Socialist Unity | Debate & analysis for activists & trade unionists

I don’t understand your glee at this. I’m not an SWP member and agree with some of the criticisms of the organisations but I cannot see anything good about this for either of the Respect factions. As for your comments on Leyton Respect ‘Prinkipo’ should be ashamed. Although largely SWP the Leyton branch is certainly not exclusively so and despite the split, you should be supporting a left candidate (who, in the case of Leyton, has a good profile and stands a chance).

lanu on 13 February, 2008 at 7:12 pm said:

Defend youself Jonh Rees. Why did you bring split about?

Your last stand is collapsing all around you. Tell us, and the SWP membership your principled position in all of this. Resign, Resign, do everone a favour, Resign.

prianikoff on 13 February, 2008 at 7:21 pm said:

It just goes to show that when it comes to electoral politics, loose recruitment policies, lack of a clearly agreed programme and lack of internal party discipline lay you wide open to manipulation by the right. (they’re the ones with all the money remember?)

Neil Williams on 13 February, 2008 at 7:24 pm said:

Update(Posted on the Respect Suuporters Blog): From RESPECT (Renewal)

A press release was scheduled for 4pm today. The local Tories have produced leaflets for local distribution, and a further press conference was planned for next week with David Cameron.
All those plans are now on hold, as Ahmed Hussein is apparently still mulling what to do! Either way, this blows apart the idea that the wholly unnecessary and avoidable split in Respect had anything to do with George Galloway, Abjol Miah and Salma Yaqoob being right wing.
It is the councillor promoted by the SWP, and who joined the SWP, who is prepared to join the Tories.This is the councillor who, in September 2007, said that George Galloway “is like a dog that’s gone mad”, and said he should be “put down”.

You couldnt make it up if you tried!
So now we have Labour/Lib Dem/Tory/SWP-Respect-Tory taking on Respect on Tower Hamlets Council.
It says all you need to know.

Join RESPECT (Renewal) below:
http://www.respectrenewal.org/content/view/12/62/

Neil

Antonio Labriola on 13 February, 2008 at 7:25 pm said:

I thought this was supposed to be a struggle between Bolshevism and Menshevism? I hope to read an editorial Socialist Worker explaining how this move fits in to that theory…

Dear Koba on 13 February, 2008 at 8:16 pm said:

perhaps this makes sense of the SWP strategy of trying to undermine Ken Livingstione, knowing that only Boris Johnson can win?

johng on 13 February, 2008 at 8:34 pm said:

Its clear that there were deepseated problems around issues of selection. We’d already had councillers defecting. The core of those who were to form RR regarded it as ultraleft to raise questions about this and indeed attempted to ban questions being asked about it. Its subsequently become clear around both this issue and others that there was indeed a growing political divergence in terms of how people saw the ‘left of the left’, most recently in the argument around Ken Livingstone.

During the course of the split a number of councilers stayed with the original project, a number didn’t. Unfortunately one of those who did stay has today defected to the Tories. Thats the story essentially. I don’t really see how it changes the argument behind the split, although it is to be sure a setback for those of us committed to the original project.

felix on 13 February, 2008 at 8:44 pm said:

John Rees’s first reaction to the historic election of 12 Respect councillors in May 2006 was that he didn’t think much of them. As the new councillors were very deferential and keen to learn, I don’t think this attitude was reciprocated at that point. But Rees had only himself to blame if they weren’t up to his extraordinarily high standards. He had after all sent in his hard man Shaun Doherty to ensure that only candidates acceptable to the SWP were selected in the first place. This was the same Shaun Doherty who managed to cock up the nomination forms for three candidates who weren’t then able to stand.

Unfortunately there was a dearth of applicants white, black and Bengali for the council candidacies. This was the result of a double failure of Rees’s stewardship of Respect in general and particularly in Tower Hamlets. There were few white applicants with any serious roots, profile or respect where they lived and there had been no attempt to recruit, get to know and integrate significant numbers of Bengalis following George Galloway’s election victory in 2005. The whole process of selection was left incredibly late and followed Rees going into a very long sulk with Galloway over the latter’s tour of the US (because it was organised by the SWP’s former sister organisation which Rees had been key to splitting from some years earlier).

Not only that but Rees’s primary preoccupation, carried out dutifully by Doherty and Paul McGarr, the SWP’s local man on the selection committee, was to try to “place” key SWP members in seats that they thought they could win in. These victories were to be achieved of course overhwelmingly because of votes that would be cast for the party associated with George Galloway and largely, but not exclusively, by Bengalis. The victories were certainly not going to be achieved because the SWP candidates had won the hearts and minds of hordes of local voters through their intrepid local campaigning.

As it turned out the overall level of Respect’s vote in TH was not sufficient to enable this opportunist strategy to come to fruition, yet another failure of the master tactician’s deficient tactical aplomb.

But all would not have been lost if Rees had thrown himself and the SWP into seeking to support the 12 councillors in every way possible, with speech writing and making, with asking pertinent questions, with surgery work, with working hard to preserve their unity and so forth.

But instead he adopted a policy of malign neglect combined with a conscious effort to divide Respect and the Respect councillors from the word go. There were no significant policy divisions at any time before the departure of the four splitters and where there were differences, Rees’s preferred councillors were on the wrong side of the argument. So the focus of division became Abjol Miah’s alleged religious proclivities and those of other councillors close to Abjol, whose names probably still elude Rees.

Rees’s determination to secure trophy councillors as recruits to the SWP and to split Tower Hamlets Respect led him directly to tail end the backwardness of some of these councillors, clearly expressed at the meeting for London SWP members only in early September. This was the meeting at which Ahmed Hussain suggested that George Galloway was a mad dog who should be shot, Lutfa Begum praised Jim Fitzpatrick and said no Bengali would ever vote for George and where Chris Nineham told the rapt audience that they should listen to these Tower Hamlets councillors.

Ahmed Hussain, who had indeed been talking to New Labour and to the Lib Dems since they resigned the whip, as previously reported, to see what they could offer him, told key activists in Mile End East the other day that he would return to the Respect fold if George Galloway stood down in Poplar in favour of Kumar Murshid and the selection of Abjol Miah was reopened.

The SWP has been hoist by its own opportunist petard. The primary, but by no means only, person responsible is John Rees. Tony Cliff may not have been a saint but I cannot imagine him having tolerated Rees’s disastrous opportunism, and yet leading SWP CC memmbers have queued up to say how Rees’s strategy and tactics have been agreed by the SWP CC every step of the way.

So be it, in the face of this historic disaster, and I would like to know the last time an elected member of a Trotskyist organisation crossed straight over to the class enemy, they should all do the decent and principled thing and take the revolutionary equivalent of the Chiltern Hundreds. Decency and principle are unfortunately two things the SWP oligarchs have not had much contact with in recent times.

Neil Williams on 13 February, 2008 at 8:46 pm said:

What a day for the Tories in Tower Hamlets – thanks to the SWP-REESpect-Tory Councillor Ahmed Hussain assisting the Tories to become the official opposition (or at least giving it very serious consideration)! You just could not make it up!
More comment from the the East London Advertiser:

Ted Jeory puts East End politicians in the dock

___________________________

WHILE the weird and isolated world of Tower Hamlets village politics may be miles away from what goes on elsewhere, there seems to be, and this might well be uncomfortable for many people, a common theme at the moment: the rise of the Tories.

This was undoubtedly, on the face of it at least, their week in Tower Hamlets.

Not only did they secure the services of their first ever Bengali councillor in Ahmed Hussain, but they also gave Labour a lesson in the art of politics at Monday’s full council meeting.

By introducing at the last minute an emergency motion on the future of the former Safeway and Morrisons supermarket site in Bow, they completely wrong-footed their opponents.

Until then, it was Labour’s six Bow councillors who had been claiming to take all the initiatives at the Town Hall.

But at a stroke, the proposed Tory motion and their demand for a recorded vote, so each member has to openly state their position, not only stole that thunder but also exposed the rift within Labour ranks.

Everyone agrees that the area needs a supermarket, but many oppose the size of the planned 10-storey residential tower on the site.

The Tory move means we now pretty much know that the Labour Bow East contingent of Marc Francis, Alex Heslop and Ahmed Omer share those concerns.

Of the party’s trio in Bow West ward, only mayor Ann Jackson sided with the rebels while Josh Peck and Anwara Ali declined the chance to air views in a debate.

It was clever politics by the Tories, who once again seem to do their homework for council meetings much more than most.

+++

HUSSAIN’S DEFECTION A TURNING POINT?

THAT brings us to Ahmed Hussain’s defection, which was heralded amid fanfare at national party headquarters in Millbank yesterday (Wednesday morning).

To outsiders, it will rank as one of the most ridiculous defections in the history of local politics and cements the idea that many politicians here are in it just for their careers.

Here’s a man, they’ll say, who was first a Labour supporter, then a Respect councillor and then a cheerleader for the Socialist Workers Party. And now he’s a Tory!

It’s laughable, they’ll scoff, he’s got no credibility left.

“He’s now Cameron’s Chamelon-in-Chief!”

Well, let’s see. For Ahmed, it’s certainly a brave decision, but time will tell if stupid.

As I predicted last year, the moment he and the rest of the Gang of Four split from Respect, they’d soon find it tough without party machinery.

Getting re-elected in May, 2010, would be the main priority: it was just a question of how.

By joining the Tories, with whom he has yet to demonstrate any shared political philosophy, he risks opprobrium in sections of the Bangladeshi community.

But you know what? His move could be a turning point. As former Tory chairman Francis Maude said at a meeting in Brick Lane two years ago, he just couldn’t understand why Conservative principles of free markets and enterprise were not hitting home among Bengali businessmen.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see more now follow Ahmed’s move. For the Tower Hamlets Tory party, meanwhile, the move swells their number to eight and anoints them the official Opposition at the Town Hall (two years ago they had just one councillor).

But they also face serious risks. If Ahmed decides he can’t stomach some in the party, over their views on Islam, for example (I’m not necessarily referring to councillors here), he’ll quit and leave the Tories damaged here for good.

In that sense, he sees his move as a force for good.

+++

HUSSAIN’S DEFECTION A TURNING POINT?

P.S. Judging by his pitbull performance against Labour on Monday night, my hunch is that Ahmed Hussain’s fellow Respect rebel, Oli Rahman, has decided to burn his bridges… just as many thought he was a sure bet to defect to them. As for the other two, mother and daughter combo Lutfa Begum and Rania Khan, I understand it’s up to mum.

Whatever comes, both they and Oli will stick together, even to the Lib Dems maybe…

+++

Advertiser Chief Reporter Ted Jeory

Posted by Neil
Respect Supporters Blog

Clive Searle on 13 February, 2008 at 8:47 pm said:

I think you might find that quite a few of us in Respect renewal believe that it is we who have stuck with the ‘original project’ – that is of building plural, democratic and outward-looking left of Labour alternative. Not sure what your ‘original project’ was but I can’t quite believe you imagined it would looked like this.

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 8:55 pm said:

Good try John #17, but that is rubbish.

When the SWP councillors split from the TH Respect group they had a press conference organised by John Rees, and at that time they were in coalition talks with the Lib Dems.

Ted Jeory has always stood by the Lib Dems story and it was confrmed to Dave Osler by the leader of the TH Lib Dems. So it must have been abundantly clear that Hussain was problematic, and so was Oli Rahman, as proven by his wilingness to go on national Tv to try to smear Galloway and Abjol Miah as somehow implicated in violence against him. An utterly shoddy trick.

Chris Harman and others presented these four councillors as the “left”, and Hussain and Begum are even SWP members, so presumably you do know something about their politics.

Yet the SW central committee engineerng this right-leaning oportunist split in TH Respect group of councillors. This is proven by the fact that Rees organised the press conference. It is utteret unbelievable that Rees would have promoted the split to the extent of a press conference if he wasn’t behind it. Now he will not have personally instogated the talks with thr Lib Dems, but he did know that these four councillors were flaky.

So exactly the same as with the dodgy cheque from Dubai. Rees looked only to the short term factional interest and his own personal prestige, and simply ignored the medium or long term likely consequences.

meanwhile,. while your CC were organising a right leaning split in the Resppect TH group, they were spinning the lie that there was a witch-hunt against them in Respect. They even made a fool out of Chris harman who went into print describing these SWP councillors as the left wing in respect.

How can all this go on? well you have to look at the totally unaccountable culture, of the leadership.

If you want me to talk about the unaccountable culture, perhaps you want me to go into the details of the SWP’s money? After all there are hundreds of working class members making sacrifices to pay big subs. yet you know the stories as well as I do. The American money, Cliff’s estate, the print shop sell off. These CC members are living the life of riley at your expense, with no financial accounts ever being produced, etc.

Ray on 13 February, 2008 at 8:59 pm said:

This defection shows the volatility of support for the SWP, but as always, they would argue (correctly) that they cannot be responsible for the defection of an individual. The weakness of the SWP isn’t that they’re more left or more right, but their whole sectarian approach to politics that mistakes building the party as being a priority over an orientation to the mass of the working class by taking up their interests. I joined Respect (after 25 t=years in the Labour Party!!!) because I felt assured that the Galloway-Yacoub orientation was towards an advanced part of the working class to the left of labour and not based on propagandist lecturing, but of engaging and taking up the concerns of the community whilst having a programme in the interest of the working class and the oppressed. It is qualitively better than Scargill’s project, Socialist Alliance and I’d say the SWP-respect (There’s no point leaving the Labour Party for any of them – that’s what many on the left of the Labour Party think).
I went to the Southwark Respect meeting last night (congratulations to Southwark) and a Labour Party member who has been in for longer than me is considering joining.
What was also really good about the meeting was SWP wasn’t mentioned once. The enemy is the government, the Tories and all the enemies of the working class. Remember – SWP are inadequate to take on the interests of the working class, but they are not the enemy (well, not till they join the Tories).

johng on 13 February, 2008 at 9:00 pm said:

“Ahmed Hussain suggested that George Galloway was a mad dog who should be shot”

And was publicly rebuked by Alex Callinicos for saying so.

Felix’s version of events is interesting. Anyone would believe, reading an account like that, that SWP members had done nothing to build the vote in the area. On the contrary they were the central people doing so. More significant in that account, leaving aside the absurd demonology of prominant SWP activists which would have seemed bonkers at the time but has now become a kind of mantra amongst some people, is the implication that the reason the organisation had a problem with some of our councilers (a legacy which has, yes, just bit back at us) was that we were not nice enough to them, did not integrate them etc. Behind this lies the original row about the basis for selection. Those who formed the core of RR wanted to emphasis only criteria of electability and wanted to ban any serious discussion about the politics of councilers. Thats what Georges letter was about last year, and that was at the core of the crisis originally.

The fact that we’ve had one of the rotten eggs from that period with us doesn’t change that.

Clive the refusal to counternance challenging Livingstone, and perhaps more importantly, the actual arguments used during the course of the discussion point to a move away from the idea of a left of a left, as even some collaberators with RR have stated. Time will tell how decisive that shift will be. As time will tell how significant this particular defection is.

embra comrade on 13 February, 2008 at 9:02 pm said:

Andy, would you have time to do us a short compilation of the howls of outrage from the SWP when it was first mooted that the defecting councillors may do a deal with the Tories ?
I seem to remember it was further proof of the degeneracy of the non SWP faction that they would stoop to such smears.
Anyways, is this the ultimate conclusion of a united front of a very special kind ?

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 9:05 pm said:

John #23

What you are arguing here is completely inconsistent with the official SWP narratives of either the left-right split, or the “witchhunt”.

i am interested in what you think of my idea of an article about the SWP’s money?

sunshine1 on 13 February, 2008 at 9:06 pm said:

Well then, is this the lad that had his windows smashed ?

He’s thinking of joining the Tories now, had enough of the central committee been to visit Tory central office may join, may not, whatever! I think this lad is full of his own shit, he wants to be the centre of attention and this has been brought on by Rees and company and its a same too.
Over the years the SWP have lost some members to other parties, like that Jim Fitzpatrick or the one’s I’ve met that join the SWP whilst at University after which they get a well paid job and then please mummy and daddy by becoming active in the local Conservative Association, and I remember this Labour Councillor who said to me many years ago “that if your not a revolutionery by the time your 21 you’ll never be. I think I now understand what he meant.

ross bradshaw on 13 February, 2008 at 9:07 pm said:

Re 21, the big subs that SWP members pay. As an outsider I’ve always wondered how big the subs are in Trotskyist groups. Leaving aside the united front (with the Tories) of a special kind in Tower Hamlets, what’s the going rate? And what’s this with the American money and Cliff’s estate? Don’t hold back, give us the goz.

Antonio Labriola on 13 February, 2008 at 9:07 pm said:

Is it me or has the SWP begun to turn into the 21st century WRP?

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 9:11 pm said:

#28

Well they already have somoene on the CC who can play the Healy role when the revelations finally come out.

As Duncan hallas said in his obituary to Healy in Sociaist review it is impossible that sexual misconduct could not have been known about by many people in the organisation.

Alex Naysmith on 13 February, 2008 at 9:11 pm said:

With regards to SWP income,

I had heard that back in the nineties (when it could be argued that the SWP had more members) everyone had to pay 10% of their net earnings!

Phil on 13 February, 2008 at 9:13 pm said:

During the course of the split a number of councilers stayed with the original project, a number didn’t. Unfortunately one of those who did stay has today defected to the Tories. Thats the story essentially. I don’t really see how it changes the argument behind the split

When I was 15 and had Stalinist leanings, I couldn’t understand why anyone had left the Communist Party over Hungary – it didn’t change the argument behind the CP, after all.

When I was older and less idealistic (in both senses of the word) I realised that arguments and their organisational vehicles are closely related; discredit the party and the historical vision starts to look a bit shabby. On a much, much smaller scale, that’s pretty much what’s happening here.

Dan on 13 February, 2008 at 9:26 pm said:

“Well they already have somoene on the CC who can play the Healy role when the revelations finally come out.”

What is this about?!

As for SWP subs it’s extremely haphazard. People don’t pay 10% and a lot of members pay a token amount, where as others pay loads.

Mark P on 13 February, 2008 at 9:30 pm said:

Isn’t this all a tad premature? As seems to be made clear in the various press releases and reports thye defection hasn’t actually occurred. Its all breathlessly exciting for sure but waiting until it happens may be more sensible than all this rushing into e-print. Presumably the deed will be done in the next day or so, can’t all this wsait until then?

Mark P

cameron on 13 February, 2008 at 9:34 pm said:

Perhaps Respect Renewal are now in the market for him.

Louise on 13 February, 2008 at 9:34 pm said:

Blimey….and they go on about class traitor Livingstone!!!!

Neither Ken nor Lindsay but international Toryism……

Here’s an idea…Maybe the SWP could get their revenge by recruiting Boris Johnson

Socialist on 13 February, 2008 at 9:37 pm said:

“Well they already have someone on the CC who can play the Healy role when the revelations finally come out.”
“i am interested in what you think of my idea of an article about the SWP’s money?”

What a truly awful piece of shit you are, Andy…

Ger Francis on 13 February, 2008 at 9:44 pm said:

The vast majority of SWP members followed their leadership on trust over the claims about a ‘witch- hunt’, about the supposed pull of ‘community leaders i.e. small businessmen’, and about a so-called left/right divide in Tower Hamlets. It was all crap. Their trust has been betrayed. As this and other lies becomes exposed the SWP’s reputation will take such a hammering it will make the OFFU debacle seem like a stroll in the park. Why should the organisation be dragged through the mud because of the hubris of John Rees?

Ian Donovan on 13 February, 2008 at 9:48 pm said:

“Perhaps Respect Renewal are now in the market for him.”

That’s Cameron (CPGB, that is, not David) trying to divert attention from the positive spin his own outfit tried to put on Rees’ splitting operation. The deed is done, the press photos are out and in the public domain and this character either goes through with his defection or his position as a councillor is untenable. A by-election is quite possible here.

DCM on 13 February, 2008 at 9:54 pm said:

No it can’t wait Mark P – there are two important elections tomorrow and timing is everything when you are trying to demoralise certain people. No time for trivial things such as waiting for the facts.

Clive Searle on 13 February, 2008 at 9:54 pm said:

Johng writes “the refusal to counternance challenging Livingstone, and perhaps more importantly, the actual arguments used during the course of the discussion point to a move away from the idea of a left of a left”

Well you would say that wouldn’t you. You see one of the problems with the SWP style of argumenmt is that you are very good at attacking straw men but less good when it comes to the facts. There has been no “refusal to counternance challenging Livingstone” – there is actually a debate going on. A debate that is based on a sobre assessment of the real world.

A year ago I supported a Respect challenge to Livingstone on the basis of making it a broad campaign standing as a credible ‘candidate of the left’ with a clear argument to transfer to Livingstone.

Now today things have changed (that real world is a fickle thing you know)- not least in that the Tories could actually win but also that the detructive actions of the SWP has meant that Lindsey German is no longer a credible ‘candidate of the left’ but rather just a candidate of the SWP (if you doubt this ask yourself what the reaction would be if RR supporters turned up at the next Reespect meeting asking for a role in supporting Linsdey’s campaign).

Let’s be honest. RR is in no position to challange Livingstone seriously (with sufficient supporters on the ground to argue the case effectively). An honest appraisal of the SWP version of Respect would suggest that they are equally in no fit state to mount the kind of challenge that is anything other than an expensive propaganda exercise.

So while you suggest that our arguments “point to a move away from the idea of a left of a left” I would suggest that your arguments point to a move away from reality into self-delusion.

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 9:59 pm said:

Mark #33

By the time he has had a photo taken with the Tories, and the East Londn Advertiser has carried the story – it is not premature.

Ger Francis on 13 February, 2008 at 10:07 pm said:

DCM says we should wait for the facts. What more facts do you need? What we know for a fact is that an SWP cllr, part of the so-called ‘left’ in TH Respect, was in discussions with the TORIES (!) about defecting (with photos and quotes to prove). It does not matter if he changes his mind, his reputation is now in tatters, and his actions have blown a huge hole in SWP justifications for their behaviour in fermenting a split in TH.

Prinkipo Exile on 13 February, 2008 at 10:09 pm said:

#11 Nick Brown – it’s not glee, it’s a tragedy, but it does have a certain irony too after all the things they said about Renewal. And the point about SWP members is that they do many good things, but by following the leader, Rees et al, on this issue they have compromised all those good things such that they cannot hold their heads high again.

felix on 13 February, 2008 at 10:30 pm said:

#23 “Behind this lies the original row about the basis for selection. Those who formed the core of RR wanted to emphasis only criteria of electability and wanted to ban any serious discussion about the politics of councilers. Thats what Georges letter was about last year, and that was at the core of the crisis originally. The fact that we’ve had one of the rotten eggs from that period with us doesn’t change that.”

Ignorance is bliss apparently when the time comes for honest accounting. George’s letter was about the sheer incompetence and worse of the Respect national secretary, one John Rees. Politics is something the seven councillors who have stayed with Respect discuss all the time. It’s something they want to learn and develop. Edward Said may not be every SWP members cup of tea but he is one of Abjol Miah’s heroes, but that is not something the SWP were interested in finding out once they had decided he was some sort of “fundamentalist”.

Ending up with no councillors because of the process of selection would have been a pretty stupid thing to do. The point was that no work was done to try to help develop serious and rooted candidates from any community in the period after Galloway’s election and the opportunities it opened up.

Nor did Rees make any serious attempt to help develop the new councillors themselves, partly because he had no idea how to do it and partly because he was off grandstanding elsewhere. Making a bombastic speech from time to time is hardly the recipe for educating councillors to deal with the kind of pressures and problems they have been subject to.

Worse, a veil was drawn over Ahmed Hussain’s clearly rightist politics. He was not just another rotten egg. He was recruited to the SWP, attended SWP caucuses and meetings and was paraded at the members meeting in September which formally launched the SWP jihad against the ludicrous “witch-hunt”. It is even more ludicrous to suggest that this debacle for the SWP was somehow a product of their failure to get their way in the selection process.

Perhaps SWP members should compare and contrast: Councillor Salma Yaqoob, described by Rees as “Livingstone’s fifth column”, turns down point blank an offer of a safe Labour seat from those in the Labour hierarchy with the power to offer it – Councillor Ahmed Hussain, who Rees was so keen on he once said he “loved” him……

Cat on 13 February, 2008 at 10:30 pm said:

But it’s not April! Is this an early April Fool? I don’t understand. How can you go from being a Respect Councillor supported by the SWP and then defect to the TORIES within a matter of weeks? Surely there is a law or something against that or it causes a split in the time and space continuum or something? If it is the case then my flab has been gasted!!!!!!

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 10:30 pm said:

DCM #39

The timing – two days before the by-elections was the choice of your fellow SWP member, Ahmed Hussain. This was the day he called the press conference and announced his defection.

The facts are not substantially in dispute, only whether he actually joins the Tories, the Lib Dems, or sits as a Tory leaning independent.

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 10:31 pm said:

#45

Not just supported by the SWP Cat.

He is an SWP member.

Dave Festive on 13 February, 2008 at 10:41 pm said:

i am interested in what you think of my idea of an article about the SWP’s money?

that it’s fairly close to the torygraph smearing galloway over oil for food, or the smears about scargill being funded from the middle east. it would expose you as a tool of the state

Tim Vanhoof on 13 February, 2008 at 10:45 pm said:

I foresee a surreal epilogue to this, in which the next council election sees the Labour Party red-baiting the Tories.

Tawfiq Chahboune on 13 February, 2008 at 10:46 pm said:

Oh come on, it’s simply the logical next step in Trotskyist entrism: why stop at the Labour Party when the big traditional beast of English democracy is on offer? It makes as much sense as Labour entrism.

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 10:46 pm said:

#48

So the working class members of the SW who make real sacrifices to fund the SWP have no right to know that their unaccountable CC has burnt money like it is going out of fashion, becaue of err .. security.

Don’t make me laugh.

and what i might write would be true

non partisan on 13 February, 2008 at 10:52 pm said:

I am interested in what you think of an article about the SWP’s money?

Give it up! Deal with the politics, the SWP don’t have to answer to you, and nor should they, about how thier own money is spent- this would really show that you have descended into the gutter of gossip mongering, and I for one would stop refering to this site as a forum for discussion about UK politics. The fact that you are obviously so keen on doing it is pretty disgusting. Stop for a minute and think of how you have ended up threatening this kind of action. If you can’t win the debate with ideas and arguement however robust, then you won’t win it by ‘an expose’ – Socialist Unity? don’t make me laugh.

Dave Festive on 13 February, 2008 at 10:57 pm said:

So the working class members of the SW who make real sacrifices to fund the SWP have no right to know that their unaccountable CC has burnt money like it is going out of fashion, becaue of err .. security.

yes andy. the central committee are all corrupt millionaires sitting on millions of pounds of members’ subs. john rees himself owns a number of small islands in central america. chris bambery uses his money to run international drug syndicates. and we haven’t even talked about chris harman.

when I said you sounded like the right wing press, I meant it

Larry R on 13 February, 2008 at 11:04 pm said:

Whilst in the short term this may vindicate ‘Renewal’ (and others like myself) who have been critical of the SWP’s whole incredible spin of a left / right split in Respect, I doubt if the Renewal faction will be the beneficiary.

Unfortuantely, this whole farce will probably end up strengthening Labour. Traditional Labour supporters have always been apt to be suspicious of us on the far left as somehow being ‘agents of the Tories’. This is how Labourites have policed the working class. Now this farce strengthens this – it gives the impression that to the left of Labour lies not a principled and viable working class opposition, but a dodgy and opportunist quicksand full of Tory agents and mavericks.

This is unfortunate, as the need for a left opposition to Labour has never been a more urgent neccessity.

It is a pity that after 40 years activism we in both the SWP or other parts of the socialist left did not have the cadre on the ground to provide a range of credible, principled and electable candidates rooted in the diverse working class communities of Tower Hamlets, be they Bangladeshi or other.

What we needed was a range of people of the calibre of Michael Lavalette of all ethnicities and genders in these constituencies. The role he has played has been exemplary.

Having said that, I remain impressed by Galloway, Abjol Miah, Salma Yaqoob etc – who I’m sure have their faults – but who still seem principled left reformists articulating some sort of left of labour politics.

To be honest, I doubt if even the likes of a Michael Lavalette figur can resist the pressures of being an individualised representative within bourgois political structures without a strong working class movement to discipline them. And we dont really have a strong working class movement – all we have had was a brief but massive anti-war upsurge, with very little political depth.

Time is now for sober assessment, not Reesian boosterism.

non partisan on 13 February, 2008 at 11:06 pm said:

so nice of you to take pity on poor working class SWP members, instead of patronising pity, how about a bit of respect? by understanding that they themselves have the right and responsibility to deal with whatever issues are thrown up in the SWP because of what’s happenend.

what you write will be true?

the truth? the whole truth and nothing but? There is absolutly no way you can audit the SWP’s accounts, no matter what snippets or pieces on information you think you have or ‘know’. What you are thinking of doing has nothing to do with political debate, and don’t kid yourself or readers on here you are doing it for the w.c. cadre of the SWP- I’m not in the SWP, I was for a long time a member of an organisation in the UK and would consider what you are threatening as literaly ‘crossing the line’ between arguement and active disruption and a clear attack- your choice- but surely those of you on here who are interested in real debate not just attacking the SW must see this is a step too far?

raise your voices-or by silence you will be complicit with a very dangerous precedent.

Lobby Ludd on 13 February, 2008 at 11:08 pm said:

I have often made the point on various blogs, but have been ignored, I suspect, for not making a ‘serious’ point. I will however repeat it:

John Rees and the current leadership of the SWP are incompetent. They are a disaster for the SWP and their incompetence reaches further – they damage the possibility of construction a viable socialist party.

Perhaps they should follow the US SWP in a ‘turn to industry’. It will achieve nothing – but at least Rees will be doing something purposeful.

steph on 13 February, 2008 at 11:19 pm said:

#26 – Just to clarify – the defector to the Tories is not the same councillor who had his windows smashed and then did an Oona King by smearing Galloway’s supporters over it – that was Oli Rahman.

don't get S.Un stroke on 13 February, 2008 at 11:23 pm said:

Of course it costs nothing to print socialist worker or millions of leaflets, costs nothing to book halls, organise marxism, fly international speakers over, make placards…

no, all the SWP’s money must of course be going towards chris harman’s new mercedes, which is undoubtedly parked outside his 17-bedroom mansion right now.

Andy, go and get a job on the real Sun. You’d do a super soaraway job, I’m sure.

Frank on 13 February, 2008 at 11:30 pm said:

The thing that seems saddest about this is that through someone’s gross incompetence a person with right wing views has been elected as a councillor. Once again the wishes of the people we are trying to fight for have basically been ignored, and replaced with the desire for party power. Who pays the price if the council manage to get through shitty building plans and demolish listed buildings due to this? Correct! The people conned into voting for this guy. What a bunch of muppets. I wonder if they’re the slightest bit ashed about this?

Larry R on 13 February, 2008 at 11:31 pm said:

About the issue of the SWP’s money – it would be best to leave it to another time and place, Andy, and not mix it up with this argument, as some sort of threat. The debacle of the split in Respect provides enough ammunition for a political critique of the SWP’s current leadership.

Having said that, as someone who put 13 years of intesnse energy into building the SWP, I have always been curious about that question. It must take a lot of money to run the whole operation. I was always suprised by the way the SW appeal always raised £100, 000 + in a month or two – our branch never reached anywhere near its target. And our collection of subs was always erratic. I always felt guilty about this, but we were all kids on the dole or in shit Mcjobs, and if we could not give much money, at least we were giving our lives, our energy, our entire period of youth!

But I always speculated there might be some clever people in London – the cream of the crop of the ’68 generation at the LSE etc. – who could do some clever things with a few inheritances of a few middle class supporters, or somthing. And good on them, if it paid for a sometimes brilliant and essential paper like SW, and some of the amazing things we did achieve as a party!

Nevertheless, this is a serious political question, and also has a downside: To be able to afford employ a hierachy of full-timers enables the CC to dominate the party and the far left in Britain.

This money enabled them to bypass democracy on the far left, and has lead to bad habits. An organisation that lives on money raised from working class activists is accountable to those activists. If the money comes from elsewhere, then accountability is eroded, and a well intentioned bureaucratic clique can consolidate itself for a few decades!

But lets leave this question for another day, huh?

christian h. on 13 February, 2008 at 11:35 pm said:

I would say this blog has gone to the dogs, but then it’s always been this way. Only an amazingly stupid person would believe that the defection of one councillor to the Tories somehow “proves” that four councillors planned to defect to the Lib Dems some time ago. I guess Andy doesn’t “respect” his readers very much.

The fundamental point being that the New Labour supporters in Respect Renewal have nothing but smear campaigns left. They are like children – they can’t have Respect, so they are trying to destroy it.

But hey, maybe they can be extras on Galloway’s upcoming movie “How I screwed the Left and lived to tell the Tale – confessions of a Big Brother”. Then at least they’ll get something out of their opportunism.

Larry R on 13 February, 2008 at 11:37 pm said:

No, Christian (#61). This defection proves that the whole SWP CC spin of a left / right split was not true.

Wannabe Working Class on 13 February, 2008 at 11:46 pm said:

Latest SWP Party Notes:

Update on Party recruitment: Today we met a man and his dog. And the dog was well political.

Anon on 13 February, 2008 at 11:48 pm said:

Surely, comrades, you understand that Commissar Hussein is fighting the enemy _from the inside_? Don’t let the arch-Menshevik Andy fool you.

a very public sociologist on 13 February, 2008 at 11:49 pm said:

Sorry, this is just too incredible not to pass comment. Hilarious!

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 11:53 pm said:

I agree Larry that the question of money is one for another day.

But it is relevent. I am not accusing the CC of luxury lifestyles – but the lack of financial accountability, and the army of (poorly paid) full timers dependent upon them is a big network of patronage.

This all leads to lack of political accountability. For example Rees not being held to account for his role in this fiasco.

Ray on 13 February, 2008 at 11:56 pm said:

I’ve just joined Respect because I felt that the leadership, including some well known ex-SWPers had moved the party on and weren’t going to be bogged down with crap and the complete sectarian approach to politics that has been typical of the SWP’s behaviour, in particular since it became the largest current on the left for the past few years and more.
It is vital that political lessons are learnt – if anyone wants to parallel the demise of the WRP, it wasn’t down to Gerry Healy’s personal behaviour, but the mad sectarian politics of a once respected political current on the left. Once you lose it politically, anything can happen.
Respect has to ensure that it develops as a clear party defending working class interests, whilst avoiding the sectarian party building frenzy that distances itself from alliances on the left-alliances can be with left-trade unionists, community organisations, green party, even social democrats making a stand on some issues. It also means working hard and building campaigns – SWP know how to put resorces into something if it suits them – StW, UAF for example. Respect has to, but on a broader range – Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba, CND, Climate Change, fighting racism above all – campaigns where there aren’t going to be recruits, but mass work has to be done.
Perhaps as I wasn’t in the pre-split Respect, I’m not affected by the in-fighting and who did what and said what. I’ll re-iterate – the Southwark meeting last night was a very positive affair making it clear that Respect is serious. SWP were not mentioned once. What’s going on inside SWP is anyone’s guess, but Respect must operate in a mature way in the class struggle and hopefully attract the best elements of SWP who can see beyond the narrow sectarian project that their leadership appears to have driven over a cliff (sorry, no pun intended!)

Andy Newman on 13 February, 2008 at 11:57 pm said:

#67

the best comment so far. Thanks Ray.

Cat on 14 February, 2008 at 12:09 am said:

I feel quite traumatised by this. If he is a SWP member will he be expelled from the SWP? Or will he just leave? Or will the whole thing be ignored and people pretend it didn’t happen.

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 12:10 am said:

#61 “The fundamental point being that the New Labour supporters in Respect Renewal have nothing but smear campaigns left. They are like children – they can’t have Respect, so they are trying to destroy it.”

Next week Tower Hamlets is to be graced with the first flyposted SWP public meeting for a very long time. Entitled ‘Why you should be a socialist’ it features as its keynote speaker Lindsey German, sometime mayoral candidate for Respect.

The SWP oligarchy is clearly making a turn to more explicit SWP first party building. They seem to have come to the, as yet largely untheorised, conclusion that Respect does not work for it, at least in terms of recruitment. This incidentally would make some sort of sense of the oligarchs’ cynical and otherwise absurd decision to force a split in Respect over the Galloway letter.

So why is the SWP still pretending to be Respect and to be standing a full list of candidates for the GLA. It’s a funny sort of face-saving exercise that sees the SWP’s reputation plummeting further and further every day, not just in Britain but internationally. So what else could they have in mind but to try to screw those who remain committed to a broad-based left progressive electoral project?

And why would they be so concerned to do that? Personal vengeance no doubt plays a role, but for those less vengeful members of the oligarchy, the desire to remove a potential barrier to recruitment to the SWP seems a more likely explanation.

But in pursuing this ultra-sectarian project, they will be, one way or another, destroying the SWP in order to save it. It’s time for those still in the SWP who believe in the real Marxist tradition to wake up.

TLC on 14 February, 2008 at 12:11 am said:

#69. I suspect a certain Mr Rees is looking for a a large broom and an even larger carpet.

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 12:23 am said:

All kinds of people leave all kinds of parties and join all kinds of other parties. Can someone spell out to me clearly in one syllable words (so I can understand it) why this particular defection is important? I can see that it might be funny but I have’t copped hold of the importance bit as yet…

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 12:23 am said:

have’t = haven’t

CHAB on 14 February, 2008 at 12:36 am said:

I guess as Ahmed Hussain was feted by the SWP as part of the left-wing of Respect and the defection shatters the myth of the left/right split.

TLC on 14 February, 2008 at 12:38 am said:

John Rees said split was left vs right but one of the ‘left’ has left to join the right so what Rees said may not be true.

Any greater depth of explanation, I’m afraid, will require greater use of syllables.

Dave Festive on 14 February, 2008 at 12:41 am said:

I am not accusing the CC of luxury lifestyles

and yet:

you know the stories as well as I do. The American money, Cliff’s estate, the print shop sell off. These CC members are living the life of riley at your expense, with no financial accounts ever being produced, etc.

Well they already have someone on the CC who can play the Healy role when the revelations finally come out.

i am interested in what you think of my idea of an article about the SWP’s money?

Halshall on 14 February, 2008 at 12:42 am said:

#72
Mike,
are you having a laugh ?

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 12:49 am said:

74, 75 – In the real world, don’t people change their minds? Why should we assume that because Mr Hussain appears to have changed his mind that this proves anything at all other than that Mr Hussain has changed his mind?

Anon on 14 February, 2008 at 12:50 am said:

Michael, your “innocents abroad” schtick got tired a long time back.

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 12:51 am said:

Halshall, are you?

Phil on 14 February, 2008 at 12:53 am said:

the New Labour supporters in Respect Renewal have nothing but smear campaigns left.

Um…

They are like children – they can’t have Respect, so they are trying to destroy it.

We need only mention their intransigent refusal to negotiate.

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 12:53 am said:

Anon, sorry that my standard of commentary doesn’t meet your requirements but for the next few moments before I hit the hay I’ll see if anyone can spell it out for me. You clearly can’t be arsed but then you can’t be bothered to put your real name in the hat either, comrade.

Ger Francis on 14 February, 2008 at 1:00 am said:

Michael, the importance is this: it highlights that the core of the SWP critique about a left/right divide in Tower Hamlets is based a lie. The most craven example of opportunism we have seen so far comes from within the so-called ‘left’, and from an SWP member to boot. SWP arguments about a left/right divide used to justify a split in TH are phoney.

Ditto claims about a so-called ‘witch-hunt’ about RR in thrall to religious fundamentalists and small businessmen and much more. The SWP have deceived their own members in order to protect the reputations of a clique inside the leadership.

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 1:00 am said:

By the way, Abjol Miah is quoted above as saying that Mr Hussain is ‘an opportunist’. So, if that’s what he is, then, he’s one of those people that any of us anytime might be taken in by. Or is there someone here who knows some foolproof way of not being taken in by opportunists? Tell all.

CHAB on 14 February, 2008 at 1:01 am said:

I think it’s a little bit more than changing his mind. To go from being an SWP member to a Tory involves an entire change of political values (doesn’t it?). And also surely throws the allegations of a left/right split out of the window.

Phil on 14 February, 2008 at 1:07 am said:

In the real world, don’t people change their minds?

I’m confused. In my experience, when a Labour representative defects to a right-wing party it almost always causes a bit of a fuss – embarrassment, ill-feeling, even allegations of betrayal; it sometimes gets quite awkward. I mean, if I mentioned David Owen, Reg Prentice or Oswald Mosley to a Labour leftist, I really doubt that their immediate reaction would be “fair enough, he gave Labour a try but it wasn’t for him, happens to us all, not to worry”. Given that RESPECT has always positioned itself to the left of Labour, and particularly given that the four rebel councillors associated themselves with what purported to be the left of RESPECT, I’m somewhat at a loss to find a RESPECT supporter greeting Hussain’s defection to the Tories with such equanimity. RESPECT/SWP loyalists are clearly an enlightened and philosophical bunch, whose stoical detachment from the hurly-burly of politics is an example to us all.

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 1:08 am said:

Ger, I follow your line of argument, but all the situation says to me is that either Mr Hussain is someone who doesn’t know his own mind but is quite good at convincing others that he does; or that some people close to Mr Hussain were gullible in thinking that someone flaky was someone solid; or some combination of all of this. The bit that’s mystifying me is that most of the posts seem to be taking as given and constant, the state of Mr Hussain’s mind ie the SWP knew he was a closet Tory and lied to everyone about him whilst condemning others for the same ‘crime’. I’m presuming for sure that at some stage or another, Hussain assured people that he was a solid Socialist geezer. People believed him. Perhaps they shouldn’t have but unless there were good reasons to disbelieve him, why shouldn’t they have believed him? O is there something that people aren’t saying about Mr Hussain? Then Mr Hussain changed his mind and/or decided that the SWP wasn’t as good a career move as the Tory Party. That’s what people do. Watch this space, some of the people posting here tonight, will be off and away somewhere else in the political firmament within the next five years. Twas ever thus. Big deal.

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 1:13 am said:

Phil, I don’t think we’re talking here about someone with a lifetime in parliamentary front bench politics, are we? If you followed the upheavals of the Labour councillors in Hackney through the seventies, eighties and nineties, then switches and changeovers are all part of the crap. I’m sure you’re confused Phil, for the simple reason that there’s every chance that Mr Hussain was and is confused. (I accept that that’s my interpretation). But you seem to be making the assumption that Mr Hussain’s defection to the Tories is equivalent to eg Alex Callinicos defecting to the Tories.

MichaelRosen on 14 February, 2008 at 1:16 am said:

Sorry guys, gotta turn in, got 900 kiddies to entertain at 11.00 am in the wonderful company of Valerie Bloom and John Agard. Festival Hall, come and join us. Promise I won’t mention any of this.

Sam_b on 14 February, 2008 at 1:16 am said:

What a surprise to see the Renewal lot go about with such glee on this. Its easier to cyber-bitch than to build a broad coalition eh?

The only reason that Renewal haven’t had a defection is that they have no-one to actually defect. Keep on building your sectarian group, everyone’s so proud of you.

Darren on 14 February, 2008 at 1:24 am said:

#84
“By the way, Abjol Miah is quoted above as saying that Mr Hussain is ‘an opportunist’. So, if that’s what he is, then, he’s one of those people that any of us anytime might be taken in by. Or is there someone here who knows some foolproof way of not being taken in by opportunists? Tell all.”

But Michael, you’re the vanguardists. You’re supposed to spot these eventualities at 300 paces. It’s the rest of us that need the tremendous foresight/hindsight and second sight of the self-selected tribunes of the people.

PS – Yep, I know you’re not SWP but . . .
PPS – Best wishes for Festival Hall. I have to send my apologies.

Tony Rock on 14 February, 2008 at 1:33 am said:

I wonder how the unofficial blog of the SWP, Lenin’s Tomb, will try and spin this. It should be worth some laughs reading Seymour’s explanation.

Frank on 14 February, 2008 at 1:35 am said:

Yi know Sam_b… I don’t know a great deal about the Renewal/respect thing, reading the posts has helped a bit. I’m from the SSP myself, and things seem to be following a similar path down there. Why do SOME of the leaders in the SWP seem hell bent on gaining power, and to hell with the consequences? I know and like many of the SWP members, but they don’t seem to have an input on things, and seem genuinely a bit lost if they don’t have a leader to confirm their opinions for them. If your going to have a strong leadership model like, that you need to make sure the leaders have a clue about what they are doing? Not properly vetting a candidate for election is… well, pretty much gross negligence. Can I be the next candidate you put forward?

Mikey on 14 February, 2008 at 2:00 am said:

Neither New York nor London, but international capitalism!

Sam_b on 14 February, 2008 at 2:07 am said:

I can’t comment about Tower Hamlets’ vetting system Frank, but like yourself i’m up in Scotland and an ex-SSP member. To me it raises questions about such a system for deciding those standing for election, it smacks to me of Galloway-style opportunism and must be addressed.

I myself don’t see any power-struggle or anything of the sort: everyone is accountable, including the CC to conference, branches etc. I just get exceptionally annoyed at times when comrades seem to care more about undermining other socialist groups than actually undermining the common enemy.

In case I need to remind some of you, yup, thats capitalism.

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 2:20 am said:

Let’s spell this out again:

The crisis in Respect was portrayed by the SWP CC as a left-right split. In Tower Hamlets, supposedly to the right were George Galloway, Abjol Miah and others. To the left were the four breakaway Respect councillors, including Ahmed Hussain, an SWP member.

Now Ahmed is defecting to the TORY PARTY and is pictured shaking the hands of the class enemy. George Galloway, Abjol Miah, Salma Yaquoob are still as far as I know opponents of war, privatisation and neo-liberalism.

I take this as clear evidence that further undermines the SWP CC’s rationalisation of the split in Respect as a left/right one.

If this was not a simple left right split, then what was it really about? We must search elsewhere for an explanation of the crisis in Respect.

Now lets have some analysis: In my opinion, this crisis of Respect was was an expression of two main factors:

a)Most importantly objective circumstances beyond our control: This is the uneven development of contemporary political radicalisation, which was driven by an anti-war upsurge, but unfortunately has not yet been reinforced by a working class offensive. Thus Respect lacked the necessary development of class consciousnesses and organisation that would accompany such an offensive. Thus Respect was bound to run into some problems as a left of Labour project – although these problems on their own might not have proved fatal without other factors, which leads us on to…

B) The subjective circumstances – the historic legacy and traditions of the British revolutionary left. In particular the habits acquired by the SWP of bureaucratic centralism. This was an unfortunate and possibly unavoidable legacy of ‘the downturn’ where the SWP was forced to develop in a quasi-sectarian way, by ‘building the party’ in an arithmetic and isolationist fashion. This also included a substitution of a full-timer apparatus for a healthy culture of democracy. Instead, critical voices in its cadre were usually marginalised or stifled.

This legacy made it hard for the SWP to operate as part of a long term left unity project. It could mount some successful united front initiatives from the ANL to the STWC. However, it could not form the basis for a long term left realignment required by new labour’s abandonment of social democracy. If the SWP had carried on with the original Respect trajectory, it risked loosing its autonomy as a party and its control over its cadre and finances. So it had to withdraw. Therefore after the Galloway letter it went nuclear, and has de facto sunk the Respect project as a broad coalition. The idea of a left-right split was spin for the members.

Non on 14 February, 2008 at 2:43 am said:

For immediate release
14/02/08

Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect

Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours that he had joined the Tory party today and insisted that he was sticking with Respect.

Following stories in the local paper, The East London Advertiser, the leader of the Respect group of councillors Oliur Rahman said: “I spoke with Councillor Ahmed Hussain today and he made it absolutely clear that he is staying with Respect and stands by its values.”

Councillor Rahman added, “there are some people who want to jump on any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the Greater London Authority elections.”

ENDS

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 2:47 am said:

#87 “The bit that’s mystifying me is that most of the posts seem to be taking as given and constant, the state of Mr Hussain’s mind ie the SWP knew he was a closet Tory and lied to everyone about him whilst condemning others for the same ‘crime’.”

But it was well known from early on amongst those who knew him that Ahmed Hussain’s politics were to the right and that he was an opportunist. He sided with some very dodgy local folk who were in cahoots with the housing association, the corrupt Eastendhomes, which took over a large estate in his constituency and he went along with the housing association’s entirely dishonest claim that overcrowded families on the estate would be the beneficiaries of the housing associations building programme.

SWP members, before Ahmed Hussain became a pawn in Rees’s game of dividing Respect, used to complain constantly that he would not return phone calls or make contact to discuss Respect’s strategy in the ward.

The idea that he had in any sense the SWP’s politics was also widely regarded as a joke but still he was paraded by the SWP oligarchs in order to attack George Galloway at the start of their explicit attempt to split Respect and drive out Galloway. The fact he attacked Galloway in such a barmily sectarian way that he drew a mild rebuke from Callinicos is neither here nor there, given the vituperation Callinicos continued to heap on Galloway.

The point here is the one that Ger Francis has made. The right/left split was a fantasy deliberately promoted by the SWP oligarchs for their own purposes. Ahmed Hussain’s decision to defect to the Tories is evidence of this, although there is much more if you have ears to listen and eyes to see. It is also evidence that Rees chose to cover up the failings of those he thought were on his side, including their right wing politics, whilst he deliberately and cynically demonised those he decided were the enemy within in Tower Hamlets Respect.

People are entitled to their opinion but it would be better if those opinions were informed by the facts.

Rosa Lichtenstein on 14 February, 2008 at 2:52 am said:

Don’t you lot look stupid now!

Frank on 14 February, 2008 at 2:53 am said:

Fair points Sam. It’s definitely opportunism. I don’t think there can be any doubt about that. Who’s to blame? I’d say both sides in this need to shoulder some of the responsibility. It’s probably like what happened up here. Neither side came out looking great. But why split? It was the SWP that facilitated the split up here, it looks like they did the same in Respect??? Maybe people writing in here are giving me the wrong impression. We do have a common enemy, big business (as I prefer to call it). But we have an even bigger enemy that is causing us even greater damage… ourselves. Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley can grin and bear each other but we can’t? Are we serious?

I admit people are probably enjoying this misfortune. To be honest I’m quietly feeling vindicated in joining the side I did in our split. If a councillor in the SSP had split to join the Conservatives, you can be sure the SWP would be milking it for all it’s worth. And pissing their pants about it. Lets be honest here. This is this funny. This is so funny I can’t even laugh.

What’s not funny is actively helping a right wing person get elected. Good grief! Like I said, a common enemy indeed. (genuinely stunned)

Rosa Lichtenstein on 14 February, 2008 at 2:54 am said:

The link to my homepage is all wrong in that last post.

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 3:14 am said:

#97 “Councillor Rahman added, ‘there are some people who want to jump on any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the Greater London Authority elections.’”

The problem with this press release is that it is accusing both the East London Advertiser and Tory HQ of lying when it is clear that both have all the evidence necessary to confirm that Ahmed Hussain intended to defect.

He met with and was photographed with Tower Hamlets Tory leader Peter Golds and the Tory Shadow London minister yesterday morning at Tory HQ. He was quoted at that meeting praising the work of the Tories in Tower Hamlets. The Tories were printing a leaflet to go round Mile End East proclaiming the defection. They had set up a press meeting with David Cameron for next week. And Hussain was scheduled to attend a 4pm press call with his future Tory colleagues at Tower Hamlets Town Hall.

Oliur Rahman knew nothing of this, so there wasn’t much pount in contacting him to get the facts.

Hussain was still determined to go ahead with his defection to the Tories after a very long phone call with senior Liberal Democrats. It seems he has been doing the rounds of all three parties, New Labour, Lib Dems and Tories to see what they would offer him and finally plumped for the Tories.

However fifteen minutes before he was due to attend the press conference, he got an attack of cold feet. This, of course, makes him a complete laughing stock as well as an unprincipled opportunist.

Take this Rees drafted press release with a very large dose of salt and watch for the fall out.

Frank on 14 February, 2008 at 3:35 am said:

Yeah… the Tories and the East London Advertiser Got together to spoof us.
Well done them… they had me going there.

tonyc on 14 February, 2008 at 4:18 am said:

@97: “Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours…”

No he didn’t. Instead, Oliur Rahman has made claims on his behalf.

On the one hand, we have a press release from the SWP/Respect quoting Oliur saying that Ahmed Hussain hasn’t left; on the other hand, we have the local newspaper qouting Ahmed Hussain singing the praises of the Tories, along with a photo of him shaking their hands and quotes from leading Tories explaining what a coup this is (not to mention a quote from Ahmed Hussain, SWP member, stating that “I really believe Tower Hamlets Conservatives will continue to make a difference in this borough”).

So, John Rees – who should people believe?

tonyc on 14 February, 2008 at 4:30 am said:

“The fact he attacked Galloway in such a barmily sectarian way that he drew a mild rebuke from Callinicos is neither here nor there, given the vituperation Callinicos continued to heap on Galloway.”

I want to clear this up properly.

Hussain and the other SWP member who resigned the Respect whip, Lutfa Begum, spent their entire time during the SWP members’ meeting on 7 September viciously attacking Galloway. They had nothing really to say about anything else.

Lutfa explained that “if Abjol Miah and George Galloway stand, no Muslim will vote for them”. Lutfa went on to explain that Jim Fitzpatrick was a better MP than Galloway.

Hussain, as is well-documented, said that Galloway should be “put down”.

Both of these contributions got loud applause from the SWP membership that had been assembled to carry out the leadership’s wishes. Bear in mind that the instruction to attend stated that “only fully paid-up” London members were allowed to attend, yet loyalists from Birmingham and other areas were not only allowed in, but allowed time to make speeches.

It’s true that Callinicos gave a mild rebuke to Hussain. However, this was not before Lindsey German, Michael Bradley, Charlie Kimber, Chris Nineham, Chris Harman, and other party loyalists had made their speeches without making any reference to the call for action to be taken against “mad dog” George Galloway.

Indeed, Chris Nineham told the audience to “listen” to the councillors.

Callinicos’s only complaint was about the language used by Hussain, not about his politics.

Of course, people like JohnG will find all sorts of nuances to explain events that they didn’t even witness, and people like Michael Rosen will find all sorts of ways to ask innocent questions, all the while ignoring the fact that a man who joined a revolutionary socialist organisation and was a key figure in the “left-right split” away from Respect has now joined the party of Margaret Thatcher and abandoned any pretence of being a part of a coalition on the left of Labour.

lanu on 14 February, 2008 at 5:07 am said:

“SWP Rushing dolls speed to the tories.”
You could not make it up.

Go back and listen to John Rees accusation speech at the other conference on 17th November. What a stupid arse he is now to everyone in the progressive movement.

Jock McTrousers on 14 February, 2008 at 6:58 am said:

I was going to say something about ‘entrism’ but Tawfiq beat me to it. But the real entrists are the Respect Renewal SU contingent who are (not very) covert zionists – that’s their REAL problem with the SWP; and they won’t be satisfied till Galloway and the muslims are gone and Respect renewal with them, so they can crow about left anti-semitism being its downfall.

God knows, the SWP are bad enough, but this lot are the pits.

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 8:19 am said:

Who are the RR SU contingent?

lenin on 14 February, 2008 at 8:23 am said:

For immediate release
14/02/08

Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect

Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours that he had joined the Tory party today and insisted that he was sticking with Respect.

Following stories in the local paper, The East London Advertiser, the leader of the Respect group of councillors Oliur Rahman said: “I spoke with Councillor Ahmed Hussain today and he made it absolutely clear that he is staying with Respect and stands by its values.”

Councillor Rahman added, “there are some people who want to jump on any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the Greater London Authority elections.”

ENDS

David T on 14 February, 2008 at 8:31 am said:

Why would RESPECT Renewal tell such a naughty fib!

lenin on 14 February, 2008 at 8:32 am said:

It’s true that Callinicos gave a mild rebuke to Hussain. However, this was not before Lindsey German, Michael Bradley, Charlie Kimber, Chris Nineham, Chris Harman, and other party loyalists had made their speeches without making any reference to the call for action to be taken against “mad dog” George Galloway.

Indeed, Chris Nineham told the audience to “listen” to the councillors.

Callinicos’s only complaint was about the language used by Hussain, not about his politics.

Jesus Christ. You have always made too much of this, tony. Just because Ahmed Hussain went entirely overboard with his language, you somehow try to implicate everyone who didn’t explicitly criticise his language in their subsequent contributions. And when Callinicos criticises his language, you complain about that too – but it is precisely the use of such language that was the problem. It is absurd. What’s most absurd about this is the statement about Chris Nineham: you must realise how desperate it looks. Nineham says that you should listen to the councillors, and you assume that means “that Ahmed Hussain has some good ideas”. It’s bollocks, tony. These petty, contrived complaints are substitutes for serious engagement.

Alright, folks, that’s my charity work done for one day. So long, you’ve just seen the best part of the show.

much relieved, almost on 14 February, 2008 at 8:34 am said:

Oh thank goodness for that. And I thought SWP member Ahmed Hussain had met with the Tory leadership for photos, praised the Tories, planned a press conference to announce his defection, arranged a press call with David Cameron and organised a leafletting of his ward to alert Respect voters to his momentous decision. And all this was supposed to have happened after hawking himself round the Lib Dems and New Labour to see what they could offer him.

What a relief to learn from Councillor Rahman and SWP Respect’s National Chair that these were all malicious rumours. It’s also just a malicious rumour I an sure that Ahmed Hussain’s second thoughts were motivated by the fact he had not yet concluded a deal with his new Tory friends to give him a winnable seat in Tower Hamlets.

Prinkipo Exile on 14 February, 2008 at 8:35 am said:

Richard Seymour: “So long, you’ve just seen the best part of the show.”

It wasn’t worth waiting for.

CHAB on 14 February, 2008 at 8:43 am said:

A press release at 2.15am! What is going on? The facts are that Hussain praised the Tories, had photo’s taken with them, arranged a press conference and considered joining. Whether he does or not is immaterial. It just shows his politcs and destroys any notion of a left/right split that was sold to members.

What are the SWP going to do now. Remember how quick they were to expel Rob Hoveman, Nick Wrack and Kevin Ovenden. Will be interesting to see how Rees handles this one.

Madam Miaow on 14 February, 2008 at 8:50 am said:

Mike Rosen 84: ” Or is there someone here who knows some foolproof way of not being taken in by opportunists? Tell all.”

This might not be foolproof, Mike, but if all the evidence is stacking up that certain figures are making choices based on opportunism rather than political principle, then that is possibly as good a a guide as any. If this is happening over time and a pattern is emerging, this might be proof even to fools.

DCM on 14 February, 2008 at 9:09 am said:

I think the fact that this site and others were so gleefully frothing all over this story before checking all the facts, and on the eve on an election making it all the more suspicious, answers the question, ‘can they possibly get any lower?’

Also makes me wonder just where this all started – we all know about the close ties Ted Jeory has with Renewal.

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 9:11 am said:

Some of us will remember John Rees’s reaction to one of Salma Yaqoob’s appearances on Question Time. In a performance which established her once again as a very serious and credible representative of a radical progressive organisation, she made the unforgivable error of smiling and nodding when the most left-wing Tory Ken Clarke agreed with her. “Never agree with a Tory,” growled Rees, who could barely bring himself to use the words Salma and Yaqoob at this point.

We should all be interested then in his reaction to one of his own members praising the Tories and doing everything short of sending Thatcher a Valentine’s Day card.

Oh sorry. We already have his reaction in the press release from SWP Respect at 2am this morning, for he is after all the press officer for SWP Respect according to their website.

What was the reaction? Well, it simply didn’t happen. It was just rumours from people trying to do down his wing of Respect. Good to know Rees is keeping up his usual standards of veracity.

DCM on 14 February, 2008 at 9:13 am said:

And of course the very fact that these sites are still running this work of fiction at all now that it has been contradicted – this really does say it all. Once again, shows how sickeningly inappropriate the title of ths site really is.

Andy Newman on 14 February, 2008 at 9:13 am said:

#116

“I think the fact that this site and others were so gleefully frothing all over this story before checking all the facts”

Checking the facts – FFS – there is a bloody photo of him shaking hands with a Tory MP!

tonyc on 14 February, 2008 at 9:15 am said:

“I think the fact that this site and others were so gleefully frothing all over this story before checking all the facts, and on the eve on an election making it all the more suspicious, answers the question, ‘can they possibly get any lower?’”

What facts are there in dispute? Do you dispute that SWP member Ahmed Hussain said “I really believe Tower Hamlets Conservatives will continue to make a difference in this borough”? Do you dispute that the photo was clearly an arranged photo-shoot? Do you dispute the quote from the shadow minister for London?

The furore around it meant that he got cold feet – but the deed was done yesterday morning.

Sadly, people like you and Richard Seymour will continue cheerleading for this bunch of opportunists til the very end – but all you’re doing is embarrassing yourselves.

Why did Ahmed Hussain not get quoted at all in the John Rees Press Release issued in the middle of the night? If this issue was settled, the one thing you’d be able to get is a statement from Hussain showing how wrong we all were when we pointed out that he had even taken part in an arranged photo-op with senior Tories.

DCM, it’s time to stop embarrassing yourself. It’s time to realise that you’ve been conned by the SWP leadership.

It’s time to end your role in promoting this mess.

Mark P on 14 February, 2008 at 9:15 am said:

I would repeat what I posted earlier. The news on this does seem premature, given the person said he was reconsidering and this is even mention in the article/press release etc why all the certainty in the speculation. Clearly he is not exactly an ‘asset’ to SWP-Respect but there is nothing here that suggests he has actually joined the Tories. The way this has been trumpeted has done Respect Renewal no favours as the kind of party that breaks with the slogans-in-place-of-thinking that the SWP represents nor the spin-doctory of the mainstream parties.

Mark P

Darren on 14 February, 2008 at 9:18 am said:

Admit it, Andy, the photo accompanying this post is cleverly constructed photoshop.

DCM has you bang to rights.

Ger Francis on 14 February, 2008 at 9:24 am said:

DCM: The story started with your comrade when he decided to visit the Tory HQ, have his photo taken, make some glowing quotes about Cameron and hold a press conference to announce his departure from SWP Respect. You can’t blame the ELA for reporting a story entirely the making of Ahmed Hussain. He is a complete opportunist and ordinary SWP members have had the wool pulled over their eyes by their leadership about the reality on the ground in TH. No amount of bluff and bluster on your part can hide either fact.

DCM on 14 February, 2008 at 9:38 am said:

Your agendas are so transparent – but really, who is surprised? But hey ho, I’m off to help out in an election now so I’ll leave you all to sit and talk the usual trash all day, you defenders of ‘left unity’ you.

Mark P – this is perfectly in line with Renewal behaviour. From the rabid rally, to running to the paper with complete non-stories designed to smear, to rumours about hooking up with the Lib-Dems, and a million other things in between. This really is not out of character for your side, I’m sorry to say.

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 9:47 am said:

DCM. You should phone up Ted Jeory and Peter Golds, establish that you are not speaking to RR soundalikes, ask them what happened yesterday, apologise to Ted for suggesting he made the whole thing up and then read Stalin’s Falsification of History by Leon Trotsky.

Red Flintstone on 14 February, 2008 at 9:57 am said:

Ianu wrote “SWP Rushing dolls speed to the tories.”
You could not make it up.”

But you just have. One member of the SWP has apparently quit the party to join the major party of big business, in defiance of everything he claimed to believe. If the story is correct, then he is a rat. He is hardly the first member of a revolutionary organisation to sell out in this way. However, the reaction of Respect Renewal is bizarre, and hypocritical to the core. Is the accusation that the SWP and the rest of Respect are all preparing to follow this turncoat and join the Tories? If so keep me informed when that prediction comes true. What this does prove is that the SWP has been very lax in it’s recruitment methods. Particularly from the point when Respect was set up, although this has been a problem prior to this. And, by the way, it was Galloway, remmeber, who insisted that Respect had to be a coalition between socialists, Liberals and… Tories! Have you all forgotten this? It was Yaqoob and Galloway who went hell for leather to recruit Muslims irrespective of their politics, or their class. Many of these admitted to being former Tory voters, or Liberal voters, or even members, and very recently in many cases. And some joined Respect amid a fanfare of publicity from leading Respect Renewal members, only to quit within days when someone pointed out to them that the T in Respect stood for trade unionism and the S for socialism! Was it not Galloway who used his column in the Daily Record to describe pro-Mussolini, pro-imperialist, anti-strike Winston Churchill as Britain’s greatest Prime Minister? Given that the SWP turned a blind eye to these apolitical, indeed downright reactionary, giving the impression that these views were acceptable for Respect’s only MP, is it any wonder that some of those recruited to Respect on such a basis went on to join the most organised force within Respect? Chris Harman needs to stop pretending that the crisis in the SWP and Respect is over now that Galloway and co have split. It isn’t. It is impossible for those who were so recently denouncing the views now advocated by the SWP leadership as the ravings of Islamophobic ultra-lefts to have all been converted overnight. Clearly from the leaked Party Notes internal bulletins, and Galloway’s entryists that denounce their party on this blog but do so without identifying themselves their comrades, the SWP is still being eaten away by a cancer. The SWP should be pleased that this guy has at last outted himself, and pissed off. But there is not the time to break out the champagne. Clearly there may be others. I would be surprised if there weren’t. Harman and co should not wait for these people to inflict maximal damage to the party. There needs to be a closer inspection of which set of Gallowayites have managed to infiltrate the SWP still. Identify them, and get them out. That requires the kind of centalism derided by the live-and-let-live “pluaralists” of Respect Renewal. When these people are purged for being closet Tories, Ger Francis, Andy Newan, Kevin Ovenden and co will cry foul! Stalinists! Just as they gloat when one of these closet Tories manages to jump before he is pushed. Who cares what they think? Look at what attracts cyber flies to this blog? Rational debate with these people is pointless. When they try to turn to issues other than the SWP/Respect split, hardly anyone bothers to contribute. Or when they do they fall out amongst themselves. Darlings of Galloway defend the indefensible. Maybe this Tory was one of the Galloway/Andy Newman entryists who have been leaking SWP internal bulletins. Has this not occured to anyone? Why would he join the Tories rather than hop into Respect Renewal? Maybe Galloway and co asked him to do this in order to inflict maximum damage on the SWP. Maybe he sold himself to the highest bidder, and the fifth highest “earning” MP could not match the offer from the Tories. Or maybe he was a useless apolitico who was attracted to everything that was wrong about the SWP prior to the split. Maybe he had fallen out with Galloway’s Tower Hamlets businessmen over something we don’t know about yet. Maybe he leapt into the opposing camp without thinking anything through. Maybe he is one of those useless idiots who get their jollies from sectarian strife, and when the split was over and done with, his passion for “politics”, his adrenaline rush had subsided, and he looked for pastures new. After splits (particularly on the far left), it is not uncommon for many to drop out of politics, some retiring to private life, others simply choosing to make a career from joining some other party, with politics a million miles from either side in the split. The Trotskyist movement is littered with such renegades. And this process began even while Trotsky was alive. Is Trotsky to be held responsible for all such ratbags? Well, as a scurge of the “Trotskyites” Galloway no doubt thinks he is.

Ian Donovan on 14 February, 2008 at 9:58 am said:

The conspiracism of the SWP’s response is laughable, as is the gullibity of those echoing it. Apparently Respect Renewal is in cahoots with sections of the bourgeois press to make up stories about SWP councillors defecting to the Tories. This collaboration extends as far as the procuruing of photos of said SWP councillor, dressed up to the nines, shaking hands with prominent Tories at Tory Headquarters. Has Tom Delargy has been allowed to join the SWP and injected a dose of his conspiracy-paranoia into the SWP’s press strategy?

Ian Donovan on 14 February, 2008 at 9:59 am said:

Ah, right on cue. Well, apparently not yet, but he’s working at it;-)

Grim and Dim on 14 February, 2008 at 10:02 am said:

Andy,
Sorry to get here late, I tend to be asleep when you young people are debating.

But do you really think it is appropriate to use a quasi-racist expression like “living the life of riley”?

Mark P on 14 February, 2008 at 10:02 am said:

DCM. Why not deal in real world politics than puerile yah-boo sucks. This is clearly not a ‘non story’, an SWP member and SWP-REspect councillor praises the Tories, visits their HQ, appears in a photo-call for goodness sake! What I was questioning was the certainty in the statements that he’d actually joined them.

Your inability to recognise that whatever turns out this isn’t ecactly a glorious episode for SWP / SWP-Respect tells me all I need to know about how honest your politics is. On the other hand I was honest enough to admit it was a mistake to trumpet a defection that hasn’t actually taken place.

Mark P

Red Flintstone on 14 February, 2008 at 10:05 am said:

Felix the prat wrote:

“DCM. You should phone up Ted Jeory and Peter Golds, establish that you are not speaking to RR soundalikes, ask them what happened yesterday, apologise to Ted for suggesting he made the whole thing up and then read Stalin’s Falsification of History by Leon Trotsky.”

And you might want to read Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution, one of the best of Trotsky’s writings. However, if like me you can only read the English version, I am afraid you will have to put up with a translation by Max Eastman. He went on to become an editor for the Readers Digest and a right-wing Republican. Perhaps Trotsky has to be held accountable for his renegacy, as well as Max Shachtman’s support for the Bay of Pigs, the role of US imperialism in Vietnam. Indeed, the Trotskyist movement is littered with such renegades. And I recall a someone who resigned from the CPGB during the Hitler Stalin Pact, only to go on to become an extreme right-wing Thatcherite, who invited Jean Marie Le Pen to do a speaking tour in Britain in the 1980s. I seem to recall that the editor of the paper of the left-wing of the Italian Socialist Party moved sharply to the right at the start of WWI. His name was Mussolini. He list of such renegades is endless. This is just one more.

DCM on 14 February, 2008 at 10:07 am said:

I was not referring to this as the ‘non-story’ actually.

Andy Newman on 14 February, 2008 at 10:21 am said:

Grim and Dim claims “life of riley” is a racist term, I have never heard this argument before, and can find no evidence for it:

From Wikipedia:

“Living the life of Riley” suggests an ideal life of prosperity and contentment, possibly living on someone else’s money, time or work. Rather than a negative freeloading or golddigging aspect, it instead implies that someone is kept or advantaged. The expression was popular in the 1880s, a time when James Whitcomb Riley’s poems depicted the comforts of a prosperous home life [1], but it could have an Irish origin: After the Riley clan consolidated its hold on County Cavan, they minted their own money, accepted as legal tender even in England. These coins, called “O’Reillys” and “Reilly’s,” became synonymous with a monied person, and a gentleman freely spending was “living on his Reillys.”

Nothing racist there.

Nor do I imply that they have material prosperity, but the leading members of the SWP are maintained financially while they purse their amateur approach to politics, in a totally unaccountable way.

Phil on 14 February, 2008 at 10:24 am said:

Calling Hussain back into line (if that is what’s happened) might actually make matters worse. He’ll be permanently damaged goods from now on – that photo’s never going to go away. Letting him go, then denouncing him and demanding that he resign immediately might have been a better option – let him be an embarrassment to the Tories. It all suggests a certain short-termism & reliance on discipline.

Ian Donovan on 14 February, 2008 at 10:26 am said:

“And you might want to read Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution, one of the best of Trotsky’s writings. However, if like me you can only read the English version, I am afraid you will have to put up with a translation by Max Eastman. He went on to become an editor for the Readers Digest and a right-wing Republican. Perhaps Trotsky has to be held accountable for his renegacy, as well as Max Shachtman’s support for the Bay of Pigs, the role of US imperialism in Vietnam. Indeed, the Trotskyist movement is littered with such renegades.”

This is so amusing, since the transition from left to right in these cases took decades. Whereas in the case of Ahmed Hussein, the transition from being ‘the left of the left’ to shaking hands with Tories at Tory HQ took ….. a matter of a few short weeks.

Mark P is wrong also about this. If it was a matter of a Respect councillor being put under pressure to defect to, say, the Socialist Party, or even to defect to Labour by, say, Livingstone supporters or someone comparable, then it could be dismissed as an incidental mistake as of little relevance.

But there is a psychological-political gap involved in defecting directly to the Tories, or taking steps to do so, that is simply mind-boggling particularly since he was not only a member of a far-left group and had been highlighted as an example of the ‘left of the left’.

In earlier debates on this blog, RR had been condemned for recruiting and even selecting people who had political histories and backgrounds in bourgeois parties such as Tories and Lib-Dems. But I would argue you have to work with those who come to you … the anti-war movement was not a clarified class conscious movement, and the process of trying to build a class-concious left party out of such a thing was bound to be difficult and some setbacks and defections inevitable.

This was rubbished by SWP loyalists, who I won’t insult by calling them hacks because not all of them are, and people like Ahmed Hussein were held up as shining examples of ‘lefts’ supposedly to shame those who were despicable enough not to support the SWP. It is that highlighting that makes this significant, not the mere fact of the defection, even if the rascal does not have the bottle to go through with it – the photo of him with prominent Tories proves what he was up to. That photo cannot be expunged from history.

It’s one thing to recruit from people with histories in bourgeois politics. Everyone has to come from somewhere. But it’s quite another when people who put on a pedestal to supposedly teach others how it should be done then make the passage in the opposite direction. That is astonishing.

TLC on 14 February, 2008 at 10:30 am said:

Classic tactic from Grim and Dim….change the subject.

But Andy’s point is not about whether the SWP CC get paid a lot. They don’t. It’s that they get paid to effectively follow their political hobby – with very little accountability. Afterall, in any other walk of life such spectacular lack of success – falling membership, falling SW sales, falling credibility – would have some consequence for those responsible. Good job there’s no performance related pay in the SWP

Louise on 14 February, 2008 at 10:41 am said:

“But do you really think it is appropriate to use a quasi-racist expression like “living the life of riley””?

Similar to Andy, I have never heard the argument that “living the life of Riley” is racist. If comrade Grim knows more then please enlighten us, explain history or etymology etc.

Or is it a distraction from the debate

Splintered Sunrise on 14 February, 2008 at 10:51 am said:

But Andy’s point is not about whether the SWP CC get paid a lot. They don’t. It’s that they get paid to effectively follow their political hobby – with very little accountability. Afterall, in any other walk of life such spectacular lack of success – falling membership, falling SW sales, falling credibility – would have some consequence for those responsible. Good job there’s no performance related pay in the SWP

Quite so. And it’s worth recalling that a party registered with the Electoral Commission (like Respect) has certain legal obligations in terms of transparency, publishing accounts, constitutional procedures and what have you. The SWP is not a registered political party and so doesn’t have any of these obligations. In fact the SWP’s status is that of a private club, which is kind of fitting.

How dare you assume I'm an SWP member? on 14 February, 2008 at 11:02 am said:

Madam Miaow said: This might not be foolproof, Mike, but if all the evidence is stacking up that certain figures are making choices based on opportunism rather than political principle, then that is possibly as good a a guide as any. If this is happening over time and a pattern is emerging, this might be proof even to fools.

We do not fear your cruel cunning, Madam Miaow.

We are clever and we are blind, and we will prevail.

Karen Elliot on 14 February, 2008 at 11:08 am said:

lenin: “Just because Ahmed Hussain went entirely overboard with his language… And when Callinicos criticises his language… but it is precisely the use of such language that was the problem”

For once I have to agree with Richard Seymour – the point is that Alex, having significantly more wits than, eg., Nineham, German and Bradley, recognised that it might be a little bit of a giveaway if leading members of the SWP started directly quoting the language of the Stalinist show trials (“shoot the mad dog”) in attacking their former comrades in Respect.

So, as Richard admits, it is the language (and not, eg., the sentiment) that Callinicos was encouraging SWP supporters to avoid.

Regarding those SWP supporters currently arguing that the whole issue is a storm in a teacup and that, despite the photo calls, aborted press releases, newspaper reports, etc., comrade Hussain remains a staunch socialist loyal to the SWP-Respect cause – I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. Your moral compass, however, is fucked.

dear Koba on 14 February, 2008 at 11:15 am said:

“having significantly more wits than … Bradley”

I had a pot plant once that qualified.

Clive Searle on 14 February, 2008 at 11:16 am said:

It is clear that Hussain did learn to moderate his language but not the politics alas. At the National Council on 22nd September he did not call for George to be put down as a mad dog. He did however level the charge of opportunism at Galloway – accusing him of doing a deal with local Bengali businessmen to distance Respect from the SWP in order to garner their support for the coming election in Poplar. This line seemed to stem entirely from the Weekly Worker but was delivered with the venom by Hussain.

stupid asian woman on 14 February, 2008 at 11:17 am said:

Felix Filou (#117) said: Some of us will remember John Rees’s reaction to one of Salma Yaqoob’s appearances on Question Time.

Poor John. But he’d already once been driven over the edge by the thought of an Asian woman outshining his clever white manhood. So we should really show some sympathy for him and not be too hard when he’s a little … a little inconsistent.

MM said: If this is happening over time and a pattern is emerging …

Hmm. Maybe I’d better get back to the kitchen. Or maybe not.

Jason on 14 February, 2008 at 11:19 am said:

#138
“And it’s worth recalling that a party registered with the Electoral Commission (like Respect) has certain legal obligations in terms of transparency, publishing accounts, constitutional procedures and what have you. The SWP is not a registered political party and so doesn’t have any of these obligations. In fact the SWP’s status is that of a private club, which is kind of fitting.”

But surely any such issues would be much better dealt with by a culture of internal democracy, holding leaders to account, regular scrutiny, regular branch meetings, discussions, votes, etc.

Not by the state or the law.

My take on all of this is that the left in general, and the organised working class, are in a very bad state, reeling punch drunk from the defeats, wandering around in a daze looking for a political home. Some are so drunk they think they’ve found it or are about to go on a winning spree; others at least have the wisdom to step back and survey the ruins.

It’s not that we can’t begin patiently to rebuild our confidence- there are several positives: the climate change conference, the public sector pay battles, the Remploy strike, grassroots campaigns against privatisation. All of these are small but significant steps.

I’m not claiming to have any special answers, being in a group smaller than most, but am at least making a plea that we acknowledge none of us have all the nswers and start working together, even if not in electoral blocs or the same organisation.

I think it’s high time groups and individuals on the left start fighting together the common enemy and in the context of that united fight have the necessary discussions and debates. With that in mind, I think people should start taking up the convention of the left counter-conference to Labour’s Manchester autumn conference.

It would be good if comrades from all groups and none, started raising in their union branches and perhaps plan to come up en masse and similar united front initiatives.

More details here
http://permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1907
would have posted an su link but can’t find one

Jason

Karen Elliot on 14 February, 2008 at 11:21 am said:

#92 Tony Rock: “I wonder how the unofficial blog of the SWP, Lenin’s Tomb, will try and spin this.”

I make the confident prediction that they will avoid the substance of the debate until the dust has settled and Seymour et al learn what the line is from Rees and the CC – otherwise they would run the risk of having to use their much vaunted Marxist principles in real time to arrive at a position independently – thus running the risk of adopting a position which could turn out to be embarrassingly ‘wrong’ from the point of view of their ‘higher-ups’.

If you are wondering what is the use of Marxist theory is if it has to wait to be validated by diktat before it can even be expressed, then I am with you. ‘Lenin’s Tomb’ indeed.

Darren on 14 February, 2008 at 11:25 am said:

# 129

“But do you really think it is appropriate to use a quasi-racist expression like “living the life of riley”?”

Does this mean that Grim and Dim’s SWP branch was picketing Lightning Seeds gigs in the early nineties?

Psephologist on 14 February, 2008 at 11:30 am said:

I don’t really understand why anyone should be shocked at “churn” between the Respect group of councillors (as originally constituted).
Many of those who voted for them were former Lib Dem and Tory voters.
Indeed, up to 3,000 of those who voted Respect (BGB) in the General Election were previous Tory voters and 1,000 Lib Dems.
The elected councillors will reflect this.Remember,the most openly “left wing” council candidates lost.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 11:41 am said:

When Ahmed Hussain was criticised, not least as an opportunist, by some of us in east London, the defence from assorted super-loyalists in the SWP was that he was merely expressing youthful ultra-leftism, the kind that’s often held up to be healthy in someone moving into politics.

The scale of denial by Seymour et al in the face of quotes, picture, an abandoned press conference, leaflets printed, Cameron booked, etc is staggering.

But it’s overshadowed by the bizarre position contained in the press release sent out in the wee small hours.

I really can’t understand why the SWP leadership are claiming that Hussain is still with them. He agreed to join the Tories, praised David Cameron and went to Tory HQ to get the propaganda picture taken.

Why on earth didn’t the SWP leadership just cut him loose? He’s now toxic to anyone associated with him. If he got the collywobbles before his press conference then that was the ideal moment for the SWP leadership to say, “Good riddence – and we warn every party in Tower Hamlets he’s been touting himself around that this rank opportunist comes with a big healthwarning.”

stuart on 14 February, 2008 at 11:42 am said:

Despite this bizarre story I think the left/right argument is valid in the context of Galloway v Rees and this finds expression in the Tower Hamlets split.

The Tower Hamlets split saw, on the one side Cllr Rahman from a trade union background, and on the other the more business inclined Galloway supporters (which included Mair who had links with Islamic Forum). Additionally, there were complaints about male chauvanism from female councillors.

I would even suggest that the decision of Galloway to back Livingstone for first choice, despite recent proclamations of support for German, is down to the business connections of the Renewal supporters and the desire to keep in with Ken.

How to explain Hussain? It was reasonable to class him as left whilst he identified with the four and joined the SWP. However, as we all know, signing up for the SWP is not automatic evidence of a consistent socialist mindset. His apparent flirtation with the Tories is most embarassing and surely he cannot be classed as ‘left’ whatever the eventual outcome. Certainly not at the present time.

andy newman on 14 February, 2008 at 11:45 am said:

Amusingly, Richard Seymour e-mailed me insisting that I run the SWP-REESpect press release that “contradicted” this story

Richard writes:

“If you haven’t published the correction, you need to do so now:”

Jason on 14 February, 2008 at 11:47 am said:

Well, perhaps, it should be published if only as a comment so we can all see what they’re saying?

Lobby Ludd on 14 February, 2008 at 11:50 am said:

I think Phil #134 is right on this.

I would go further and say that even if he was not called back into line, but simply got cold feet, then he should still be thrown out of the SWP, and the Respect whip withdrawn.

What possible use can such a political naif (or careerist, take your pick) be to any party of the left?

passing leftie on 14 February, 2008 at 11:50 am said:

I cannot believe someone suggests “living the life of Riley” is racist. How over-sensitive some of you are!

andy newman on 14 February, 2008 at 11:54 am said:

Jason #151

See comment #109 above, the SWP-REESpect press release is there.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 11:58 am said:

Andy

If Seymour is silly enough to hitch himself to another demented email from Rees emanting in the early hours let him learn the hard way. There will, of course, be further developments today and tomorrow over this.

Jason on 14 February, 2008 at 12:01 pm said:

Andy #154 oh I see! I stand corrected!

jj on 14 February, 2008 at 12:04 pm said:

how are the 2 newham rr cllr who were about to go to the lib dems getting on.nothing about them in the rr paper???

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 12:05 pm said:

Kevin Ovenden is right, the press release is bizarre indeed. It came several hours after the news broke of the (temporarily aborted) defection. Rees was apparently desperate to get something out before the by-elections today in waltham Forest and Preston.

Even Rees’s delusions of grandeur cannot have run to believing the good voters of the two wards in which SWP Respect is supporting candidates would have got wind of Councillor Hussain’s state of mind, much less be affected by it. So this must have been about trying to keep the morale up of the poor foot soldiers on the polling stations, etc. And typically he simply chose to deny anything had happened, hoping presumably that most SWP members only ever read or take seriously the SWP’s own propaganda.

However, Councillor Rahman is reliably reported to be very unhappy at the line taken. It does after all effectively call Ted Jeory and the Tory hierarchy liars. Few might have a problem with the latter except when the evidence has Councillor Hussain bang to rights and our side ends up looking dumb and dumber. Pity though that it’s Councillor Rahman who is being made to look dumb and dumber by the spinmeister.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 12:05 pm said:

Lobby Ludd

Oh, he is no naif. Not a bit of it. His forays have been very calculated. But as a trophy recruit to the SWP criticism of him was brushed aside.

The fundamental issue is that the claim that what was happening in Tower Hamlets and in Respect was a left/right split has been further demonstrated to be false. Confronted again and again by reality – and there’s going to be much more of this – SWP members have a choice either to question what they’ve been told or to take flight further and further from the truth around them.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 12:08 pm said:

jj

That would be because there were and are no such Respect councillors in Newham. So, instead of talking about the products of your imagination, how about discussing that actual character who’s in the photocall at Tory HQ?

Karen Elliot on 14 February, 2008 at 12:09 pm said:

Kevin: “Why on earth didn’t the SWP leadership just cut him loose?”

Here, Kevin, your lingering loyalty to the SWP is exposed, inasmuch as that is very good advice indeed and precisely what anyone with any sense would do. Only the most naked of factional/personal interests could prevent it.

There remains the tantalising possibility, however, that *this won’t happen*, thus confirming for all the world to see that Rees has lost all grip on reality – and surely that is in the best interests of the left, despite any pieties you might like to utter about hoping that they do the right and decent thing?

In either case it will be amusing to watch our favourite toy Bolsheviks wriggle like demented eels either justifying their backpeddling if it turns out that Hussain was a bad egg just like the sectarians on SU claimed (although *they* did it merely for despicable reasons) or digging themselves even deeper into the hole they are have prepared for themselves by continuing to support and promote this guy.

Rees’s press release is indeed a wonder to behold. How anyone can remain loyal to someone prepared to publish something so thoroughly evasive and dishonest is also bordering on the miraculous. I suspect that those following the line on this are guided only by a desire to oppose whatever seems to be the opinion of the kind of people involved in contributing to this blog, at whatever cost to their sanity or reputation.

Psephologist on 14 February, 2008 at 12:11 pm said:

Any attempt to portray the group fo councillors as falling into a left/right spectrum is a mistake.
The fact that the openly left candidates lost makes the term irrelevent.
Within both groups are people with natural tory and lib dem voters.

sandy on 14 February, 2008 at 12:13 pm said:

Has the whole Respect project been some sort of spoof?

And some people wonder why most working class people steer clear of any
involvement with the left. Bunch of cranks and jokers mostly.
Clueless. If the SWP was leading you into a fight with the bosses it
would be sensible to just give up and surrender
sandy

Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect
14/02/2008
Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours that he had
joined the Tory party today and insisted that he was sticking with
Respect.

Following stories in the local paper, The East London Advertiser, the
leader of the Respect group of councillors Oliur Rahman said: “I spoke
with Councillor Ahmed Hussain today and he made it absolutely clear
that he is staying with Respect and stands by its values.”

Councillor Rahman added, “there are some people who want to jump on
any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better
advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united
and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the
Greater London Authority elections.”

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 12:17 pm said:

Karen

Good point. My question was, naturally, on the rhetorical side. It is the question that members of the SWP might like to pose. Well, it’s one of very many questions they ought to pose.

They are now in a position where success is going to mean making various backroom deals with Hussain so that he remains associated with them even though he brings with him thallium levels of toxicity. Brilliant.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 12:31 pm said:

Andy, shouldn’t you at least now change the title of this article as it clearly incorrect.
He has not joined the Tories.

Maybe
SWP councillor was going to join the Tories, but changed his mind at the 11th hour.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 12:36 pm said:

Are you confident that he has changed his mind, anticapitalista?

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 12:38 pm said:

Well even if he hasn’t, the title is still incorrect as he has NOT JOINED the Tories.

Lobby Ludd on 14 February, 2008 at 12:44 pm said:

Yes, Andy, you should change the title.

Maybe:

“SWP councillor was going to join the Tories, but changed his mind at the 11th hour and the SWP leadership fail to get a grip”

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 12:46 pm said:

My old comrades – the SWP loyalists – posting here are clutching at straws. Please make a sober assessment of reality! Don’t dig any deeper. Ahmed Hussain is not your loyal comrade and Respect did not split on left-right lines. Wake up and smell the coffee, FFS!

Ger Francis on 14 February, 2008 at 12:51 pm said:

Indeed Larry.

Anticapitilista: i think it is up to Ahmed Hussain to clarify where his politcal membership now resides. CommentS from him, and Rees, were noticably absent from the 2am press release. I look forward to their soothing words.

darren redstar on 14 February, 2008 at 12:57 pm said:

re comment #107
“all the fault of the jews”
good grief!

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 12:57 pm said:

Ger

Yup. Instead it was poor old Oli who’s been left discredited by the incredible release. No one who wants to build a serious reputation could be happy with being used like that.

Anon on 14 February, 2008 at 1:00 pm said:

Is Michael Rosen’s constant sleepy-eyed-child-teddy-bear-under-arm-wandering-into-anal-orgy innocence real or calculated? My heart says the former, my spleen says the latter. I can’t believe that someone lurking around the SWP so long is a political ingenue.

Dear Koba on 14 February, 2008 at 1:01 pm said:

Some questions need to be asked about the Tories as well.

On the evidence of the photo, the person on one side of Hussain is Ollie Reeder (Chris Addison) from “The Thick of it”, and Hussain is shaking hands with Matt Lucas.

Джугашви́ли on 14 February, 2008 at 1:10 pm said:

anon

Michael Rosen plays the role of honey trap. Courted and lionised by the SWP so that his association with them proves they are urbane and cultured. He of course is protected from the nastiness.

But then when the nasty stuff starts, Michael looks the other way, and rushes back to his ivory tower.

the digger on 14 February, 2008 at 1:11 pm said:

Ger, did you feel discredited when you paraded Talib Hussain as Respects new Birmingham Councillor in Sparkbrook, and then he left after a week?

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 1:16 pm said:

Digger

Ahmed Hussain is a member of the SWP who was cited as an authority in the drive to split Respect. He was held up as part of the left group of councillors who had no option but to split from the right-wing, petit bourgeois, Islamists. He has now negotiated joining the Tories. No amount of chaff is going to obscure that.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 1:20 pm said:

But he hasn’t actually joined them (yet) has he?
If you want to debate about why some would leave Respect and join the class enemy, go ahead, but that is not the same as what the title of the thread is saying is it?

TH Respect Survivor on 14 February, 2008 at 1:20 pm said:

Sorry, I’m going to wade in here. A lot of people seem to be confusing facts with Rees’ fantasies.

FACT: John Rees et al claimed that the split in Respect was a left/right split.
FACT: John Rees et al claimed that Ahmed Hussain is a staunch leftie.
FACT: Ahmed Hussain was/is a member of the Socialist Workers Party and was paraded around as such in SWP members’ meetings.
FACT: The four break-away councillors DID enter into coalition talks with the Lib Dems. This was reported by the East London Advertiser and confirmed to Dave Osler by the leader of the Lib Dems on the TH Council.
FACT: Ahmed Hussain visited the Tory HQ.
FACT: He took part in a photo-op with the Tory minister for London and other senior Tory figures.
FACT: Ahmed Hussain was quoted as saying “I really believe Tower Hamlets Conservatives will continue to make a difference in this borough.”
FACT: Bob Neill, Tory shadow Minister for London welcomed the defection as “momentous” and predicted that Tower Hamlets could soon become ‘a Tory borough.’

Firstly, who now is going to try and defend Ahmed Hussain? Someone pointed out a very important FACT earlier. Ahmed Hussain is missing from the SWP-REESpect press release. Makes you wonder.

Does that not make it glaringly obvious that the split was not about left/right!? This split was about Rees’ incompetence. And when his incompetence was pointed out, he decided to “go nuclear” and thus leading to the split.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 1:25 pm said:

You missed one FACT

FACT: Ahmed Hussain has NOT joined the Tories (as this ‘article’ claims)

TH Respect Survivor on 14 February, 2008 at 1:30 pm said:

@108: “Ahmed Hussain has NOT joined the Tories”

What evidence do you have for that? I have evidence to the contrary. I ahve a newspaper quoting a Tory shadow Minister who described the “defection as “momentous”".

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 1:30 pm said:

Patience, my dear anticapitalista. I’m sure Ahmed Hussain can clear this up a little later this afternoon.

Prinkipo Exile on 14 February, 2008 at 1:33 pm said:

The Tories are sticking to the story.

Councillor Peter Golds of the Tower Hamlets Conservative Group has today announced that he has officially lodged the request by Ahmed Hussain to join the Conservative Group on the Council.

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 1:33 pm said:

#180 – ‘anticapitalista’ mate – you appear like a sad fool clutching at straws! So you are confident that Ahmed Hussain is a loyal SWP member, an epitomy of the left wing side of the Respect split, are you?

So what if he didnt actually join the fucking Tories? The photo is evidence enough, isn’t it?

Or do SWP members routinely go to Tory Party HQ and shake hands with the grinning class enemy?

Don’t dig yourself into this hole any deeper.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 1:37 pm said:

LarryR, I am not saying “Ahmed Hussain is a loyal SWP member..” at all. Where did I say that?
All I am pointing out is that the HEADLINE of this article is at best mis-leading at worst a pack of lies.

Is Hussain a prick for shaking hands with the Tories? Of course he is.
Should he be expelled from the SWP? Well that is up to the SWP to sort out. My opinion is that he should be expelled.

Prinkipo Exile on 14 February, 2008 at 1:41 pm said:

Councillor Golds of the Tories has claimed that the discussions with Hussain have been going on for several weeks and involved senior figures in the Tory Party:

“Discussions and meetings have taken place over several weeks and have involved leading figures within the party, in particular Baroness Warsi was of tremendous help and assistance, as was Saj Karim MEP.”

(Saj Karim MEP is the former LibDem from Pendle in the North West who defected to the Tories a few months ago after failing to win a high enough place on the LibDem list for next years Euro elections).

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 1:41 pm said:

#181 http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1773

Andy BH on 14 February, 2008 at 1:42 pm said:

Must admit, I thought that the comment about “life of Riley” being racist was a joke. But I am not sure my sense of humour is actually up to the job, looking at some of SWPers’ posts trying to defend this. Post 126 is a particularly scary case in point. But, then again, maybe that’s a joke as well.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 1:42 pm said:

No, digger. Being expelled by the likes of John Rees.

Anticapitalista

Not long to wait now for official word from Hussain.

sunshine1 on 14 February, 2008 at 1:42 pm said:

Comrades ! Comrades !

Plese spare a thought for poor old John Rees’ treat him tenderly if you can.
The old lad has been seen runing raggard around the Eastend on his moped, given the engine’s condition its hard work the fist ever SWP/Tory Councillor in the country.

Andy Newman on 14 February, 2008 at 1:46 pm said:

Digger made a comment saying:

Kev, you obviously have more experience than me of leaving revolutionary organisations to join other non revoluionary parties.

Which is what Kev is responding to in #189.

But through some internet weirdness Diger’s comment then disappeared.

Karen Elliot on 14 February, 2008 at 1:46 pm said:

Apparently, Hussain has *not* joined the Tories – he has only met with them, given them quotes saying what a fine job they were doing, posed for photographs with them, and somehow (despite his “youthful ultra-leftism”, #148) managed to give their London shadow minister the impression that a ‘momentous’ defection had taken place which would make the Tories the official opposition in TH. But he has *not* joined them. Have you got that clear? He has *not*, I repeat, *not* joined them. Joining them would be *bad*.

Surely there is nothing he has done which is incompatible, eg., with SWP membership? Obviously Seymour, JohnG and other SWP members don’t believe so or they would be calling for his expulsion.

Move along now – there’s nothing to see. I mean, it’s not as if he dressed up as a cat on TV or anything like that… And remember, in the bad old days the SWP were constrained by their alliances so as not to be able to take a principled position when there representatives went astray – now they have a free hand vis a vis Respect, and the man in question is in fact a full member of the SWP, so we can take it that everything that they do and say regarding Hussain is a true, unconstrained expression of their politics. If he had done anything wrong, we would know about it by now.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 1:47 pm said:

No, digger. I have experience of being expelled by the likes of John Rees.

Anticapitalista

I think you’re being very rash raising the prospect of something being a pack of lies. The release at 2.15am was so foolish. It is going to bite it’s author in the bum – but not before people like you have excruciatingly embarrassed yourself defending a ditch which is being abandoned under your feet.

Ger Francis on 14 February, 2008 at 1:49 pm said:

Digger: Amm…bit of a difference. Thalib Hussain was not an SWP member. He was ex-Labour member who broke with them over the war, and was elected as a Lib Dem cllr. He who wanted to come over to us, not to the Tories. We made a mistake however in accepting him, realised it, and acted accordingly in very quickly dropping him. So, no. I do not feel ‘discredited’. The people who should are the SWP bag carriers who have regurgitated myths about a ‘witch-hunt’, ‘community leaders i.e. small businessmen’, ‘left/right divide’ ‘Jamaati Respect’ and all the rest of it.
And those who kept their gobs shut out of cowardice and deference.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 1:51 pm said:

If you know the details Kevin, just reveal all.
Until then, the headline is false.

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 1:53 pm said:

anticapitalista – don’t be a narrow pedant – look at the bigger political picture mate!

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 1:55 pm said:

LarryR

Can you read?
Read post #185 again.
I said that IMO he should be expelled. Got it?

sunshine1 on 14 February, 2008 at 1:56 pm said:

Cllr. Hussain said “I really believe Tower Halets Conservatives will continue to make a difference in the borough” He is a member of the SWP well what can I say to that.

“I’m not able to tell myself lies”
Tony Cliff.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 1:59 pm said:

#198 Read comment #197

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 1:59 pm said:

It has now been confirmed by Tower Hamlets Town Hall that Ahmed Hussain has joined the Tories. It is on the East London Advertiser website now.

The Town Hall are making a determination at 3pm that the Tories will now be the official opposition on Tower Hamlets Council. A brilliant achievement by John Rees and the other numpty oligarchs who have presided over this debacle.

Congratulations also go to Rees for putting out an utterly dishonest press release which has in turn humiliated Councillor Oliur Rahman.

Lobby Ludd on 14 February, 2008 at 2:02 pm said:

anticapitalista, you are formally correct (probably) that Hussain has not joined the Tories.

What you will not face up to is that the SWP’s handling of his eleventh hour change of plan has made the situation worse.

If a prominent member jumps ship – these things happen and despite the political embarrassment this should be ‘containable’.

If a prominent member very publicly nearly jumps ship (to the Tories, remember) and the response is a bland statement that all is well – do you think this reflects well upon the party?

Antonio Labriola on 14 February, 2008 at 2:02 pm said:

You put your right leg in, your right leg out, do the okey cokey and shake it all about…

Could not make it up….

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 2:03 pm said:

#200 Link please, I could only find yesterdays.

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 2:04 pm said:

# 197 anticap – yet you harp on about the headline being slightly wrong, as if you are making excuses for him.

you say-
“I said that IMO he should be expelled. Got it?”

OK so why isnt he being expelled? Why is the REES Respect press release saying: “he is staying with Respect and stands by its values”.

Do the values of Respect include collaborating with the naked enemies of the working class?

You attack the SU blog – you should be attacking your own leadership mate. But of course there is no comments box on the Resect or SWP websites is there?

David on 14 February, 2008 at 2:07 pm said:

I could have almost sympathised with Michael Rosen’s argument (despite the cultish overtones and the faux naive tone) had it not been for the follow-up press release. Yes, there are opportunists in every party (even RR), but those SWP members/sympathisers cheering on this press release seem to imply that if you can keep the opportunists onside, then no real harm is done.

Notice, it does not address the substantive claim that that he’d had talks with the Tories. It does not categorically deny that he was to have a press conference with David Cameron. It does not categorically deny that he made a statement praising the Tories to the East London Advertiser. It just says that Oliur Rahman says that Hussein is not leaving.

If he did have talks with the Tories, then what does his say of his comrades’ politics that they’re most happy simply because nothing’s going to come of it now?

Red Deathy on 14 February, 2008 at 2:09 pm said:

“…the naked enemies of the working class?”

Larry, man, please. Naked Tories. Urgh! I have to go scrub my mind.

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 2:09 pm said:

So he has actually joined the Tories now officially?

Well, I just thought I’d post the Rees RESECT Press release up here one more time – coz soon it might ‘go down the memory hole’ and vanish from the RESECT website:

Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect
14/02/2008
Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours that he had joined the Tory party today and insisted that he was sticking with Respect.

Following stories in the local paper, The East London Advertiser, the leader of the Respect group of councillors Oliur Rahman said: “I spoke with Councillor Ahmed Hussain today and he made it absolutely clear that he is staying with Respect and stands by its values.”

Councillor Rahman added, “there are some people who want to jump on any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the Greater London Authority elections.”

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There – posted for posterity – testimony to the CC’s revolutionary honesty and integrity.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 2:10 pm said:

LarryR
Why do you presume I’m a member of the SWP?
I’m not even in the UK. I live in Greece.
If the same had happened here with the Greek SEK, then I would be doing exactly as you suggest. ie attacking my own leadership over the issue and calling for Hussain’s expulsion from SEK.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 2:12 pm said:

#207 No he hasn’t as Felix has not provided a link. He is referring to yesterday’s news (on the website)

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 2:15 pm said:

Still waiting for the link.

If you provide it, then I’ll shut up and go for a walk. It’s a nice sunny day today

Lobby Ludd on 14 February, 2008 at 2:16 pm said:

Oh dear, re my comment #201, I was naive enough to think that Rees was being (dishonestly) evasive. It now seems he simply hasn’t got a clue.

(I’m pleased to see that you think that Hussain should have been expelled from the SWP, anticapitalista – any views on Rees?)

Andy Newman on 14 February, 2008 at 2:19 pm said:

#208

Anticapitalista,

What did you think of the letter sent out by Alex callinicos on 7th December to all the SWP’s sister organisations and signed by the Greek SEK saying that the comrades in New Zealand shouldn’t be commenting on events goingg on in England?

do you think it applies to you as well?

tonyc on 14 February, 2008 at 2:21 pm said:

The news is official

FORMER Respect councillor Ahmed Hussain put pen to paper today (Thurs) and signed his Tory party membership forms… only hours after frenzied speculation he had changed his mind.

He met local Tory bosses at 12.30pm and sealed his defection after an extraordinary 24 hours of confusion over his future.

After Tower Hamlets council confirmed the defection a short while ago, Cllr Hussain, a former strong ally of Respect MP George Galloway, told the Advertiser: “I’ve signed the forms and I’m just relieved it’s now all settled so I can look forward to the future.

“It’s been a very tough 24 hours. It’s always difficult to leave your friends, but when you have to make a decision, you’ve got to do it.”

The Tower Hamlets political scene went into ‘meltdown’ yesterday after we revealed that Hussain, representing Mile End East ward on the authority and a former member of the Socialist Workers Party, was defecting to the Conservatives.

After being greeted like a king at Tory HQ in Millbank yesterday morning, Cllr Hussain had a sudden last minute attack of nerves sparking a day of dramatic twists and turns.

He told the Advertiser at 2pm yesterday he was going ahead with the defection and applauded his new national party leader David Cameron’s approach in a quote.

But when rumours started circulating around the Town Hall that he was set to become the Tory’s first Bengali councillor in Tower Hamlets, he was bombarded with calls and text messages from colleagues urging him to change his mind.

Some warned he was committing political suicide.

About an hour before he was due to inform council chief executive Martin Smith of his move, he told Tory group leader Peter Golds he needed ‘more time.’

He then spent the rest of the afternoon and evening consulting with councillors from all parties for advice.

At midnight, leading political figures believed that he had U-turned and decided to remain with the rebel Respect Unity Coalition group, and leave Cllr Golds as the humiliated ‘bride at the altar.’

Respect Unity group leader Oli Rahman and SWP boss John Rees then issued a press statement in the early hours of this morning attacking the Advertiser’s story as “a rumour”. They insisted Cllr Hussain remained firmly on their side.

But after spending the night thinking, Cllr Hussain called the paper at 9.30am to confirm he was defecting.

Three hours later, he met Cllr Golds and former Tory group leader Simon Rouse to sign his party membership forms, then emailed the council’s chief executive shortly after.

It means the Tories, who less than two years ago had just one councillor at Tower Hamlets, now have eight and have become the main Opposition group.

Cllr Golds said: “I’m absolutely delighted he has joined us. We’ve been in discussions with each other for some time on this matter and have had meetings both locally and with Conservative Central Office.

“Ahmed will make a wonderful addition to the Conservative group and will continue to contribute to the political debate in both Tower Hamlets and nationally.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 2:23 pm said:

The NZ sister organisation wasn’t simply commenting. It openly took the side of RR and indirectly leaking internal SWP documents.

Anyhow, I have now seen the post in the E.L Advertiser, and it is indeed a disgrace.

How the SWP deal with it, is up to them, not SU

felix on 14 February, 2008 at 2:23 pm said:

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED14%20Feb%202008%2014%3A17%3A03%3A833

You could not make it up and Ted Jeory didn’t.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 2:23 pm said:

Anticapitalista and the other loyalists here, such as Seymour, were not formally correct.

As their fingers were going tippity-tappity insisiting on retractions and corrections and the like, brother Hussain was sticking with his position of yesterday morning at the Tory HQ of joining the party of David Cameron.

Andy won’t have to go to the trouble of changing his headline.

Now – all those who came here in high dudgeon claiming that we had lied need to ask themselves how they were taken in by the flimsy 2.15am release from Rees.

He has turned a disaster into a catastrophe. If people remain lashed to him, they will go down with the ship.

Poulos on 14 February, 2008 at 2:25 pm said:

For those comrades who don’t know about the SEK, it is known as probably the most slavishly obedient to any and every aspect of the SWP’s line. This obedience goes down to holding many of the exact same public meetings that the SWP holds in London and using the exact same pictures of British demonstrations on Greek posters. Trust me, many of the meeting titles do not translate well into Greek nor are many of the topics pertinent to the Greek political scene.

We see this SWP obedience being displayed here by Anticapitalista, never missing an opportunity to defend the British mothership CC no matter how cockeyed!

Prinkipo Exile on 14 February, 2008 at 2:26 pm said:

While the motto “never trust a Tory” is never far from my thoughts, I find it difficult to believe that a councillor, Peter Golds in this instance, would go on the record to say that Hussain had had meetings with a Tory member of parliament (Baroness Warsi) and a Tory MEP (Saj Karim) over the last couple of weeks.

This was while Hussain was an SWP member of course.

This is the same SWP that expelled Nick, Kevin and Rob for alleged breaches of discipline.

For once, words fail me!

Antonio Labriola on 14 February, 2008 at 2:27 pm said:

hmmm…what of the future of Mr Rees now…

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 2:30 pm said:

#217 Care to be specific in your claims about meeting titles and posters?

Antonio Labriola on 14 February, 2008 at 2:31 pm said:

Now, now anticapitalista, stop trying to change the focus. What should SWP members do about Mr Rees?

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 2:32 pm said:

Anticapitalisa

Care to address the question of how Rees led the biggest organisation in the tendency into this morass?

Karen Elliot on 14 February, 2008 at 2:32 pm said:

anticapitalista: “How the SWP deal with it, is up to them, not SU”

oh fsck – and here was I thinking that Rees might let us have some say in the matter.

Failing that, though – do you mind, son, if we continue talk about it? It seems worth commenting on. Who knows, maybe there are political implications? If nothing else, it will probably all need explaining in detail to Michael Rosen, the confused old man of this parish.

#218: “This was while Hussain was an SWP member of course. This is the same SWP that expelled Nick, Kevin and Rob for alleged breaches of discipline. ”

Not to worry, in the immortal words of SWP loyalists, it seems that their comrade Hussain has, fairly definitively, “expelled himself”

David on 14 February, 2008 at 2:34 pm said:

Of course, all you squabbling sectarians are missing the bigger picture. This clearly signals a left shift in the Tory Party.

At least I assume it does…

tonyc on 14 February, 2008 at 2:35 pm said:

Sorry, I just noticed that Richard Seymour demanded that Andy publish the SWP’s response.

Just in case people didn’t see it, I thought it’d be helpful if I posted it again here:

Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect
14/02/2008
Tower Hamlets Councillor Ahmed Hussain quashed rumours that he had joined the Tory party today and insisted that he was sticking with Respect.

Following stories in the local paper, The East London Advertiser, the leader of the Respect group of councillors Oliur Rahman said: “I spoke with Councillor Ahmed Hussain today and he made it absolutely clear that he is staying with Respect and stands by its values.”

Councillor Rahman added, “there are some people who want to jump on any rumour that gets out to damage Respect. They would be better advised to check the facts with me. Our Respect group remains united and ready to join the fight against the Tories and New Labour in the Greater London Authority elections.”

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 2:35 pm said:

I’m not happy.

1)Ahmed Hussain = TORY SCUM !!!!

2)Desperately needed left of Labour projects = credibility ruined in the eyes of Labour voters. Both Respect Renewal and Resect-SWP will suffer – as will the rest of us who are in neither.

3)But biggest contempt for Rees and the SWP CC who have proved they have no right to lead the revolutionary left.

4)This news makes it a terrible day for socialists. Now we need a sober appraisal and an honest accounting to rebuild thye left on a firm foundation.

sunshine1 on 14 February, 2008 at 2:35 pm said:

That’s it then he is a revolutionary SWP/Tory member of Tower Hamlets Council.

Let’s hope that we don’t have any new Tory additions to the Town halls by the end of the day.

My advise to the ‘socialists’ that are left in the SWP, is to seriously think of joining us in RR in earnest and be part of a genuine movement for change, not a fake.

tonyc on 14 February, 2008 at 2:35 pm said:

“Of course, all you squabbling sectarians are missing the bigger picture. This clearly signals a left shift in the Tory Party.”

The Tory Party is like a dog that’s gone mad – it’s time to put the dog down.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 2:38 pm said:

#220 SWP members should demand explanations from Rees and co.
Fairly simple really.

Oh I doubt I’ll get a reply from #217 as he/she won’t be able to come up with anything.

Prinkipo Exile on 14 February, 2008 at 2:39 pm said:

# 218 Sorry I meant to say: I find it hard to believe a Tory Councillor would go on the record to claim that Hussain had met senior Tories if it were not true.

Still trying to take it all in …

Louise on 14 February, 2008 at 2:45 pm said:

Wot’s this, the tactic of entryism in the Tory party..!! Blimey… amazing how far some comrades will go to build the revolutionary party and the class fighting alternative to NL.

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 2:47 pm said:

“Ex-Galloway ally confirms defection to Tories”
“Cllr Hussain, a former strong ally of Respect MP George Galloway”

I note how the East London Advertiser emphasises Hussain’s links with Galloway. With this media spin, they are attempting to damage Respect Renewal and Galloway by this SWP fermented farce in the eyes of the electorate:

The SWP and SWP RESECT could have limited the damage by expelling Hussain from both organisations with a loud fanfare as soon as they heard of this. But instead they compounded the damage by clinging on to him. Fools! Bloody fools!

Karen Elliot on 14 February, 2008 at 2:47 pm said:

tonyc: re. Seymour (I hate calling him ‘Lenin’, but even ‘Seymour’ is beginning to sound increasingly ironic), oddly he hasn’t as yet had time to even start to address the issue. When and if he does, expect some teary-eyed perorations about how tough the confusing world of municipal politics can be, how rent with contradictory forces it is, how hard to predict, how chimerical its manifestations, and how even those closest to you can let you down. However, not everything will be bad news, as ‘la lotta continua’ and he will be looking forward to the forthcoming council and GL elections with great optimism. The likelihood that there is anything important politically for SWP members to learn from the days news is, naturally, vanishingly small.

Perhaps he will take the scenic route and stop off first to write another of his blethering deconstructions of that terrible SWP renegade Christopher Hitchens. How the that particular matter relates to Seymour’s ambitions as a journalist and the Oedipal instinct, I cannot say.

The ghost on 14 February, 2008 at 2:49 pm said:

This is ridiculous.

You lot of sectarians crowing about John Rees. It was Ahmed Hussain who defected not John Rees. We are better of without him.

John Rees’s repuation is not damaged at all by this. He has brilliantly explained how we build broad alliances with people to the right of us in concentric circles, and this is the United Front of a Special Type.

This theoretical achievement is not diminished by some temporary diffficulties that no-one except the SWP are in our united front. In fact this makes us stronger.

Kevin Ovenden on 14 February, 2008 at 2:51 pm said:

Prinkipo

Part of the difficulty of taking it in is that Rees did a pretty good job with the “left/right” fairytale. It fitted the prejudices – often latent – of much of the left about what having a bunch of Bengali councillors meant.

So even people who were sceptical often ended up giving it some credence, hence the incredulity at this turn of events. Of course, if you had experienced the actual divisions in TH, you might have seen directly how Hussain’s opportunism was a factor in the situation from the beginning and his membership of the SWP a sick joke for anyone who takes revolutionary politics seriously.

His behaviour is perfectly explicable from an actual reading of TH politics, his and the local Respect’s. It is inexplicable if you place any store by the myth that he was part an embattled left under attack by right wing opportunists.

Larry R on 14 February, 2008 at 2:51 pm said:

# 233 – the ghost – you are a brilliant satirist! I love it!

Dear Koba on 14 February, 2008 at 2:51 pm said:

Anticapitalista,

when you wrote;

SWP members should demand explanations from Rees and co.

I think you made a mistake with you spelling, it should read:

SWP members should demand expulsions of Rees and co.

cameron on 14 February, 2008 at 2:56 pm said:

Clearly, the SWP has become very,very broad indeed under the leadership of Rees. So broad even David Cameron’s ‘inclusiveness’ project can infect it.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 2:56 pm said:

#236 No, no mistake on my part.

sunshine1 on 14 February, 2008 at 2:58 pm said:

I saw that John Rees’ at a meeting held in St.john’s Church Stratford in support of Michael Gavan, he was seated in one of the pews at the back and I realise only now that he was praying.

christian h. on 14 February, 2008 at 2:58 pm said:

Well, we see the once again the real reason Andy and other sectarians try to smear the SWP whenever they can: they are simply jealous that the SWP has an actual membership, actual resources, and actual support. While their tiny outfits have to ride on Galloway’s coattails in the desperate hope of getting noticed. It’s quite pathetic, really. Maybe you should all get together with Weekly Worker, you might get your membership up to a hundred. Enough to split again, I’d wager.

Louise on 14 February, 2008 at 3:00 pm said:

…”He has brilliantly explained how we build broad alliances with people to the right of us in concentric circles, and this is the United Front of a Special Type”.

Is this a wind-up? C’mon it sounds too spoof like.

If it is for real, clicking your heels, comrade Ghost, and repeating, “there’s no leader like John Rees” over and over again doesn’t make it true instead it sounds so hollow.

David T on 14 February, 2008 at 3:01 pm said:

Yes, but some of the SWP’s members are also members of the Tory Party.

Karen Elliot on 14 February, 2008 at 3:02 pm said:

anticapitalista – re. the headline to this page. Obviously your objections to it are now rendered void. However, I note that the official REESPECT site managed to post the story ‘Tower Hamlets Councillor stays with Respect’ mightily quickly this morning, proving that they are able to update the site in a timely way. Therefore I encourage you to concede to Andy that his headline was correct, and get on their case instead to change their story to ‘SWP Member and Tower Hamlets Councillor joins the Tories’. Anything else would be deliberately misleading.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 3:02 pm said:

Louise it was probably a babeuf spoof. He likes doing that.

anticapitalista on 14 February, 2008 at 3:03 pm said:

#243 I’m sure it will get changed, as if you give a ….

Neil Williams on 14 February, 2008 at 3:03 pm said:

Well here it is – the confirmation – AHMEM HUSSAIN HAS JOINED THE TORIES.
It really does leave Rees and Rahman with egg on their face does it not – why did they not expell him?

Ex-Galloway ally confirms defection to Tories
By Ted Jeory

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=elaonline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED14%20Feb%202008%2014%3A17%3A03%3A833