THE SMOKING GUN
Yesterday’s press conference of the four rebel Respect councillors who have resigned the party whip in Tower Hamlets was organised through the official Respect national office, which is run by the SWP. Here is the proof.
The totally inappropriate behaviour of John Rees, national secretary of Respect, in organising a press conference for councillors to criticise their own party to the mainstream press is clear. Their resignation, and formation of a distinct political group of councillor in Tower Hamlets in opposition to Respect has practical, political and financial implications, and is a serious blow to trust and cooperation.
It seems the SWP are publicly talking up their desire to stay in Respect, while at the same time privately actively conspiring to split from Respect in the most damaging way.
The following invoice for the room used for the Rebel councillors’ press conference is addressed to the Respect national office, which is currenty being run by the SWP. It proves that the Respect national office, and the SWP, have been cooperating with the four rebel councillors in splitting from Respect. Respect’s press contact list was also used to send out the press release from the rebel councillors.
oh i’m sure theres a perfectly innocent explanation for how come one side of a split is spending members subscriptions on a press conference attacking the other side, after first putting out a press release accusing abjol of treating women appallingly (having condemned george galloway for allegedly planning to go to the media).
Comment by point — 30 October, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Andy,
If you and any others disagree with the actions of John Rees in supporting the rebel Respect councillors then fine - there are democratic structures within Respect to replace him as National Secretary at conference. But it should be up to the membership of Respect to decide whether to remove him - he should not be ousted in a coup by a minority behind the backs of Respect members…
Comment by Snowball — 30 October, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
(I naively posted this originally on Harry’s Place but someone suggested this was a more appropriate blog. I hope I’m not too naive in expecting an answer.)
Will John Rees please answer this simple question:
If the Respect National Council tell him to cancel the Respect conference, will he do so even if the SWP tell him not to?
A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is all that is required.
Comment by Dennis Kilgallon — 30 October, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
The four councillors did NOT resign from Respect, any more than Karl Liebnecht resigned from the SPD when he voted in the Reichstag against war credits, in defiance of his party whip. The rest of Respect’s councillors in Tower Hamlets broke their promise to champion equality, socialism and inner party democracy. Just as Liebnecht, Luxemburg and others were driven out of the SPD for taking seriously the party’s prinipled support for socialist internationalism, Galloway and his supporters will try to drive socialists out of Respect. There is a difference, however. Unlike the Luxemburg wing of the SPD in 1914, Chris Harman, John Rees, Lindsay German and co have the numbers to win.
Comment by Tom — 30 October, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Often companies make assumptions about who should be invoiced based on which person booked them previously, irrespective of whether they are wearing a different ‘hat’ this time. So it does not actually prove that this venue is being paid for by the Respect national account. A cheque stub would prove that.
Though it does show that Feyzi was involved in booking this press conference venue (surprise surprise, the Respect full-timer does what John Rees tells her to do!) It does therefore prove that Respect national officers and full-timers are directly involved in organising this split, which itself means they are acting as a trojan horse seeking to split and wreck Respect while they are being paid as Respect full-timers. That is an offence meriting expulsion in any political organisation you care to name, I reckon.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 30 October, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Tom states…….The rest of Respect’s councillors in Tower Hamlets broke their promise to champion equality, socialism and inner party democracy…..
Can you explain how they failed to do this, with examples, not slurs?
Comment by Almost ex-SWP Member — 30 October, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Its unclear to me that individuals on the national council
have the right to unilaterally cancel our conference at which
ordinary members will have the right to air their views.
In my view those national council members sending out these
bizarre missives are acting unconstitutionally in attempting
to abrogate the normal functioning of democracy.
I am surprised that Ian (who I should say I respect despite
our differences) is being taken in by this nonsense.
Comment by johng — 30 October, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
How about postponing the conference for a couple of months to allow time to clear all this mess up; and so we can have a relatively bloodless conference that we can go forward from to build Respect as a united organisation?
Comment by Halshall — 30 October, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Andy,
Absolutely nowt to do with the topic but have emailed you Saudi info (from my other email). Hope it’s ok.
Louise
Comment by Louisefeminista — 30 October, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
#4 … have the numbers to win (TOM)
Well that’s far from clear, but it is in any event irrelevant.
The SWP cannot possibly “win” anything if it is intent on building a broad-based left alternative to Labour without developing political alliances. It has to work with someone, preferably a significant number of people, ideally with some weight (in society, in the labour movement, in the community).
The tragedy for SWP members is that their organisation and leadership has run into a cul-de-sac if that is their strategy. If you disagree, just consider this question - what will “Respect the unity coalition” be a coalition between under the SWP leadership’s current trajectory? Sure there are a handful of individuals, but it will look a lot narrower than any broad formation in recent history in western Europe. It will be an SWP front. It won’t be a “united front” of any type.
Therefore the claim to be in favour of unifying Respect under its original principles can only be disingenuous unless accompanied by a serious strategy, demonstrated in practice, for a way of building such an alliance or united front or coalition. In fact the opposite is being demonstrated on a daily basis.
Net result - SWP is going it alone but doesn’t want to admit it - because this has enormous consequences for it’s internal cohesion and its relationship to the rest of the left.
Anyone in the SWP who is genuinely concerned to find a positive way forward needs to be asking the leadership what strategy it has for such a broad based approach and how it’s current strategy is consistent with rebuilding broken bridges or whether the true strategy is a retreat into party building. My hunch is the answer will be the latter or no answer at all.
Comment by Piers — 30 October, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Yawn.
The councillors are still ‘loyal Respect members’. They are not ‘rebel councillors’.
More misinformation/nonsense.
Comment by MC — 30 October, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Please tell me comment #4 is a pisstake. It is very funny.
Comment by another Tom — 30 October, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
I agree if that’s a smoking gun, then its not very smoking and not much of a gun. But can someone clarify, how, if John Rees did not say the things that were claimed of him, did the Respect NC majority come to write their letter of yesterday?
Do they still stand by it?
Were they duped by the SWP into cancelling the NC on the grounds that there was to be a backroom deal, thus preventing them taking over the CAC, thus keeping John Rees in post, thus preventing them from appointing Matt Wrack and thus allowing the SWP to renew their calls for the conference, safe in the knowledge that GG’s lot don’t control it?
If so, that’ll teach them to replace secret behind doors deals for an open political fight, but which does surely reveal another thing, namely that both sides are pretty well identical; they both stand by the compromist politics of Respect; they both go in for back room stitch ups and deals; they only disagree about who’s got the keys to the shop.
Comment by bill j — 30 October, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
The councillors are still ‘loyal Respect members’. They are not ‘rebel councillors’.
MC, what do you think happens, as a general rule, when a councillor for Party X resigns the Party X whip? The only conceivable situation in which that would not constitute rebellion is when the local party is about to be dissolved by the centre and the rebels recognised as the authentic party group - the dissolution of Brighton Labour comes to mind. Is that what the SWP are embarking on?
Comment by Phil — 30 October, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Comparing Rees and German to Liebknecht and Luxemburg…one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a looooooong time. Either it’s a spoof post, or certain ultra-loyal SWP cadres really are taking this “witch hunt” mania a bit too seriously. In the ongoing soap opera called “Respect”, poster number four wins the “Benny from Crossroads” award…
Comment by Bored Eager — 30 October, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
#15 “certain ultra-loyal SWP cadres really are taking this “witch hunt” mania a bit too seriously”
Bit far fetched isn’t it? Funny thing is though, it’s AWL’ers and oppo SWP types who’ve been defending Rees as a “working class hero” and Karl Liebknecht II.
Possibly because they now seeing it taking a stronger stand against the people they don’t like in Respect, but certainly not because they’re out to build the SWP.
The main problem being that the whole affair remains dominated by organsisational questions - not even any open differences in the StWC conference.
If Harman, Rees and German had really wanted to behave like Leninists they would have publicly polemicized for their positions, within the SWP, Respect and the wider Labour movement and backed calls to discipline Galloway for his “Big Brother” appearance.
But no, they publicly sided with him against his critics, who even included Salma Yaqoob. That’s just not principled, or even very intelligent politics and L&L, while not quite being up to the standard of “L”, were certainly that!
The other question lurking in the background is whether the SWP are a bit unhappy with Galloway’s views on Cuba and Venezuela, where he undoubtedly outflanks them politically. Saying “Chavez is our leader” is not exactly the Mike Gonzalez line anyway.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 30 October, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
My analysis is certainly that the line in Respect cannot be divorced from the line on Venezuela. You will note that the SWP CC in their IB said something about how the anti-war movement remains *the* fundamental “crack in the empire” and the Respect project must be secondary to that - that is extremely similar to what they said in the recent IST debate about Venezuela.
Comment by Daphne — 30 October, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
This article has now also been posted on the Respect Supporters Blog with the picture - thanks for posting it Andy.
One thing the SWP never accounted for was our abilty to use the Internet to supply alternative information to all members and the SWP members separate from what the SWP CC say. A reflection of this is the all time record 739 viistots the Respect Spportesr Blog had yesterday - I guess a fair few were Respect members desperate for information.
Lets talk Coups for a minute (a favourite word for the SWP leadership at the moment). Who appear to have taken control of the RESPECT office? Its not the office of the SWP its yours and mine - the members of Respect! Who appears to have taken control of the mebership list and E-Mail list? The answer is obvious. So who then is making a coup I ask?
There can be no conference unless both sides have confidence in its integrity, delegations and fairness and this clearly is not the case. It would only lead to one side or the other walking out at the end or more likely on the fisrt day so whats the point other than to save the face of the SWP for their own memebers (and this is the point for the SWP)?
None of this need ever have happened - Nick Wrack gave the SWP a way forward to work in Respect (one i would have had no problem with) which they have clearly rejected (but not all members I might add from the E-Mails sent to me). If John Rees and friends really believe in the will of Conference and the Natonal Council how come he did not impliment the clear decision of the NC to appoint Nick Wrack as National Organiser (The NC never mentioned an election as a requirement for this to go ahead).
For all those in Respect or care about Respect (and there are plenty who do not who comment of this Blog):
Forget all the ins and outs and the details for a moment and just ask yourself just one question:
Do we want Respect to be a pluralist, open and democratic socialist coalition attractive to others to the left of ‘New Labour’ to work with, and that could work with others in a larger coalition to brake the mould of UK neo-liberal politics? Does anyone now think that the control of Respect by the SWP would allow this to happen?
I suspect and know that there are many fine members of the SWP who will leave after fighting their corner inside the party first - good luck to them all.
Neil Williams
Comment by Neil Williams — 30 October, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
Johng must stop his witch hunt against supposed AWL members on this site. He has been making ridiculous allegations that are simply not true.
Stop the witch hunt now!
Comment by Martin — 30 October, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
Given that a number of comrades have remarked about the posting by ‘Tom’ comparing Rees and German to Liebknecht and Luxemburg, I think it is probably time to explain who Tom is.
Ten years or so ago Tom Delargy circulated long and voluminous letters (yes folks this is how we communicated before email lists and blogs) explaining that the leadership of the SWP were working for the British state.
Since then Tom has turned his attentions to the Scottish Socialist Party, accusing former MSP Frances Curran and myself of working for the intelligence services.
For a short while he attempted to join the Weekly Worker lot but they were having none of it.
Tom, you should avoid getting over excited about what is happening, it’s not good for you.
Comment by Eddie T — 30 October, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
#18 “One thing the SWP never accounted for was our abilty to use the Internet to supply alternative information to all members and the SWP members separate from what the SWP CC say. A reflection of this is the all time record 739 viistots the Respect Spportesr Blog had yesterday - I guess a fair few were Respect members desperate for information.”
I think it is indeed true that in the internet age it is much harder to hide things- it is also much easier for gossip to run wild.
Certainly it is a virtue of sites like this and Liam’s blog that these debates can be had both inside the organisation and with some of the wider forces needed if the left is ever going to get beyond talking to itself. However, excellent though these two sites are in performing this function there needs to be a much wider process of democracy and bringing to account. In particular the practice of having meetings behind closed doors, away from the membership and the wider working class and movement is obviously damaging.
I’m not a supporter of either side in this debate. From the outside both- in terms of policy and program- seem remarkably similar. I’m not a member of Respect though was an enthusiastic and committed member of the Socialist Alliance and am active in various campaigns, struggles and single issues and hope that whatever comes out of the current malaise can lead in the longer run to an open reckoning of where previous projects have gone wrong and how we can build a really effective movement in the working class for socialism and working class democracy- primarily by organising the rank and file in the unions, winning a political break from Labour and drawing in ordinary working class people in the communities to fights for better services, better housing, education, health etc. for a better life.
For this to happen meetings need to be organised:
Inside Respect and the SWP there must be clear and democratic accountability, with meetings of members to explain what has gone on, to have a debate about the issues and decde the best way forward.
In the wider movement, it would seem a good idea to organise a series of open public meetings about how to rebuild the left in Britain and how we can link the different campaigns, draw in new activists and reconnect socialism with the vital needs of the working class.
Only an open political debate and if necessary an open political fight can put an end to the constant rumour mills and speculation.
With the public sector pay cuts, the appalling state of hospitals, the continuing destructive wars of imperialism, continuing environmental degradation and potentially catastrophic climate change, racism, deportations and 30 000 children dying a day because of global capitalism the tasks are both urgent and necessary.
Comment by Jason — 30 October, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
No offence but this is one of the more desperate and dishonest posts in trying to prove anything in this murky dispute. Even someone like Ian Donovan agrees that an invoice to the London office of Respect for a london space, regularly booked, proves nothing. Nor the fact that the name of a staffer in the office is on the invoice.
That’s the way accounts receivables work in any business - you call up the business from whom you need something - a room, a product - and order or book it. They automatically generate an invoice based upon past information and send that out.
It’s rather pathetic and will be countered in exactly two seconds flat thus discrediting future claims about what the SWP are supposedly doing.
Comment by Canadien — 30 October, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
It’s also seriously libellous, if anyone chose to pursue legal channels, you’d be up a creek.
Comment by Canadien — 30 October, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
There seems to be a growing volume of desperate smearing about alleged unconstitutional behaviour from people who think that because they don’t like the way one component of the coalition is organised they have the right to prevent a conference happening because it would be unfair if they lost the vote. Strange Business.
I was thinking about Fight Club. We are the people who put out the chairs. We are the people who put up the posters. We are the people who carry the arguments in every corner. Take us for granted. But do NOT (deleted) with us.
There is a lesson there somewhere.
Comment by johng — 30 October, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
Candien - libellous, how?
Comment by Andy — 30 October, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
A major new article which ‘blows away’ the UK SWP’S current position from other revolutionary socialists is now available on the Respect Supporters Blog. This really is a 5 star ‘must read’ for all SWP and Respect members - you just wont believe its contents - explosive!
THE RESPECT DEBATE: A letter to all members of the SWP (Britain) from Socialist Worker – New Zealand.
Read it at:
http://respectuk.blogspot.com/
Neil Williams
Respect Supporters Blog
Comment by Neil Williams — 30 October, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Blimey Neil someone sent it to me too! And Daphne from New Zealand confirms it’s genuine.
Comment by Liam — 30 October, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
I was thinking about Fight Club. We are the people who put out the chairs. We are the people who put up the posters. We are the people who carry the arguments in every corner. Take us for granted. But do NOT (deleted) with us.
“(deleted)” appears to stand for “try to debate”.
Comment by Phil — 30 October, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
Yes, ‘explosive’ indeed. Writing a ‘letter to all members of the SWP’ from the other side of the world, based on hear say and anti-SWP venom from the blogosphere? Some ‘comrades’, I say. I’m sure the SWP appreciate your support, Daphne…
Comment by Norwegian — 30 October, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
Canadien #22: you know what flannel is don’t you? Brilliant example.
Johng:why do people keep saying you’ve resigned from the SWP - you still seem like a doughty faction fighter to me, you lovely big moose you. So how appropriate you’ve gone into Fight Club mode. Is there a threat there? But you know what the first rule of Fight Club is, don’t you.
Comment by Matthew — 30 October, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
Andy - to impute an action or opinion to a person or group that could damage that person or groups reputation has to be based upon solid evidence. And the onus in such civil cases is upon the accusor - ie. you - to prove that your evidence definitively proves the argument you are making. British common law is actually quite stringent on this stuff. In other words you have to prove that 1) the national office is where the booking came from and 2) that it was the SWP or someone under the direction of the SWP who made the booking from the office to justify the connection you are making between an invoice addressed to the office and your claim. I think you’re on shakey ground in this case but feel free to look up the conditions if you wish. Not that I think anyone will launch a case and sue you for a million bucks or anything.
Comment by Canadien — 30 October, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
But who cares about the law? Are the SWP going to sue Respect? I look forward to it.
It looks to me like the SWP have totally outplayed the GG faction. Before the NC the SWP were on the run as GGs lot were going to take over the bureaucracy of the organisation at Sunday’s NC and use that to establish control of the conference. Now that the SWP have tricked GGs lot not to hold the NC, while secret talks were ongoing, which allowed the SWP to retain control of the conference, and suddenly they’re all keen to have one again.
Making GG’s lot look undemocratic, as they are now against holding a conference they think they may now lose, as it’ll be controlled and organised by the old SWP bureaucracy, who they could have booted out at the NC when they had the chance, but which has now passed them by.
More fool GG’s lot for going for back room deals and stitch ups rather than having an open fight.
So what does this reveal about both sides? That in terms of their modus operandi they’re identical - just one’s better at playing the game than the other one.
I still don’t get though, where yesterday’s letter from Linda Smith fits in, the one that accused Rees of all these things about splitting etc. which appear on the surface wrong (I’m assuming if they were true they would have been corroborated by now).
After making all these claims, they’re refuted (seemingly) by the SWP and then there’s just silence and threats not to hold conference - just what Rees and co wanted.
It’ll be a shame when they split - they deserve each other this lot.
Comment by bill j — 30 October, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
yes the Linda Smith stuff was a pack of lies. It seems that GG’s mob feel they can spread any filth they like no matter what the truth. They want to ban a conference because they know they would probably lose. It is third period stalinism from GG and his mobsters. It reminds me of what Tony Cliff used to say with regards to the Bolsheviks and lenin attitude towards their MP mkae them the most accountable - Hoveman and Ovenden seem to do the opposite - lick the MP’s ass and arrange manipulation of selection meetings and if all fails verbal abuse and intimidation. Talking of which still see no condemnation of the attack on Cllr Rahman’s house from GG or his mobsters. Makes one think?
Comment by jj — 30 October, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
What kind of nonsense is this describing the Gallowayites as being ultra-left? Stop bloody moaning jj old chum the truth is that the only substantial support Respect the opportunist coalition has is the support won by the communalist and electoralist rubbish the SWP co-sponsored with GG in the first instance. The only branches of Respect the SWP controls are the ones that have been in mothballs for literally years.
Comment by Mike — 30 October, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
The people who provided the room invoiced the Resepct office.
Now when you book a room you have to say who you are. Or they may recognise you.
If it had been an unfamiliar person who called up the venue and made the booking then the venue would have asked who it was making the booking. If the booking was being made by someone new or unfamiliar, then the invoice would have gone to the new contact details that the new perosn gave.
So the booking was either made by the Respect office, or it was made by someone who works at the Respect office who the venue are used to dealing with. Either way this invoice proves the booking was made by an SWP member who is an office holder in Respect.
Either way, John Rees was at the press conference, orchestrating the rebel councillors.
Even the Socialist Worker account is persuasive that Oli did not rule out standing against Respect.
During the wrap up of the press conference, when John Rees was speaking more informally to the journalists I understand he made the comparison with how independent labour candidadtes had stood against official Labour party candidates in the past.
In fact the press conference was yet more SWP hubris and the South Londn Advertise wasn’t interested in running the story. So the only press reports were from Socialist Worker (which is obvioulsy on their side), and from the MOrning Star, who very sensibly ran a story that was essentially non-committal, becasue the CPB (yes,yes I know the MOrning Star is independent of the CPB, but the editor is not) want to keep their lines of communication open to both sides.
So nothing has emerged to contradict the letter sent out by Linda Smith yesterday, except for the denials of the SWP.
Comment by Andy — 30 October, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
I see no mention that they are running against RESPECT candidates sinse they are RESPECT members themselves. By the way has he seleciton meeting for the seat GG wants happend and has he recieved the nomination?? If not- is it not a tad arrogant to just declare GG the candidate ah but thats what GG does so that makes it ok then.
Still no condemnation for the attacks on Cllr Rahman- its like getting blood out of a stone!!
Does it really matter who rang the venue- jeez GG mobsters sound like a bunch of lawyers!!
Do you think its “Fair” to vebally abuse
Comment by jj — 30 October, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Hi “Norwegian”:
I and other Socialist Worker comrades in New Zealand have, in fact, read the documents from both sides of the debate. The fact that we stand in solidarity with the politics of the IST does not necessarily mean we will support everything done by the leadership of our sister parties. A few years ago the SWP in Britain wrote a very concerned letter to the Zimbabwe ISO over their attitude to participation in the MDC, so this is nothing new for our tendency.
Although I would have preferred for the letter not to go public for a couple of days to give the SWP a chance to circulate it first, I stand by it, and I hope that SWP comrades will take it in the spirit of comradely concern in which it was written.
Comment by Daphne — 30 October, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Sod the politics of blame… whoever booked a two hour hire of a room for a press conference costing £329!? What do you need a PA for if only the Morning Star, Socialist Worker and local press turn up?
Respect is living in a parallel universe.
Comment by seren — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:01 am
Bill #32
I’m not sure if you mischevious, disingenuous or slow on the uptake when you say: “I still don’t get though, where yesterday’s letter from Linda Smith fits in, the one that accused Rees of all these things about splitting etc. which appear on the surface wrong (I’m assuming if they were true they would have been corroborated by now).”
Linda Smith et al’s letter in question said that JOhn Rees had openly run a press conference in collusion with four councillors who had resigned the party whip, and formed an independent political group on the TH council to oppose Respect.
That IS a split. No organisation would expect its National Secretary to behave against its interests in that way. It is also unbelivebly stupid of the SWP, unless they wanted to raise the temperature. If the rebel councillors wanted to organise a press confernece (something they wouldn’t do without the backing of the SWP CC) then the SWP could have provided somene else to help them who did not have a national office in respect, but they actually chose to link the SWP member with th highest office in respect with the splitters.
Then you say: “More fool GG’s lot for going for back room deals and stitch ups rather than having an open fight.
So what does this reveal about both sides? That in terms of their modus operandi they’re identical”
As you know, even the most militant trade unionists, 100% committed to membership participation and democracy, sometimes engage in negotiations with management with the doors closed.
The Respect loyalist side have made every attempt to i) involve the membership in the debate ii) make that debate as political as possible.
Take one example, it is pretty clear that this blog and Liam’s blog are backing Galloway, Yaqoo and Smith. This is where the information is coming out, and this is where we are trying to get people to spell out the political vision. In contrast, a blog closest to the SWP, lenin’s Tomb, has hardly written about it, and moderated comments to prevent a debate.
Of course a conference would have been desirable, but for that to happen the compromise reached at the National Council had to be implemented - a national organiser appointed. And the CAC had to be impartial.
With a partisan CAC, student delegations that might be out of rule, two delegations disputing the Tower Hamlets credentials, and the National Secretary openly organising a split of councilors prior to conference - how can we have confidence in this conference?
Far from relying on back room deals, how have you heard about the negotiations? From Socialist Worker? From the SWP? Are you having a laugh. It was leaked by ian Donovan.
Negotiations are only happeneing because the SWP want to quit - their insistence on confernce is just to strengthen their hand.
As it happens the negotiations have been facilitated by a well respected comrade in the movement, who is close to both sides and independent. That comrade is a witness, and has made notes that at the end of each session have been read back to the participants. If the SWP renege on the in principle agreements they have made so far, then they will damage working relationships much wider and deeper than just in Respect.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Daphne #37 “I would have preferred for the letter not to go public for a couple of days to give the SWP a chance to circulate it first”
I still haven’t published it for that reason.
:o)
BTW I think it is an excellent contribution that raised the level of the political debate in a very constructive way.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:13 am
JJ #36
As you should know a selection meeting had been scheduled for Poplar, and the apparent cancelation of this meeting, evidenced by a failure to advertise it by the secretary of Tower hamlets Respect, SWP member jacqui Turner, was one of the issue that raised the temperature of the original TH members meeting that ended in chaos. Galloway’s supporters wer eshocked about the apparent cancellation of the planned selection meeting.
And of course it is regretable Oli’s windows were broken, if that is what happened, what has that got to do with me?
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:22 am
The Linda Smith et al letter says things which seem simply not to be true. You can take parts of that letter and argue that they are “directionally correct” or whatever. But that is sophistry.
As for the NZ contribution - if the blogworld has that from within the British SWP, the NZ organisation can’t be held responsible for that. If from the NZ organisation, then that’s an appalling way to behave. The content does indeed read as if it’s been culled from reading documents alone, which doesn’t strike me as a great basis for a contribution.
Comment by Non-SWP Respect socialist — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Hi NSRS:
I wonder under what other circumstances those who weren’t actually present at the various meetings could possibly form any opinions on the matter, if not from documents, online or hardcopy or emailed or otherwise. Certainly “word-of-mouth” and urban legend aren’t more reliable sources. I and other SW-NZ comrades have read both the SWP’s documents and those from other Respect forces, and have waited until this stage to make a contribution.
Comment by Daphne — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:34 am
I would have thought that having a conversation with your comrades in the British SWP would be a good idea.
Comment by Non-SWP Respect socialist — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Non-SWP Respect socialist # 42
You say: “The Linda Smith et al letter says things which seem simply not to be true. “
But every single factual claim in that letter except one is backed by other sources and is therefore surely not even in dispute.
Do you or anyone else dispute:
i) Respect National Secretary John Rees has spoken publicly in support of four councillors who have split from Respect in Tower Hamlets.
ii) four former Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets announced that they had resigned the Respect whip on the council and were forming a Respect (Independent) party.
iii) John Rees answered questions at the press conference.
iv) He expressed his support for the four breakaway councillors
v) Cllr Oliur Rahman did not rule out standing against George Galloway,
I look forward to your clarication of which of these claims is “untrue”
The one fact that has not been independantly corroborated is this “In answer to questions from journalists he said that Respect (Independent) candidates could be standing against Respect candidates in elections.”
But I have it on very good authority that it was said. And the fact that there is no independent corroboration doesn’t mean it is wrong.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Well, if you really want to be childish about it:
1) No-one has split from Respect
2) No-one has formed a new party
3&4 and your conveniently moved other point) Were written together and clearly intended to be taken together
5) He was clearly talking about Repsect selection
Comment by Non-SWP Respect socialist — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Hi NSRS:
A conversation with the British SWP was precisely what this letter was designed to open. If you mean we should have rang London for their side of the story, “their side of the story” is pretty clear from their various public statements and internal documents that have been sent to us (for example, the famous transcript of the Tower Hamlets committee meeting). Ringing London would be a good idea, when we can afford it, but we don’t see at this stage why we should, for example, ring John Rees but not ring Kevin Ovenden (who was “our comrade” until a few weeks ago).
Comment by Daphne — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:53 am
Daphne
I’m just really surprised that a fraternal organisation would place equal emphasis on party and non-party documents, and would (whether simply by taking the risk, or by design, I don’t know) start that conversation in public without having had any contact with its sister party in London. That seems extraordinary to me. An email or two wouldn’t cost anything.
Anyway, it’s not for me to say how you or the British SWP conduct affairs among yourselves. It just seems odd.
Comment by Non-SWP Respect socialist — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:00 am
#46
i) When elected councillors resign the party whip they have in fact “split from Respect in Tower hamlets”
ii) They have in fact constituted themselves as a distinct political party group of councillors (Respect Independent) on Tower hamlets council.
iii) So I moved the order of the facts, that doesn’t stop them being facts. JOhn Rees did speak to their press conference.
iv)It is not at all clear that Oli was talking about the Respect selection. Firstly, that is not the natural meaning of the words even as reported in Socialist Worker; and secondly the clear context of having the press cinference is that they would not be in the same party by the next election/
NSRS - looking back at the history of the labour movement, has a group of councillors resigning the whip ever not ended in avoided ending in a split?
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:06 am
and #48 NSRS
Do you have anything politial to say about Daphne’s contribution, other then to try to diminish it by vague muttering over protocol.
get over it, they aren’t a colony any more.
And in any event it would make a cat laugh to complain about that after the bulldozer intervention that Callinicos (and Cliff) made into the American ISO.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:10 am
QUESTIONS:It’s great that the New Zealanders have bought into the discussion in such a constructive way. If the English far left can transcend its penchant for knee jerk SWP bashing and address the politics in play we’ll all be better of.
Rather than simply being a fracas charted through manoevreings in Respect this present dispute has long term and international ramifications as the Socialist Worker comrades suggest.
At stake are core issues such as: Can the left be regrouped through projects like this as a general tactical approach? If so which left can: the non aligned left and/or the organised groupuscule left? Is such a promise still extant? How do you assess the health and political wealth of these projects? Must they be sentenced as a matter of course to function primarily as electoral vehicles or will they tend to develop toward becoming fully fledged new left parties? If so, what then? Do you facilitate that and if you do, how do you do that? (And if you don’t: ditto.) How should a revolutionary socialist cadre outfit relate to these formations? And, ironically perhaps, how essential can the contribution of such organised socialist forces be to the success and political development of projects like this? How do revolutionary socialists organise with and within these new party projects given that they may see themselves as having a double (and maybe conflicting) programmatic loyalty? How do you ‘protect’ your conscious revolutionary cadre core from a milieu, you may cynically consider, promotes a ‘dumbing down” of your politics and a wasteful spending of your cadre assets?
That’s my off-the-top-of-my-head short list of core questions that I think cannot be avoided. They are questions I know are asked.
The problem for all of us is that this conjuncture — in Respect, the SSP, Die Linke, the Australian SA, etc — is a new experience & engagement for the active Marxist left (at least in our post WWII lifetimes) and no one has written the manual. If you think that makes for complicated politics without the easy recourse to schemas you’d be one hundred percent correct.
Comment by Dave Riley — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:19 am
andy - I can’t recall its having happened that often, as it goes. But I may well not know my history as well as you do. It’s one of a number of events that, yeah, I think will probably culminate in a split of some kind.
I don’t make a habit of delving into the internal workings of the SWP and its sister organisations around the world, so that may well be the accepted way of doing things. It just seems odd to me. Nothing more to be said by me on that subject.
As for the contribution itself - I can’t see that it adds much, but maybe I haven’t read it properly. If you think it does, can you tell me what?
Comment by Non-SWP Respect socialist — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:21 am
Ok #52 NSRS
The new Zealand comrades are better qualified to talk about this than anyone, and if the SWP CC had any sense they would have rung NZ for advice, becasue the previous closest example to what is happeneing was the self-destruction of the Alliance, a far left party which also had parliamantary representation, and blew up after a split dynamic devloped.
Daphne firstly has a very good narrative grasp of what has happened in Respect, without getting bogged down in the detail
and then within that she relates to the SWP’s own political framework, and points out:
tactics do not derive from principles. (which the SWP CC had claimed they did in their internal bulletin)
beleif that tactics derive from principles lead to tatical disputes being accelerated and exagerated, and tactical disagreements with the SWP CC will meet a fierce organisational repsonse - as they are interporeted as a battle over principles.
(Actually the elevation of tactics to principles was a particular trait of Cliff)
The SWP’s approach has from the beginning undermined possibilities for reconciliation. (In contrast the Galloway camp has seen a lot of reconciliation between people who have had political differences in the past) The measures by the SWP designed to harden organistaional loyalty of its troops by definition increase divisions between the SWP and the rest.
Arguing - as the SWP CC does - that building the revolutionary party is the overarching prioriy, fails to understand that “A sect with many members is of far less consequence in the class struggle than a smaller group of revolutionaries playing an organic leadership role in promoting political consciousness among the working classes and oppressed layers”
Finally Daphne makes some really sensible suggestions about how a split could be avoided;
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:38 am
Hi Andy:
“(Actually the elevation of tactics to principles was a particular trait of Cliff)”
Wasn’t Cliff the guy famous for saying that “tactics contradict principles”?
Anyway, the parallels with the Alliance can only be drawn so far. The active revolutionary left were never involved in the Alliance - they were excluded from day 1 - and if you think that George Galloway MP is out of control in Respect, then you never saw the literal autocracy of Jim Anderton MP in the Alliance. (For a British audience, the closest parallel I could draw was Scargill in the SLP.)
The point of my comparison, though, was that when Anderton’s authority was challenged by the Alliance left, he went on a wrecking mission and demanded that the left not only capitulate, but either resign from the party or hand over all power to himself personally (I am not exaggerating here). Both sides were permanently and fatally damaged, both in resources and in public perception. This is what happens when you insist on fighting a war where no war is necessary.
Comment by Daphne — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:51 am
Cliff believed his own tactics were principles anyway!
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:54 am
And Daphne
I see Matt McCarten is no longer with the Maori Party. What happened there?
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:59 am
anybody an idea why the respect hp is offline? “Due to technical difficulties”, as is stated, seems a bit odd.
Comment by Charly — 31 October, 2007 @ 2:06 am
That’s a question you’d have to ask Matt and the Maori Party, Andy. Matt was never an actual member of the party, though he did give them a lot of advice and help. It probably doesn’t help that the Maori Party parliamentarians have openly flirted with supporting a Tory government after the next election, which is not designed to endear them to even the reformist left.
Comment by Daphne — 31 October, 2007 @ 2:07 am
online again
Comment by Charly — 31 October, 2007 @ 2:13 am
Andy (#53) said “Finally Daphne makes some really sensible suggestions about how a split could be avoided”
I agree that Daphne’s letter is a very astute analysis, and deserves all the praise it has received.
But those “sensible suggestions” should be regarded more as a courtesy to the leaders of a party in the same international tendency, rather than as practical advice to us now (as “sensible suggestions” seems to imply).
I think it’s clear now that we have passed the point of no return, and it is dangerous to flirt with hopes that the SWP CC will somehow see sense and seek reconciliation. The CC’s loyal cadres are certainly being organised (although they are being misinformed at the same time), and we have to be organised too (while being open and truthful with all on our side).
The danger of the Newham Respect call for unity is clear from the fact that some of the signatories had already signed a petition that is part of the CC’s dirty war. So some of those calling for unity were also happy to endorse dishonest allegations about a “witch-hunt” against “socialists” in Respect (while other signatories to the Newham statement were presumably acting sincerely).
We mustn’t allow ourselves to be disarmed repeatedly by calls for peace and unity (and democracy, for that matter) from those whose words and actions have shown clearly that they want the opposite. As for those who make such calls sincerely, it should be explained to them why this is no longer possible if we hope to salvage anything worthwhile in Respect.
Sorry if that’s not what you were thinking when you made that comment, Andy, but I’d been meaning to say this for a few days now, and the Respect meeting that I attended a few hours ago confirmed to me that this warning needs to be kept in mind.
Comment by babeuf — 31 October, 2007 @ 3:07 am
The tone of these discussions seems to be getting more and more hysterical, which is why the contribution from the New Zealand IS group is such a breath of fresh air. It gets back to politics. SWP members, who are being dragooned into circling the wagons around their leaders through this silly ‘anti-witch hunt’ campaign, need to read it and consider it seriously. The actions of the SWP leadership, in silencing debate and criticism in the run up to their own party conference through expulsions, has nothing to do with Leninism. It will be interesting to see how they reat to this.
Comment by dennis — 31 October, 2007 @ 5:01 am
RE # 37: You’d ‘prefer for the letter not to go public for a couple of days’? Is this why you put it on your web site!!? You really don’t see that your behaviour is damaging to the SWP and to the tendency - as well as to Respect? Shame on you.
Comment by Norwegian — 31 October, 2007 @ 7:27 am
I think the New Zealand SWP contribution is very welcome and gives a very perceptive and intelligent view of the situation.We should take note.
Comment by Gramsci's breakfast — 31 October, 2007 @ 8:02 am
#62 Norwegian.
Given that the document was circulated to members of the IST by Daphne, and some other interested parties privately, and then someone passed it to Liam Mac Uaid who published it without realising the embargo, the cat was out the bag.
At which stage Daphne was behaving properly publishing it on their web-site.
Your repsonse as an SWP loyalist, that it is shameful for the SW-NZ to try to raise the political level of the debate is very revealling.
Nor is it damaging to the SWP and IST to advise the SWP away from their current disastrous course where they are ripping up the bonds of trust they have with others in the movement, and isolating themselves.
I wonder whether you thought it was shameful when Alex Callinicos started e-mailing and telphoning direct to rank and file members of the ISO-USA to by-pass the Chicago leadership, trying to forment a split only a few years ago.
Did you think it shameful that Keiran Allen produced a document for the SWP Party Council whole heartedly endorsing the SWP CC’s position, without having any debate in the SWP-Ireland over the issues?
In actual fact the Sw-NZ have done absolutly nothing outwith the norm of relations within the IST, except the advice usually goes from London outwards, and not to London.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Babeuf #60
I think the practical protocol suggested by the SW-NZ is one that could - even at this late hour - still be adopted by the SWP if they wanted to rescue Respect. BUt it would mean acknowledgement from themselves that there was no witchunt, and they themselves are orchestrating the split - so I cannot see it is possible.
Nevertheless Daphne’s suggestions are wise, and a benchmark against which to compare the SWP’s actual behaviour.
A couple of years ago there was a split dynamic developing in the Australian Socialist Alliance, and tensions were calmed by a protocol of practical measures suggested by the non-aligned causcus.
Equally, if the SWP have decided to leave, then the advice thata they shouldn’t follow a scorched earth policy on theri way out is good.
Otherwise in honesty no-one is ever going to trust or work with them again.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 8:52 am
JJ’s demands for Respect supporters to disavow an alleged ‘attack’ on Oliur Rahman sounds just like a similar incident in the 2005 General Election when some Labour-supporting pensioner falsely claimed to have been attacked by Respect supporters. It was later proved that the whole incident was a fraud, orchestrated by the Oona King camp.
Since the same techniques are involved here, I reckon its likely that the same people are involved. Provocateurs in other words.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Hi “Norwegian”:
What Andy says is the truth - with the exception that I think respectuk.blogspot.com published it first. But it would have been published in a couple of days, anyway.
I’m not sure how one comrade from an IST party writing a letter (even one made public) seeking to open debate with comrades from another IST party is “damaging the Tendency”. There is a regrettable misconception among outsiders that the IST parties are all clones remote-controlled from London. The publication of my letter has at least shattered that myth and proved that debate is alive within our Tendency!
The IST is loyal to the International Socialist political tradition, not to any person or institution, and I see it as not only comradely but a comradely duty to express our concerns when we think that a sister party is making serious errors. I’m certainly not ashamed about that, and I repeat that the British SWP were not shy about telling the Zimbabwean ISO where they thought they were going wrong in 2003.
Comment by Daphne — 31 October, 2007 @ 9:57 am
I am particularly enjoying the idea that a good response to complaints that your not very good at working with people is to threaten the person complaining with legal action. This must be the new pluralism everyone’s talking about. The person so threatened isn’t even an SWP member.
Comment by johng — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:09 am
John
Perhaps good working realtions might also be damaged by someone issuing a press release saying that an individual has “inappropriate behaviour towards women”, which is a clear implication of sexual misconduct.
If a person in public life is falsely publicly accused of sexual misconduct, then surely they are entitled to seek an apology and retraction. And surely a solicitors letter pointing out the libel is not disproprotionate.
The damaging behaviour started with the libellous press release by the SWP supporter, not with the request for an apology.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:18 am
An “SWP supporter”. Andy you really are swallowing the line aren’t you.
Comment by johng — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Andy said (#65) “I think the practical protocol suggested by the SW-NZ is one that could - even at this late hour - still be adopted by the SWP if they wanted to rescue Respect. BUt it would mean acknowledgement from themselves that there was no witchunt, and they themselves are orchestrating the split - so I cannot see it is possible.”
You’re right that it’s not possible. The SWP leadership now seems to have serious hopes that it can get what it wants at a Respect Conference in mid November (i.e. dispersing and demoralising non-SWP elements and walking off with the “Respect” name). The present “witch-hunt” rhetoric sounds irrational from outside the SWP, but I can assure you (from my own experience as well as what I know from others) that it is proving very effective in mobilising SWP members who’ve had little involvement in Respect (and who are therefore least likely to be aware of the case being put by the other side). Loyalty to the SWP’s internal culture means that they will automatically tend to reject anything internally or externally that opposes the line of their CC, and will (as a matter of party morality) generally avoid reading criticisms because these are, by definition, “sectarian”.
So the “witch-hunt” rhetoric is capable of mobilising sufficient numbers of SWP members, and control of the CAC will ensure that nationally this exceeds any counterweights from London and Birmingham. This is the logic of their position, and it would be dangerous now for them to drop it, and also pointless, since they’re in a position of strength.
The only body within Respect that eludes their control is the NC, and we should be lobbying our NC members to postpone the Conference. This is the only chance we have of emerging with a post-SWP Respect, as far as I can see. Of course this will allow the SWP leadership to spin it as part of the witch-hunt and a denial of democracy, but the large part of the SWP membership that will swallow this is already lost to our arguments - it would be dangerous for us to imagine otherwise.
If the NC acts determinedly, I think the SWP leadership can be forced back to a negotiated withdrawal, since they can’t string out their current tactics until, say, January (the more time passes, the more likely it is that deceptions can be exposed). This time we should insist that such negotiations take place in the open, both because openness is paramount if we are to have trust and unity on our side, and because the secret negotiations have only injured our side so far, and allowed the SWP leadership to gain the upper hand by having last Sunday’s NC meeting cancelled. We can’t afford to do this again.
Now I realise events can move very fast, but with all the information I have at hand, this is the analysis I stand by. Beyond this, I think “rank-and-file” Respect members should increase the amount of communication with NC members. We don’t want to have to rely passively on the decisions of wise leaders with no input or corrections from below - look where that’s got the SWP.
Comment by babeuf — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:41 am
John #70
I am losing a lot of respect for you by the way you are arguing in a surly and sniping way. And the way you are seemingly seekign to exacerbate tensions.
A press release was issued by Oliur Rahman that contained a serious libel against another Respect councillor. Rahman is an SWP supporter is he not? http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=910
I commented before I knew that a solicitors letter had been sent, that the clear implictaioon of this press release was an accustion of sexual miscondunct.
That was ratcheting up tension (perhaps by stupidity rather than design) by the rebel councillors.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Daphne, I fail to see in what way you are ‘loyal to the International Socialist political tradition’. And your letter is one of the clearest examples I have ever seen of un-comradely behaviour (not sure if that’s a proper word in English - but you’ll get the meaning). In a serious fight involving one of the largest IST organisations, you decide to publish a ‘letter to all SWP members’ that incidentally shows up on a number of ‘anti-sectarian’ sectarian blogs in the UK (Liam, Andy, Neil and other non-friends of the SWP). Protocol aside, you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Comment by Norwegian — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:52 am
The NZ IST group’s letter is but another symptom of the ongoing political degeneration of the IST. The whole Respect project has proved an utter disaster for the SWP and has done nothing to build the forces of socialism in Britain. All it did was pull the SWP to the right. Now the inevitable blow up has come and the pack of cards is falling in on top of them. It was all utterly predictable. There is no basis for half way house formations like Respect or the Scottish Socialist party.
As for the Socialist Alliance in Australia being some sort of example to follow that is an absolute joke. The Socialist Alliance is simply a front for the DSP which is much smaller than the SWP (at best 300 members). It will get a miniscule vote in the upcoming elections. The Greens will get the left vote. No section of the left in Australia looks to the Socialist Alliance.
There are lessons other groups in the IST could have learned from this fiasco but they are not the ones drawn by the NZ comrades. The lesson is to pull back from opportunistic get rich quick schemes like Respect. The approach of the NZ comrades would only further compound the disaster.
Comment by oz socialist — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Norwegian - “incidentally shows up on a number of ‘anti-sectarian’ sectarian blogs in the UK (Liam, Andy, Neil and other non-friends of the SWP).”
Where have I published it?
And the SWP’s current utter isolation is revealed by your characterisation of Neil and Liam as non-friends of the SWP, and your descriptioon of serious socialists who disagree with the SWP as ‘anti-sectarian’ sectarians .
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Norwegian’s assessment of SWP-NZ’s well-balanced letter as disloyal and uncomradely is another depressing example of the obsessive centralism of the SWP-UK’s internal culture. Open discussion could only be seen as subversive by cadres whose notion of democratic centralism has become distorted by a mis-reading of Bolshevik history (specifically, by seeing the emergency measures enacted at the 10th Congress as typical rather than atypical and temporary). This version of ‘disloyalty’ is one step away from Orwell’s ‘thought crime’ - quite instructive really of the mind-set of the more unthinking SWP comrades (to call them cadres would be an insult too far!).
Comment by Bored Eager — 31 October, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Dear OZ socialist,
I think you are bit TOO easily dismissive of the SSP as a broad party and the question of the basis for a broad party. The SSP was genuinely growing and gaining support until the craziness of the Sheridan facade hit the fan. Lessons are being learnt.
The lesson is surely that ‘the Left’ has to adopt fundamentally open and democratic practices and should not try to delude itself or others, if it is to involve itself in broad party projects if it is not comitted to this. Agreed the DSP is similar in this respect to the SWP.
What are you suggesting? Other than voting or supporting the Australian Green party which by all accounts is far more to the left than the Green party here and is growing.
What lessons in your view should the New Zealand SWP have learnt from the Alliance bust up?
Comment by Gramsci's breakfast — 31 October, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Ah this is all very interesting. Who did what, when and how, but there is a danger of letting the politics go by the board. In a sense it doesn’t matter who paid for the room yesterday or who circulated what today, it is the ramifications of what it all means.
Firstly, regardless of what that fool Tom wrote, John Rees is no Karl Liebnicht, still less Rosa Luxembourg. They were martyrs for the German revolution, killed by the fascists. The only thing Rees is likely to die of is drinking too much plonk.
The SWP have come up against the continual conundrum of how you can operate a party within a party. Don’t forget Respect was it, the solution, the way out of the left’s isolation and dilemmas, it was the ‘new social movement’ according to Rees at the last but one SA Conference. Yet they couldn’t resolve the dilemma anymore than they could do so in the SA. Which do you build or recruit to? The SWP or Respect?
It is NATURAL that if you prioritise your own party then Respect is one of those united fronts of a special type (i.e. not a united front!) in which one must ensure, by hook or by crook, one controls the office, the information, the staff etc. Those who may quibble are frozen out, not talked to, rumoured against etc. like Salma. And when SWP members are not nominated as councillors, which was after all the whole idea of Respect, then that is a question of ‘communalism’ (not the idea of appealing to a particular community, just that community having its own as elected reps.).
The day to day happenings are of course interesting gossip. Just as some people enjoy watching soap operas so some people enjoy the latest in the John and George show, but the individual manouvres are besides the point. The question for my mind is whether the SWP itself is going to survive what has happened or if it’s going to begin to cause questions raised by the +flock of sheep that constitutes the SWP’s membership.
Comment by Tony Greenstein — 31 October, 2007 @ 11:56 am
interesting that Geenstein only attacks the SWP. Gallowyas mob manipulating selection meetings and verbally abusing those who oppose him is deemed acceptable. However the statement that its about politics is right. Thankfully the SWP did not dissolve itself into RESPECT because it does not hold the view that the issues of reform or revolution has gone away. What Greenstein wants is the leg work done by the SWP but for them to express no opinion. Even he can surely in his more lucid moments see this is not a runner.He wants the SWP to turn a blind eye to pandering to the right, blind eye to more buisnessmen being selected as they have the connections, more downp[laying of trade union work, move towards supporting Livingstone for Mayor by declaring with no authority via his minder that the elected candidate is no longer allowed to stand. Come Greenstein isn’t about time there was some criticism of GG. Still no condemnation of the bricking of Cllr Rahman’s house by GG. Says it all.
Comment by jj — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
The contribution from the SWO-NZ is the first piece of common sense from within the IS tradtion. This does raise the level of debate. How it appeared now is not so relevant, as what its saying.
It provides a very useful starting point for many of us. They should be congratulated for a good sober piece of analysis.
Suffice to say. The SWP had no hesitation in emailing all ISO members invidually and circumventing the ISO-NC. This is noted in the booklet that the SWP published containing the all the documents and debates between them and the ISO-US
(I’m sure Andy can locate a copy). This is not something the SWO-NZ has done.
Whats’ good for the goose is good for the gander.
Comment by Frog boiler — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Re: Comment by Norwegian 73 “you decide to publish a ‘letter to all SWP members’ that incidentally shows up on a number of ‘anti-sectarian’ sectarian blogs in the UK (Liam, Andy, Neil and other non-friends of the SWP.”
I have always maintained that the SWP should remain in Respect and that I look forward to working with them as I have done for over 30 years. This cannot however be on the basis that the SWP control Respect or key committees or by its design or inaction prevent its development. I am not hopeful.
Those of us who have remained loyal to the original pluralist, Socialist conception of Respect need to know, and to know now, that Respect will continue with or without the SWP (although I suspect that many of their mmebers will join the ‘loyalists’). Yes there will need to be a refoundation conference in the Spring with all interested in a left of Labour, Socialist democratic coalition and I am sure there may be others who will join us that currently are not part of Respect. It is posssible that the SWP will make it impossible to use the Respect name (which is all thats left in their current dispute, having taken part in divorce meetings over last weekend whatever they are telling the memembers of the SWP). Nobody is happy about all this and it is very sad but unity at any price is not the answer. The New Zealnd SWP have given some very good advice for their comrades in the UK to either stay in Respect and change or get out without recking what has been built by us all (including SWp members).
My blog remained totely neutral until two weeks ago when Nick Wrack and others were expelled from the SWP and this last week when Jerry Hicks resigned. I have spent my life fighting any form of sectarianism and have spoken to many members of the SWP via E-Mail who are unhappy with their parties position but intend to remain to fight their corner for the momment at least, and I wish them all the best. Only yesterday the Respect Supporters Blog published the Socialist Worker statement on Respect with detailed comments from Chris Bambery (so strange that SWP members have E-mailed asking me to publish the SWP position every day and to be SO democratic - but can you see Socialist Worker printing something from Linda Smith, Nick Wrack. or the Jerry Hicks resignation lettter? None of this is even on the Respct Web site under the ‘For Members’ section).
Daphne I did not know you wanted a short embargo on your excellent article so I can only aplogagise - I would have kept to it if I had known. It a very important and valid contribution and mirrors much that Nick Wrack tried to say in the SWP before he was expelled. I cant however see the SWP leadership sending it out to all their members in the current climate (I hope I am wrong) so the Blog/Internet world is one of the few ways for open discussion to occur.
I must say that I think Socialist Unity and Andy and Liam on his Blog have done everyone a big service over the last few weeks by allowing an open democratic debate for Respect members (such a shame that the Respect Web site has no members forum) as I have also tried to do (the down side is that you get lots of nutters and anti Respect people on the comments section but I guess that is the price of the democratic debate on the future of Respect (which you will not see in Socialist Worker).
Neil Williams
Respect Supporters Blog
Sorry for any spelling mistakes but I was never any good at it in school.
Comment by Neil Williams — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
“Still no condemnation of the bricking of Cllr Rahman’s house by GG.”
This comment by JJ is clearly a libel, and should be treated no differently to libellous comments by Tim.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
I would like to echo what Neil Williams has said. Because the SWP CC have not allowed any open debate, its had to take place in these 3 main blogs, and congratulations and thanks to Neil, Andy & Liam.
I would suggest that everyone (SWP members especially) have look at the SWO-NZ website/blog as an example of how the SWP CC could have done things, could have had open debate.
The SWO-NZ have published all sorts of discussion documents and made them available. Whether you agreed with them or not. You have to recognise their openness.
Their URL
http://unityaotearoa.blogspot.com/
Comment by Frog boiler — 31 October, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Ian
It is difficult to know where and when to step in and moderate.
I am sure that the sane readers of this blog know that whatever is supposed to have happened to Oli’s house has absolutley nothing to do with galloway, and only someone who has lost all sense of reality would think otherwise.
Why would someone totaly unconnected in any way with a minor crime be repeatedly asked to condemn it?
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Andy #69 The damaging behaviour started with the libellous press release by the SWP supporter, not with the request for an apology. Actually, the damaging behaviour might well have started with the inappropriate behaviour displayed by the person concerned. You are not in a position to refute that allegation. Since when is the left’s immediate reaction to such accusations to say that the women must be lying?
Comment by chjh — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
chjh
What is the behaviour being alleged?
If it was as serious as the form of words “inappropriate behaviout towards women” implies - that carries the clear meaning of Gerry Healy style sexual misconduct, then why wasn’t the question raised seriously at the time?
Such serious behaviour should not be stored up and used as amunnition later in a faction fight.
If less serious behaviour is being alleged, then the proper course of action is for a retraction and apology to be issued over the stupidly inflamatory choice of words used.
What is objectionable about that?
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Not really. If its possible that someone over-enthusiastic about existing disagreements did step over the mark it would be entirely normal for people to say ‘of course we would condemn this’ etc, etc.
Comment by johng — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
I undertsand the mailing sent out by Linda Smith about the press conference re 4 councillors resigning the whip has been shown to be a pack of lies as someone had filmed the aformentioned event adn I think is able to be viewed on u tube. If so I am sure that Linda must resign for being shown to be a witchunter who distorts the truth to dupe the memberhsip. I would have thought she needed to consider her position and I am sure all here would agree.
Why not let the membership decide at the conference, The Galloway mob can’t have it all ways– bleating on about democracy and trying to stop the only forum for the members to decide, complaining that the SWP did not have all its members in RESPECT (See J Hicks letter) and then say the SWP is just Leninists who have no place in RESPECT, Seek to dominate RESPECT when there is no cttee which it has a majority!!
It is pathetic that Hicks and co have moved to seeing the world where the enemy is the ruling class to that where the enemy is the SWP. No doubt they will create a wonderful new world to the left of labour! The test of how bad the SWP really is is to see whta happens to Galloway and his mobsters after the split. Lets see how accountable GG is - if the SWP is right then GG will lead themselves into an increasingly narrow vision of what is possible. Increasingly rely on small buisness figures and the “Name of GG”. Possible problem is his star has waned considerably and from what I hear would have little chance of retainign is current seat as he is hardly present in the area. Indeed form what I have been told Hoveman does his surgeries!! no thats what I call substitutionism!! perhaps Hoveman is going in disguise!! GG isn’t interested in a national alternative to New Labour what he wants is base in East London an a few other places- well thats as far as he sees possible to build.
The SWP view is that many labour voting white working class people can be won over to a radical left alternative to Brown. Indeed I don’t see any other organisation capable of or have the politics to intervene in the post dispute. GG would probably not upset Hayes by speaking out against the deal but certainly would not have a clue about practically organising resistance to the leadership on this issue and being able to work with them on other areas. GG is an old fashioned Stalinist operater. One who I am afraid wants the movement to operate solely to his tune.
Like it or not the first person to pick up the phone to build an anti war coalition 24 hrs after 9/11 was the SWP, that coalition is broader than anything else for many years and remains pretty united and politically has been able to steer a path of principle and openess. Lets face it no other left organisation has the ability to do this. The SWP are involved in UAF, DCH and a myriad of other campaigns. If anythin we took are eyes of the prize and we should of raised our concerns about GG’s position regarding building RESPECT earlier.. but this is not exactly crime of the month. The pressure to let things pass was due to a desire to keep RESPECT operating. Things didn’t turn out that way. GG will be left with a rag bag collection of people united in their hatred of the SWP and for some socialism. If GG doesn’t get anothe seat he will do ok thank you very much- the media work is clearly attractive for him. More nights at the palladium doing mother of all talk shows. What a waste!
Comment by jj — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
If its possible that someone over-enthusiastic about existing disagreements did step over the mark it would be entirely normal for people to say ‘of course we would condemn this’ etc, etc.
Perhaps, but as it so unbelievably unlikely that the events are connected, then the requests for condemnation are a dirty trick of trying to create an association where none exists.
As ian has pointed out, this is the same sort of bollocks that Oona King’s campaign came out with. We treated that with disdain now, and we should treat this with disdain now.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
“The Galloway mob”
The Galloway mob, eh? When cops used to arrest miners in the 1984-5 strike, they used to refer to miners as “Scargill’s mob”. So that’s an interesting turn of phrase from JJ. Is JJ a cop?
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
JJ says
“rag bag collection of people”
would you like to characterise Ken Loach in that vein.
If the SWP CC have alienated people such as this, you have wonder, maybe, perhaps, just have, possibley, got things tad wrong !
Comment by Frog boiler — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Ian
“Is JJ a cop?”
I thought he might be a right wing troll originally, but I note that no-one from the SWP have sought to distnce themselves from his argumeents. I think it is unfortunetely all too believable that he genuinley is a wound up SWP member.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Its not unbelievably unlikely that the events are connected, but not in the manner that JJ would like to imply. JJ has already posted stuff that sounds like Harry’s Place/AWL filth while posing as an SWPer. Be aware that, though there is obviously a split going on mainly over conceptions of organisation, it is highly likely that people with other more sinister agendas want to poison things further in the manner for instance associated with COINTELPRO in the US. JJ fits that profile very well.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
no one said that GG did the attack stupid but even if one disagrees with others when they are attacked don’t we stand together?? I thought that was basic socialist principle? whoever carried out the attack was obviously out of order etc etc. I find it sad that Donvan stated GG doesn’t hav to condemn this stuff because he didn’t do it. Well best not condem the Iraq war then on this logic we can’t condem anythin we haven’t done!! Is this where it’s all come to. If GG or any of his supporters were attacked it would be a disgrace end of story whatever my views about this dispute.
Comment by jj — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
ok rag bag was not the best phrase but the GG lot are hardly united in what they stand for- except witchunting the SWP out it appears.
Comment by jj — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Well, apparently the Galloway Mob have been perpetrating a St Valentine’s Day style massacre against the Rees Gang, using bricks (probably hidden in violin-cases).
I suspect an infestation of borsalino hats.
Comment by MFB — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
John G did originally so distance himself. Though he seems to be a bit careless now. I wonder if he has clocked that JJ is the same JJ who ranted like Jim Denham in previous threads?
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Well I share Ian’s view that it is not ‘unbelievable’ that there is a connection. I would not therefore argue that there was one. In normal circumstances people would be very quick to condemn the bricking of a councilers window. They would have been very quick to condemn a lot of other things as well which have been discussed elsewhere. The presumption of many here that all this stuff about witch hunts is an SWP fabrication is leading some people here to take some things much more lightly then they would do normally. For all the denunciations of me being a bit too sharp above, its something people should reflect on.
Comment by johng — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
If someone put a brick through my window for no apparent reason, I would expect your sympathy and I have no doubt would get it. But I wouldnt be demanding your ‘condemnation’ of the act of smashing my window - it would go without saying. Unless, of course, I had reason to suspect that you sympathised with the smashing of my window, or were associated in someway with the person who did it. That is what seems to be being implied by JJ. It’s a version of “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Very dodgy stuff indeed.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
No Ian I don’t really buy that I’m afraid. As you said it is at least possible that the bricking of a Respect Councilers window was connected to this dispute. Certainly possible enough for a lot of people to be drawing links. In such circumstanecs it would be entirely normal and natural for people to repudiate even the possibility of such a thing taking place.
I think the reason this hasn’t happened is not because anybody wants things like that to happen, but because they see it simply in terms of an on-going propaganda war. I think this is short-sighted. Its also short sighted to keep behaving as if in Tower Hamlets, all those who disagree with the main councilers group are ‘SWP’ or ‘SWP supporters’ (the term really being an attempt to marginalise and present as somehow ‘inauthentic’ any counciler or individual who does not take your own side in the current dispute (locally this is connected to the hysterical accusations directed against a woman counciler that she has ‘betrayed the community’).
This is short-sighted, not only because politically highly dubious, but perhaps more importantly, because its not true. One reason for all the bitterness is that Tower Hamlets has one of the largest Respect memberships. Its a bastion. In the meeting on Thursday only a third of those present were SWP. Yet the majority refused to vote with the so-called Respect loyalists, and were therefore refused the right to vote.
Thats something which ought to be registered at some point, and it seems to be taking a rather long time to sink in. Its what informs the dynamic of whats currently taking place in TH though.
Comment by johng — 31 October, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
#95 the GG lot are hardly united in what they stand for
Well done for recognising, in however distorted a form, one of the central points about this dispute. On one side there is the SWP leadership; on the other there are a lot of different groups and people who have issues with the way the SWP leadership has been running RESPECT.
- except witchunting the SWP out it appears
There is no witchhunt. There is a concerted attempt to reduce (not remove) the influence of the SWP leadership over RESPECT. The leadership has badly over-reacted to this - it’s a sign of the SWP’s weakness as a party.
Comment by Phil — 31 October, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
www.iso.org.nz/section.php?Section=resources&id=30
For those interested, at the above address is another excellent open letter written by The International Socialist organization of Aotearoa New Zealand, which they sent to the ISO(US) 19th March 2001, after it was expelled by SWP CC, which helps enlighten and inform and give a much broader picture and fresher perspective on the rotten state of SWP CC.
Comment by Gramsci's breakfast — 31 October, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Gramsci’s breakfast asks: “What are you suggesting? Other than voting or supporting the Australian Green party which by all accounts is far more to the left than the Green party here and is growing.”
This is in fact the position now adopted by the SWP’s sister party here in Australia, the ISO. After leaving the Socialist Alliance a year ago the ISO is now calling for a first preference vote for the Greens.
The present political context here in Australia is very interesting in regard to what may transpire with a change of government on November 23rd.
The Greens (formed in 1992 with a proscription clause) had 750 members 10 years ago and maybe 3,000-4,000+ today. They have representatives elected at federal and council level and in some state parliaments. The Socialist Alliance currently has 800 members (after a pre 2004 election peak of approx 1200) and has been receiving variously between 1.2% to 3.9% of the primary electoral vote where it stands candidates. The SA is identified with by a few militant currents in the trade unions, some indigenous, and migrant activists as well as a layer of exers and those who identify broadly as socialists. Organisations actively supporting the SA are elements of the Salvadoran FDR/FMLN , some Somali groups, Tamil associations and the DSP. THE SA also boasts a few trade unions positions in stevedoring, postal, metal and building industry, electricty, teaching and academic trade unions.
The organised Marxian left outside the SA would number maybe around 250 activists.
How left the Greens are varies from state to state. Generally they have adopted a range of progressive , although never socialistic, positions.In some inner city seats at state and federal elections they are pulling in up to 30% of the primary vote.
The one socialist candidate to be elected to representative office is the Socialist Party’s Steve Jolly in an inner Melbourne council ward. Aside from the SP’s strong local community presence, Jolly was elected because the Greens were accommodating to economic rationalism in council.
Oz socialists comments: (leaving the disdain aside) that the Socialist Alliance” will get a miniscule vote in the upcoming elections. The Greens will get the left vote. No section of the left in Australia looks to the Socialist Alliance.”
Well let’s see, shall we, in regard to all these assertions. It is true that the Greens here have occupied the electoral space left of the Labor Party especially since 2003.But equally salient, the hegemony of the ALP especially in the trade unions is under a lot of stress at the present time in the lead up to the poll. Union state branches are donating to The Greens (and the Socialist Alliance) election campaigns(as well as to the ALP to which most are affiliated). The ACTU — the national trade union federation — is calling for a vote against Howard’s hated Work Choices legislation rather than simply a vote for the ALP in the Senate.
Nonetheless it isn’t clear whether the alternative vote — left of the ALP — will rise at this election given the two party polarisation: Labor versus the Coalition. So whether the Greens electoral support base will rise remains to be seen. The Greens have been polling between 8 and 12 percent but I guess those figures could be rising a tad.. The support for the long term alternative party — The Democrats — is sure to collapse at this election.
As for the SA vote — I have no idea.
Comment by Dave Riley — 31 October, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
“As you said it is at least possible that the bricking of a Respect Councilers window was connected to this dispute.”
Actually, I said it is possible it is linked in the same way as the ‘beating’ of the pensioner was ‘linked’ to GG’s election campaign in 2005 by Oona King. A manufactured provocation, in other words. Possibly in this case manufactured by people out to deepen divisions in Respect, maybe even the same people.
I also think that accusations that the councillor-splitters have ‘betrayed the community’ are perfectly reasonable. This is an artifically provoked split. Oliur Rahman himself states that he had no real differnces with Respect over ‘national or international politics’, which begs the question of why exactly the split happened if it is supposed to be a left-right split. This is an unprincipled split, and a betrayal of those Respect represents.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Ian this is incredibly dangerous. Its also simply straightfowardly a lie.
Comment by johng — 31 October, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
John - you seem to have abandoned all political argument in favouor of tit-for-tat sniping.
How about repsonding to the political criticism from Daphne Lawless about how the SWP have isolated themselves?
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
What is a lie? That this split is unprincipled? Or that those who oppose it are in some way implicated in smashing Oli Rahman’s windows?
It is theoretically possible that some idiot may have done this out of some misguided antipathy for what Oli has done, of course, in which case that idiot is to be condemned. But given the history of dirty tricks in TH and accusations of this type later shown to be false, I wouldn’t bank on that.
But why is it ‘dangerous’ to say that this split is a betrayal by elected representatives? The only punishment implied in saying that is electoral - people won’t vote for them next time. That is the logic of splitting away and depriving Respect of its opposition status in TH. People didn’t expect them to do things like that when they voted for them.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
A good point made by Andy here. The SW-NZ paper is a good starting point to ask contributors to respond to rather than be diverted into tit for tat allegations or sectarian sniping.
Comment by Frog boiler — 31 October, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
When only specific people or a specific group are “invited” to condemn something bad that has happened to someone, the implication is clear. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.
But much more importantly, I would echo the call to at least debate the SW-NZ paper. There’s far more basic commonsense in there that I’ve heard anywhere else in this crisis.
Comment by Andy BH — 31 October, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
As soon as any reference is made to reality, one is accused of sniping. If you think denying democracy to Respect members in Tower Hamlets, and then accusing people protesting about this of ‘betraying the community’ (the people making this disgusting allegation being unable to win a majority within Tower Hamlets Respect despite the interventions of a national level politician) I’m afraid I would have to disagree with you. I am uninterested in discussing a document which has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of what is going on.
Comment by johng — 31 October, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
JOhn - What about the political analysis daphne raises about the tensions of the SWP working in a broader formation?
Having complined there was no politics, you now want to avoid a political critique because you say it is not founded in reality.
Comment by Andy — 31 October, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
“I am uninterested in discussing a document which has no bearing whatsoever on the reality of what is going on”
say Johng, but why…
You do yourself no favours by this display of petulence.
We asking for your considered opinion of a document from another organisation in the International Socialist Tendency, part of the same tradition as the SWP.
Comment by Frog boiler — 31 October, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
As I said I’m not in the least bit interested. I’m interested in the denial and abrogation of democracy both in Tower Hamlets and in Respect nationally. The fact that you don’t agree about the SWPs politics or even how it works in United Front Coalitions has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. Its for the members to decide. On this site you seem to have fallen into campaigning against the rights of the membership both nationally and in local areas because you think you know better then them. Its a strange way to argue against the politics of the Russian Doll.
Comment by johng — 31 October, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
John you seem entirely unwilling to engage with the politics. There was previously every possibility for different political traditions to co-exist within Respect through a common interest in the development of a broad left-of-Labour Party.
Everry single escalation and counter-escalation in this dispute is a direct result of the SWP leadership firstly being unwilling to tolerate criticism of their management of Respect, then determination not to compromise even though that was what they had voted in favour of at the National Council, and then the puerile and sel;f-aggrandising determination to turn this into a witchunt frenzy and quite ludicrously declaring themselves the ‘Left’ when plenty of the Respect ‘Left’ have expressed their total disagreement withy the direction the SWP have taken. 3 of your leading members were expelled for precisely that reason, and another has left. The ‘petition’ has approaching 1000 signatories, what is the claimed membership of the SWp. 3000? 6000? All kinds of figures get bandied about but 1000 isn’t so impresive if these membership figures are to be believed (sic).
As for Tower Hamlets. No report I’ve reaed from either ’side’ has described these meetings as any5thing less than chaotic. That much we can all agree on. But only one ’side’ has resigtned the whip, than completely unneccesariuly called a press conference approvingly attended by the National Secretary. With less than three weeks to go to the National Conference you are so keen to go ahead whatver the circumstances what precisely was the reason for the urgency? Answers on the back of a postcard to the SWP CC currently negotiating their departure from Respect. There is absolutely no need to expel the 4 councillors and John Rees by their actions in the full glare of a press conference they have pitched their position outside of Respect. Some of us might be ’soft Left’ but we’re not that soft! They have left, end of story, goodbye.
Comment by Mark P — 31 October, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
>I’m interested in the denial and abrogation of democracy both in Tower Hamlets and in Respect nationally.
Not much hope for any real debate on these matters here, johng. As for the NZ ‘comrades’, I share your feelings.
Comment by Norwegian — 31 October, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
Andy #86 - I have no idea what sort of behaviour was alleged, or whether the allegations were justified. I just find it interesting that the allegations are automatically assumed to be libellous (ie unfounded) because Cllr. Rania Khan has allied herself with the SWP.
Comment by chjh — 31 October, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Ian Donovan (#5) seems to have a strange personal grudge against Respect’s full time office worker, Feyzi. I’ve never worked for a political party, but I didn’t know you had to check your personal politics at the door (or maybe only in New Labour). As you mentioned she’s a full timer, which must mean a minimum of forty or so hours a week, when else is she supposed to do any of her own political activism, for heaven’s sake. Anyway, can’t you come up with a better argument than this? So she phoned up a venue, shock horror, burn the witch etc…
Almost ex-SWP member (#6): you want examples of lack of equality from your favourite councillors? If you went to TH Respect meetings you wouldn’t have to ask. Women being told to shut up, that they shouldn’t come to meetings, that they can’t be councillors, that the BNP have the right attitude towards homosexuality, the list goes on, and it’s all coming from those councillors’ recruits. As for socialism, it’s amazing how those councillors have managed to hold out against joining a trade union – the only trade unionists are among the four who resigned the whip. Anyone would think the others didn’t believe in socialism, or something.
Oh and by the way everyone – resigning the whip IS NOT THE SAME AS LEAVING THE PARTY! Honestly, how many times!
Comment by Socialist Monster — 31 October, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
“Women being told … that they can’t be councillors” “that the BNP have the right attitude towards homosexuality”
ah yes, this bit of spin.
strange how it only becomes an issue once a war has been declared. If SWP members really had any interest in socialism in respect, they would have done something major about this when it - if it - happened.
that nothing was done is a real indictment of the SWP leadership in respect. Ditto all the other supposed “examples”, all of which should’ve made socialists in respect take serious action to educate members and expel open homophobes.
But they didn’t. You didn’t, did you. You let it happen and are now using it to prove something.
All if proves is your own culpability. Or dishonesty.
Comment by point — 31 October, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
“Oh and by the way everyone – resigning the whip IS NOT THE SAME AS LEAVING THE PARTY! Honestly, how many times!”
maybe so. but resigning the whip is the same as splitting the party and betraying it’s members and supporters. making respect lose its position as the opposition is a betrayal.
the only reason these councillors gave is that they could no longer work with abjol.
well, if any of the councillors wanted to NOT split respect, the correct action would have been to agree that they could not work together, to bring the matter to conference or national council, and retain a public show of unity until the leaders of respect could resolve it.
what weve seen is, at best, ultra-left behaviiour, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to wreck respect.
i can forgive oli rahman, but the fact that john rees is inolved - and is openly involved - shows that it is part of a wider wrecking agenda.
and in THAT sense, nothing else matters. rees is supposed to be in charge. he is the national secretary of respect, charged with implementing the day to day consequences of national council/executive decisions.
his entire role right now should be to bring as much harmony as possible. sadly, the swp members commenting here can only see rees as an swp man and not as a national secretary, which is why they cannot see anything wrong with him so openly supporting the wrecking of tower hamlets respect councillors group.
Comment by point — 31 October, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
resigning the whip IS NOT THE SAME AS LEAVING THE PARTY!
Describe a scenario in which a councillor resigning the whip is not regarded, by the party hierarchy, as having put him/herself outside the party, and is allowed to continue as a party member. Better still, tell us when this has ever actually happened.
Comment by Phil — 31 October, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Is Clare Short a member of the Labour Party?
Comment by Non-SWP Respect socialist — 31 October, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
I’m interested in the denial and abrogation of democracy both in Tower Hamlets and in Respect nationally….John G
Does this include the election of Abjol Miah as leader of the council group?
Comment by CHAB — 31 October, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
people are missing the point in comparing a huge organisation like labour with a tiny, new organisation like respect.
the actions of these councillors has cost someone their job and has cost respect a massive amount in tower hamlets.
in a tiny organisation, the actions of elected officials matter hugely.
thats what the swp has started telling us about galloway, hasnt it?
im willing to entertain all sorts of criticisms of galloway; the sad thing is, the swp supporters here arent willing to even see that the resignation of the whip by 4 councillors could be wrong in any way (despite the lead person saying he had no policy differences on national and international issues with george galloway).
Comment by point — 31 October, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
Socialist monster assuming all that you say is true the question becomes why was the SWP prepared to support and campaign for these candidates? RESPECT may be a pluralistic organisation but these views are opposed to the RESPECT manifesto and its founding principles. So again assuming what you say is true (I have no way of knowing for sure and expect someone else to be along to deny these claims) why did the SWP not raise any concerns before the currant situation? I would imagine that a couple of months ago the SWP would have defended them as having good socialist politics.
I agree with you about the councillors, to me it is up to the wider RESPECT membership to decide if it is the 4 who have resigned the whip or the rest who are more in accordance with RESPECT policy. As I expect the national conference will now not take place it seems that even this limited opportunity to get a ‘census’ of the views of RESECT members will be unavailable and so the debate will rumble on.
I’m not myself a RESPECT member, I left the SWP at about the time it was formed and was reluctant to join. It seems to me however from the outside looking in that this split is really only talking place in a few areas (tower Hamlets mainly) and that for the majority of the membership it is meaningless and without ‘orders from above’ it would have no impact on how they operate. In fact I spoke to a friend of mine still in the SWP and his comments where he’s feed up of the whole thing, he can’t see the point of it, both sides have behaved stupidly and that his local RESPECT group (witch has quite serious routes) have decided to carry on regardless. Both sides seem to be forgetting that there is a RESPECT outside of 1 area of London.
Comment by no one special — 31 October, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Well, I am in a branch outside of London which has split quite dramatically. The implication that both sides have acted ’stupidly’ would lead to the false conclusion that one side has not been the driving force bhind the situation and that they have both acted equally. This is clearly not the case as we have seen from the actions of the SWP leadership throughout.
Comment by CHAB — 31 October, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
“Ian Donovan (#5) seems to have a strange personal grudge against Respect’s full time office worker, Feyzi.”
Well that’s news to me, it would also be news to her. I have never had anything other than comradely relations with her. She obviously did what she was told by John Rees, her manager. But there is little doubt that any full-time offical doing what they have done in any political party you would care to name would lay themselves open to being expelled. That’s not a personal matter at all; it’s just political reality.
“Oh and by the way everyone – resigning the whip IS NOT THE SAME AS LEAVING THE PARTY!
Honestly, how many times!”
Actually, it generally is. Sometimes parties withdraw the whip from representatives temporarily as a punishment, but resigning the whip is generally synonymous with splitting. Especially when it deprives the party of formal status by means of reduced numerical strength. That is not easily forgiven by any political party.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
But the SWP did not want and have not engineered a spilt why would they? The actions of the SWP leadership following an attempt to loosen there control over the RESEPCT apparatus has helped to make a split more likely. Neither side could possibly have decided to instigate a split it would be senseless and I find it hard to believe that either GG or the SWP CC could be guilty of such obvious political stupidity but as the arguments have gone on both sides have dug in and made a split now seemingly inevitable.
Comment by no one special — 31 October, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
But Ian isn’t that based upon the view that because the resigning councillors are a minority of the council they represent a minority of the party I suspect that given the numerical strength of the SWP and their supporters (and like it or not their membership is as valid as anyone else’s) this is not the case.
Let’s take a silly hypothetically situation.
In a 2 years’ time we are about to invade Iran, it is clear that the majority of Labour party members oppose it, fully 90% in fact (unlikely I know) however only a minority of Labour MP’s (say 100) oppose it and they decide to resign the whip?
Are they splitting the Labour Party?
Comment by no one special — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Yes! And in that case, rightly so! That would be a principled split, and would be an even more important opportunity for the left than the expulsion of George Galloway. It would be an honour for a full-time offical of the LP to be expelled for supporting such an action. A real left-right split.
But at the press conference Oliur Rahman stated he had no real differences over “national and international politics” with Respect. That means it is not a ‘left-right split”, but an unprincipled split over the determination of a narrow group to maintain control and run Respect for their benefit, not for the whole of Respect.
And that split is now underway nationally, as I see it. No-one in the broader labour movement can or will ever tolerate being in an organisation which they have chosen to join, but run by and for the exclusive benefit of another organisation which they have not chosen to join. A ‘Respect’ conference packed by the SWP in the way John Rees advocates will simply be an SWP conference under another name. It should acknowledge that by renaming itself ‘Socialist Worker (Respect)’. The SWP could win a ‘victory’ in this way, but they would be pariahs on the left. A pyrrhic victory indeed.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Well we obviously have different views on what constitutes splitting from a party. For my part, I can’t see how having the same position as 90% of the membership could be considered as splitting
Comment by no one special — 31 October, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
“no one special” - see my comment #14. Here it is again:
what do you think happens, as a general rule, when a councillor for Party X resigns the Party X whip? The only conceivable situation in which that would not constitute rebellion is when the local party is about to be dissolved by the centre and the rebels recognised as the authentic party group - the dissolution of Brighton Labour comes to mind. Is that what the SWP are embarking on?
I only regret that last rhetorical question. It’s increasingly apparent that that’s exactly what the SWP leadership is embarking on.
Comment by Phil — 31 October, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Open and democratic practices?Gramsci’s breakfast writes [#77]
Are you sure on that point?I’ve served on the SA national executive for almost 5 years now and since (re)joining the DSP in late 2005 the DSP’s habit is not to close caucus in regard to its SA work. The DSP has always tried to keep its partners informed of its thinking in regard to the SA project and very very rarely is a motion passed that has less than 75 % support.
The DSP is the dominant tendency in the SA (as the ISM comrades were in the SSP) , that’s true, but that doesn’t mean that the DSP has a numerical and ruling weight in all SA structures and forums nor that it rams through its views when opportunities arise.In effect the SA mainly proceeds through consensus and discussion and it always has except in those matters where the small affiliates chose to fight on: the question of the SA national newspaper, democratising elections for the national executive, the merging into SA of the DSP, and restructuring branch finances to more easily comply with federal electoral requirements.
And even there those key positions were dealt with by SA conferences by large margins: again some 75%.
So it is not correct to equate the DSP’s modus operandi with that of the SWP’s in Respect. The irony is that the DSP has the exact opposite perspective to that of the SWP in regard to forming new left parties. I grant you there is a problem with building in effect, two parties — the DSP and the SA — and that’s why there is a factional dispute in the DSP at the present time with a minority determined to roll back the SA project and, in effect, disengage from it.
I think it’s true that if you cannot build up a culture of openness and trust ruled by a commitment to democracy — these broad party projects will flounder and stagnate. But thats’ not the only element that bears down upon them.
This is why it warrants careful reviewing of all the extant broad party experiences.
Like all party building projects, these exercises rely on political buoyancy to prosper and grow and it would be a mistake to fall into the trap of thinking they’re some organisational panacea for the left or that they don’t require hard work to sustain. The Greens here in Australia have x number of members ,so many elected representatives and own the patent on a colour — but engaging with them and involving them in extra parliamentary political campaigns is often very difficult indeed.
One of the challenges that the Scottish Socialist Party has had to deal with is involving its membership day to day in all the work the party was doing. It’s the same for the SA here. One of the core debates here — emanating from the SWP’s cothinkers –was that they opposed the SA doing broad scale campaign work in the SA’s name outside electioneering.
Sound familiar?
But if you think these broad left projects are only about winning elections and fostering membership passivity, then we may as well give up and plug for the Greens, because here that’s their bag.(In England, having interviewed Derek Wall I know that’s not so overwhelmingly the case.)
But, it needs to be pointed out, that a Respect without the partnered capacity of the SWP to do stuff and organise is going to be weaker. I’m convinced that these broad party projects do need organised cadre and activist forces on board who advocate a Marxist perspective. How that is worked out is still being worked out — But since a portion of the far left in the English speaking world now abhors these new party projects (esp here in Australia and there in the UK) and all who sail in them(eg: the SSP, the SA and, no doubt soon, Respect)– it’s up to the rest of us to make the best of the tools we have.
Nonetheless, the CWI affiliate here, the Socialist Party — while refusing to sign on with the SA — is going to support the Alliance in a the Senate as an adjunct to its own election campaign in the seat of Melbourne.
Comment by Dave Riley — 1 November, 2007 @ 4:42 am
“Well we obviously have different views on what constitutes splitting from a party. For my part, I can’t see how having the same position as 90% of the membership could be considered as splitting.”
It is justified by the political differences, and the 90% who agreed with the rebels would see the rebels as their leadership. A principled split, that would pull the party masses with them. The opposite of the split in Tower Hamlets, which is not about principled differences but simply about defending the control of one faction over an organisation with a much broader social base than the control-freaks can muster.
Comment by Ian Donovan — 1 November, 2007 @ 10:56 am