The following article was written on 31 October 2007, to record the negotiations with the SWP. It has been circulated among the non-SWP participants in the talks, and they have agreed it is their collective memory of what happened.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SWP
by Linda Smith, Nick Wrack, Salma Yaqoob, Alan Thornett
The SWP leadership has been telling its members that there is no question of them leaving Respect or separating from Respect.
Let’s be absolutely clear. The SWP leadership in Respect have been involved in negotiations with the non-SWP leadership of Respect with a view to achieving an “amicable separation”.
How did we get here?
Anyone who has followed the recent acrimonious rupture of relations within Respect will not need any rehearsal of the facts that led to this.
However, it is important that the events of the last week are brought to the attention of Respect members and the wider public so that everyone can understand how we have reached the present position.
On Monday 22 October John Rees rang Alan Thornett at 9.00 that evening to ask Alan if it was correct that a document critical of the SWP was being prepared. Alan confirmed that it was correct. When asked if it would be signed by many members of the National Council, Alan confirmed that it would be. John Rees’s response to this was, “in that case, the SWP might as well call it a day”. Alan asked, “Do you mean that you would walk away from Respect?” John Rees replied, “What would be the point, any more?”
On Wednesday 24 October Alan Thornett phoned John Rees to ask for a meeting between the two sides. John Rees agreed to meet the following day (Thursday 25 October) and agreed that the basis of the meeting would be to discuss an “amicable separation”.
In the days preceding this phone call, an independent and respected friend of both sides had offered to mediate in any discussions. It was agreed that this ‘mutual friend’ should be asked to chair the negotiation.
Two meetings to discuss divorce
There have been two meetings between the two sides.
Both meetings took place at Friends House, Euston, London.
First negotiation
The first meeting was on Thursday 25 October. Present were Lindsey German, John Rees, Chris Bambery and Martin Smith (SWP National Organiser) for the SWP. Alan Thornett and Nick Wrack represented a group of 19 non-SWP members of the Respect National Council. The meeting was chaired or facilitated by our mutual friend.
The meeting had been called to discuss the possibility of an “amicable separation” and had been co-ordinated in advance by our mutual friend with this subject matter as the topic for the negotiations.
At this first meeting, the facilitator gave his assessment of this first stage of the negotiations with these words, “Everyone agrees that there is no future together. We are only talking about the terms and the timing of the separation.” Everyone agreed that this was a fair assessment of where we were.
Lindsey German for the SWP asked what our proposal was. Alan Thornett, replying on behalf of our side, in the context of what we had understood the meeting to be about and in light of what John Rees had said to him on the phone said, “We think you (the SWP) should leave.” This, undoubtedly would have been the easiest way for matters to be settled.
John Rees said that the SWP could not agree to walking away and leaving the other side with the name. They could walk away if neither side got the name.
There was discussion about the National Conference. The non-SWP side argued that the conference would be a disaster and would quickly degenerate into chaos and disorder due to the challenges to the delegations of students and Tower Hamlets in particular. John Rees was amenable to having a different sort of conference – one that just ratified an agreed separation. No-one dissented from the suggestion that we had to divorce.
The SWP wanted the National Council called by Linda Smith for Sunday 28 October to be called off.
At the end of the meeting Nick Wrack repeated the formulation given earlier by the chair, i.e. that everyone agreed we needed to separate and we were only talking about the terms and the timing of the separation and asked if everyone agreed. Everyone did.
It was agreed that there would be a further meeting of the two sides to continue the negotiations on Sunday morning 28 October.
From the first negotiation to the second
Following this first meeting the facilitator spoke to both sides by telephone. This is what he said to Nick Wrack on Friday 26 October: “We are within sight of a resolution. I have spoken to George Galloway, John Rees and Lindsey German. My proposal is that George stays as Respect but that the SWP constitute themselves as ‘Socialist Respect’. The SWP are prepared to talk about that and then that would be the basis for them to withdraw from Respect. There then could be a basis of an electoral non-aggression pact, with neither side challenging the other. John and Lindsey say that this is definitely something we can discuss. They don’t want this to continue.”
Following that conversation the non-SWP side agreed to call off the National Council with the view to calming things down while the negotiations continued.
Nick Wrack later had a further telephone conversation with the facilitator in which the facilitator explained that the SWP were suggesting that our side use the name ‘Respect (George Galloway)’ and that they use the name ‘Socialist Respect’.
The second negotiation
The second meeting took place on Sunday 28 October at 10:30 am. Present at this meeting for the SWP were John Rees, Lindsey German, Chris Bambery, Martin Smith. This time the SWP delegation was joined by Elaine-Graham-Leigh. On the other side were Linda Smith, Salma Yaqoob, Alan Thornett and Nick Wrack. The meeting was again chaired by the mutual friend.
The meeting was opened by some remarks from the Chair. He outlined his assessment of where the negotiations were at following the first meeting and his telephone conversations with both sides. He said, “There have been several discussions. Each one has been characterised by everyone wanting to get results. The prospect remains favourable. The non-SWP side has agreed not to proceed with the National Council. The SWP side has agreed not to call any officers’ meetings. This is a progress of sorts. The discussion now is how to proceed to an amicable divorce. It is agreed at this level that the organisation can’t carry on together.”
“There is the issue of the conference. The SWP believe that if it can’t be resolved at these meetings then the there should be a conference. They say there can’t be a deal without involving all the members. It is equally true that it is inconceivable to see how a conference could get off the ground. There are the arguments over the delegates. Decisions of any conference on the present basis would not go unchallenged.”
Our mutual friend then put the following proposition: “We should first agree the omni-solution, i.e. separation. Then we should come back to the procedure. I have put solutions regarding the name. Neither side has said that this not a solution.”
Both sides agreed that this set out the situation very well.
John Rees said that regarding the name, there had to be a “qualifier”, i.e some term that qualified “Respect” for both sides. There was some discussion about this. We explained that we would not agree to separate on the basis that we called ourselves ‘Respect (George Galloway)’ and there was a short recess while we discussed what we could agree to. After the recess we said that we could agree to using some qualifier with ‘Respect’ but that we would need to consult others first, so we proposed adjourning to another date.
The chair summed up where we had reached. “We agree that both sides are separating. That neither side will speak out as the pre-October respect. That the name to be used by each side will be Respect with a qualifier.”
John Rees said that if we come to an agreement then there would be no need for a conference.
The chair said that there were lots of arguments for having a conference but “I can’t see a conference as being a means of resolving the issues. If there is no agreement, a conference couldn’t make one. The delegations would be challenged.”
There were other issues such as the logo and an electoral non-aggression understanding that still had to be agreed.
The non-SWP side proposed issuing a statement stating that there was an agreement to separate but that the detail had to be resolved. This was not agreed to by the SWP.
Finally, as part of the process of taking the negotiations further forward it was agreed that access to the membership database and the e-mails would be restored and that the codes would be given to Rob Hoveman. It was agreed that John Rees and Nick Wrack would inform the other if they were sending anything out to the membership. If material was to be sent to NC members, no notification would be necessary.
It was agreed that both sides would meet again. Everyone wanted to meet as soon as possible but the earliest we could all do was Wednesday 31 October at 9:00am.
That is where things were left.>
The SWP pull out of the talks
Then on Monday 29 October there was the press conference for the breakaway councillors in Tower Hamlets, organised by John Rees and the national office. The non-SWP side sent out two letters to all members. The SWP sent out its material.
Over Monday and Tuesday our mutual friend had phone conversations with Nick Wrack, George Galloway, John Rees and Lindsey German. On Tuesday night at about 9:30pm the SWP told our mutual friend that they were not turning up to the talks in the morning.
Bad faith
The SWP have denied to its membership and to others that they were involved in these negotiations. In our opinion, they have negotiated in bad faith. They have put out material stating that they are not separating. This is the opposite of the truth. Their involvement in the negotiations and then in the press conference in support of the breakaway group of councillors proves this beyond doubt. The call for the conference was no more than a tactic to put pressure at the negotiating table. Unfortunately, once they mobilised the membership for a conference, the SWP leadership had to bow to the whirlwind they had conjured up. They decided to pull out of the talks and go ahead with their rigged conference, thinking that would give them some sort of constitutional authority and avoid being portrayed as the ones who had split.
What next?
We had hoped to protect and preserve at least some of the successes of Respect by having a separation with the least acrimony and public falling out as possible.
We are committed to building a pluralistic, democratic left-wing coalition for the millions who need it. We will do it without the SWP and do it far more effectively and successfully.
KrisS on said:
They say there can’t be a deal without involving all the members.
I’m glad to have it confirmed from the Galloway side that the Respect side have consistenly put this point.
Nas on said:
KrisS: are you equally glad that the SWP tops had agreed at two meetings to an amicable separation within Respect?
Andy on said:
Yes Kriss but then “John Rees said that if we come to an agreement then there would be no need for a conference.“
KrisS on said:
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not assuming that this is anything other than a partial document, issued by one side in an unpleasant factional dispute.
If John Rees, or anyone else, stated at any time that it was the business of the NC to dissolve Respect on behalf of its members then he was wrong to do so.
Obviously the SWP can, at any time, make whatever decisions it wants to as to its continuing support for Respect.
Andy on said:
I look forward to the SWP’s account of the same negotiations then, and I wonder what our Mutual Friend would make of it if that account was substantially different.
Kent&CanterburyDan on said:
It would also be interesting to know exactly who our “mutual friend” is.
Andy on said:
It is someone trusted by both sides, who needs to remain anonymous, and as such I will delete comments that speculate about her or his identity..
Kent&CanterburyDan on said:
“It is someone trusted by both sides, who needs to remain anonymous, and as such I will delete comments that speculate about her or his identity.”
Fair enough. i do have my own sources as to who it was, and can confirm that they are a pretty impartial mediator.
Kent&CanterburyDan on said:
For sources read suspicions, sorry.
KrisS on said:
Andy isn’t claiming that this is a report from “our mutual friend” though, is he?
This doesn’t pupport to be anything other than the non-SWP participants…collective memory of what happened.
Tommy Judd on said:
Why can’t the SWP leave and call itself, oh I dunno, something like “the SWP”?
KrisS on said:
That appears to have been the Galloway group’s starting position. Once again, good to have that confirmed from those on that side of the table.
Canadien on said:
Because they have majority support? Because they are the ones pushing for the democratic conference?
Why don’t the Galloway minority leave and call themselves “Galloway and Co.” Their undemocratic, delegate-less (to prevent stacking no doubt) rally will, after all, confirm precisely that they are “leaders” and a few hangers-on.
Kent&CanterburyDan on said:
Galloway had and still has no intention of using any name other than “Respect” without any sort of qualifier.
Nas on said:
KrisS: John Rees’s response to this was, “in that case, the SWP might as well call it a day”. Alan asked, “Do you mean that you would walk away from Respect?” John Rees replied, “What would be the point, any more?”
KrisS on said:
Nas – if you look above your head, right now, there’s another straw there, which, I reckon, if you reached really hard, you might be able to clutch at.
Are you really saying that your accusation that the SWP planned to leave Respect is now reduced to Alan Thornett’s recollection of John Rees’s reaction to some bad news on a telephone call?
Splintered Sunrise on said:
“The democratic conference”… “the Respect side”… these guys crack me up.
Adam J on said:
One thing is clear is that the majority of members of Respect whether they support either side of the debate are AGAINST the organisation splitting! I personally would be very anoyed if the future of my organisation was decided in backroom deals!
The idea of 2 Respect’s in my opinion is farcical!
In my own Respect branch there are people who sympathise with either side of this debate, but our branch is not polarised and there is broad consensus over local strategy, none of us feel inclined to split. I expect my branch is not untypical. The idea that we should split into two branches is neither practical or desirable.
Andy on said:
I repeat i will delete comments speculating about the identity of the mediator. that comrade has their own reasons for wanting to remain anonymous, and I ask comrades to respect that.
Darren on said:
Andy,
What the dickens?
Take my comment with the levity in which it was intended. 😉
I’m still chuckling away at a report that has the two factions in this dispute – both of whom claiming to represent the democratic and pluralistic tendencies within Respect – quite happy to conduct divorce negotiations behind closed doors, involving only a handful of members on each side.
Please, no messiness in front of the rank and file comrades.
It’s always the kids who suffer the most when mum and dad split up.
Mike Murray on said:
Now that the split is a reality isn’t it better to let things just cool down? What is the point in continually raking over contested ground?
There isn’t going to be an agreement about what occurred and why.
Comrades have to realise that there is a point where it is only our enemies that ‘win’ these sorts of arguments.
Stop the fighting and start looking outwards again, for heaven’s sake.
Chris Edwards on said:
Alan Thornett is obviously wasted in politics. He would make a very good science fiction writer. I think this account should be treated with a large pinch of salt.
I agree with Adam J. I urge branches nationally to stay together, refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the split and protest strongly to those responsible for it.
The idea that the celebs side simply called upon the SWP to “leave” Respect is astonishing. And the fact that they decided to split, without consulting and involving the national membership, is breath-taking in its arrogance–especially when a national conference was about to take place. Contemplating a split, and then presenting it as a fait acompli before a conference, without giving the whole membership the chance to try to resolve the disputes, was criminally irresponsible. The BNP must be overjoyed.
This whole approach smacks of the kind of arrogance displayed by Galloway during his TalkSPORT shows when confronted with a view he does not like (e.g. someone challenging his barmy, chauvinistic ideas about Churchill and WW2). He has this nasty habit of shouting an angry riposte down the microphone and then cutting off the caller before s/he can respond. We have seen this method in action during the run up to the split: “Go on fuck off, fuck off the lot you” to his 2005 election agent.
The recent Manchester public meeting showed that would have been perfectly possible to discuss the crisis calmly and rationally at a conference.
By the way, I am informed that Galloway refused to speak on the Manchester platform with John Rees when this was proposed by the SWP.
Paul Hunt on said:
Chris edwards
aren’t you the one that used to be the only member of the British Supporters of the International Trotskyist Opposition? have you entered the SWP?
cheers
paul
Peter Mandelson on said:
I am the mutual friend!
leigh on said:
interesting that all the bile and spite on here is coming from the swp posters! Says everything you would need to know about that politically bankrupt organisation and its drone loyalists! The personal attacks here by rees’s attack dogs are worse than anything GG has been subject to in the reactionary right wing press! Now that their mealticket has been taken away from them the prospect of having to actually work for a living must be driving rees,german, bambery and co to distraction!
Concerned socialist on said:
Re # 28: You ignorant fool, it’s the SWP that’s carried the main burden of financing Respect, not GG.
Syme on said:
This looks to me like the SWP leadership’s initial reaction to the way the Renewal people on top had shifted around Galloway was to concede to the fact that we were going to be pushed out of the organisation and to try and negotiate a settlement.
On the ground, however, it was becoming clearer that this split was essentially contained within the leadership, the ISG and non-aligned liquidationists (ie most of you lot reading this) and factions within Birmingham/East London. Not only this but, as Adam J has consistently pointed out, even in Respect branches where people did broadly sympathise with one or other faction that this in no way represented itself as a desire to split (and effectively neuter) the organisation.
The SWP leadership, responding to reports from around the country, probably realised at this point that what was going on was an attempt by a minority to get rid of them and try to pick up whatever crumbs of a Respect organisation were left behind. This was fine for Galloway and Miah because they are primarily concerned with getting elected in TH. This was good for the ISG etc because they think that the absence of the SWP will bring the broad-party fairy to visit and bestow upon us a lovely mass organisation.
So at this point, the SWP rallied behind the councilors making stand against the practices we had seen our opposition resort to in the two weeks following. They seized the initiative to build with those forces on the ground, with a majority clearly opposing a split, towards maintaining an organisation that maintains the involvement of the SWP with a large section of people who support our vision of Respect. Because to abandon Respect to the Renewal leaders and the bloggers would be to sign the death warrant for Respect’s chances of developing as a nationally organising force.
ks on said:
respect was a crap name anyway. it was deliberately post-modern and meaningless. what’s wrong with a name with either socialist, workers, working-class or left in the title? at least they describe what is is or what it stands for.
i understand that respect has a brand name value now. but i seriously think that galloway and friends would be better of negotiating with the rmt, fbu, pcs, bob wareing, cnwp, sp, cpb et al and forming a new coalition with a better name, democratic and federal structures (at least initially), because at least this could lead to a joint left wing slate in the london elections and potentially to a new party in the future.
galloway and friends need to regroup with other forces on the left and the labour movement if they are to build anything. whether this is possible or not i’m not sure. many people are extremely uneasy about galloway as an individual and the goings on in tower hamlets do not inspire much confidence either! anyway, it’s worth negotiating with others, maybe a joint conference for working class representation to discuss the way forward?
all the best,
ks
http://www.foranewleftparty.blogspot.com
Martin Wicks on said:
SWP members on here give the impression that anybody criticising them is a sectarian. What do you think of the contributions in your IB by Mark Steele or Paul Holborrow, Julie Waterson and others, which are very critical?
Adam J on said:
Haven’t read this IB what kind of criticisms do they make?
babeuf on said:
Good comment, ks (#32). I heard much the same argument being put forward by people attending the 4 November meeting of the Yaqoobins – that success would mean being absorbed into something involving the wider forces you’ve mentioned, rather than remaining within the limits of the organisation that emerges from the Respect Renewal Conference.
As for the Respect name, it has some value for recognition at the moment, but we don’t want to fetishise it, and certainly wouldn’t cling to it at the expense of allying with others.
ks on said:
re #35
“success would mean being absorbed into something involving the wider forces you’ve mentioned, rather than remaining within the limits of the organisation that emerges from the Respect Renewal Conference.”
good point and i’m pleased to hear that salma is thinking on these lines.
best wishes,
ks
larry on said:
who let the dogs out. Really how can people ignore plain facts. John Rees started up another damaging front because he has lost credibility, not just with non SWP but withinhis own party. Then he surpasses stupidy on the 29th October by breaching good faith and general rules of Respect.
Its nothing absolutely to do with direction but much more to do with his position in Respect as he seen the new post as having to share leadership.
Lets not lose sight of his undemocratic actions and by the way he is totally silent about them
Phil on said:
non-aligned liquidationists (ie most of you lot reading this)
Cheers, Syme.
even in Respect branches where people did broadly sympathise with one or other faction that this in no way represented itself as a desire to split (and effectively neuter) the organisation.
The trouble with this logic is that the ‘non-aligned liquidationists’ don’t want a split either. I think we’re all agreed that competition between two rival ‘RESPECT’s is the worst possible outcome.
Adam J on said:
What do you do in a branch where 1) Some people sympathise with the “Respect Renewal” faction and some sympathise with “Socialist Respect” but 2) Actually work together quite constructively and there is little conflict in the branch?
I expect this is the case in the majority of Respect branches.
I would urge the leaders even at the last second of the 11th hour to re-unite.
As it happens I’m quite sympathetic to much of Socialist Resistance’s analysis of where Respect should go, but I also think they gloss over the issues in Tower Hamlets Respect where it is clear that there has been a problem with opportunism and careerism.
I am also somewhat sceptical that George Galloway is suddenly going to become really accountable in this new, pluralist Respect group!
(Interesting articles in this weeks Socialist Worker)
Mark P (the Irish one) on said:
These critical articles by Waterson, Steel, Holborrow et al… just how critical are they?
Adam J on said:
Spill the beans on the articles comrades!!
Alex Nichols on said:
This thread is no longer updating in the comments alert, but is a rather important test of the politics of some of the participants in Respect(s) e.g. SWP, SR, Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway.
Please note:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1004#comments
ks on said:
re #40 adam j
i’d suggest the sensible thing to do is tell people to join whatever respect faction they like but just agree to continue to work together on issues where you all agree and to not stand against each other in elections.
all the best,
ks
Canadien on said:
leigh – “interesting that all the bile and spite on here is coming from the swp posters! … politically bankrupt organisation and its drone loyalists! … attack dogs… Now that their mealticket has been taken away from them the prospect of having to actually work for a living…”
Wow, you’re the best comedy to roll around in a long while.
Keith Watermelon on said:
can the admin please remove the names of comrades who have not consented to be named on this site
Andy on said:
“Keith Watermelon”
If comrades sepculate in the comments here about the contributors to the IB I will neither confrom or deny that they are correct.
The policy here is to respect the fact that the IB is an internal doceument when it comes to Rank and File members, and not attribute their contributions.
However, the names mentioned by Martin are high profile members of the SWP, and there is no security problem with their names being in the public domain.
anticapitalista on said:
Andy
Why do you allow publication of SWP internal documents on this site?
Bit sinister innit?
anticapitalista on said:
Just to add.
Do you have ‘permission’ to do so?
Andy on said:
I have only published articles from named individuals where I have their permission
anticapitalista on said:
That is not true Andy.
You often publish internal SWP documents.
Andy on said:
I publish without permission, only when they are from the CC, or full timers.
In the case of grassroots members, I don’t attribute content to them unless I have permission.
Darren on said:
*everybody saunters over to Liam Mac Uaid’s blog to see if he’s published the aforementioned IB*
Madam Miaow on said:
With or without qualifiers, keeping it nice and snappy and allowing both sides to keep the constituent letters of the acronym, perhaps one could be “Respect” and the other “Specter”?
I name Brian of Nazareth and I claim my fiver.
Louise on said:
“and the other “Specter”?”
Madam Miaow: it kinda sounds James Bond like..
anticapitalista on said:
#47 Why do you publish SWP internal documents Andy?
The East is Red on said:
“Tower Hamlets Respect hosted its first public meeting since George Galloway’s followers changed the locks on our constituency office, effectively splitting the organisation. Around 80 people packed into the historic Kingsley Hall – Gandhi’s home on his visit to East London – in the middle of councillor Rania Khan’s ward, to hear her and councillor Oliur Rahman, alongside Respect mayoral candidate Lindsey German, described their vision for Respect. Former advisor to Ken Livingstone, and former senior Labour councillor, Kumar Murshid, made an excellent chair – something Tower Hamlets Respect had unfortunately not seen during recent misrule. Equally it was a pleasure to attend a meeting where young Bengali women were not barracked and harrassed at the door.
“I was reminded of the first meetings Respect had in the area, and it was a relief – another sign that those members of Respect supporting democracy are gaining the upper hand in Tower Hamlets. The atmosphere was electric. Rumours had been circulated by George Galloway’s followers that our meeting was cancelled, apparently making the extraordinary claim that councillors could not hold public meetings in their own wards! But nontheless, we packed the Hall to the rafters with local residents (the estates next to the hall had been leafletted over the weekend), trade unionists, community activists and Respect members, old and new.
“Oli, Rania and Lindsey all laid out their vision for Respect as a democratic, plural organisation of the Left, as it was when the organisation was launched four years ago. Councillor Rahman’s speech was particularly impressive: having been attacked, within yards of his own home, by unkown assailants the night before, he assured us that the threatening emails, the sinister phone calls and now the apparent physical assaults would not deter him. Contributions from the floor showed the impressive range of political forces Respect has been able to mobilise locally: an FBU member from Whitechapel talked, with regret, about how Galloway had ‘cut himself off’ from the working class locally; a local teacher described the area’s anti-fascist traditions, and how fighting the BNP in the early 1990s had paved the way for Respect today. It was reminder of just how far we’ve travelled, whatever the current difficulties. The audience was around 50% Bengali, 50% everyone else. Someone had the bright idea of phoning Bangla TV when they realised the meeting was a success, so they turned up and filmed the last twenty minutes or so.
“A few questions were rightly raised about where Respect should go now. There was a general sadness that it should’ve come to this sorry situation, but it was impossible not to feel a little more optimistic afterwards. Plans were made to launch a series of local meetings, across the borough, reaching places we’ve never really touched before, and to mobilise as many observers as we could for the democratic Respect conference on 17 November.
“We’re not out of the woods yet. But the momentum in Tower Hamlets is shifting towards those who support the original Respect vision of an organisation that fights for peace and social justice.”
babeuf on said:
Madam Miaow (#49) said: perhaps one could be “Respect” and the other “Specter”?
Don’t you mean “Spectrum”, Madam Miaow? Here’s a spycam picture of a CC meeting earlier today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/anderson/scarlet/images/800/group_circle.html
– but don’t breathe a word, or my source’s life won’t be worth living.
red eck on said:
#54
I see Bambery has shaved off his tash. About time too.
a very public sociologist on said:
@ Madam Miaow
Spectre already exists! For reasons known only to themselves, this is the name of the electoral arm of Military Families Against War. Why?
Madam Miaow on said:
Good pic of the CC, Babeuf.
“Spectre already exists! For reasons known only to themselves, this is the name of the electoral arm of Military Families Against War.”
Beyond satire. I can’t keep up. (Groans and retreats into Help, I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here … realises this is the universe saying there’s no escape. Returns to Scrabulous. “Hint, nudge, poke” AVPS.)
TomU on said:
Andy … anyone … how about a comment on this message from ‘SWP-Respect’:
“Three attackers kicked Councillor Oli Rahman to the ground, inflicting internal bruising and ripping his clothes, in an incident near his home in Tower Hamlets last night (Sunday 11 November).
This is the second attack on Oli. In the first incident his front window was shattered in the middle of the night when attackers threw a brick through it. Oli’s mother has also been threatened.
Last night’s attack follows threatening emails sent to both Oli Rahman and fellow Respect National Council member Mehdi Hassan.
In a separate incident Mehdi Hassan received the following email threatening both him and Oli Rahman:
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:16:02 +0000
To: mehdi@respectcoalition.org
Subject: (no subject)
medi you and fucking oli are traitors you owe your careers to george, without george you will all be signing on soon and if i see the pair of you im gonna kick the shit out of you both.”
Isn’t this a disgraceful turn of events? Open supporters of GG issuing threats of violence followed by actual acts of violence. If Oli’s attackers have any direct connection with Galloway’s Respect (as I suspect they do) this tells us everything we need to know about the rotten rump left with GG. If anyone in Tower Hamlets knows the names of Oli’s attackers they have a duty to expose them.
The attack on Oli should give anyone left in GG’s Respect pause for thought. When you finally fall out with GG – as you are bound to at some point – will the gloves be off?
babeuf on said:
It’s Groundhog Day.
jj on said:
there is a terrible precedent on this blog from many (though not all) contributers- if someone who is not pro GG in this dispute is attacked or threatend they are not condemed. The silence from Andy is deafening. Come on Andy condem this thuggery whoever did it. Andy and his supporters never condemed his house being bricked lets see if an actual assault makes him oppose this violence.
The meeting in TH looks fantastic plus of course 50% bangladeshi- gives a lie to Ovenden’s lies about the SWP v’s the Muslims. I think all things considered 80+ is a excellant turn out. Socialism is back on the agenda.
GG’s supporters sending out e mail’s saying meeting is cancelled- lol really scrapping the barrel now.
By the way Andy on another blog you condemed the SWP for not tackling communalism inside respect!! in Jan 2007. You seem to set your course on what is opposite to the SWP. Bizarre!
jj on said:
#59 I know 2 attacks on a socialist cllr- dreadful.
point on said:
CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN! CONDEMN!
mm on said:
Now that wasn’t hard, was it?
jj on said:
Galloway’s latest brilliant article!!! sexist drivel.. but then we can’t knock GG can we brothers… If Ovenden, Wrack, Hoveman think this is the way to combat a rise in laddism and its reactionary attitudes then they are simply nothing more than hacks who does there bosses bidding. Can even the most pro GG supporter not bring themselves to agree that this rubbish is not consistent with the fight against women’s oppression!!
DON’T get me wrong, I’ve never been down on all Australians. Take Kylie Minogue. For a singer she’s always been not a bad looker.
I voted with the majority for a change when her rear was the year’s champion sight. I even bought my woman Kylie’s range of underwear.
But her ITV spectacular on Saturday was a flat as the coupon of a duck-billed platypus.
With the sound down it was a good night in – though how those backing singers and dancers escaped without chilblains I’ll never know.
But in stereo, it was a cats chorus. I don’t mind if “the greatest small country in the world” will use her iconic image to promote the games, but let us have the opening song sung by anyone rather than her. We should be so lucky.
jj on said:
#62- once would have been enough!
jj on said:
wonder if this article by GG had been written by a SWP member if it would have been posted by Andy.. we think so..
John Rees on said:
Comrades,
I have been a revolutionary socialist for over three decades. Two of these three decades have been spent in a leadership position within the SWP. The last two decades have for all of us been simultaneously the most challenging and yet the most rewarding a Socialist could ask for. We’ve witnessed a downturn in struggle yet at the same time there is massive disillusionment with the Labour Party. Right wingers are vying for power yet there has been a most remarkable shift to the left in the thinking of working people in the UK. We’re told more and more that class politics are a thing of the past yet a recent survey showed that 60% of the UK view themselves as working class and 53% disagree with the notion that class is a thing of the past. In short, the opportunities for building a revolutionary party are everywhere – look at the mass outrage over the recent sacking of an NHS nurse, for example.
To paraphrase Cliff, the objective conditions are ripe. The subjective conditions on the other hand leave something to be desired. Only when the subjective conditions can lead to a situation where the objective conditions can be taken advantage of can the revolutionary party succeed.
Put simply no matter how ripe the conditions are for revolution, unless there is a revolutionary party capable of leading the working class the revolution will never happen (except perhaps in some caricatured fashion).
This is my main point. There is no doubt the contemporary objective conditions are favourable for the Left. The subjective conditions are not. By that I mean that the SWP is not fulfilling its role as a vanguard party. During recent years the democratic centralist structure has, I’m afraid to say, crystallized. Where once there used to be an active dialogue between members and Central Committee there now seems only to be a monologue. The members, the rank and file are no longer the body that is determining the party policy at CC level. The dialectic between the CC and the rank and file is becoming more and more elusive to the point where there is a real possibility that it will vanish altogether.
It’s not my intention to be personal in my analysis. It’s not my intention to criticize certain individual failings on the part of comrades which have in my opinion led to this state of affairs. I will leave the rank and file to determine who is to blame.
I do, however, wish to announce the following: From this day onwards I resign my membership of both the Central Committee and the Socialist Workers party. This has been a tough decision both personally and politically but I honestly feel I can serve the cause of Socialism more effectively from outside the SWP.
Fraternally,
John Rees.
paulm on said:
I think it was Trotsky, not Cliff, “Mr Rees”.
larry on said:
“John Rees” I only wish. John Rees has not found reality yet to compose facts
Halshall on said:
# John Rees, oh yeah, will anyone believe this without confirmation ?
Andy on said:
Well , it almost certinly isn’t for real but it is a very clever pastische of John Rees’s writing style.
Frenchie on said:
If it isn’t real, it should be deleted. The respect split is already fucked up enough without these kind of “pastiche”.From a SR/ISG friendly point of view, i don’t believe the Socialist Unity blog is helping Respect by letting these kind of comments in a public section, you are just giving arguments to the SWPers to whine about being persecuted.
Andy on said:
Frenchie
I think it is intended to be humourous, and should be taken in that way.
If we start editting on grounds of content, then it is a slippery slope towards the Lenin’s Tomb approach of streering the debate towards the conclusion we want it to reach
Lobby Ludd on said:
Far more interesting re John Rees is the statement at the top of this article under the heading ‘How did we get here’:
“On Monday 22 October John Rees rang Alan Thornett at 9.00 that evening to ask Alan if it was correct that a document critical of the SWP was being prepared. Alan confirmed that it was correct. When asked if it would be signed by many members of the National Council, Alan confirmed that it would be. John Rees’s response to this was, “in that case, the SWP might as well call it a day”. Alan asked, “Do you mean that you would walk away from Respect?” John Rees replied, “What would be the point, any more?””
Would the SWP CC consider this to be a fair representation of the events?
As it stands this looks like the chain of events was kicked off by John Rees objecting to a critical (but as yet unseen) document being presented to a Respect leadership body – objecting to the point of withdrawing from Respect.
That looks like sheer incompetence to me, quite aside from the rights or wrongs of the criticism.
“Stay and fight”? – someone’s taking the piss.
jj on said:
andy
any opposition to GG sexist drivel?? oppose assaults on socialist cllr’s?? you have no principle but simply attack revolutionary socialists. Just a simple contribution regarding the assault on Oli would look good in that it would mean you oppose such thuggery.. your silense on this and previous attacks can only lead to the conclusion you support these attacks.. if that case you really have gone to the gutter………..Nice to hear from Hoveman, Ovenden, Wrack etc but perhaps they can’t bring themseves to oppose such violence. The GG love in….will it have poll dancers?? a rant against blackpool pleasure beach,, the real issues of the day. I see GG not speaking at anti war peace conferecne.. a mother of all sell outs..buisness comes first.. GG clearly believes his own hype. can’t see most people have seen through the bull.. lets see how serious he is about building his organisation after the election???
Andy on said:
JJ on the subject of th assault on Oli, I wrote earlier today:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1029#comment-16031
This is the press statement issued by Tower Hamlets Respect (Renewal) about the attack on Oli Rahman.
And I wrote yesterday: http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/respect-reborn/#comment-3618
“I think it is highly regretable that Oli Rahman has been attacked, and he has my sympathy and solidarity.”
you are getting boring banging this drum. What are you insinuating?
Tom on said:
Galloway’s fan club question the SWP’s democratic credentials. But what about their great leader? How accountable has Galloway ever been? Not so when a member of the Labour Party. Point blank refused to join the hard left Campaign group. Indeed, his his voting record was even worse than many on the traditional right. Neither was he accountable while a Respect MP. In fact I can’t remember him making a single speech at Westminster during any of the televised debates that were covered live, or reported on at considerable length by Channel 4 News, Newsnight or any other serious news program. Why on earth not? What kind of tribune of the people is this? The fifth highest “earning” MP, and does not exploit his opportunties to get the socialist message across. What a waste. Might things change now? Now that Galloway has liberated himself from Lindsey German, John Rees et al? Some hope.
Thornett, Wrack, Hoveman, Loach and co will simply look the other way as Galloway yet again abuses the authority he gets from being an elected parliamentarian to further curtail women’s right to control their own fertility. Thankfully, liberated from this albatross around their necks, Lindsey German, John Rees et al can be expected to remind the electorate of this highly pertinent fact. And they will be told that Respect has chosen to select candidates capable of opposing imperialism AND women’s rightst.
Galloway wants to canvass for votes on the basis of his LACK of strong support for gay rights! Respect will certainly see to it that this fact is also well publicised. In particular lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people will be told why he does not deserve their vote.
Galloway wants to win votes by going to the Mosque to portray himself as a devout champion of Muslim women’s dress code. However, he simultaneously wants to pile on the votes by appealing to sexist pigs! He considers it is tactically astute to boast about his voting for Kylie as “rear of the year!” Galloway has nothing but contempt for the voters. He thinks we are all too stupid to check everything he has done. Galloway will enter the Mosque to lie. He will denounce those of us who remind Muslims what he writes in his Daily Record column, and what he has said elsewhere. Galloway will dismiss these revellations by portraying himself as the victim of a conspiracy; that this is nothing but fabrication.
Galloway’s latest example of sexism surprises no one who caught his lamentable appearances on reality tv. When he was the guest host on Big Brothers’ Big Mouth a few months ago, Galloway refused to canvass support for Respect parliamentary candidate, and lifelong anti-war activist Carole. She was, apparently, too old and overweight for him. He made it abundantly clear that a women young enough to be his daughter (Channelle) would get his vote. Galloway could not be less interested in this young woman’s politics, or attitude to life (her ambition, by the way, was to become a soccer wag, because they get rich without having to do any work!)
When Galloway had appeared previously on Celebrity Big Brother, he came across as an obnoxious bastard. He reduced his party to a laughing stock by association. Now that he has walked away, Respect members no longer have to bite their tongues. Galloway was a total embarrasment he was on that show, and Rees, German and co should remind all voters about this fact.
Galloway bullied just about every woman on Celebrity Big Brother – including the only genuine friend he had, Rula Lenska, until he turned on her too, and for no discernible reason. Galloway reduced at least one young woman to tears, and expressed no remorse for this. When he was called to the diary room along with Preston, they were both punished; I have forgotten the details. As the pair were preparing to leave the diary room to meet their housemates, Preston indicated that he thought they should tell the others what had happened. Galloway told him to keep this between them; “the others did not need to know,” or words to that effect. On leaving the diary room, Galloway was taken aback to discover that the others had all been watching them on the plasma screen. They realised from that point onward that Galloway had just conspired with Big Brother against the lot of them. From that point on, Galloway cut a very longer figure. He had lost any prospects of developing reliable allies. Galloway had lost the respect of his housemates (no pun intended). Galloway became a legitimate figure of contempt for any socialist who had the stomache to keep watching that crap.
Galloway came across as a particularly loathsome character. It became apparent to everyone that he had no friends, only interests. His behavior on that program was a disgrace from start to finish.
Every anti-racist in Britain turned on Endemol and Channel 4 executives for their making loadsamoney from premium rate phone calls, telling us that unless we donated to their bank accounts, then we were responsible for doing nothing to stop racist bullying of Shilpa Shett. But not George Galloway. He chose to appear on the telly to denounce the anti-racists for… bullying Jade Goody! Why did he do this? Again, Galloway was was a mouth for hire. Galloway has the same agent as Jade Goody. And the pair of them share the same agent as Matthew Wrght. The latter let Galloway and Goody on to his show, in order to abuse those who phoned in, or emailed in (as I did) to express our disgust with Endemol and Channel 4, and with Wright for letting Goody appear on his show. Wright did this to help Goody get her career back on the road (so Galloway’s agent, and Matthew Write’s agent could get 10% of something more than nothing).
It is not necessary to make anything up in order to discredit George Galloway. He has left a dirt-trail a mile wide, and the same goes for most of the leading figures in Respect Renewal. Galloway’s comeupance is long overdue, and the same goes for the rest of Respect Renewal. The gloves should come off. Metaphorically speaking, of course; we can leave it to Galloway’s thugs, and their apologists on this blog and Liam’s blog to resort to actual physical assault. Socialists should use EVERYTHING we have to undermine this charlatan. And all those who bow down before this false messiah.
Lobby Ludd on said:
Christ on a bike! Far better to have Tom as an enemy than as a friend.
(Much as I am opposed to pseudo-psychological analysis of people you have never met, I am fairly certain, Tom, that you would be happier if you used your talents elsewhere.)
MAX WATTS on said:
IS TOWER HAMLETS IN SCOTLAND ? THIS RESPECT BUSINESS DOES SOUND A LOT LIKE THE SSP – TOMMY SHERIDAN BLUE WE HEARD ABOUT SOME TIME AGO. DIDN’T SEEM TO DO MUCH GOOD FOR “THE LEFT” IN GLASGOW. BUT NO DOUBT THERE WILL BE A NEW WAVE, SOMETIME. IN MEANTIME, IVAW IS GROWING FAST. PUZZLED MAX