out that an SWP member who is presidnet of a union was not campaigning for a NO vote, when non-revolutionaries on the exec were.
I object to you being self righteous about what you say your politics are, but then having an entirely different set of politics in reality. i object to the practice of SWP members banging on about their marvellous democratic centralism and accountability, when you doid not even discuss or acknowedlge within your organisation what had happened. In particular I objected to being called a liar by shit-for-brains trots when I was telling the truth, and the only reason they said I was lying is becausue the truth I was telling them was inconsistent with the delusional fairy story their cult has filled their heads with.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:50 am
Yeah well this sort of thing can happen when a person is really trying to do the the right thing in class struggle as opposed to talking about what they might do if they ever had the chance.
Comment by Christy — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:57 am
To be fair to the SWP I don’t think there is anything wrong in principle with expecting a member to act broadly within the stated policies of their party.
Yes ultimately a person in an elected position is accountable to the membership. At the same time though you’re not just an individual but your actions also have implications for the party to which you belong. There’s also the fact your party comrades within the union will have been out canvassing for you on the basis of a commonly shared program. Therefore it is reasonable for the party as a whole to expect a certain amount of accountability from a member in an elected position.
The problem for the SWP in the unions is their fear of being outflanked from the left. Because they think the way socialists differentiate themselves in the movement is through being “the most dynamic and militant force” (Callinicos) this often leads them to sudden tactical turns based on only one part of the movement, often the most vocal, that doesn’t necessarily reflect what the majority may feel.
No one person or group can come to a completely accurate judgment on the mood of a broad mass of people in an organisation like the CWU. However the people who are probably in the best position to form an accurate opinion (or at the very least an opinion that must be seriously considered) are those in elected positions. Precisely because they are elected they must weigh up not just what the most militant think but also what the less committed, the doubtful or the waverers think. They have to weigh up the balance of forces in the union between these different groups versus how many concessions the employer is willing to give.
All of these factors calls for careful consideration before any group of people outside the union (i.e a party leadership) pass judgment on a deal. This was not the case with the SWP leadership in their mad dash to issue a statement on a deal they hadn’t even see the full details of. I think if they hadn’t been in such a rush to be seen as the uber militants they wouldn’t have painted themselves into the corner they’re in now.
They can get away with such behaviour in the PCS where ultimately they don’t have to carry the can for any mistakes. In the CWU the gap between the responsibilities of the Presidency and the SWP’s need to be seen as the most militant ultimately proved untenable and Jane Loftus is the victim.
Comment by Neil — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:09 am
Neil
I completly agree with you
the problem for the SWP is that they don’t have a coherent theory of trade unionism any more.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:38 am
Andy Newman,
There is no need to fly off the handle in that way, it seems over the top and too defensive.
In keeping things fraternal, I stand by what I say. I never consulted the archives before posting I simply relied on memory, despite doing so my point still holds. I only mentioned Gregor Gall because I remember him contributing, I never said he was arguing against you.
I’ve suggested that you are inconsistent and opportunist, further that you tend to use events to take pot shots at the SWP. I’ll explain why.
Back in 2007 you supported Jane’s position and suggested that this put her at loggerheads with the SWP. In the event she remained a member of the party so I can only conclude that you believe that SWP acted with sufficient flexibility then but can I? We were left with the impression that you felt the SWP failed to uphold their principles but who can tell? You devote threads to these topics and create a ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t scenario’.
Now two years later you choose to start a thread on Jane and the CWU, yet again in a selective manner. And on post no 3 you say “Surely there is no criticism here at all of Jane Loftus, or of the CWU? this is only a factual statement.”
So implicit in that, there is criticism of the the other party, the SWP. You don’t actually make the criticism explicit but what are we to think? Have they been too inflexible or have they stuck to principles? In 2007 were they flexible or unprincipled?
Andy, you start threads in a selective way and create, deliberately in my view, ‘no win’ situations. A significant element of this site over the years has been framed in that way.
And that makes you inconsistent and opportunist.
Comment by stuart — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:46 am
Stuart
Fair enough.
I retract the accusation that you lied. I over-reacted. sorry.
i can be too grumpy.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 2:01 am
“Shouldn’t it have been possible for her to have remained in her party and still done what she thought was right for the union?”
No because it would put our militants arguing the opposite in an untenable and impossible position. To put it simply.
Comment by johng — 20 November, 2009 @ 2:28 am
Andy Newman: “In particular I objected to being called a liar by shit-for-brains trots”
Advancing his demands for civility in debate.
Calm down dear, it’s only class war.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 20 November, 2009 @ 6:17 am
It is simple: Loftus refused to adhere to the policy of the SWP and this included its postal worker members who all opposed the suspension of strikes. The whole point of democratic organisations is that the policy is carried by all. This is particularly true for its high profile members who have positions in the movement. This is opposite to the type of social democratic practice in which you can have policy but the leaders do not have to follow it. I am disappointed by Jane’s actions but not the SWP reaction: there are many postal workers who felt gutted by the exec’s decision. The confidence to act despite them is, not surprisingly absent, but postal workers I have spoken to by and large (of course not all) expressed anger at the ending of the strikes prior to xmas. They all knew this was a time when they had a stronger postion in this dispute.
Comment by arch — 20 November, 2009 @ 6:43 am
Strange goings on at North East Shop Stewards Network last night. SWP circulated a statement attacking one of thier members who is the Tyneside secretary and disasociating SWP from his actions. Another expulsion pending.
Comment by Northern Lass — 20 November, 2009 @ 8:05 am
#84
Perhaps it is rude to describe people for having shit for brians, but then again look at the facts.
I was called a liar for reporting that John Rees had accepted a cheque from a dodgy middle east businessman
I was called a liar for reporting that an SWP member had defected to become a Tory councillor
I was called a lair for reproting that SWP supporting councillors were in talks with the Lib Dems (even though the Lib Dems confirmed it)
I was called a liar for reporting SWP supporting Respect councilors had defected to labour
I was called a lair for reporting that Jane Loftus had declined to campaign for a NO vote in the CWU two years ago
and many more examples
What is really pathetic is that members of the SWP’s leadership have known these things were true, but allowed you to all look like dicks, with your furious denials and accusation that I am lying, and then having to slink way later when it is proven I am right.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 8:26 am
I don’t think anyone should defend the SWP per se, for many of the points made by Andy, who has more recent experience of them as an organisation. The problem with the suspension of the strikes, at least in talking to CWU members is the common reaction is “What was the point in striking in the first place?”
The best leverage the CWU could have is now and the period up to Xmas. I can’t seee how any possible action in the New Year will be effective at all.
This time (for a change perhaps) the SWP are right and Jane Loftus is wrong, although I wouldn’t want to be part of an authoritarian party that kicks members out for a different opinion.
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:24 am
#88
“The best leverage the CWU could have is now and the period up to Xmas. ”
But this is also the time when wavering members are under most pressure for money, and not to strike.
It is difficult to judge, but the union leadership needs to tak einto account the ability to hold the action together, not just rely upon the most militant.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:27 am
#87 But why are all the ‘revelations’ / reports about the SWP?
Got any others? SP, SSP, RESPECT, SLP, CPB, CPGB?
Comment by aarghh — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:35 am
#88 “This time (for a change perhaps) the SWP are right and Jane Loftus is wrong, although I wouldn’t want to be part of an authoritarian party that kicks members out for a different opinion.”
so the alternative is rank and file postal workers who are SWP members and the organisation as a whole take a position and the leading exec member decides not to go along with the democratic view!! fantastic… what about Labour MP’s who historically have ignored conference motions didn’t we as socialists always argue this was unacceptable and unaccountable. Of course Jane is entitled to her view but to ignore the view of the party and vote against it perspective is incompatiable with membership. I have a lot of time for Jane but on this she is wrong and events in the post back this up. How many times are disputes stopped for talks to end in defeat. First time tragedy second farce.
Comment by jj — 20 November, 2009 @ 10:00 am
#890- there is no evidence of cwu members wavering- the strike was set to escalate and this was backed by the membership. Andy no doubt would be singing the praises of the TUC in 1926 lol. Andy adopts a position which is to oppose anything the SWP says. sad but true
Comment by jj — 20 November, 2009 @ 10:02 am
“I was called a lair for reporting that Jane Loftus had declined to campaign for a NO vote in the CWU two years ago”
I remember you stalking me round the left blogs demanding that I denounce Loftus and the SWP for selling out. Despite your claim that you weren’t critical of Loftus it’s easy to check this on the various blogs you pursued me on. So it’s rather ironic reading your position now. Like stuart (#47) I wonder do you always take the opposite side to the SWP just so that you can have a pop? That’s what it seems like.
Comment by Ray — 20 November, 2009 @ 10:15 am
A good decision. Trade union officers are answerable to their members; noone else.
Comment by Charles Dexter Ward — 20 November, 2009 @ 11:31 am
#86: “Strange goings on at North East Shop Stewards Network last night. SWP circulated a statement attacking one of thier members who is the Tyneside secretary and disasociating SWP from his actions. Another expulsion pending.”
Does anyone know what this is all about? Why would the SWP show up to a Shop Stewards Network meeting denouncing one of their own members?
Comment by Irish Mark P — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
#95
I was expelled on Saturday. The comrade in question was closely linked to me and also a prominent supporter of Left Platform. Tyneside has considerably more supporters for the faction than any other district, so both the local leadership and the Central Committee are desperate to drive us out. It is depressing and hugely disappointing that they’ve resorted to this low level, instead of discussing the real issues openly.
The latest attack is indeed the public statement denouncing - with barely a whiff of substance or evidence - one of the party’s own members. This is unprecedented: the SWP openly attacking someone who remains a member, and indeed who has a prominent place in the movement locally (he is very well-respected for his work in NESSN, Stop the War, his union and elsewhere).
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
The slippery slope to becomming the WRP beckons.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
#93
“I remember you stalking me round the left blogs demanding that I denounce Loftus and the SWP for selling out. ”
No ray. you were one of the loudest voices paraising “revolutionary” leadership. I merely kept asking you to explain how it was possible to reocncile your arguments about such revlutioanry leadership with the SWP’s actual practice in the CWU. You were one of the people who accsued me of not telling the truth. if you call people a liar when they are telling the truth, then that is likely to exacerbate a row.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
96 - so have you seen this statement?
Comment by swp member — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
The goings-on in the the SWP in the north east seem pretty low. But these are murky matters with allegations abounding on both sides and it would be as well to await a clearer picture.
On that, I’m very surprised on skimming the second SWP internal bulletin that what is in effect an allegation that the party’s national secretary has unethically and potentially illegally obtained private email correspondence from members of the opposition faction was not refuted there an then. An answer is apparently to be provided in the third bulletin, which I guess is a couple of weeks off. It’s pretty extraordinary to leave that accusation out there without rebuttal for that length of time.
I would have thought that if there is a straightforward answer it would be in the interests of the leadership to get it out and kill the allegation at birth.
Comment by ferrier — 20 November, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
#99
Yes, I have seen the statement. It was circulated to lots of people outside the SWP, by email, this morning.
The substance of the denunciation is something very minor and trivial. The reaction is therefore utterly disproportionate. It can only be understood as a political and factional attack on an internal critic of the leadership’s perspectives. It is a highly personalised attack on someone, rather than discussing the matter politically in a tolerant, respectful climate. It is also inappropriate – indeed unprecedented – for the party to openly denounce (there’s no other word for it) one of its own members to the wider movement.
The district leadership’s complaint is that he allegedly declined to circulate a particular message from the IWW group on the NESSN email network. That’s it: there’s one email he supposedly didn’t send - in his role as Tyneside Secretary - which the SWP district leadership thinks he should have sent.
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Difference between the SWP and the SP in this is that when our comrades make decisions based on adaptation to the bureaucracy, we criticise them. The SP simply adapts its entire party line to the bureaucracy. Unless it has no positions (like in the NUT) and takes an infantile ultra-left position.
Comment by SWPerson — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Actually, SWPerson, the main difference is that the Socialist Party has a coherent approach to the unions. It knows what it is trying to achieve and how it is trying to achieve it.
The SWP approach is completely incoherent. Your underlying theory is one of “rank and filism”, but you have ended up inside broad lefts and standing candidates for senior union positions. The result is incoherence and very confused behaviour when you actually do get some members elected.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
I naturally utterly disagree with your arguments about the SWP’s approach to trade unions.
And don’t get me wrong, I accept that the SP has a coherent approach to the trade union movement which effectively rests on building a base in the bureaucracy, the gradual accumulation of union positions etc. I think this grows out of the SP’s centrist/radical reformist approach that has grown out of your fetishisation of the parliamentary transformation of society. Kautskyism at it’s crudest. But good luck to you.
Comment by SWPerson — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
As you are well aware, that is not the Socialist Party’s position. It is however a little amusing to be accused of “centrism” and “reformism” by the SWP these days. It’s like jumping back in time to the 1980s when the SWP were an ultra left group rather than the opportunist and rightist one you’ve become.
I’d be more interested in seeing you attempt to mount a defence of the coherence of the SWP’s “rank and filist” theory and their practical adherence to broad lefts and attempts to win elected positions. It is my view that one of the main reasons why the SWP can’t seem to win a union position without falling out with the member concerned (see: PCS, CWU) is that you have no coherent theoretical understanding of what you are trying to achieve in the first place.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
The Socialist Party has not taken an ‘infantile ultra left position’ in the NUT. You may disagree with the tactics but that is clearly not the case. We felt the Socialist Teachers Alliance was not the best place to be to build a fighting union and left on good terms with the group. Putting forward the case for action on workload (a huge issue for teachers) has been much more productive outside the group. Where it is appropriate we are working alongside the STA, for instance on the SATs campaign and supporting Kevin Courtney of the STA for Deputy General Secretary. If fact many SP teachers have felt that relationships with much of the STA are better now than before, mainly, to be frank, because we don’t have deal with the SWP so much. Personally I have always enjoyed good working relationships with SWP individuals in the NUT and hope that the mess the organisation is in does not mean we lose them as fighting trade unionists.
Comment by Phil Brighton — 20 November, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
“I was expelled on Saturday. The comrade in question was closely linked to me and also a prominent supporter of Left Platform. Tyneside has considerably more supporters for the faction than any other district, so both the local leadership and the Central Committee are desperate to drive us out. It is depressing and hugely disappointing that they’ve resorted to this low level, instead of discussing the real issues openly.”-alex snowdon
Alex but is it not the case that one of your political allies has on his facebook page a dreadful piece of sexist drivel- which included comments from his friends about stabbing a women, that this friend of yours is reviled by women socialists for his behaviour most recently at an anti fascist social event where he sang a song totally unacceptable to any socialist or even liberal. Perhaps Alex these are things that you feel don’t need addressing in a socialist organisation. By the way a comrade showed the facebook page so its not rumour or gossip. I am proud of the SWP fighting sexism. Now the SP of course when they were the Militant didn’t mind singing “Get your …. out for the lads” indeed I was accused of being a student wanker for arguing against this crap by the mighty Militant.
Comment by jj — 20 November, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Irish Mark
come on the Militant have a dreadful record in union leaderships- but of course they don’t do anything about it. Overall it has record of ducking “Difficult” questions- Ireland, falklands, gay rights, asylum seekers………always bottle it. Now the SWP has made some real mistakes but hey Deggsy Hatton was someone your paper said the Liverpuddlian (sic) working class owed a great debt to lol It was true but not in the way your bunch thought. Remember the albert Hall spectacular lol forward to a daily….Poll tax.. coppers informants, section 28- keep quiet and don’t mention it, do fuck all around the issue of immigration and asylum seekers because you think JUST going on about bread and butter issues is enough.. oh yes and British jobs for British workers didn’t really exist did it. Pathetic
Comment by jj — 20 November, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
#107 Now we are down to guilt by association: “is it not the case that one of your” friends/political allies/ has…? Or even is it not the case that there is a comment by someone else on on one of your allies’ facebook… etc.
This is a very bad way of doing politics and it’ll end up going horribly wrong.
Comment by ferrier — 20 November, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
no ferrier
It one of the people he is complaining about who has been expelled. Alec is not accountable for his friends actions but tp pretend that the real reason for that comrades removal from the party is to do with the Left Platform is a complete load of rubbish. The fact is that comrades behaviour and views about women would make him unacceptable in New Labour.
Comment by jj — 20 November, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
JJ:
That was one of the least honest, least accurate lists of smears, lies, distortions and half-truths I’ve seen i quite some time. And given the depths to which people occasionally sink in the comments section of this site, that’s actually quite an accomplishment. Those responsible for your political education must be so proud.
I’m not going to bother responding to you beyond that, except to invite you to address the issue of the coherence or otherwise of the SWP’s trade union strategy, either in this thread or in the one Andy has just started. I won’t hold my breath waiting for a reasoned argument from you.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 20 November, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
“The district leadership’s complaint is that he allegedly declined to circulate a particular message from the IWW group on the NESSN email network. That’s it: there’s one email he supposedly didn’t send - in his role as Tyneside Secretary”
Lets get this right (and correct me if I misread you), a Party member who holds a trade union position
used that position not to circulate a group’s communication? I would have thought even Andy would support the Party taking action against that person. Or is he against the Party on every issue.
Comment by Harry Monro — 20 November, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
The point is - and it’s so obvious, it takes a genius to miss it - that the party is only taking action because this person is on the other side in an argument. We saw this over Respect: CC members were allowed to lie without consequence and allowed to circulate emails and make false claims about documents. Indeed, at least one member of the SWP physically assaulted a Respect member - in full view of lots of people - during the split.
If you’re on the side of the leadership, you can get away with anything. As soon as you’re on the other side, no crime is too small.
And JJ will always be there, ready to smear people in service of the leaders of the SWP.
Comment by external bulletin — 20 November, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
#112 The rules of NESSN prohibit the Secretaries circulating political groups’ material. They should circulate trade union and campaign materials to the network, but not circulars from specific left wing groups (SWP, Socialist Party, AWL etc). It was agreed at the last AGM that this prohibition included IWW. So, the Tyneside Secretary simply complied with the rules and didn’t circulate a message. The whole thing is more than a little farcical.
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 20 November, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Alex, the IWW is a union.
Comment by ted — 20 November, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Ted:
No, it really isn’t. It’s a group that would like to be a union, but it doesn’t function as one in practice. Much like the Solidarity Federation for instance.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 20 November, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Ted,
The IWW would like to be a union, it isn’t actually one. I think that’s important difference.
Outside of a handful of workplaces, if that, it effectively operates as a political group.
Comment by Duncan — 20 November, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Is jj formely ll? Either way, the tosspot tradition of ll still lives on. It seems utterly pointless trying to engage most SWP members in reasoned discussions. If they don’t like what’s being said tantrums, lies, distortions, absurd accusations abound, the whole smoke and mirrors toolbox dipped into. And they wonder why no-one wants to work with them!
Comment by Doug — 20 November, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
“It seems utterly pointless trying to engage most SWP members in reasoned discussions. If they don’t like what’s being said tantrums, lies, distortions, absurd accusations abound, the whole smoke and mirrors toolbox dipped into. And they wonder why no-one wants to work with them!”
A caricature.
Try speaking to party members that don’t spend all their time on sectarian blogs.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 20 November, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
MRD #119
Well between 1500 and 2000 unique individuals read this blog every day, and about 40000 unique individuals per month.
What casual readers wil see is that you have a contemptuous attitude to debatinf with people outside your circle.
And how did Martin Smith get those e-mails?
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
#120
The disputes committee asked the man himself that very question on Saturday. He refused to say.
Incidentally, it’s a mark of his dedication that he prioritised my hearing over the UAF protest at the BNP conference in Wigan (which was happening at the same time). Or does it suggest he’s got his priorities wrong?
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 20 November, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
Alex, you’re a fucking disgrace. Good riddance to you, you poisonous rat.
Comment by blegh — 20 November, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
#122 blegh
I don’t know Alex Snowdon but the remarks by SWP members and people like yourself make most people think he’s been unfairly treated by the SWP leadership of Smith and co.
As others have said is it any wonder no one wants to work with the SWP - I’ve only ever seen them putting people off socialism and destroying everything they get involved with.
They have the Midas touch - but in reverse - EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH TURNS TO SHIT!!
Comment by Locke — 20 November, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
Alex, it is not unprecedented for the SWP to openly circulate material, organize secret caucuses or even publicly vote to remove existing SWP members from positions in ‘united fronts’. There is a long history of this type of behaviour and the SWP even has the audacity to ask why ‘comrades’ leave or refuse to consider themselves members after such conduct.
Comment by Chris C — 20 November, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
#120
Yes Andy and very proud of those figures you are. I’m also sure that people would also like to base judgements on comrades in ‘real life’. I understand the hackneyed arguments against the party and us puppets; it just happens that the stuff that’s written here and what is actually true tend to have a good sized vaccuum separating them.
And it’s not a Dyson you decadent sell-outs.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 20 November, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
So, do those of you crying crocodile tears for the fate of poor Jane Loftus want to rethink your ideas in light of the London CWU call to reinstate the strikes?
One can only hope that this time, we’re talking ’strike’ in the singular (as in all out indefinite) and that there is a concerted attempt, using the full power of the union and the labour movement, to defeat Crozier/Mandelson. Occupying sorting offices, blockading scab centres, disrupting companies doing ‘outsourced’ work and conducting recruitment campaigns at scab companies are the kind of tactics that would really redefine the terms of this dispute.
The fact that militant tactics will almost certainly not be used in any official dispute does not mean they should not be flagged up as the best path to victory.
Comment by Jonathan — 21 November, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
#120 How do you get your stolen SWP bulletins?
#121 So did you ask for your hearing to be postponed?
Comment by tyresome points — 21 November, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
#127 I refused to comment on - or answer questions about - the emails unless Martin could explain how he had obtained them. He didn’t explain, so I didn’t say anything about them in the hearing. The committee, however, decided it would still accept them as legitimate and relevant evidence. I regard this as ethically shameful - not just because their legality is debatable, but because they constitute an incredible invasion of rank and file members’ privacy by the leadership.
It’s worth recalling that when SWP trade unionists have been victimised, we have objected very strongly if anon complaints/evidence has been used as evidence against them.
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 21 November, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
#127 I imagine one of the thousands of people that the bulletin is emailed to passed it on to Andy or to someone else who in turn passed it on to him. The email sent by Ady Cousins, however, is of a different order. It went to around 10 people. All of those people have signed a letter to the chair of the disputes committee categorically denying that they forwarded it to Martin Smith. Martin Smith says one of them did forward it to him. So, the alternatives seem to be that either one of the 10 or so Left Platform members who received the email is lying, or Martin Smith is lying.
Either way, he presumably knows how he obtained the email so it’s odd that he didn’t say so when asked directly. That’s assuming Alex Snowdon is telling the truth at #121. Even odder is that he hasn’t explained this more generally when he’s been accused of possibly illegally obtaining access to someone’s email account.
Whatever you think of the relative merits of the positions of the majority and minority in the SWP faction fight, the latter are definitely owed an explantion from the former of how a private email ended up in their hands. I would have thought that the SWP membership as a whole would like an explanation too. If it’s innocent, or as Martin Smith says a leak from one of the 10 by a concerned individual, he should be able to clear it up.
Unless one of the 10 jumps ship from the faction and recants, I think it’s implausible that any of them directly leaked it. If that was the case it would open up the possibility that a loyal Left Platform member did that in order to create the circumstances where they could accuse Smith of underhand conduct.
If the Left Platform is going to do as badly at the SWP conference as SWP loyalists are predicting, then it may want a scandal which would give it an excuse to delegitimise the discussion and the conference so it could jump ship before the votes are counted.
At this point either of both of the SWP leadership and the Left Platform might want to bring a George Smiley stand-in out of retirement.
Comment by Just a question — 21 November, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
#128 If Martin Smith says the document came from one of the ten people who the original email was addressed to, then presumably he has the evidence in the form of an email from that person to him forwarding the offending email. That would be the documentary evidence vindicating him. Of course if he hasn’t got such an email, then that is a documentary indictment, at the very least, of his veracity. Seems an easy thing to clear up, so why the delay?
Comment by rachel trickett — 21 November, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
why the delay? You act as if there is some obligation on anyone.
Comment by johng — 21 November, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
#130 Of course Martin Smith is obliged to reveal how he obtained the two emails. If he wants to use this stuff as evidence to expel people, he should be willing to explain - with supporting evidence - its origins. This isn’t complicated - you’d have no trouble understanding it in any other context.
Comment by Anonymous — 21 November, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
#130 My recollection is that the SWP’s Central Committee has never hesitated to respond to arguments they don’t like very rapidly in the past, in order to stop those arguments gaining any unnecessary credibility or disorientating the members. Indeed, isn’t this what happened when the great Respect row blew up? I would have thought the National Secretary of the SWP would prefer not to have the inevitable speculation about his integrity continue unnecessarily and, as this issue is very easily cleared up, I ask again what possible reason could there be for delaying the response.
It seems to me that those who are so hostile to the “Left Platform”, for perfectly justifiable reasons no doubt, are in danger of allowing their anger at the dissidents to warp their sense of what is right and wrong - always a profound danger I think, given the unhappier traditions of the revolutionary left.
Comment by rachel trickett — 21 November, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
#130 Don’t you think there’s an obligation to reassure members of the SWP that their email accounts have not been hacked? If I was asked point blank to explain something like that, I’d feel under a pretty strong obligation to do so immediately, especially if it was at some kind of formal hearing. Are CC members above the obligations that normally apply to others?
In any case, the longer Smith leaves it, the less likely those who are sceptical are to believe his explanation. So it’s in his interests too to clear it up quickly. And before people start talking about this being nobody’s business but the SWP’s, think on this -
The SWP wants to recruit people, which involved giving over a lot of personal information. How can those recruits feel confident to do so if there’s a lingering suspicion that this information might be misused.
Other people on the left communicate with the SWP via email. Are they going to feel that it is none of their business that email accounts might be hacked. That’s all leaving aside involvement in campaigns and the email accounts and traffic that go with them.
Comment by Just a question — 21 November, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
#131 was me. I might also point out that the emails were the only written/printed/typed evidence of any kind produced at my hearing (or before it). That’s it. They were 100% of the actual evidence base for the expulsion.
They are also almost certainly being used to expel two other comrades, whose hearings are taking place as I type this. And they were used to pressure Ady C to close his excellent website Counter Fire.
So they are pretty important.
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 21 November, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
It is quite sad to hear an attitude of ‘no one likes us - we dont care’ from socialists here in the SWP.
Comment by Danny — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
“isn’t this what happened when the great Respect row blew up?”. Unfortunately not as I recall, for reasons not unconnected to the present anger referred to. What I meant to say is that I hardly think there is an obligation to a blog. I don’t know how the emails were got hold of, but given that emails regularly get fowarded to the wrong people I’m not so quick to leap to the rather unlikely prospect of hacking, especially given that I was fowarded stuff about six months ago by someone who ought to have known my lack of sympathy. Given the self righteous fury involved in these things people often make miscalculations about this sort of thing. Given what I’ve heard about the contents of this latest I’d have hit the bloody roof, partly precisely because of battles over democratic accountibility that have had to be fought in the recent past. And whilst I wouldn’t have cared over much, I wouldn’t have expected my name to be made public on the basis of what are, at the moment, wild allegations (no wilder though then many of the others being made by members of the Left Platform who appear to prefer victimology to politics). However I await the third bulletin.
Comment by johng — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
“They are also almost certainly being used to expel two other comrades, whose hearings are taking place as I type this. And they were used to pressure Ady C to close his excellent website Counter Fire.”
The allegations made by Alex have been published in the latest IB. It’s notable that while the CC has chosen not to publicly comment on these cases because it may prejudice the outcome Alex has no problem using SU as his mouthpiece. It demonstrates his utter contempt for the democratic process in the SWP and on that basis I have absolutely no sympathy.
Comment by Ray — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Johng is, I’d say, at a 7 on the scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is “I don’t see what the fuss is about” and 10 is “I am bewildered by the conclusions people are jumping to”.
Comment by external bulletin — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
#133
“Other people on the left communicate with the SWP via email. Are they going to feel that it is none of their business that email accounts might be hacked. That’s all leaving aside involvement in campaigns and the email accounts and traffic that go with them.”
Of course if you were in manchester a couple of years ago, the SWP had given key responsibilities to two BNP infiltrators within weeks of them joing the SWP, just becasue they seemed keen, one of whom was on the SWP’s national committee, and who walked off with personal details off all sorts of non SWP members.
I don’t think security is really a concern they take seriously.
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
#138 Ray, I’m no longer a member of the SWP. Doh!
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
“It’s notable that while the CC has chosen not to publicly comment on these cases because it may prejudice the outcome Alex has no problem using SU as his mouthpiece.”
You gotta love all this. The CC is currently going round the branches and talking, both directly and through organisers, to every member it can, making demonstrably false claims about Alex, James and Clare.
But that isn’t considered newsworthy.
They did it in the Respect split - the huge number of phone calls that went out from the centre telling people lies about those facing expulsion was remarkable.
But people like Ray (and johng, naturally) see this as part of the normal functioning of the party.
It’s not, boys. It’s corrupt and politically inexcusable. And you really should stop and ask why, even if you agree with the CC position, you can’t understand that the way the leadership operates is by innuendo and smear. Ask yourself why Martin Smith claimed to have email proof that Kevin Ovenden was denouncing the party to foreign comrades, and then why Pat Stack was forced to admit that such an email never existed.
Why do you allow your national secretary to treat people like this?
Comment by external bulletin — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
Alex you’ve fallen into Ray’s cunning trap!
You have a full, democratic, fair right of appeal, remember? Conference won’t have been fully briefed against you, there won’t have been months of smearing or anything! You’ll be easily able to clear your name.
Right?
Comment by external bulletin — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
#136 I can see your point about victimology. They probably think they are being witch-hunted. I imagine that there would be little sympathy in the SWP for such a shrill claim. I know you doubt the witch-hunt narrative at the time of the Respect split. Maybe some of the majority will see now that this kind of victim mode is a speciality of Rees and German. The kind of character assassination and lack of accountability, abusing positions and deciding who is in and who is out, was pretty much what a lot of people said they objected to from Rees in Respect. You must appreciate that they have mixed feelings now that the SWP has spotted the charlatan. If it is good enough to face him down now, perhaps some people will recognise why a number of people thought it was good enough to try to bring a more collective accountable leadership to Respect two years ago. He smashed up a lot of the furniture then. He’ll do the same now. A lot more might have been left in tact if he hadn’t been encouraged by the support he got from the entire leadership and most of the membership - overwhelmingly so if you go by votes at conferences and delegate meetings - back in September 2007. Didn’t someone say something once about learning from history?
Comment by Just a question — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
To quote myself froom a couple of days ago on the legacy of Trotskyism:
” the labelling of other activists as “stalinists”, or “reformists” acts to contextualise those disagreeing with the partys as being inherently flawed, and therefore their opinions are delegitimised and thus bureaucratic practices to overcome them can be justified (and a similar attitude is displayed to opponents of the leadership line within the party) “
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Initially I thought Andy had copied the story from Alex’s blog in his obsessive quest to discredit the SWP. But as Alex appears to be using SU to build a campaign I think he orchestrated this right from the start.
It’s ironic that despite Alex call for democracy in the SWP he is using a blog that is well known for its hostility to the SWP and has misrepresented our politics on more than one occasions. By doing this Alex has has been hung by his own petard. Even if he is not expelled I doubt that he’ll be able to look other comrades in the eye for the foreseeable future nor will anyone trust him.
Comment by Ray — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
#139, - “Of course if you were in manchester a couple of years ago, the SWP had given key responsibilities to two BNP infiltrators within weeks of them joing the SWP, just becasue they seemed keen, one of whom was on the SWP’s national committee, and who walked off with personal details off all sorts of non SWP members.”
Where can I read more about this?
Comment by aarghh — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
just a question..fair point.
Comment by johng — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Oh and Alex, when you eventually decide that you can’t bear the thought of the conference and the appeal, Pat Stack will publically say that this shows they were right to expel you.
Pat, Martin et al will also say that your behaviour since your expulsion proves they were right to expel you.
They’re masters of this, and while you have my sympathy for being treated so shit, surely you already knew that this is how they treat people - you don’t still think that Kevin, Rob and Nick were treated, tried and judged fairly by the disputes committee do you (let’s put aside the fact that they never even had a disputes committee hearing before they were expelled)?
Comment by external bulletin — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
It is depressing that Alex snowdon, so recently expelled from the SWP should persist in the SWPs own special version of secarianism to attack the IWW, which he considers not a union: presumably this means that the secretary of the NSSn would be in order distributing material from Griffen and harringtons Solidarity union( a real union in his eyes, registered as such by the governments own certification officer) but not that of a syndicalist union that has been in continuous existence since 1905
Comment by anabaptist — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Does Rees and German still represent the SWP on The Stop The War Coalition?
SWP used to be after Rees name. I now see it has been removed.
Comment by Larry N — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
you don’t still think that Kevin, Rob and Nick were treated, tried and judged fairly by the disputes committee do you
I remember being lied to by one of them at that time - those are the only lies I remember though
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
“You have a full, democratic, fair right of appeal, remember? Conference won’t have been fully briefed against you, there won’t have been months of smearing or anything! You’ll be easily able to clear your name.”
And by building a campaign around the anti-SWP goon patrol like you, Alex is really demonstrating to his comrades in the SWP how concerned he is about democracy in the party. With friends like you who needs enemies?
Perhaps you can tell us how quoting, in his defense, a faceless sectarian named “external bulletin” from a blog renowned for SWP bashing at Party conference will show his SWP comrades how serious Alex is about democracy? I may well be understating it but I’m sure SWP comrades won’t be too impressed with Alex behaviour.
Comment by Ray — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
“you don’t still think that Kevin, Rob and Nick were treated, tried and judged fairly by the disputes committee do you…”
Hasn’t Nick fallen out of favour for being a so-called “toy Bolshevik”? Of course, red baiting denunciations at conference are the epitome of democracy. You have so much to teach us.
Comment by Ray — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
#151 Who lied to you? What did they say? Or would it be a breach of confidence to say? If so, I think you shouldn’t say anything. Making a general claim like that looks a lot like a smear. Because left like that none of the three people you name is in any position to challenge you. It’s cowardly behaviour.
Comment by Just a question — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
How Martin came to get a copy of the email would no doubt be interesting to know - but not half as interesting as knowing the content of the mail itself. Perhaps Alex Snowdon would like to share? He has nothing to hide, after all.
I note too that our aspiring God-builder is particularly exercised by the danger of Kautskyism at the moment, having read a jolly good book on the subject by a pal of his who is very revolutionary indeed. Would he also care to enlighten us as to what on earth he is thinking about?
Comment by Andy Wilson — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
#151 Whichever side one might have sympathy with, and I don’t have much with either, one can’t help feeling that a lot of what is now happening in the SWP has its parallels in the Respect split, including the sheer nastiness of the leadership’s acolytes like Ray. I am intrigued to know however who lied to Keith Watermelon and what the lie was about. So far I’ve only heard allegations that the SWP leadership lied about the people they expelled.
Comment by truth and reconciliation — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
anabaptist small point of order. The SWP (and the SP) excluded the exclusion of the IWW.
Comment by johng — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
#150 Nobody has attacked the IWW. The point is simple: the NESSN has a rule, democratically agreed at its last AGM, that the IWW’s materials are not to be circulated by the NESSN’s secretaries. The same rule applies to any number of other organisations. If Tony D had circulated the msg requested he’d have broken NESSN rules. But it seems we’ve reached the point where the SWP appartus can demand such things of members, then claim they’re ‘breaking party discipline’ when they don’t comply.
Let’s get something else clear. If he HAD circulated the msg exactly the same thing would have happened. He’d have been denounced, threatened with the party dissociating itself from him, etc. They’d have asked why he’s circulating their stuff but not the SWP’s own announcements, so clearly must be aligning with ‘anti-party elements’ etc. This was opportunism in its purest form.
Comment by Alex Snowdon — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
#157
“The SWP (and the SP) excluded the exclusion of the IWW.”
Is this the negation of the negation, do you mean the SP and SWP included the IWW????
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
#155
Alex Snowdon’s blog i unintentionally a complete hoot.
It very much reminds me of the games when we were kids dressing up in our parents clothes.
Comment by Andy Newman — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
I’ve never heard a bad word about the IWW at an SWP meeting and never heard mention of the current incarnation.
Comment by Jonathan — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
I’ve never heard a bad word about the IWW at an SWP meeting and have never heard mention of the current incarnation.
Comment by Jonathan — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Has the current SWP leadership accused this Alex Snowdon character of helping the BNP?
Just wondered, because Respecters on here are getting all high and mighty about alleged “smears” against Mr Snowdon, but the Respect leader has smeared No2EU by accusing No2EU of helping the BNP.
Double standards from Respecters on the subject of “smears” I see.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
“…including the sheer nastiness of the leadership’s acolytes like Ray.”
And you started off so well…I suppose trawling the left blogs attacking your comrades as Alex is doing makes him a paragon of virtue and democracy. It’s funny how upholding the democratic process means such a lot to people who drop it as soon as it becomes inconvenient.
Comment by Ray — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
It is rather humorous watching the John Rees haters on SU rallying around Alex who is in his faction. Rees didn’t support a democracy commission and was democratically voted off the CC at conference. It’s no coincidence that the Rees haters are ultimately SWP haters and that’s why they have no embarrassment in supporting Alex disingenuous complaint about democracy now. Their ’strike the serpent’s head with your enemy’s hand’ strategy is rather transparent.
Comment by Ray — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
I know someone who is in both the SWP and IWW, are they up for the chop?
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
“democratically voted off the CC at conference”
I love the way you think that not being included on a slate, and then the slate being voted on, is the same as “democratically voted off”.
Comment by external bulletin — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
Comment by Ray — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
Ray, let us put it this way; the first time I knew what had happened between John Rees and RESPECT was on this blog. I was grateful for that because all along I was blaming everyone else but John for the collapse of RESPECT. Now we have Alex Snowdon who earlier on was the enemy of this blog. Personally I don’t know what this whole kafuffle of expulsion and resigning is all about. But I have a simple philosophy; ‘I don’t take kindly to people who lie to me.’ This is because being lied to simply insults my intelligence; because given all the facts I have a choice; to support or oppose. I don’t support John Rees and his faction simply because of what he did in RESPECT. But John is a very good politician and in the absence of his deceit he would have made a good friend and comrade for me. At the same time there is no excusing the SWP CC who covered up for John in the RESPECT debacle. This is what I call ‘Catch 22′ i.e there are no winners or losers in this game. Life goes on and as revolutionary socialists we must put our priorities right!
Comment by florence durrant — 21 November, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
The second SWP Internal Bulletin makes depressing reading as the two irreconcilable parts of the SWP take pot shots at each other. Profound political differences are claimed to be the basis of the split but the personal must be at least as important as the political.
This is, of course, all the fall out from the Respect debacle, which is why these words from Lindsey German complaining to the ironically named “Disputes Committee” will strike some as nothing more than laughable. Anyone who remembers how John Rees and Lindsey German, not to mention Martin Smith and the rest of the SWP leadership, conducted themselves in relation to the purges over Respect will note the utter hypocrisy.
“The SWP has always had a tradition of dealing with political differences through debate rather than through disciplinary measures. That is why we view recent developments with alarm. Three comrades have now been suspended, and a fourth threatened with discipline unless he closed down a website. None of them has been involved in activity which should warrant these measures. Worse, other comrades who have acted in a similar manner, or who have openly organised against a member of the Central Committee, have had no such action taken against them. Indeed one of them is being proposed for the new CC to be elected at conference. These double standards appear to be politically motivated. All three suspensions took place just as the pre-conference discussion period opened….. These arbitrary and unfair measures are the opposite of the open and honest political atmosphere there should be in the party. They should be rescinded now and comrades should all be able to debate the way forward as politically as possible.”
I am sure it will be better for all concerned if the two sides declared a truce and formal separation rather than continue to beat each other over the head with the kitchen utensils.
Comment by truth and reconciliation — 21 November, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
#170 For those who do not have access to the IB, how do we know it is ‘depressing reading’ and ‘the personal must be at least as important as the political’?
Comment by aarghh — 22 November, 2009 @ 12:13 am
It’s here if you want a look.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/
Comment by Locke — 22 November, 2009 @ 12:27 am
#172 Well a very quick read of what the SWP is doing (according to IB2) is far from depressing if you ask me.
Seems pretty dynamic to me and outward looking despite some problems.
Comment by aarghh — 22 November, 2009 @ 1:00 am
Jane Lofthouse was elected by members of the CWU to the Executive Council of the Union and does not owe her post to the SWP. She has been annualy elected to the EC despite or because her stance on previous agreements. For a male dominated industry her acheivement is remarkable!
Comment by Steve H — 22 November, 2009 @ 2:17 am
# 152,
Posts have asked you to be clear about your allegations of “one lied to me”. It is well documented that Kevin, Robb, and Nick were witch-hunted out of the SWP, by Rees and co. You come on, and throw a smear or untruth and skedaddle back under a stone for awhile.
Keech Piss-Watermelon. Your pathetic, vague and dense
Comment by Anonymous — 22 November, 2009 @ 6:11 am
#173 Aarghh, are you Martin Smith?
Comment by truth and reconciliation — 22 November, 2009 @ 6:20 am
“You come on, and throw a smear or untruth and skedaddle back under a stone for awhile.”
It is all because he has to act in secret at work and cannot use his real name, or real facts, or real politics. It’s how he operates, and it doesnt cause his conscience any problems.
Comment by inter-alias — 22 November, 2009 @ 9:26 am
173, that was my take indeed. We need these challenges in life debated in an honest and open comradely atmosphere. In my case, this is the beginning. If you read both arguments in IB2, you will find that there is little difference between the faction wants and the Party is advocating. What is obvious in this faction is that we all must accept making mistakes in life and move on. Our struggles in life are much bigger than our differences. This is not about Martin Smith. After all, he says all the answers to allegation in IB2 will be dealt with in IB3. He is not evading the questions, he is professionally dealing with them.
As for this gripe that a comrade should have been disciplined for criticising a member of the CC; that is scary. What gives you a right to discipline someone because he has criticised a member of the CC? Are members of the CC gods who should not be criticised? There are 3 comrades in total who have been proposed for the CC and it is for the conference to debate on that. If the comrade is elected, that is democracy. I spent years stewing over a comrade because I believed that he was the engine behind those who tormented me. It turns out that he based his decision about me on the lies that he was fed by his comrades. I now choose to be his friend, because we have one important thing in common - we are revolutionary socialists, and we want the best for the working class. So, it is up to conference to demand reasons from this comrade in question who openly organised against a member of the CC, not biased individuals who make dicisions about comrades behind closed doors. This is openness that has been lacking in the Party, people hiding behind closed doors to make decisions about other comrades in their absence. I am glad that this comrade in question openly organised as it is put by comment 170. Surely he was not blindingly taking sides against a member of the CC, or forming a faction. These are issues that we need to be debating at meetings where both sides are listened to.
Comment by florence durrant — 22 November, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Comment by external bulletin — 21 November, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
And EB, if it is true that John Rees as a long standing member of the SWP and a CC member refused to support the democracy commission, what is there to argue over his being undemocratically voted off. Why in God’s name can someone refuse a proposal that gives his Party comrades and himself more democracy? Did he think democracy was him or what? Who in John Ree’s argument is better at solving Party disputes democratically? Some of us who were witch-hunted purely for joining the SWP welcomed the Democracy Commission. This tells the whole story and I am pleased that John Rees was voted out of the CC, democratically or not!
Comment by florence durrant — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:11 am
Looks like another couple of people just got expelled.
Comment by external bulletin — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Fine, if you want to push it, nick fed me a tissue of lies in an effort to break me from the party. I didn’t want to have to go over this old ground again, but I’m no liar. Now for those of you so keen to defend the scab alex snowdon, or the sexist gd, maybe you should be asking them what else they were pulled up on. Because if I was in the ‘left platform’, I’d be very uneasy about associating with them.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:42 am
Why has all this stuff about the ’sexist gd’ come to light after his association with the Left Platform became known? Was it because he was a paragon of anti-sexist practice before he started criticising the central committee?
Comment by A Very Public Sociologist — 22 November, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Ah, so keith watermelon claims that there were lies in order to get him out of the party.
That’s interesting, given that we’re talking about institutional issues here: What one (soon to be, or recently) expelled member says to an SWP member is one thing, but what the party leadership does is entirely different.
Why am I not surprised that such a tenderly loyal man as keith watermelon couldn’t see the difference? Can you even for a minute see that there’s a difference between what the national and local apparatus of a party built around central discipline does and says, and what one member who is being expelled says?
For example, do you think there’s a difference between conversations between you and Nick, and conversations between Martin Smith and Nick? Most serious people will see it immediately.
And AVPS, you’re so naughty to suggest that there’s any inconsistency here!
Comment by external bulletin — 22 November, 2009 @ 11:49 am
What’s more revealing is that, for tony the hut, the swp became the worst organisation in the world on the day he left. And yes, tony, people have been expelled for gross sexism before. I’m glad these 2 have been kicked out, and trust me, you were no great loss.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 22 November, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
A Very Public Sociologist says; “Why has all this stuff about the ’sexist gd’ come to light after his association with the Left Platform became known?”
Could the answer be that with some people you never know their true colours until a disagreement arises? It is the same in all relationships; you sail along smoothly with others thinking you are at the same wavelength. This is not an SWP problem. There are somethings in life we socialists object to and sexism is one of them. So I am glad that this factioning business is forcing comrades to show their true colours. And if they refuse to adhere to Party principles, expelling this is perfectly within the Party lines.
Comment by florence durrant — 22 November, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
You know this trhread really does not make much sense to the mind condition to dealing with anything approaching reality
It is the sort of think which makes UKIP look sane
Comment by VofH — 22 November, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
#181 So what “tissue of lies” did Nick Wrack tell you? You’re going to have to flesh that out if you want people to give any credence to what you are saying.
#185 That’s one way of looking at, I s’pose. But don’t you think it’s at least as likely that aspects of people’s behaviour are only raised as scandals when there’s an ulterior motive, ie expelling them. This is not just an SWP problem. It has occured throughout the history of political organisations and non-political ones. I would anticipate now that there will be all sorts of aspersions about John Rees’s personal behaviour and Martin Smith’s from the opposing sides. In each case it will be a legitimate question to ask why they are being dredged out now when at least some people must have known about them for some time.
Comment by Just a question — 22 November, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
#180 Who got expelled?
Comment by Just a question — 22 November, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
It is the sort of think which makes UKIP look sane
Comment by VofH — 22 November, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
How come so? I am intrigued by some of the revelations I have read on this thread. Maybe now we can all move on and deal with real politics! After all, we are all after one price, emancipation of the working class.
Comment by florence durrant — 22 November, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
184~
is pretty revealing
Look people we are taking here about organisations which have any importance or effect on UK politics and yet people write with such vitupative indignation about estwhile comrades that you think something must have gone wrong with them
Comment by VofH — 22 November, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
#re 139 and my post #147
Still no info available to the claim made by Andy in post #139/140 (now)? re Manchester SWP being infiltrated by BNP.
#176 Damn, how did you know?
Comment by aarghh — 22 November, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
#191
the two students were Diane Stoker and Joe Finnon, both BNP members.
They joined the SWP in 2004, were pushed forwards becasue they were very keen, and I beleive one or both put on the national committee. they ran the SWSS group for a year.
There was a lot of concern that they had been given access to various address lists of non-SWP anti-racist campaigners in manchester after they announced in August 2004 that they had been BNP moles the whole time. Indee there wrre formal approaches from the Green Pary to the SWP to discuss the security breach.
Don’t make yourself look a fool by denying something that is an established historical fact.
Comment by Andy Newman — 22 November, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
#192. I can confirm what Andy says in correct with regard to the BNP infiltrators, being a member of Manchester SWP at the time.
The two scumbags were involved with UAF, SWTC, and Respect at the beginning as well.
I suppose we should have seen the signs with their appalling dress sense amongst other things
Comment by Richard Searle — 22 November, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
#140 ‘one of whom was on the SWP’s national committee’
Not true
#192 ‘and I beleive one or both put on the national committee.’
Revised position not true.
Comment by Anonymous — 22 November, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
#194. Is correct,
although these two did manage to get their fingers in many pies, they didn’t make the NC
Comment by Richard Searle — 22 November, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Well i stand corrected, writing from memory abut somethig that happened five years ago. I think i am getting them mixed up with that idiot from East Anglia who was on NC and then joined the Weekly Worker. Isaac somebody???
The BNP moles certaiinly went to SWP conference as delegates IIRC
Comment by Andy Newman — 22 November, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
#192 and don’t get so snotty. I asked for the info as I had absolutely no idea.
Comment by aarghh — 22 November, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
“I would anticipate now that there will be all sorts of aspersions about John Rees’s personal behaviour and Martin Smith’s from the opposing sides.”
Well there haven’t been. It’s a political disagreement within the SWP. Unless you’re member you’re not involved in the SWP’s internal discussions and your opinion is at best guess work and at worse gossip. But thank you for taking an interest.
Concerning expulsions for breaches of personal behaviour they are taken as seriously as breaching the politics of the SWP. It’s standard practice in most organisations to take breaches of personal behaviour seriously. I can’t imagine someone that is using sexist behaviour being tolerated in my previous workplace in the NHS. Although it does go on in the NHS it shouldn’t be tolerated.
Comment by Ray — 22 November, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
“…and trust me, you were no great loss.”
Seconded. But I get the feeling EB hasn’t left in spirit. It must be painful not being able to let go.
Comment by Ray — 22 November, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
#181
Incidently
I note that “keith Watermelon” is hiding behind his ridiculous pseudonym to call a named and known socialist activist a scab
Is this acceptable behaviour in the SWP now?
Someone is called a scab because they disagree with the CC of your cult?
Have you no shame?
Comment by Andy Newman — 22 November, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
I’m sure the comrade is touched by the depth of your caring, Andy.
Comment by KrisS — 22 November, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
“Someone is called a scab because they disagree with the CC of your cult?
Have you no shame?”
wince
This is just getting embarassing.
MRD
Comment by MRD — 22 November, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Calling another socialist and trade unionist a scab is despicable.
I have no brief for Alex snowden’s politics, but “Keith Watermelon” has crossed the line, and the fact that you can’t even see it is no credit to you.
Comment by Andy Newman — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
I have 20/20 vision.
Jane Loftus crossed a line.
The problem is when you start throwing around the word ‘cult’; how biting!
Some people get so hooked and brainwashed by the cult. Yes they do. You came back for seconds didn’t you Andy?
MRD
Comment by MRD — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
Your interest here is purely and simply in doing what you can to undermine the SWP. I’m sure no-one will be confused by that.
Comment by KrisS — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
What a ridiculous waste of time and resources - 205 comments to attack another socialist group.
Meanwhile, a major torture scandal is opening up in Afghanistan and the US has embraced a strategy of setting up death squads. And in the UK, the inquiry into the Iraq war looks like it will be extremely damaging to Blair and Labour:
And yet everybody pisses into this pool and then jumps in FFS. Get a sense of perspective.
Comment by redbedhead — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Alex Snowdon is a scab. He knows exactly what he did and what I’m referring to.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Isn’t it grand, Andy, when you can hide behind a name and smear other socialists eh?
I wonder what your union colleagues would make of this.
Sssssshhhhh!
Comment by inter-alias — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
So, was anyone else expelled this weekend? If so, can we expect another feeding frenzy on the malfeasance of the SWP?
Comment by Rorschach — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
Watermelon: whatever your dispute with Alex Snowdon, I don’t think it’s in order for you to call him a scab.
Maybe you think it’s justified because he referred to the latest SWP organiser in his area as aggressive and intimidating.
The problem is he’s been known for years as a bully. Saying so does not mean aligning with any witch hunt or attack from the powers that be.
Your behavior typifies a cult.
redbedhead: good points, though I think it will require huge effort to bring fruit from the inquiry. Everything you say points to the need to rebuild the anti-war movement in the UK.
Comment by ferrier — 22 November, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
Watermelon: with reference to something you posted above, what lies did Nick Wrack tell you? You’ve accused an identifiable socialist of lying. It’s only right that you justify doing so.
Comment by ferrier — 22 November, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
I share Redbedhead’s sense of frustration watching this thread from afar, and he’s right about the issues he raises.
However, its unfortunate, that his sister organisation, is now engaged in factional dispute, and one issue under debate/warfare is the continuing relevance of the Stop the War coalition.
I read the SWP’’s 2nd pre-conference bulletin this afternoon, mostly with my jaw dropping opening.
We ex-members have a way of getting hold of these items and still have an interest as to how the old firm is doing
My worst fears are that the fall out from the factional dispute, which will continue past January, and which is not unreasonable to suggest could lead to the explusions of Rees, German and Nineham and a host of others, could hamper the ability of the anti-war movement to intervene in the growing crisis around Afghanistan.
Sad but true
Comment by Hush, hush and on the QT — 22 November, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
#212 It very much looks like that is what happening in Britain. When you refer to a debate in Redbedhead’s organisation, where is that? The US?
Comment by ferrier — 22 November, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Well its true that the argument around STW is being used in a factional way. I very much regret that. But its not coming from the majority of the organisation IMHO.
Comment by johng — 23 November, 2009 @ 12:29 am
But how does it get resolved John ?,
what’s the worst case and then best case scenario,
The language in the IB from both majority and minority LF appears too entrenched for either side to back down.
Comment by Hush, hush and on the QT — 23 November, 2009 @ 1:01 am
It gets resolved through a democratic decision at conference.
Comment by johng — 23 November, 2009 @ 1:31 am
Watermelon cannot reveal his true identity for in the past he has been found out attempting to do character assassinations on Respect members.
The ruse that his job would be in jeapordy is this coward’s only defence in attacking Nick Wrack.
Posters have asked him to put up or shut up. Maybe he is hard of hearing
Comment by Anonymous — 23 November, 2009 @ 7:10 am
# 217
I forgot to put my name Larry N to the 217 post. It is not Anonymous Sorry
Comment by Larry N — 23 November, 2009 @ 7:16 am
“What a ridiculous waste of time and resources - 205 comments to attack another socialist group.”
Not quite Redbedhead - quite a lot of these now 218 posts are from current SWP members defending their organisation. Perhaps you would prefer that all SWP members didn’t post on this blog at all - like in the good old days when the internet was seen as a distraction from the vital task of selling papers.
Comment by tlc — 23 November, 2009 @ 8:30 am
I think the first thing the democracy commission should do is impose a moratorium on expulsions and rescind the latest ones. No one talks argues freely when the guillotine is being warmed up.
Comment by kieran — 23 November, 2009 @ 8:45 am
220- you clearly think that sexist songs and facebook pages with entries about stabbing women are ok. well thankfully the SWP doesn’t.
Comment by jj — 23 November, 2009 @ 9:29 am
“jj”, you fool no one except yourself and the people in your organisation.
Comment by external bulletin — 23 November, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Re- JJ
I find it very hard to believe that the flurry of expulsions are the result of some sudden spate of bad behavior.
It is especially disingenuous for the most obvious bullies and thugs to try and claim the mantle of the great protector of the downtrodden.
Your behavior on here is a disservice to the SWP and the IS tradition more generally.
Comment by kieran — 23 November, 2009 @ 10:16 am
If you lived on a (now former) council estate in Manchester and you wanted to cause grief for one of your neighbours, one of the best ways was to make unsubstantiated allegations of anti-social behaviour to the housing and the council, backed up with , get an interim asbo against them, and then whatever you did to them you got away with because if they complained it would be treated as a malicious counter-allegation.
Interesting how many of the people promoting asbos were ex-lefties.
Comment by Armchair — 23 November, 2009 @ 11:25 am
#224- sorru I missed out “backed up with anonymous statements”
Comment by Armchair — 23 November, 2009 @ 11:26 am
223
so you think its ok for sexist shit to be put on facebook, sung at anti fascist events. What a shame your hatred for the SWP now includes defending foul sexist abuse. So how about speaking when you know the facts?
Comment by jj — 23 November, 2009 @ 11:33 am
You are priceless “JJ”. Tell you what. You’ve laid down a challenge there to only speak about when we know the facts.
Post the facebook link or screen dump, and post details of the “foul sexist abuse” and details of the songs and the events.
Oh, and given that you’re a revolutionary with the best perspectives and clearest analysis, has it ever occurred to you that someone *not* arguing in favour of something is not necessarily the same thing as them supporting something else? So, to pull an example out of thin air, *not* supporting your position on this blog is not the same as, say, “defending foul sexist abuse”?
This, friends, is the level of debate these people are trained in. Named smears under anonymous cloaks, and twisted debate when things get uncomfortable.
Comment by external bulletin — 23 November, 2009 @ 11:42 am
#227 That’s absolutely right.
Part of the problem (by no means restricted to the SWP) is the methodology based on the theory that all means are justified in promoting the interests of the leadership, which is the same as the interests of the party, which is the same as the class (and the same as the state in the fortunately unlikely event that you ever hold state power).
Democractic norms, natural justice etc are merely a means to defend when under attack.
Lenin’s and Trotsky’s dismissal of the concept of the rule of law has a lot to answer for.
Andy- can I suggest a general policy on moderation - that if someone (anonymous or not) makes an allegation against someone else, that if they are asked to provide evidence to back up their allegation, that they are banned if they fail to do so?
Comment by Armchair — 23 November, 2009 @ 11:55 am
The comrade in question (who has not been named on this thread and it should remain that way) was expelled on the basis of: 1) A public facebook exchange in which he “hilariously” joked that he asked a man who was in his taxi if he could “have a go after [him]” and whether “the boys” thought it was right to grope a woman in lieu of paying a fair, and; 2) The comrade getting on stage drunk at a LMHR event and singing a misogynistic song, leading to a flurry of complaints from members and non-members. The evidence was circulated to all NC members in order to head off any accusations that this was a factional expulsion, and the process had been under way since prior to the formation of a faction. The comrade has not challenged the allegations. That’s why he’s out. You’re more than welcome to assume that this is all lies and made up and that the evidence wasn’t really circulated and that the NC actually met to sacrifice babies to Baal. But it ain’t so.
Comment by Hey Nonny Moose — 23 November, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
eb, you’re priceless. Or possibly worthless.
Comment by tyresome points — 23 November, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUrt1Yomtho&feature=related
Comment by tyresome points — 23 November, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
For reasons why the left is a fractured shit-storm read above…
Real Politics is elsewhere….
Comment by indyholder@postmaster.co.uk — 23 November, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
227
I take it sexism is ok by you?
Comment by jj — 23 November, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Phew we have come a long way from Jane Loftus’s resignation! I have just visited Alex Snowden’s blog and read his digest of Rees digest of Kaustsky and his pernicious ‘centrism’. Streuth - poorly written. I wanted to chew my pillow and what is the young chap getting at?
Comment by julesa — 23 November, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
It is sad that Jane has resigned but she made her choices. I am sure they were not easy choices. I disagree with her choices. But I wish her the best in the future. All her resignation does is confirm once again (as if any further confirmation were required) that the higher up you rise in the union bureaucracy the more pressure you come under to compromise. That is not a personal criticism of Jane. It is simply a statement of fact. Sadly, some sectarians will attempt to use Jane’s resignation to highlight alleged SWP heresies. All the while harping on about the need to develop a Program, to be endless polished, until a state of such purity is reached that the workers seek it out and in one fell movement thrust the sect atop their shoulders allowing the sect to assume leadership of the class. The beauty of this method is that it totally avoids any danger of compromising principles along the way because the emphasis remains on polishing the Program to a state of purity, rather than dirtying ones hands at the coal face of politics, be it trade unionism or otherwise. Much better to abstain and polish the Program than to commit oneself and risk defeat, yes? Although this method ensures the membership of the sect can hold their annual conference in one corner of a phone booth, it does have the benefit of insuring the sect against experiencing the disappointment of someone like Jane resigning.
Comment by Yet another SWP member — 24 November, 2009 @ 2:55 am
I am pleased the SWP have a policy that leading members should be accountable. The RESPECT type view of the glorious leader always knows best - eg GG who can never be contradicted because he then has a hissy fit so gets a gang of numpties around him. Its a bit like Steve Wright in the afternoon. The way the post office dispute is heading vindicates the postion they have taken.
Comment by arch — 24 November, 2009 @ 3:02 am
“Not quite Redbedhead - quite a lot of these now 218 posts are from current SWP members defending their organisation. Perhaps you would prefer that all SWP members didn’t post on this blog at all - like in the good old days when the internet was seen as a distraction from the vital task of selling papers.”
It would probably be far more constructive to ignore the smears and baiting about the SWP that masquerades as so-called “politics” on SU. Take EB and LarryN for example, why anyone would take their paranoia as fact is hard to imagine so the whole debate becomes an exercise in playground tittle tattle and taunting. Is that what the left should be reduced to when we have serious things to be getting on with?
Comment by Ray — 24 November, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Ray, I like many on thiis blog do have an aversion to the shaddy practices of the SWP as documented in current Socialist Resistance documents, that is solely aggravated by the unacceptable behaviour of SWP members such as watermelon. It is your choice to dum it down as paronia. I abhor your blind obedience to an organisation that has a sect mentality or maybe I should pity you.
For the record, I have said on SU that my compadre and fellow Respect member GG was wrong to lend his support to Solidarity/SWP in the Glasgow by election. I have also criticised fellow Respect Member Neil Williamson attempts to undermine and weaken conference decision on the NO2EU.
On the son of NO2EU they may be a threat to Left Unity in the General Election and if so, it is a luxury we cannot afford,irrespective what doyans like Thornett, Francis and Ovendensay utter on SU.I do concede Ovenden’s point about “the sensible ones” But they need to be poured out with the dirty water in the bath-tub and replaced with clear spring water fot Left Unity baby.
Being a retired building site worker and shop steward, with a limited education I do have healthy fears of higher educated people raising false dawns as seen with the SWP. Smash the SWP!
Comment by Larry N — 24 November, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Think the SWP were right on this.
Comment by Raphie — 24 November, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
‘CWU president resigns from SWP
Jane Loftus, a Socialist Workers Party (SWP) member and the president of the CWU post workers’ union, voted to accept the interim agreement in the post dispute and to call off the strikes.
This was in sharp contradiction with the SWP’s position. It has caused problems for our members in the union and much wider.
Members of the SWP’s central committee met Jane and asked her to reflect on her position and, particularly in the light of Royal Mail’s continuing attacks, to reverse her support for the agreement.
A meeting of SWP postal workers at the union’s national briefing agreed that it was wrong to vote for the deal. The party’s national committee also discussed the issues raised.
Jane has made it clear that she is sticking to her line.
She recognised that this brought her into sharp opposition to the party on a very important matter, and resigned from the SWP – although she remains keen to continue working with party members.’
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2179/issue2179.pdf
Comment by Anonymous — 24 November, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
At what point did Moira Nolan leave the Central Committee, and why?
Comment by Jack — 25 November, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
At what point was Moira Nolan on the Central Committee, and why?
Comment by RobM — 26 November, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Jack I reckon that if you provide us with a list of jobs you’ve left and why, then someone will answer about Moira. Nosy git.
Comment by swp member — 26 November, 2009 @ 11:24 am
Yes actually this has to be the most confusing conversation. Most of us have never heard of Ms Nolan.
Don’t think it is very important and really it is her business
Comment by Vof H — 26 November, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Worrying sign over in Preston for the SWP is that Councillor Michael Lavalette’s web site had not been updated since April and has now lapsed its registration and cannot be accessed.
Also we’ve had neither sight nor sound of Val Wise’s campaign for MP since it is said he took it over, nor after their weak performance in 2008 as Left List (aka the ‘dot’ party) did his supporters stand in the area covered by his ward in the Council Elections in June allowing Labour to consolidate their position in his ward.
He does appear to attend council meetings, though with what political purpose for his time seems hard to fathom.
Is he on his way out of council politics and do the SWP intend him not to defend his seat when its up in 2011, thus losing their one significant elected representative in the land?
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 26 November, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Prinkipo Exile, I’m sure you know more than most who post on this blog. Aren’t you in Preston?
Comment by aarghh — 26 November, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Sorry aarghh only just caught up. All important decisions about what the SWP do in Preston or anywhere else are taken in London as far as I know.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 30 November, 2009 @ 5:50 pm