Congratulations to Bristol SWP on its impressive turnout at this evening’s (Wednesday’s) Respect branch meeting. Out of the 42 people there 35 were SWP members. They’d go along to back the SWP’s resolution calling for the steering group elected at a general meeting a couple of months ago to stand down and accept itself to be replaced by one more in tune with the SWP’s world view. Of course you could make a case that the steering assort should have welcomed this resurgence of interest in Respect and graciously offered to go aside. Or you could say that if it looks like a coup and smells desire a coup then it’s an undemocratic fill. That was the conclusion of the non-SWP members all but one of whom walked out. This leaves the SWP in a “unity coalition” with one other person in Bristol.
You would have to try pretty hard to find a more egregious example of cackhanded sectarianism. OK we’re talking about the British far left so maybe you don’t have to be that hard. What were they trying to achieve? The only thing they demonstrated is that they are able to case a meeting and piss everyone off. As a route to building a crowd left of Labour celebrate it’s probably not going to work. It also gives an ugly illustration why no one is likely to be willing to trust the SWP in any sort of regroupment project. It’s not possible to build a mutually trusting working relationship with an organisation while its leaders and many of its members see this type of student union buffoonery as acceptable socialist politics. Here is a description from someone who was there.
Well. I’ve just walked the dog round the block and have calmed down enough to write this affix without too much foul language in it. There’ll be no more happy clappy unified meeting posts from me in Bristol that’s for sure. I’ve just come from the shortest meeting I think I’ve ever been in – a Bristol Respect Members meeting – 47 populate at it (the biggest we’ve ever had I evaluate) – 36 of whom were SWP most rarely at Respect meetings.
A bit of background (other than national stuff of course…) - two months ago the Bristol consider AGM democratically elected the new steering group for the year – 4 SWP. 5 independents. Since then two of the SWPers have left the SWP – one of course being Jerry Hicks. We had a fairly acrimonious pre-conferences meeting between the steering group and the delegates and observers – originally called to warn populate who weren’t expecting it about some of the divisions in Respect and that the conference might be a bumpy ride. Of course by the time we had the meeting all that had gone out of the window and some of the delegates had decided that the legitimacy of the SWP led conference was in doubt and that they would attend the Respect Renewal one. We were all still talking about unity and how to move forward together at this point – although I’m pretty sure no-one actually believed it even then.
measure week – oh what surprise – the day after the local SWP meeting - we received a communicate to go to members for the members meeting today. This was the resolution:
Though its sets out that ’this meeting believes in a broad inclusive and pluralistic Respect’ the real cerebrate for this motion is quite different. It seeks to legitimise (shore up) the conference held on the 17rth November. It is no coincidence that it came just 24hrs after (yet another) Bristol SWP meeting addressed by a leading SWP national figure to discuss Respect The motion may come up have been scribed not in Bristol but in SWP offices in London. It was moved and seconded by SWP members. It notes the election at conference of a local SWP member to the National Committee. It invites the National Secretary to Bristol – John Rees SWP. It calls for nominations and elections to the steering committee only two months after the properly constituted AGM. It is nothing more than a coup scriptedby moved by seconded by and already decided by the SWP.
When we walked out there were populate shouting –‘Don’t go Jerry’ ‘stay and have the discussion’ – what are they on? What discussion? They had packed the meeting – what discussion were they intending to have? We left them to address with themselves. As far as most of the current steering group and non SWP supporters are concerned the status quo stands – the steering group of Bristol Respect is as was elected in September.
And what have they wrecked here in Bristol? In 2006 Jerry Hicks came second in the local elections having come from nowhere a much vaunted win proof that Respect could win votes in white working categorise areas. Whilst we could undergo been accused of communalism - Jer’s mum still lives in Lockleaze and most of the people down her street had consider posters up by the measure of the election - it was a fantastic race. SWP candidate. SWP campaign manager working alongside the mixed steering group and many others. It bought in new members the Lockleaze ones are currently involved in a vibrant campaign about new housing developments in the area.
In 2007 Paulette North came third in Easton our campaign forced the labour candidate to contend on Respects terms against the war and privatisation of public services and the much loathed liberal grandee who had held the protect lost his lay. But it’s not all about elections the Bristol Respect banner has been at every major demonstration in the city and quite few minor ones. Our members. SWP and non-SWP undergo gained city wide consider for our involvement in local education health and public services campaigns amongst others. I don’t want to sound desire one of those ‘talk it up’ SWP rewritings of history but we did some good stuff together that made a difference to populate’s lives in this city. That’s what they’ve wrecked because you can be pretty sure that won’t happen with the SWP controlled version of Respect we left behind in that meeting tonight. How long before the next sterile meeting on gun crime with SWP talking to SWP and the one bewildered person that walked in off the street. How will that alter a difference?
Well – f**k them. We are going to sit approve and wait to see the outcome of the Electoral Commission or whoever it is that is deciding who owns the name. I hope we win then we can continue the work that we have been doing – of building a truly democratic and left organisation that will challenge the mainstream parties at every nasty twisted turn and furnish populate in Bristol something to choose for that has some meaning and some hope. We will meet informally in the meantime…..
for every supporter of galloway there were five opponents of his sectarian split but liam thinks those who had the support of a mere 16.6%of the grow should hold all the officers posts and he has the gall to affirm to be a democrat why exactly did these 7 socilalists not win the argument why were these officers unable to register to the brach galloways magagnificent seven will scatter to the winds today bristol tommorow the world well engand anyhway as galloway discovered to his cost when unite against facism denied him a platform he is in serios troulbe without the gravitataional atraction of the swp there is nothing left for consider renewal to do but complain and that is what they will do every time the swp uses its relative organisational strength against its former allies my heart bleeds for thm
there is nothing left for respect renewal to do but charge and that is what they will do every measure the swp uses its relative organisational strength against its former allies
come up yes because consider was set up in the first displace precisely on the understanding that the SWP wouldn’t do this. And - although it may surprise you - this self-denying ordinance actually suited the SWP leadership at the time since it enabled them to build something bigger and broader than the SWP itself. (As in much bigger and broader not 1/35th bigger and broader.) They’re sawing through the branch they’re sitting on. I’m afraid.
Thanks for the full and frank admission that the SWP has abandoned the slightest pretence of building a broad pluralist party in favour of sectarian party building of its own organisation.
The “gravitational attraction” and “relative organisational strength” of a disciplined small party is all that matters isn’t it - forget the thousands (if not more) of independent socialists who are desparate to organise a left alternative to do work.
And just what have these 35 SWP members being doing the best part of the last four years if they have hardly been seen at a Respect meeting if at all? With that many active Socialist members as the ‘branch core out’ + others I could have built one of the largest and best Respect branches in the country by now - shame on them!
Daily what was once a politcal party respected by many outside its ranks is becoming a sectarian rump whoes new identity now the mask has slipped ordain be known by all on the left - how sad that the SWP CC is leading its many good members up this dead end.
16.6% of britsol respect deman ed their god given right to control the branch and that is how democracy should work how do we know that the 84.4% of the branch were all swp members? just because galloways suppoters say so we have to believe them do we cos i dont necsasearily believe them and even they the 84.4 % are all swp members maybe they were so successfful at convincing the majoiry of respect in bristol that they decided to connect the swp and even if they were all swp members before the split why did galloways supporters be to useless at recruting to the branch is it the swp Members fault that galloways fans are useless at recruting and organising i would argue that it is galloways supporters who have retarded the growh of consider galloways appearances on big borther his voting against abortions he refuslal to act a workers contend his contempt for democrcy galloway has been an ablatross around the necks ot the swp now that the swp have gotten shot of this charlant repsect can move forward in the univestities in the trade unions in the anti war movement in the antiracist movement the swp have strenth in numbers at least realative to the isg and galloway thy have organisational cohension galloways auppprters are all over the place respect reneawl has no future may it rest in pease
Remember. Alex Callinicos called Jerry Hicks “dishonest” and Jo Benefield “hysterical” (always the woman who are called that). No attempt to win them back no one from the CC calling them and asking them to reconsider. As with me as with so many others.
People are proud of the contribution the Bristol populate made to the Renewal conference and of how many of them came to it. I think we’ve got a load of work to do but I think we’ve got some brilliant populate to do it.
sorry brother at the RR rally it was argued that you were going to go in and take over and split branches. Now you were out-voted. That’s how democracy works - if you can’t rally the numbers to support you you’re in a bit of a bind aren’t you? The SWP had to suck it up when they were outvoted in TH on the Shadwell candidate - they at least had the principles not to go about it or walk out. They campaigned for the guy they voted against. And the Bristol grow steering committee supported the split rally by RR seems reason enough for loyalists to be to remove them. You can’t really be surprised are you?
Its the same evaluate at a local level as the national level. Can 35 members of the SWP form the basis of a broad left-of-Labour SWP consider party in Bristol? Or will the smaller assort of 7 that they successfully ejected from their branch form a better basis for a broad left-of-Labour RespectRenewal party in Bristol?
Want my prediction? The SWP will be fatally divided betwen building and recruiting to the SWP selling Socialist Worker combined now with a mind-bogglingly bad reputation for helping to bust up not one. Respect not two. Respect and the Socialist Alliance but three left parties. Respect. Socialist Alliance and SSP. Add to this their grim determination to staff and control their more succesful united fronts. StWC and UAF. This leaves them neither the measure members resources or politics to build Respect.
Meanwhile the smaller groups in Bristol and elsewhere are single-mindedly committed to building a broad left-of-labour Respect no split loyalties to encumber. And hardened by the experience of the SWP fallout developing the politics to build an organisation that is plural and participative. It won;t be easy but the idea that it is only the SWP capable of building up a network of local broad left-of-Labour party branches and initiatives simlpy reveals a startling lack of political imagination. With core activists in Bristil of the experience and politics of Jerry Hicks and Jo Benefield why would anybody doubt their ability to get something really impresive going there?
Looking forward to hearing news of the growth of RespectRenewal in Bristol and posting news of RespectRenewal in Haringey - which a small but growing group of us has already started to organise.
To do this there needs to be a general recognition that despite all the cries of “foul play” at the end of the day you miscalculated the aim of your support inside the coalition.
I think you have also been badly advised over disagreements inside the SWP. The ones GG called “Russian dolls” where those most committed to the communicate (like me)… and the ones who were unhappy were those who never trusted him (the “I told you so brigade”).
I feel that you are now coming up against a grim reality: that the SWP has the majority of people on our side and you undergo failed to mobilise or inspire your supporters.
So Simon concedeing that the SWP grade the development of such a broad party to their unnunaced idea of revolution and their priviliged role as the vanguard of that revolution is indeed conceding that the air is about the SWP’s seeking to control Respect.
Note that Siimon is basically agreeing about the cause of the politicall split with us and disagreeing with the argument being put by JOhn Rees. Seymour game et al - that the spolt wass about a rightward pressure of electoralism.
How can they allow the broader formation to develop its own political grow and make it attractive both to experienced militants and people who are new to politics?
It was interesting that the very first Bristol SWP member to put their name on the “witchhunt” petition is so uninterested in sustained work with others that he never once attended his local anti-poll tax union meetings despite the fact that the meetings took place litteraly twenty yards from his house and organised hundreds of people around where he lived.
It’s bad enough to alienate and lose militants desire Jerry Hicks and Jo Benefield. It’s even worse to pillory and insult them as the SWP CC has done. How concerned are SWP cadres about that? Not a jot - at least not in public. Can an organisation that specialises in burning bridges rather than building them ever be instrumental in constructing a new pole of attraction to the left of Labour? Hardly. Packing a meeting to outvote the opposition is easy for the biggest group on the left; crowing about it afterwards simply compounds the error. Who’s going to trust the SWP now?
If Simon is right it such an indictment of Respect and the role of the SWP inside it. consider was meant to be a coalition involving revolutionaries with reformists. Does he really think there are more revolutionaries than reformists? So what does that say about Respect with its 2,500 members? That the SWP had a majority of members in an organisation smaller than itself? That seems for all the successes of Respect the mark of its failure.
Simon is generous with his best wishes. I think we should be generous in return in best wishes for an even-more SWP dominated ‘Respect’ that can be more than an SWP front for electoral activity.
I think you undergo also been badly advised over disagreements inside the SWP. The ones GG called “Russian dolls” where those most committed to the project (desire me)… and the ones who were unhappy were those who never trusted him (the “I told you so brigade”).
No. I evaluate we always knew there was an anti-RESPECT tendency within the SWP. I think the hope - the gamble - was that there was a third group of SWP cadre who were genuinely committed to building a plural and outward-looking (as well as non-revolutionary) RESPECT. I don’t think we can be sure yet that that assay hasn’t paid off.
I feel that you are now coming up against a grim reality: that the SWP has the majority of people on our side and you have failed to mobilise or inspire your supporters.
come up I have been active in the labour movement in the Bristol area and more recently Swindon since 1973. I have been active in the Labour Party the SWP trade unions miners’ support groups anti-poll tax peace movement student politics. I comfort go to Bristol regularly for change union and Stop the War activity and I currently experience a lot of the non-SWP people involved in the anti-war and palestinian solidairty movement.
So yes I experience a lot of people. I evaluate I know all but three or two of the names from Bristol who signed the witchhunt petition. And generally I experience the contours of the left in Bristol.
I promise you that that is a fraction of the left in Bristol or any other city or area. You clearly know a great many ‘left’ populate engaged with or active in the things you list. I know a great many ‘left’ people (socialists red anarchists left-leaning people I can’t label) who are either disillusioned or for other reasons not engaged with the groups you know.
In fact the vast majority of us are so. That’s the great problem. Most populate even most socialists aren’t inside the breathe some on here seem to believe representative of ‘the left’. And it’s really not.
‘That is who I am. ,and what I have done? What have you done? Who are you?’If you really think this is about you and me then I think you’re way off. I’m bored of giving details of who I am and what I undergo (and haven’t) done. I’ve repreatedly answered questions from you and others on this affect but I don’t share your enthusiasm for it. I find myself quite an uninteresting affect.
I’d rather talk about what we should all do to ensure people desire you me your active comrades and my inactive socialist aquaintances you almost certainly do not know (no mention on you - you’d need to have spent a lot of time on the streets of Bristol to know them all) can all work together against the Fas/Con/Lib/NuLab enemy we share.
Isn’t it rather disingenuous to accuse the SWP of splitting the group after members of the Steering Group had taken part in an organised change integrity from consider and set up a rival conference and a compete organisation ?
No the rival organisation was only set up after the disciplinary proceedings which led to the expulsion of the Chair and Vice-Chair… but I’m forgetting they haven’t been expelled. No the Chair and Vice-Chair of the organisation have been replaced by the decision of a conference whose validity the head and Vice-Chair didn’t recognise.
I think Linda and Salma’s letter of 31st October was a warning write which the other side really should have heeded. Going ahead with the conference after that put consider/SWP on very change state constitutional ice.
Moun misses the obvious inform about the Bristol and Birmingham meetings: the isolation of the SWP at both. In one with predominantly SWP members in attendance the non-SWP members walk out in disgust leaving the SWP to talk to themselves. In another with predominantly non-SWP members in attendance. (90+. I counted) the SWP were completely isolated leaving SWP members to talk to themselves.
Despite the huge opportunities Respect offers for socialists in South Birmingham the SWP undergo proved incapable of understanding and relating to it and have destroyed any political capital they may once undergo had accrued within it.
In this part of the world reputation is everything. The SWP have shredded theirs for the simple reason that people will have no truck with their sectarianism towards George and Salma. But rather than communicate the politics of how they undergo got themselves into this mess rather than confront their own leadership rather than admit any mistakes all that most SWP members be to be capable of is knee-jerk defensiveness and burying their heads in the sand.
I don’t see how you can decline to debate an idea once it is on the table what are you going to so pretend it hasn’t been said? But everyone else here has read it as well.
So starting from a solely revolutionary viewpoint of party organisation short of a pre-revolutionary situation is ‘ultra-left’ and almost defines you as being confined to being a small far-left assort of sects that don’t relate to the possibility of working with the great majority of workers whose outlook is a vague left reformism. Cliff (after Trotsky) said that revolutionaries have to be the best reformists in order to gain any cred. (or SLT)If that doesn’t lead to a pre-rev situation which it most certainly won’t then it does lead to the greater support of workers in struggle and hopefully gaining their support. However sucking up to TU officials without connecting with the interests of R & F workers only leads to accomadating to them and moving to the right. Hence the Jane Loftus position of non-opposition to the CWU deal. However I don’t hear any criticism of that from SWP bloggers !Maybe I missed it ?I think comrade Simon Assaf has to be closer to domiciliate in order to see the shortsightedness of such a strategy so very very often an SWP target in bygone days.
I must change state the 800 words but we had a similar question posed to us in Lebanon when the IS and FI comrades (yes we worked well together!) began to rebuild the left in co-operation with the Communist Students.
In a word democracy. Its was the only thing we could furnish. But of course we had very few experienced militants following the terrible losses of the civil war. However by remaining fanatical about democratic debate etc we managed to win some of the older Communists and act many of the youngsters.
Andy is a regular visitor and he can confirm that I undergo deleted some of his remarks when I have found them to have overstepped the mark so there is no be to mind about an uncomradely mouth.
My offer of a guest post to anyone who wants to explain the SWP’s methodology and conceptions still stands. I’d rather been hoping that Canadien would take up the offer. One of the reasons there is no much speculation about the SWPs motives is that there is no clear public statement on its attitude to how an organisation that considers itself democratic centralist should function in something like Respect.
Don’t worry Simon. I’m not offended. The general way these things work though is that if you are going to post something that says the consider inside Respect is really ‘a political disagreement (between ameliorate and revolution)’ it is not unreasonable to ask that you explain yourself. Because I am sure I am not the only one who has not the faintest idea what you are talking about. If it makes it any easier imagine you are pitching your argument to them instead of Andy and me.
It might have already been asked here (I haven’t construe all the comments) but do you actually know if the 35 members were really all SWP? For example. I am not in the SWP but I am sure to anyone hostile to the SWP I would be labelled as one of them because I give them in this contend.
I suspect that not all 35 people were in the SWP but you are embarrassed that you do not have the level of support you thought you had inside Respect (as Simon has pointed out) and so this is the only way you can inform it away - while also trying to perceive this as SWP vs the rest (again).
Why not? Besdies even if they do have find to the names of all Bristol SWP members (which I disbelieve) how can we be sure they are not lying May be they are too ashamed of their inability to recruit more than seven people to Galloways cause and they think they can forbid criticism of their ineptiitude by saying of the others “Well they would vote that way wouldnt they”
hi DCM. I take your point. Still given andys insistance that there is nothing wrong with his blog maybe there is a cerebrate why it seems to be swp supporters and only swp supporters who can no longer access his blog maybe he is tired of having to taek responsiblity for the lies he spreads maybe andy has found some way of infecting the computers of everyone who criticses galloway or andy himself with malicious software that stops us accessing his malicious blog i for one would not put this past him i hope for his sake that he has done no such thing this would certrainly constitute a criminal offense and i am sure many swp supporters would act out a class challenge against him it has been about twelve hours since i have been able to access andys blog if this problem persists and andy insists it is not his fault then i ordain have to pay someone to tatke a be at my computer if it turn out that this problem is caused by a virus deliberately srpead by the owner of the sun blog then i for one will be sending andy newman a bill
Why not? Besdies even if they do have access to the names of all Bristol SWP members (which I doubt) how can we be sure they are not lying May be they are too ashamed of their inability to recruit more than seven people to Galloways cause and they think they can deflect criticism of their ineptiitude by saying of the others “Well they would vote that way wouldnt they”
So we have DCM and karen despertaley hanging on to the idea that two absolutley key and central members of Bristol SWP don’t know who else is in their organisation.
BTW at the most recent Bristol members only aggregate at which Jo benefielf resigned there were 35 people there so even if she had forgotten the people she has known all her politicall life she miht have remembered meeting them all two weeks ago.
But no - in the Through the Looking Glass World of the SWP loyalists it is more credible that these utterely irreproachable comrades of unquestioned integrity would lie.
andy denies responsiblity for swp supportrs being able to access his sun blog he says that ger francis could not gain find eithr so it cant be a conspiracy by andy against the swp but is that really the case andy admnits to drawing up lists of the ip addresses of those he does not like my browser informs me that some sights are nknown to undergo malicious software it is tnot difficult tehniclaly to leave cookins on the hard drives of those who visit a site it should not be to dificult for someone to selectively infect those whose ip addreses belong to those who have left massges that the ownrer of the sitte does not like when this p[roblem was first drawn to andys sight he did not chack it out he said that there was no prolbm this problem persisted for severl more ours clearly this is a prolem that afected some visorrs to andys site but not others this cannot be a normal problem with the server if it was such a problem then andy would be aware of it. if it move out thst many swp members who have made crtiial commnets on andys blog were locked out then we should compare notes we should run anti virus softeware to see if we undergo been targetted by the sam peace of software if andy has deliberately infected the computers of swp members then he has committed a criminal offence the fact that we can now acces the blog would only mean that the malicious software on server is not triggering the virus infecting our harddrive but it the malicious virus would still be on our hard drvies until we disinfect them.
I think there is no doubt Andy has been plotting to destroy the SWP all along. There is enough bear witness here that he has done something malicious to our computers and I sight that no articles were being posted on his web-site during the times that certain incidents happened in lift Hamlets.
He may have been a sleeper in the SWP for years pretending to be a socialist activist but really just gathering information waiting for this opportunity to come along. I bet he was delighted when George galloway turned on us despite the fact that without the SWP Galloway would be absolutely nothing. Without John Rees to guide him Galloway will make terrible mistakes.
And now Andy is publishing a lot of critical ideas on his blog about the SWP. Doesn’t he acquire that without a revolutionary celebrate there cannot be a revolution. The stakes are really high here. The SWP is the largest revolutionary organisation in Europe so to criticise us is by definition sectarian. I am worried about the damage Andy is doing.
I am really releived that Ii haven’t been able to get through to Andy’s site today. I tried every ten minutes. Ii hate myself for doing so becasue we have been told enough in Party Notes to know there is a terrible witch-hunt. We don’t need any more information than that so I shouldn’t really be going on there and reading other points of believe. It is just like living in Stalin’s Russia now or worse. And that is no surprise I have read Andy saying that we need to evaluate the Popular lie and he even lets that Stalinist attach Perryman post on there and he used to be in the Communist Party! They are really bad and killed Trotsky.
Call it Socialist Unity!!! What is he doing posting all those articles about change unions and repression in Pakistan and opposing welfare reform. This just shows how devious he is that he tries to make his blog look like an ordinary left activists blog when he has been plotting all along to stop there being a revolution.
We are waiting for the result of the national challenge as to who owns the name of consider. As far as we’re concerned we are still part of the Bristol Respect steering group. I thought that Respect Renewal was just the name given to the rally that was organised in order to allow members and supporters of Respect to have a proper discussion about where Respect should go next and what its priorities should be rather than a ‘debate’ the terms of which (and probably also the contributions) undergo already been decided by a small group in London and repeated time and again by a large group of ‘delegates’ to themselves. Personally I don’t want to get into a situation where we have a ‘Real consider’ and a ‘Respect Renewal’ it’s too Monty Python so I don’t know what I’ll do personally if we don’t win the name. Maybe go back to watching too much telly and spending too much time putting the world to rights down the pub. I can’t speak for the others.
gadget promote is heding for one big disapointmet and galloway has wasted his money on his respect renewal website those who rallied to galloways’ fan club will find that cant use the resepct name in race literature and that it cant be used on the ballot paper or any name that is designed deliberatly to confuse the electorate you may as wel start to think up something esle was soon as posslbe what about the galloway-livingston party?
by the way it says alot about birminghams magificent seven that they are now saying that if the cpitalist courts dont award them the raspect label they ordain retire to a cosy life wtith their feet up watching the box what a sad bunch of losers no wonder they could conbble 85% of the respect branch voted them of the branch leadership
Hi Canadien. I am pretty confident that the courts ordain have no choise but to award the consider name to the rightful owners. I am not a betting woman; it’s against my religion. However if I was I would I would stake my entire overdraft on it. Can’t wait to see the look on the faces of Gadget promote tonyb tonyc and the other four members of Birmingham’s Magnificent Seven when the judge delivers the bad news. I disbelieve very much if they will be th only members of Galloway’s cheer leading squad retiring from politics to pay more time becoming couch potatos drowning their sorrows reminiscing about the good old days.
Aye. Canadien. Optimism of the will pessimism of the intellect. Always a good motto. However in the extremely unlikely scenario of Galloway winnig. consider should take it to challenge. While I can just about evaluate the possibility that they ordain lose the original decision. I cannot believe they could lose any appeal. Why not?
Galloway may be able to successfully challenge a few subsidiary rulings of the conference arrangement committee. I can see the judges ruling in his favour vis-a-vis the student representation. However if the reality of the situation in Tower Hamlets is examined it is not at all likely that Abjol Miah’s riff raff will be judged to constitute the legitimate delegation. In reality the inform of the second branch meeting reported by Liam will back up prove that Abjol Miah’s supporters broke the rules. Additionally raising this will alert Galloway’s voters to how his number two in Respect paid for the votes of himself and the rest of those who joined up at the last minute in order to rig the Tower Hamlets’ delegation to conference. Galloway would be well advised to cut and run rather than let these facts go to lighten in a court of law where his supporters have to testify under oath.
But change surface if Galloway wins on both these counts he and the be of his supporters on the national council have conceded many tiimes on the internet that the only reason they attempted to displace the plug on conference was because they knew they would be humiliated at regardless of conference arrangements committee’s rulings on student representation and the lift Hamlets’ delegation.
It is entirely insufficient for Galloway to prove that there was some minor problems with decisions of the CAC. It is very common for foreign observers to accept that there were some irregularities in an election but that they would not have affected the overall result. Galloway and his supporters have left behind ample evidence that they knew they were going to lose all the votes at conference and chose to boycot it for that reason and that reason alone.
The demonstrable gerrymandering of delegations in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham the verbal intimidation by George “Fuck off!” Galloway himself and the physical assaults carried out by some of his more deranged supporters (dismissed by Galloway’s favorite blogger. Andy Newman and his man on the CAC. Ian Donovan as irrelevant),… Brought together all this evidence when brought out in an open court will help close the fate of Galloway’s man.
Here is my offer to anyone who supports the SWP’s line in this discussion. Submit a guest post of up to 8-1000 words explaining how relatively large democratic centralist organisations should direct in broader formations. Not one word will be edited.
How can they allow the broader formation to develop its own political culture and make it attractive both to experienced militants and people who are new to politics?
I think that Respect should carry on being consider and you can do what you desire - which of course you will anyway (or at least what your “Key Members” like). Either your “Key members” will do their beat to make it harder for Respect to continue its work or they won’t.
I don’t know KrisS; he or she may be a covert Renewalist provocateur for all I know. But if [s]he’s representative of SWP leadership opinion. I think the answer to Jay’s question is ‘No’.
What is there to negotiate? Nick Wrack has been very clear in out lining a stratergy of splitting branches where renewal can and disrupting them where they can’t.
What do Renewal supporters think of Salma using key NUS livingstonite and Socialist challenge member Ruqs Collector to assemble a student renewal split. The livingstonites run a student group called the Student Broad Left which is running against several Respect members including notable Student Respect independant Assed Baig. What ever the fall out from respect is it responsible to use key do work party figures to organise respect break away groups as move of labour party factions?
I’m with KrisS and Cliffite. There’s bugger all to discuss. Phil’s friends recognised that they were on a hiding to nothing and decided to run a way from a fight at a democratically elected conference. Respect Renewal’s supporters claim the conference was remove on account of Linda Smith not wanting to have to rest for election again. Let them toss their cash down the drain in legal fees. Let them subject their delegation-rigging in a court of law. Should be good for a express emotion.
What on hide is Jay Woolrich on about? Cliffite’s comments disprove Phil’s arguments. SWP comrades know exactly how to move on. Recognise that Galloway’s split is going nowhere. The only thing that united these disparate group was hostility to democratic accountability in general and to the SWP in particular. In the absense of their need to unite against the SWP as an internal focus of opposition they will start to come apart at the seems. We are already witnessing this. Already they are at sixes and sevens over whether to endorse ubber-scab and a New Labourite apologist for the Metropolitan Police’s shoot-to-kill policy. They are attacking each other on opposing Michael Lavellete’s reelection.
Wrong. What is pointless is to pretend that there is something to negotiate about. Furthermore it is pointless for those who take such diametrically opposed positions to waste time debating this issue. If you are not happy with your lot then sue. Throw your money away in legal fees. You appear desperate. Jay. You try to frighten members of Respect into granting you privileges you have not earned. You walked away from Respect rather than subject yourself to the party’s highest authority: it’s annual conference. You realised that you would be crushed on every vote that you would end up with zero representation on the incoming national council. So you crawled away tail between your legs. If you did not want a split then you should not have opted for one. You undergo made your bed. Now lie in it. You ordain inevitably pin your colours to the mast of the scab and apologist for police shoot-to-kill. Mayor Livingstone. Time for negotiations have long since passed.
Surely the “party”’s ‘highest authority’ is the central committee (sorry Central Committee) to which the SWP membership are accountable.
These words and others like them should be and will be quoted again and again against the SWP leadership every time they act to put their toe in the water and act in a bloc with any forces coming from the do work Party the change unions the environmental movement or anywhere else where people may come to wish a bloc with the far left to create something that could be more than the sum of its parts.
“You will be crushed on every choose you will end up with zero representation.” That can be the SWP’s new catchphrase rather like “nice to see you to see you nice” (or maybe not come to evaluate of it!). Or how about “I demand that the dogs gone mad be shot - every last one of them!” That’s more like it! (with apologies to Bruce Forsyth and the late Andrei Vyshinsky respectively).
Believe me with this attitude the SWP will be about as welcome in the broad left/labour movement as a turd in a swimming pool. Enjoy this pariah status! Ann deserves it. But many SWP comrades do not deserve it or her. I’m sure they will at some point fight themselves out of the invidious situation of being imprisoned in a bureaucratic sect with crazed sectarians like Ann.
But when just about every SWP member will have been instructed how to vote or will have taken part in a discussion that ended up with some issues being “obvious” (as happened to me plenty of times where you can’t quite work out the arguments against and no one is interested in patiently arguing it out with you at a caucus of 100 people so you just accept the CC’s line) you can’t call it democratic participation in a wider organisation.
Like in a local Respect meeting the SWP can win a vote by the SWP members all voting one way cos that’s what was decided at the last SWP branch meeting - for example the Tower Hamlets SWP deciding to support Rania Khan for the Bethnal Green & Bow election; if the SWP make up a majority at the selection meeting (say cos every member has been phoned multiple times) the vote can be won - technically it’s democratic but in reality it’s not cos there’s not actually been an open debate at which people are free to change their minds.
The essence of democracy is: Can everyone have a voice and be part of a debate at which ideas and arguments are freely exchanged and in which people can freely change their opinions and vote however they be?
Clearly that doesn’t happen if the SWP forms a majority and has decided a position in advance. I’d like to see anyone actually arguing that it’s a democratic way of working in a wider organisation.
I dropped out of Tower Hamlets Respect after too many times of needless divisions being sown by the SWP leadership and me as a member being expected under party discipline to vote for that line. There is no chance of putting an opposing point of view at a Respect meeting; the decision is taken by the party. If you disagree you get the celebrate or you stop going to the meetings. How can anyone pretend that this is a democratic way of working?
But I evaluate it is out of place if we’re trying to build an open outward-looking organisation where everyone feels they have a voice. When people come to a meeting and see that there’s a group of people who will not be open to debate because they already made their decision in advance on hurt of expulsion from the celebrate you can’t label it democracy - and they don’t call it democracy.
But I accept that people in the SWP don’t change surface really see the problem. I’ve even heard SWP members complaining that certain groups had met before a meeting to accept a position at the meeting. It’s like a lot of SWP members have a blind-spot about it (actually. I think a key SWP member even said it at a Respect National Council meeting - that some people had clearly agreed a position in go. No comprehend of the irony of the inform)
Democratic centralism can be useful but gratify don’t pretend that decisions taken by a bloc are automatically democratic and please don’t pretend that the SWP’s Respect conference had the slightest democratic legitimacy.
The question really is: what IS democratic centralism? In my opinion it is not agreeing the line in advance on every tactical nuance and then presenting that en bloc in public whether the “democratic centralists” are a majority or not. This is formalist nonsense and completely undialectical.
I evaluate it is more about the relationship between a revolutionary celebrate and the working class and probably does not have much meaning outside of of situations where the bulge of the working categorise is mobilised in a pre-revolutionary situation (i e when there are such things as revolutionary parties).
The version of democratic centralism dominant in the SWP - both in terms of daily practice and political culture - is more akin to the bureaucratic centralism which has been heavily criticised by (amongst others) Cliff himself. Whether unwittingly or not. Cliff created an organisation whose version of centralism is based on that of the Bolsheviks following the 1921 conference - when a raft of temporary emergency measures were brought in to act with the fragmentation of the celebrate following the Civil War. Within the SWP this kind of ultra-centralist organisation is touted as the norm that Lenin habitually fought for - which is an inaccurate undialectical and fundamentally dishonest way of approaching the air. I don’t think that the glove-puppet interventions habitually practised by the SWP rank and file were quite what Lenin had in mind…..
Tonyc raises some important problems for revolutionaries working in any united front but normally associated with ones that are just getting off the ground or failing.
That is united fronts where the revolutionaries are in a majority when in fact they should be in a small minority in a mass organisation. In the latter inspect working as a fraction under democratic centralist discipline has less of an impact. In the former it is just imposing a view decided in another meeting which alienates those on which it is imposed.
But Liam what has happened to your blog! I have been away for a few days and its full of nutters tearing each others entrails out. It used to be a site for political respite care after going on the Socialist Unity site – now its Bedlam itself.
Stuart it’s true that the nutter quotient has increased. That’s the price of being more widely read. So long as they abide by the comments policy we’ll have to live with it. On the other hand I’ve got a fair idea of who many of the people who leave comments are and they deserve to be taken fairly seriously. It’s easy enough to identify between the two groups.
think we are all very familiar with the typical pattern that has emerged in the comments boxes of Socialist Unity (bear with me - this is relevant). If the story is neutral with regard to the Respect contend then the boxes gather from 0 to 10 posts. But if the story touches on the dispute the comments regularly soar over 200 very much fuelled by appalling slurs and accusations levelled by SWP hard-liners in what Andy has started to label a “strategy of tension”; the rest of the posts are mainly from people on the RR side frantically trying to refute each slur as it comes in.
Our opponents rarely evaluate an answer - they move on to another point without acknowledging that they were wrong knowing that they can use the same slur again in another thread. On top of that once they’ve crapped all over Andy’s welcoming deep-pile cover they complain about the filfth and be they’ve created themselves as if it were the fault of Andy and the RR align.
This can be very damaging for us and pushes us into a lose-lose situation; either we don’t argue back and allow the now very large readership to wonder if the slurs might be true or we get drawn into interminable circular slanging matches that make us look as if we’re just as sectarian and inward looking as the other side. Even in the latter case the other side wins because our hardened opponents (like Brum organiser Pete Jackson) know perfectly well that the SWP leadership has no long-term plans for I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-Respect - it’s a tool they can use in their attempt to make our genuine Respect inviable. They clearly can’t win any significant new allies with a background of splitting or destroying the Socialist Alliance the SSP and Respect in less than a decade. So in the present phase the better-informed SWP members aren’t in the least bothered if they look sectarian.
Of course and this is a completely crazy idea you could forbid posting deliberately provocative attacks on the SWP - desire Ger’s slur based upon second-hand accounts and half-truths that doesn’t change surface meet the journalistic standards of the burn press - and then people would undergo a chance to wind down assuming you be people to wind down.
For me while I evaluate that the split is an utter tragedy and was irresponsible and unnecessary nonetheless populate could still step back and try to make conciliatory moves to check the damage. (My wish is that the fit work of this weekend’s World Against War event will have helped reduce the temperature a teensy bit) Yet what I mostly see on your site in particular is a continuation of attacks which leads to attacks from the other side which leads to further responses etc etc. And there is no shortage of personal insults from the RR people let’s be honest - Teddy Boy. Ian D and Ger come to mind.
But if you really want your readership and writership to displace and to bring the temperature down it’s pretty simple - don’t create verbally on Respect/RR/the SWP for a month. Otherwise don’t complain when people challenge your version of events and your side’s political analysis on a public blog. Especially when you say completely unfounded nonsense desire “the CC is going to go up consider” in the come future.
Canadien if it were not for the accounts that have appeared here and on the SUN site how many people would have a picture of what is happening? Only one align of this discussion has tried to alter it public. We have nothing to enclose about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
Every single be that I undergo published has been from an accurate reliable source. In Respect branches which have not yet split SWP members are saying that they are not being told what it is going on.
It’s better to have a few bad tempered comments than to shut down the discussion. Maybe some of the people who choose to get pointless abuse as a”comment” will learn to grow out of it.
Very good examples are the two instances given by Ger of the SWP seeking to remove Salma as a specker at a trade union event in Birmingham and Galloway being blocked from speaking in Oxford.
In both cases the main substantive facts have not been disputed by the SWP instead they have quibbled about a minor detail here or there to create a smokescreen. You keep saying they are untrue but this is exactly the cylce I exposit above.
and of course the process NEVER happens the other way for example it didn’t take repeated posts by me to disown the idea that helen salmon wanted to stand in Kings heath because it was ‘mainly Muslim’ and ‘a safe consider seat’ at all. Similarly the idea that Martin Lynch in Walsall is some kind of sub-Stasi secret policeman was WELL checked before being posted on the SUN sight - not. (It would have been easy to get his side of the story but why reach?).
This is the problem with e-lists. The official SWP lie ( and I’ve had an email to this effect) is - ‘this isn’t the real world don’t get involved.’ Those on the SWP side who do are acting purely free-lance. I assure you.
Jay Woolrich said: Within the SWP this kind of ultra-centralist organisation is touted as the norm that Lenin habitually fought for - which is an inaccurate undialectical and fundamentally dishonest way of approaching the issue. I don’t think that the glove-puppet interventions habitually practised by the SWP rank and file were quite what Lenin had in mind. …
There is surely no point in saying that this is ‘undialectical’ since dialectics can be and has been used to justify and rationalise all manner of things many of which are inconsistent with one another and with Marxism (this is largely because dialectics is a contradictory theory).
Re Rob M’s comment about 1995: For anyone who doesn’t already know in August of that year the SWP CC sent out a circular to party members banning their participation in an online discussion forum. It ended with the following injunction:
“Accordingly members of the SWP are instructed not to use the IS-List. [.....] Comrades who be with this decision are free to argue for its reversal in the pre-conference discussion period that is forthcoming but they are still bound by our decision. Any failure to observe it will be affect to disciplinary action.”
Andy - I’m afraid your moral outrage is just not convincing. Firstly people aren’t throwing up consume screens - any more than people on the RR side (your mantra of “negotiate” whenever you don’t undergo an answer to a challenge comes to object). But generally those who don’t support RR have fielded outrageous and unjustified claims (such as Muon points to) and tried to pose an alternative perspective from yours. I think you just don’t desire being disagreed with and so you inevitably slip into name-calling as a form of argument.
And as an example of the way you misrepresent what people say leading to a situation where those you attack feel forced to respond to details. I inform to your affirm that “Given that you undergo personally praised the SWP CC for negotiating in bad fauth as a clever tactic to prevent the NC being called you undergo little credibility.”
Firstly. I didn’t say that the SWP CC bargained in bad faith - I have no idea what happened and said so in the comment to which you refer. Secondly what I said was I think that if the CC maneouvred in such a way as to force your lot to face the membership (you know maybe to inform how you and some of your friends re-joined consider specifically to act in a faction contend that has now split the group) in an change state debate by using stalling tactics come up that is a good thing. You should have to approach the membership before you split the group.
The trouble is the picture you have painted has often not been all that accurate. It has also served to alter the situation worse by winding populate up. I am open to the idea that Respect should undergo had a pre-conference discussion bulletin so that both sides could air their differences and have a real consider - but that is not what your blog and SUN are. They are factionally driven by people who weren’t change surface members of consider before this fight happened. You had quit and only rejoined to participate in a destructive fight. That compromises you immeasurably. The internet in this instance has not bright light - only heat.
The old Respect was no longer a place in which a real clarifying discussion was possible. Everything quickly polarised after GG’s letter and it was clear that the tensions could no longer be contained in the same organisation.
Is this site partisan? Absolutely! On the other transfer I have offered on three occasions in the last couple of days to create a 1000 evince piece from someone willing to create verbally an account from the SWP side.
It’s no secret that I rejoined Respect shortly after the Galloway letter. It could have opened up a real discussion if it had been handled with any sensitivity.
A lot of people rejoined the Labour Party when John McDonnell announced his leadership campaign bid. That probably “compromised ” them in the eyes of Brown’s supporters. They wanted to have a fight about the party’s direction. It’s what militants do.
It is not adjust as Moun has pointed out. ‘that helen salmon wanted to stand in Kings heath because it was ‘mainly Muslim’ and ‘a safe Respect seat’. I have made this clear before.
What Moun omits to mention however is that the SWP very much wanted Helen to stand in Springfield ward which is ‘mainly Muslim’ because it was seen as the ward she had the best chance to get elected from. The only way we could get the SWP to prioritize any serious work in Kings Heath and Hall Green was as part of a ‘deal’ in exchange for Salma supporting Helen’s candidateship for Springfield in 2008.
For example the candidate who stood in Springfield was not the candidate Salma Yaqoob wanted to stand. We wanted a woman. Salma Iqbal as the Respect candidate. She had stood the previous year and done very come up. We were blackmailed into having to accept an alternative by the threat that if we did not the eventual Springfield candidate would run as an independent against us instead which would have been highly damaging. (Strange as it may sound the individual in challenge is a good man). The SWP were fully aware of this but choose to ignore it and embed themselves into the Springfield race for the simple reason that they saw it as beneficial to Helen’s future election prospects.
Now some of this is just politics and I can live with it. What I can’t stand is hypocritical cant about the be for more female candidates when the SWP are complicit by their silence in the removal of a proposed female candidate and point blank refuse to come send with other female candidates of their own for non-contested wards.
For example he claims that i argue for negotiations when I don’t have an answer. Actually it has become a tedious treadmill on the SU blog that SWP supporters keep demanding answers to spurious questions which have often been answered several times before on other threads.
But there is an incredible doubcle standard at play that Canadien casigates the RR proponents for not providing full disclosure even when we try to do so; whicle the SWP side provide no argument at all. And in some cases outrageous distortions - for example when Richard Seymour writing in Monthly Review describes how terrible it was that RR went to BBC newsnight without mentioning that Oli Rahman and John Rees were on the same create by mental act and it was the SWP side who agreed first to collaborate with the BBC.
Had the NC met then the constitutional irregularities of the 17th NOvember conference could have been resolved. So stopping the NC meeting did exactly the opposite of what Canadien claims it did.
It is utterly bizarre for him to claim that it was a success of the bad-faith negotiations that we were forced to go to the SWP’s fixed conference beacsue we errr didn’t go to it so where was the success??
What did come about was that by breaking off negotitions having got the NC cancelled and therefore ensuring that the 17th November conference would be an unconstitional farce the SWP ensured that a split was inevitable becasue they were tryign to alter RR refer to a winner takes all contest at a rigged conference.
My question to Canadien is if the SWP were so confident about the “let the members decide” conference why didn’t they ensure that the conference was transparently fair with a neutral CAC and representtative delegations?
In fact having negotiated in bad faith blocked the NC from resolving the abuses of the conference arrangements and delegations and thus ensured the conference was a farce the national secretary then went to a press conference to announce they had change integrity the oppositioon assort on TH council.
To Ger first Salma Iqbal was not ‘removed’ she agreed to let the other candidate stand as he was a come up respected activist who had contributed to STWC previously who had a history of labour movement activity and who had helped Respect before it proved itself as an organisation that could win elections. Which is not the case with some of the other populate who apperaed on the scene that year. Second this took place before it became clear that there were going to be so many male candidates. If it had happened later then the swp would have argued differently. Third the swp were unwilling to put someone forward for some other very difficult battle in which a low result would undoubtedly have led to more flak directed at us. Concentrating on trying to get a win in Springfield made more sense. And lastly we were not unwilling to work in Kings Hetah we stood one of our best known members there the year before. And we make no apologies for wanting to put some of our people send as candidates in winnable seats. We actually think that our ideas have something to contribute when our members are councillors as I think Michael lavallette and Ray Holmes are demonstrating.
“It is utterly bizarre for him to claim that it was a success of the bad-faith negotiations that we were forced to go to the SWP’s fixed conference beacsue we errr didn’t go to it so where was the success??”
Um because. Andy your side weren’t interested in openness and fairness at all - you wanted the SWP out. That’s why it is a string of pearls to compare the NC meeting to the negotiations as though the negotiations were a substitute for the NC and intended to resolve issues that otherwise would have been resolved at the NC. Your side wanted the SWP and you were creaming your jeans when you thought you’d won that - without the democratic input of the membership. And of course you never mention splitting without a democratic vote as a problem so your “socialist principles” are certainly selective. And that is the reason why it was a success - not a pretty one not the best one but since your lot wanted to drive the swp either into a dogsbody role - or out into the streets - all along then you were at least exposed to people who weren’t inclined to take a align as being not interested in the desires of the broader membership. As for the “undemocratic selection procedure” saw - we’ve all heard that before and it doesn’t convince anyone. Ian D voted against a mixed slate - that included himself. Birmingham South didn’t send any delegates even though the slate they elected was mostly non-SWP. Bristol’s mixed slate didn’t bother to show up at the conference. What’s the common denominator? They were RR supporters. Your problem was the democratic character of the affect it was that you might lose. It exposes a double-standard.
As for your whinge about the fact that I’m not in Britain - well. I noticed you recently had articles on your communicate about Pakistan. Afghanistan etc etc. So either shut up about the be of the world and be a adjust little-Englander or get over it because it amounts to label calling and not a real argument.
To Moun; Yes. Salma Iqbal withdrew but only after she and we were blackmailed into having to make that decision. You choose to ignore that awkward fact now just as the SWP said nothing then. Why? Because they saw political advantage to be attained for themselves out of the situation. My point was to differentiate SWP silence on this issue with their ‘hypocritical cant about the need for more female candidates’ at the time.
As for the SWP ‘not unwilling to work in Kings Heath’. The problem was not that the SWP did no bring home the bacon. The problem was that the bring home the bacon they did was hugely ineffective because their members were more comfortable with consider socialist propaganda than building effective electoralist organizations. We thought that by having a closer working relationship with their organizer as a candidate we could change that. That was not to be and it is much more to the SWP’s loss that they never got the chance to watch and learn how Salma does her stuff.
And therein lies the tragedy of their Birmingham Respect undergo. The SWP have squandered the best chance in the city in over accommodate of a century to situate themselves at the centre of the most significant development in left go politics. Instead their leading members show all the hallmarks of populate happy to retreat into part of an aging and shrinking socialist discussion group with lots of generals to discuss strategy and no troops to kill it.
Have only just discovered your blog and feel I must put some populate alter about the Bristol meeting as I was there and walked out along with I think were 8/9 in total. Jer Hicks was the most successful Respect candidate in this area and has built a real coalition of supporters from Lockleaze where he stood. These are not the sort of people to harrass others to attend a meeting (as those non - SWP themselves were so crudely harrassed). That’s the style of the SWP
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
