SOCIALIST UNITY

26 October, 2007

139 Comments »

1. “Cllr Abjol Miah has over an extended period now has failed to demonstrate the basic qualities and competencies essential for the post of Group and Opposition leader.”

   So why was he left in place as Group leader?

   Comment by Lobby Ludd — 26 October, 2007 @ 12:22 pm

2. 18 months ago the SWP attempted to wreck the SSP and then walk away from the ruins.
   Now they’re doing the same to Respect.

   Comment by Eddie T — 26 October, 2007 @ 12:29 pm

3. I don’t understand how people can make these broad programatic formulations whilst ignoring what actually happened in the meeting (Liam just seems to be apolitically upset with everyone for disagreeing).

   Those arguing for the alternative slate could not get a majority. Thats why the chair stormed out. This is after all the scandal and debate and everyone fully cogniscent of what was going on.

   The reality was that there were tensions inside TH between those who wanted a purely electoralist organisation and those who wanted a socialist component. For reasons which are unclear to me George decided to throw his weight behind the more conservative councilors on this issue.

   Whatever his intentions the result was that these councilers thought their moment had come and decided to drive out the left (trying to exclude even women Bengali councilers) presumably imagining that the very real moral and political authority of Galloway (which I should say has a real basis) would conceal what was really going on.

   It didn’t work whatever people say on Blogs. They couldn’t get a majority of any kind (this despite trying to prevent ordinary Respect members from coming into the meeting). So rather then come to a compromise the chair decided to abandon the meeting leaving the current chaotic position.

   All this vague talk about democracy and pluralism has nothing to do with what really happened, and it seems to me that many comrades are building castles in the sand. There is a real fight going on. Whatever the dislike of the SWP they should understand the logic of what is really going on.

   It might be very messy and the how we have come to this
   position controversial. But the logic of whats gone on in TH,
   whatever peoples intentions is now fairly clear, and clear to
   a lot of people in TH to.

   So of course there is now a problem between the councillers as the main driving force of all this was a group of councillers trying to use Georges intervention to mount a coup inside the local Respect Branch. From the beginning the idea that this involved some sort of political program which the left which has problems with the SWP could unite behind was farcical.

   Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:03 pm

4. I think Liam owes it to everyone to fill out the description of the meeting. I’ve been told the chair refused to take any votes. Is that true?

   Comment by Muon — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:07 pm

5. JOhnG: “trying to exclude even women Bengali councilers”

   But there were women on the alternative slate weren’t there. You seems to be implying that this was to keep women off, and motivated by sexism.

   BUt it could be (I assume it refers to Cllr Rania Khan) political differnces with her?

   Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

6. There seems to be several strands to this crisis that we need to differentiate.

   1) There is the issue of Tower Hamlets where there seems to be serious tensions. We should treat this as a separate issue from the others rather than conflating them.
   2) There is also the issue of democracy and the SWP seeing Respect as it’s personal property
   3) Galloway has his own agenda and has been unaccountable himself

   Even if we accept the SWP concerns as legitimate (which some are) the question is how do we resolve them. The proposal of building a “party culture” and more democratic structures advocated by Socialist Resistance seems the only way ahead.

   The SWP actions are not going to resolve these tensions and problems but just exacerabte them.

   The other thing is that in many areas of the country (if not most) these problems are not being experienced and generally the component parts of Respect work together, so essentially members are witnessing a dangerous dispute between the leaders as passive spectators.

   Comment by LJ — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:38 pm

7. I’d imagine that the Abjol Miah etc current in TH is a very contradictory and heterogeneous bunch, quite capable of having women on the slate, and with some individuals acting in a sexist way as well.
   I think that 4 councillors have resigned, not all of them swp.

   I’ve also heard that at an attempted peace meeting with Rees, Wrack and Thornett, the swp were asked why don’t they just leave Respect.
   Not much of a peace strategy that.

   Comment by Muon — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:38 pm

8. I should also note that the SWP Editorial and particularly the sending out of a press release with one section of Respect attacking another are extremely grave matters.

   One section of the left should not attack another in the bourgeois media.

   This is not going to help build Respect in Tower Hamlets.

   Comment by LJ — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:39 pm

9. Socialist Worker simply responded to two articles published elsewhere AND to a national news organisation getting in touch with us saying they were going to broadcast a national program attacking the SWP with interviews with our opponents. Its not the SWP responsible for the situation. Get off your high horse and try responding properly to the reality of what actually happened in the TH meeting and what it tells us about reality.

   Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:45 pm

10. yeah it could be Andy. The fact that she’s a left winger.

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

11. To clear this up there was a vote last night on a list. Apparently a sub-committee held a meeting after the last committee meeting on Tuesday to try and thrash out a compromise, they failed. At the meeting, there was an agenda, and attached to this a list of 80 deleagtes for conference. It appears that there was a late surge in membership. This list comprised approximately 10% of SWP and their supporters. It also excluded some significant SWPers who were on the original, original list. The chair said lets have a vote on the list, no more than 40% of people in the room put their hands up. The chair then basically said, that it’s, that list goes to conference. At which point the meeting descended into chaos.

    Comment by NL — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

12. Sorry if I’ve missed it, but has any blogs/articles covered what the implications are for the STWC if and when the SWP break from the Respect Coalition?

    Surely this possible rupture will also bleed over into the workings of the STWC?

    Comment by Darren — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

13. I’m also noting that noone is responding to the reality that the chair walked out because they wouldn’t win the vote. And thats the only reason there is ‘chaos’.

    I have some sympathy with the comrade who suggests the TH crisis should be bracketed. But I also think that the poisen arising out of this has a lot to do with why we’re all in trouble.

    What were elsewhere quite serious problems but probably ultimately resolvable, got blown up to histrionic heights by the political stakes of what was happening in TH.

    I have not a little sympathy as well with the idea that many members feel like they’re helplessly watching a clash of egos amongst leaders. But the TH debacle reveals that there was more to it then this.

    I would suggest it was the real reason why apparently marginal arguments rapidly escalated into a full blown national crisis. I think understanding this does change things.

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:52 pm

14. Darren

    That is a good point, and perhaps we will see tomorrow when STW have their conference.

    I suspect that there is enough common ground to work together, and I am sure that Andrew Murray will do his best to kepp it all together

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:55 pm

15. In other words this was an anti-democratic move. All this talk of late surges. Really. How absurd. Hundreds of people were being recruited and paid for by a single counciler just a couple of weeks ago. Did you not notice?

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 1:56 pm

16. I don’t think resigning the respect whip in TH council is equivilant to leaving Respect. Especially when the people who’ve forced them to do this are not people who command the majority of support amongst Respect members as demonstrated by the meeting last night. I’m somewhat more concerned about the no doubt mischievous rumour that GG is about to resign from Respect today.

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

17. If these people are so incredibly awful, why on earth was the SWP assenting to their selection and campaigning for them in the elections?

    Comment by Matt S — 26 October, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

18. JohnG

    I’m not letting this one slip past without comment. Regarding comment #3

    “The reality was that there were tensions inside TH between those who wanted a purely electoralist organisation and those who wanted a socialist component. For reasons which are unclear to me George decided to throw his weight behind the more conservative councilors on this issue.”

    So you are implying electionists can’t be socialist in any degree? This is just the problem with JohnG and his fellow acolytes. You seem to think the SWP has a monopoly on left-wing politics. It is this attitude that you and your acolytes display that prevent any pluralist functioning within Respect. I believe it is you that should be regarded as the conversative here, harking back to a supposed conflict of principles, preventing things from moving forward.

    Comment by red eck — 26 October, 2007 @ 2:26 pm

19. Two other councillors have also resigned the whip, the Tories are the official opposition in TH.

    Comment by blimey — 26 October, 2007 @ 2:39 pm

20. I’m not suggesting for a moment that you can’t be a socialist and take elections seriously. I’m suggesting that there were serious tensions about the balence between principles and winning (as is increasingly apparent as more and more resign the whip). We campaigned for the councilers concerned because it was a democratic decision to do so. My own feeling is that the left in TH beyond the SWP is mobilising and people are waking up to what were the machinations of a small minority. This also rather undermines those who think these divisions reflect monolithic communal muslims versus a bunch of whitey trots. It doesn’t. Its a left right thing. Bengali’s believe it or not are familiar with this kind of thing.

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 2:48 pm

21. “Two other councillors have also resigned the whip, the Tories are the official opposition in TH.”

    got any more details?

    Comment by point — 26 October, 2007 @ 2:55 pm

22. Andy of course they had to make a statement…they are elected figures and are duty bound to xplain to those who elected them. What else should they do send it out to the blogs?

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:00 pm

23. The following TH Respect Cllrs. have resigned the whip:

    Lutfa Begum
    Rania Khan
    Ahmed Hussain
    Oliur Rahman

    Shahed Ali is expected to follow with an announcement this afternoon, which would lead to the Respect group having 6 councillors and the Tories 7, making the Tories the official opposition. (Sorry for jumping the gun earlier, I thought Shahed had already announced his resignation). In this case, Glyn Robbins’ partner Eileen Short, Unison/ex-SWP bureaucrat and currently the Respect group’s “Political Advisor” (paid by the council) would become unemployed.

    See also the local paper East London Advertiser (online edition) - “‘Bengali Tigers’ maul Galloway’s Respect party” http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk

    Comment by blimey TH insider — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:02 pm

24. Andy, When Galloway announces his new party will you be joining or staying in respect to fight for democracy?

    Comment by martin ohr — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:18 pm

25. I doubt it, he seems to prefer deleting comments which refer to this afternoon’s press conference…

    Comment by blimey TH insider — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:18 pm

26. I deleted a comment earlier becasue it linked to Harry’s Place

    There is a house rule here not to link to harry’s Place, as they are a dishonest, Mccarthyite bunch of chancers.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:21 pm

27. Even when they provide the latest news first, eh… (which they copied from the Advertiser…)

    And a “bunch of chancers” who seem to enjoy linking to your page at the moment. WHo does that say more about…I wonder…?

    Comment by blimey TH insider — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

28. Actually they didn’t have the news first - the press release was on Liam’s blog before that.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:31 pm

29. Which only listed (and lists) 2 of the 4 councillors.

    Comment by blimey TH insider — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

30. Refering to George Galloway’s businessmen chums in Tower Hamlets, Matt S wrote: “If these people are so incredibly awful, why on earth was the SWP assenting to their selection and campaigning for them in the elections?”

    And if the SWP is so awful, then whey did Nick Wrack, Rob Hoveman, Kevin Ovenden, Nick Bird, Ger Francis and the rest of the anti-SWP witchhunters spend so long in an organisation they now denounce as rotten to the core? And if Tony Blair was so awful, then why did Galloway call on voters to vote for him and his wretched party so often, before finally being kicked out? The obvious answer is that there is a dialectical rule about quantity transforming itself into quality or, in more common parlance, the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Different indviduals (and groups) make different choises as to when exactly they have had enough. All left-of-Labour groups have tended to welcome those who break from Labour a latter point than they themselves did - provided, that is, they accept the democratic structures, left-wing policies and constitution of their new home. George Galloway’s base amongst the Tower Hamlets businessmen is a consequence of unprincipled, disruptive entryist work by those who were prepared to pay lip service (if that) to genuine equality. SWP members, and other socialists, in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere have finally woken up to just how grave a problem these anti-socialists pose to the working class core of Respect. They should have taken action much, much earlier. Still, better late than never.

    Comment by Tom — 26 October, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

31. Here I stand - Glyn Robbins, chair of Tower Hamlets Respect

    Glyn Robbins has been chair of Tower Hamlets Respect from the earliest days. This is his contribution to the discussion.

    I have watched the crisis in RESPECT with a growing feeling of impotence. Since George’s letter, there has been a sense of inevitability about the course of events that I have likened to a runaway train that will only stop when it hits something.

    I have occasionally been portrayed as being on both sides of this argument, but the fact that such a division even exists demonstrates that RESPECT has lost its way. I have tried to remind people of our founding principles, but it seems that the true meaning of “coalition” has been forgotten. I believe that our 80% principle was fundamental and the only way that we could avoid the infantile disorder that has characterized other attempts to form a board left alternative, Such factionalism is deeply alienating to the people we should be trying to appeal to.

    The SWP

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the SWP. The very fact that I feel the need to make this statement and in those words should alarm anyone who is serious about left wing politics. For as long as I’ve been involved in the labour movement (over 25 years) there has been a neurosis about the SWP that, at its most extreme, almost requires medical treatment. I am sorry to say that there are some people within our movement who are far more interested in fighting the SWP than our enemies. I believe this is once again being demonstrated in the current crisis.

    There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the criticism being made of the SWP’s role in RESPECT. It is being argued that the SWP is not giving enough priority to the project, but at the same time, it is trying to dominate it! I don’t think you can have it both ways. The truth is that RESPECT would not have achieved what it has without the SWP. In the past, some of those who are now attacking the SWP have been only too happy to accept its resources, particularly when it was time to do the hard leg work. Has the role and nature of the SWP changed since the start of 2004? I don’t think so. Why is it that some people have suddenly woken up to all its supposed failings?

    I have always said that I want RESPECT members to belong to only one political organization, as I do. But in our infancy, this is an entirely unrealistic expectation and moreover, it is contrary to the founding agreement we entered into. I am also reminded of the hypocritical treatment of Militant in the 80s when it was OK for some groups to organize within the Labour Party, but not others.

    In my view, the SWP has, on the whole, exercised its numeric strength within RESPECT responsibly. It has agreed to balance representation on the National Officers and Council and in the selection of candidates. (I speak with experience. I have had my own attempts to seek nominations spiked by the SWP on two occasions!) It has also committed significant resources to RESPECT. There have been times when particular campaigns have not been handled by the SWP in the way that I would have liked and it has not always been good at identifying the moments when consensus was needed, although I’m sure it would now argue that it has made too many compromises. But the onus has always been on those who see the role of the SWP as incorrect or domineering to counter it by recruiting more members and winning arguments. Sadly, we are now seeing an unprincipled attempt to do the former, but not the latter.

    George Galloway

    I have been criticized, and probably rightly, for being too indulgent of George. This may be the result of my upbringing, but I don’t want to go too far down that particular road of psycho-analysis! However, I have always stated that I am proud of what we achieved in Bethnal Green and Bow and proud to have him as my MP I have always believed, whatever his personal foibles, that he is genuinely committed to the cause of socialism, the working class and the fight against imperialism. I have not changed that view. I’ve had the opportunity of seeing George speak and campaign in a wide range of situations and I believe he has a special ability to communicate political ideas, which is why it has sometimes been very frustrating that he has spent too much time doing other things.

    If George Galloway is a monster, he is one of our own making. George catapulted RESPECT to a place of prominence that it would never have had without him and we were happy to go along with it. The leadership of RESPECT perpetuated the cult of the personality and this was a mistake. I said at the time of Big Brother that we would always be susceptible to unforeseen events if we allowed the organization to be personified by one individual, however talented. We made the same mistake in Tower Hamlets, allowing a virtual one man dependency culture to develop. One of our members once said “we should all be George” and he was right.

    As the former Chairman of Tower Hamlets RESPECT, I take personal responsibility for another mistake - of not insisting on more accountability from George. Had we done so, and had George agreed, it would have made the current demands from him for RESPECT to be more accountable sound more genuine, rather than raising wry smiles.

    George Galloway’s letter

    When I first read George’s letter, I welcomed it. I knew that some of his arguments would be contested and controversial, they may even have been unwise, but I believed that his overall conclusion was correct, namely: that if RESPECT were to continue to succeed, we would have to significantly improve our organization in a number of key areas. I doubt that anyone can seriously disagree with this.

    Unfortunately, what I saw as an obvious and essential need for improvement very quickly became a polarized argument and in particular, has been used by some as a pretext for an attack on the SWP in general and John Rees in particular. This was made very clear at the meeting I attended on 4th September when three members of George’s delegation called, in more or less veiled terms, for John to resign.

    I don’t know if this was always George’s intention or if he always planned that this would inevitably lead to a battle royale in RESPECT.

    I don’t feel the need to defend John Rees, any more than I do George Galloway. Both are perfectly capable of doing so for themselves. What I object to is the suggestion that John is solely or largely responsible for the shortcomings in RESPECT. This is absurd for at least three reasons. First, if we are evaluating John’s performance as National Secretary alongside the overall performance of RESPECT then it is a record of success, not failure. To remove John would be the equivalent of sacking a football manager who has just won his team promotion. Second, just as John alone is not responsible for RESPECT’s successes, nor can he be held solely responsible for its weaknesses. Thirdly, when you point the finger at someone else, you point three back at yourself. The sooner we all get away from the blame game and the idea that any one individual holds the key to our political fortunes, the better.

    What’s really going on?

    The latter point indicates the damaging, nonsensical and sometimes dishonest way in which the current argument is being polarized. I feel that the membership of RESPECT has been presented with a series of false choices. I do not want to have to choose between a more efficient political organization and John Rees. Similarly, I do not accept that for RESPECT to be a broader, more inclusive organization, it is necessary to attack the SWP or water down our core principles. I feel that there has been a tendency for real political arguments to be side-tracked or disguised, leading ultimately to the farce of different factions scrabbling around to find members or a loophole in the rulebook.

    There appears to be an argument from some quarters that the presence and influence of the SWP inhibits RESPECT’s potential. In particular, there is a suggestion that by having a strong socialist component within RESPECT, we alienate a wider layer of supporters, especially what has become crudely characterized as “The Muslim Community”. This argument is unproven and is contradicted by events. While we can never know the motivation of all the people who have supported and voted for RESPECT, I don’t think many of them will have done so without knowing the type of organization we are. We have the words “socialist”and “trade unionist”in our title, we have fought all our elections on explicitly left-wing manifestos and our MP has never hidden his socialist/labour movement background. Certainly a great deal of our success has resulted from an anti-war vote, but in my view, it is no coincidence that where we have been most successful we have succeeded in pushing beyond the war to domestic issues, particularly housing. From the little I know of it, the experience of Michael Lavelette in Preston utterly confounds the view that you can’t have a RESPECT politician who is white, a socialist, a trade unionist, a member of the SWP and is able to appeal to a wider layer of support, including Muslims.

    Having said that, I would also argue that RESPECT (or at least, those from a labour movement tradition within it) has a lot to learn about the nature of the Muslim community and we haven’t always been very good at listening to those who do understand it. Certainly we have made mistakes in Tower Hamlets. There are situations when tactical compromise is required, but this is the nature of politics and coalitions. Anyone wanting a purer form of politics should look elsewhere. On a personal note, I have found myself doing things in the last few years that I would have found inconceivable before RESPECT. I’ve spoken in prayer rooms, to male only audiences and attended the opening of Islamic schools. None of this do I regret. I believe it was absolutely necessary for us to do such things in order to reach out to a wider audience. (I would add that is has also widened my narrow, atheistic, world view.) Throughout my involvement in Tower Hamlets RESPECT I have also been constantly reminded that the Muslim community is also part of the British working class, a fact that I think has been misunderstood by many.

    One of the key areas where RESPECT has both under-achieved and found the strains of the coalition pulling has been in relation to the trade union movement. I was shocked recently, to be told that a meeting has taken place between a senior member of RESPECT and the general secretary of a big trade union and that the discussions about some form of partnership were encouraging. Why is it that we have not been talking about this for the past two months, instead of self-indulgent faction fighting? This is not a rhetorical question.

    Another real issue we are failing to seriously address is the balance between RESPECT as a campaigning organization and RESPECT as an election vehicle. Theoretically, we all know that there is no distinction between the two, but in practice, there is no doubt that our ability to win elections has brought with it problems. If I had to draw one lesson from recent events it is that we neglect grass-roots, real life campaigns at our peril. To do so is to crate a vacuum in which personal and factional interests flourish, while at the same time we weaken the connection between RESPECT and the local working class people we want to support us.

    As a young Marxist I was taught “be flexible on tactics and rigid on principle”. I think therein lies the real questions that are before us now. Has RESPECT been too flexible on principle and too rigid on tactics and how do we decide if we disagree?

    Personal behaviour and responsibility

    I know this is not really a subject for scientific Marxists, but I believe it is relevant to the state we’re in. I think those outside of active politics look to those inside to behave in a way that is consistent with their stated beliefs. I think those of us on the inside are entitled to expect the same. I have been deeply disillusioned by the personal conduct of some of our leading members. I am thinking about indiscipline (gossiping and briefing the press instead of open discussion), rampant egotism and outright nastiness. I do not accept the argument that all is fair in love and left-wing politics. We are all responsible for out actions, particularly if we hold representative and leadership positions. I feel that too often there has been a lack of basic integrity, that has meant there has been little respect within RESPECT.

    At the outset of this crisis, I told both factions that I thought they had signed a suicide pact. The prospect of RESPECT failing fills me with despair because I believe it was avoidable. Nobody ever said building an organization of its type would be easy, but with the right attitude, as well as the right actions, we could have built on the decent start we made. Sadly, we may be about to squander that important opportunity, but the opportunity remains.

    Comment by Toots — 26 October, 2007 @ 5:27 pm

32. why do you post under a different name every time - is it to try to make out that it’s different people supporting your position(s)?

    Comment by point — 26 October, 2007 @ 5:41 pm

33. This is an account of the meeting sent to me by somebody who was there:

    ‘Last night saw a further attempt orchestrated by the SWP to wreck the delegation selection meeting in Tower Hamlets. The meeting could not start for an hour because of disputes about who was and was not a member. This appears to be partly a product of complete incompetence on the part of the national office which is more and more a factional tool in the conflict between the SWP and more or less everyone else.

    When it did start the SWP tried to insist the meeting should debate and vote on a resolution of extraordinary length seeking to vindicate the dabacle the previous week when a rump declared they were indeed the People’s Front of Judea etc.

    After severely trying the patience of the chair with the usual patronising speeches and points of oder etc, the chair called a vote on the delegate list he had presented. When this appeared to be carried without any votes against, the chair declared that list passed and the meeting closed. There was then more chaos but I left! There will now be, I am sure, two rival delegations from Tower Hamlets at the conference.

    This was then followed by the press release below which had been pre-planned. The four councillors who have resigned the whip include the two SWP councillors and the two councillors closest to the SWP. I don’t think there will be any more. I also don’t think this was necessarily concerted with the SWP, although it is a development which has been encouraged by their behaviour. And although this is regrettable, it is the culmination of a split which has been there for eighteen months ever since Abjol Miah thwarted Oliur Rahman’s ambition to be group leader.’

    Comment by ger francis — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:12 pm

34. #9 John G. You keep saying that the SWP was approached by a news organisation claiming to have interviews attacking the SWP. The problem with this claim is that no such broadcast has gone out. There is also no corroboration. Galloway was on Question Time and didn’t refer to the SWP once. Neither you nor anyone in the SWP has provided any evidence at all that he or his co-thinkers have spoken to the press. The people we know to have issued a press release are two SWP councillors and two others who have split from Respect in Tower Hamlets. The facts and the timeline do not support the your case. There is a charitable explanatin: some journalist told the SWP office that they were running a story and had hostile quotes, so the SWP decided to give over its entire editorial to attacking Galloway. If that’s so then your central committee is too stupid to be invovlved in serious politics.

    Comment by Nas — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:23 pm

35. doesn’t fit very well with any other account i’ve seen. particularly not the bit about most people voting the chairs way. even from people hostile to the swp.

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:24 pm

36. I’m supporting the SWP.
    George fucked me and the Oil Cash went into his account.

    Comment by Amineh — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:31 pm

37. Time will tell on this one. Personally I think there is no story to be had unless it at least tries to be balanced. Crick has already tried the door stepping version.

    I hope that there has been no temptation to indulge in this and agree with Johng that anybody who thinks they will ultimately benefit from an exposee is wrong. Leave it for conference.

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:31 pm

38. actually i do find these hp scum creeping into these discussions one of the most unpleasent things about all this stuff. not blaming andy for this.

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:36 pm

39. nas i believe there is likely to be something on tonight channel 4 news. I for one, if its not true, will be very relieved, and will withdraw anything I’ve said about any of that. i don’t actually WANT people to be nogoodniks you know.

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:38 pm

40. even if i am a russian doll…

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:39 pm

41. Nas raises an important point. There is not a single shred of evidence to substantiate this so-called Galloway attack on the SWP in the media. I spoke to George before Question Time and asked him what his response would be if this issue was put to him, he said his reply would be along the lines that this was an internal issue to Respect which he was determined would not spill over into the anti-war movement. The people who have signed this so-called ‘witch-hunt’ appeal are being manipulated in a very crude manner to mask the SWP’s sectarian factionalism.

    Comment by ger francis — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:47 pm

42. George is corrupt JohnG
    You can say it now.

    Comment by Amineh — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:47 pm

43. I hope you are right Ger, as we all want to hold it together don’t we?

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

44. Johng: Does your characterisation of people going to the media about this split as “nogoodniks” extend to the Tower Hamlets councillors who appear to have resigned the Respect whip and issued a press release on the subject? Or does the label only apply to anyone who goes to the press to put the other side’s version of events?

    That’s meant as a serious question by the way. If you are really concerned with the negative implications of involving the media, shouldn’t you be concentrating your energies on stopping your own side - the people more likely to listen to your opinion - from doing so?

    By the way, I don’t think that there is anything wrong in principle with criticising others on the left in the mainstream media. I do think though that it shouldn’t be done lightly and that people need to have a sense of responsibility. I don’t see how resigning the whip and telling the press so just three weeks before conference helps either side in Respect, still less the organisation as a whole. Perhaps you can explain it to me?

    Comment by Mark P (the Irish one) — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:54 pm

45. Actually i think they had no alternative. They have been elected as respect councillors and should be the ones to point out their reasons for resigning the whip. Their constituents need to hear about it from them before anyone else does it for them. In this imperfect world how else are they meant to do it speedily?

    The alternative is silence and that is untenable if you have an elected position. In my opinion.

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 6:59 pm

46. WNP said: “Actually i think they had no alternative.”

    The problem with this is that it leaves out two crucial elements.

    The first is that it is difficult to see how they had no alternative but to resign the whip three weeks before conference, where decisions on all of this for better or for worse can be made. What was going to happen in the next three weeks that necessitate this?

    Secondly, once they had resigned and decided to issue a press release, it is difficult to see why they had no alternative but to include serious and personalised attacks on the Council group leader.

    Both actions seem calculated to raise temperatures further and to ensure media coverage.

    Comment by Mark P (the Irish one) — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:08 pm

47. JOhn G

    It is hard to apply a scheme for moderating comments that excludes the provocatuers of harry’s place, that doesn’t also stop some genuine people.

    Tom Delargy has caused as much damage as anyone in accelerating damage and ill feeling, but he is seemingly sincere. Should I delete his comments?

    It isn’t easy.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:14 pm

48. Mark P #46

    Yes indeed, the allegation: “his inappropriate behaviour to women councillors in the group is disgraceful”

    What does that imply?

    It was surely not necessary to make a personalised innueno of that sort.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:17 pm

49. It troubles me that bad behaviour towards women is always underplayed on this blog. This a Bengali woman telling it as she sees it. She joined Respect because she thought it was different.

    Mark P - I only commented on the press element as I thought that was what you were asking.

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:27 pm

50. One thing is clear to me now and that is TH delegation is not going to be pivotal at the conference. It will be the rest of the country that will decide the direction of Respect in the coming period.

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:33 pm

51. WNP: The resignation, the press release and the content of the press release are all clearly interlinked. I quite honestly can’t see the reasoning behind taking this course of action just three weeks before conference. Can you explain it to me?

    (If you can manage it, please try and respond this time without the vile insinuation that I am “underplaying” “bad behaviour towards women”.)

    Comment by Mark P (the Irish one) — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

52. WNP - what other examples do you have of bad behaviour towards women “being underplayed on this blog”??

    This is a serious question? What examples?

    It is easy to throw an accusation like that out. Especially as you are hiding behind a psedonym.

    The trouble with a press release mentioning “inappropriate behaviour” towards women, is that it implies sexual misconduct.

    If there had been sexual misconduct then the appropriate thing to do would to have been to treat it very seriously at the time. Not to wait until an appropriate moment in a faction fight and then bring it up.

    If it is not sexual misconduct that is being alleged, then much more careful use of words should have been found.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:38 pm

53. doesn’t fit very well with any other account i’ve seen. particularly not the bit about most people voting the chairs way.

    Putting Ger’s informant’s version together with Liam’s, it sounds as if the chair closed the meeting without asking for votes against.

    Comment by Phil — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:48 pm

54. “She joined Respect because she thought it would be different.”
    But why wasn’t it different in Respect? Was it because the leadership of the SWP said that issues like women’s rights, were not “shibboleths”, and that a broad alliance was necessary led by non-socialists?
    I think it was.
    This is an absolutely inevitable outcome of the SWP’s own politics inside Respect, which said that principles could be cast aside, for short term gain.
    And after three years of arguing that socialism and the struggle for equality were optional extras, the SWP shouldn’t be surprised when the “independents” take them at their word. When this “pluralist” alliance, which encourages (frankly) bigots not only to join but to lead, the SWP have to be clear why this all happened and why they are now ending up on the sharp end of what they created.
    Respect is now taking shape as the broad, non-socialist coalition, unbound by shibboleths, like women’s rights and lesbian and gay equality that the SWP wanted in the first place.
    And if you think its bad now, wait a couple of months, when GGs hegemony is complete.
    Time for the SWP membership to hold the leadership responsible for this terrible policy to account.

    Comment by bill j — 26 October, 2007 @ 7:52 pm

55. Bill

    This incredibly tedious stuff from Workers power (or whatever you are now) is very distracting from the real issues.

    Firstly, don’t call people bigots unless you are prepared to (and able to) back it up with evidence.

    Secondly, the 4 million votes lost by labour, and the 200000 party members lost by labour suggest that the potential is there for a broad left of centre party. I am sorry that it won’t be socialist enough for you, but you even walked out of the Socialist Alliance, so you don’t have much credibility on that argument.

    Also, it is incredibly tedious to read all this “hold the SWP leadership to account” nonsense. The issues within respect are nothing to do with policies, but all to do with the SWP’s control culture.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:06 pm

56. martin ohr said at 26 October, 2007 @ 3:18 pm”Andy, When Galloway announces his new party will you be joining or staying in respect to fight for democracy?”

    Will Galloway will announce his new party, is not Linda Smith the registered leader of the party.

    Comment by NL — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:13 pm

57. Johng wrote:nas i believe there is likely to be something on tonight channel 4 news. I for one, if its not true, will be very relieved, and will withdraw anything I’ve said about any of that.

    Well, there doesn’t appear to be anything about it on tonight’s Channel 4 news. Which leaves the pro-SWP side in Tower Hamlets as the only people to have gone to the media. Nogoodniks, or not, John?

    Who told you the Channel 4 rumour?

    Comment by Mark P (the Irish one) — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:21 pm

58. Well in your opinion its distracting from the real issues. Obviously not in my opinion.
    In my opinion the real issue is how to build a left organisation in the UK. Some people argue, that we need a “broad” “pluralist” alliance, that is definitely non-socialist and which does not demand that its members support basic issues like a woman’s right to choose (GG doesn’t in fact he campaigns against it) or lesbian and gay rigths (Respect councillors it seems object to going on Pride) and so on.
    In my opinion this for of politics, which says that principles can be thrown aside for short term electoral gain is a disaster and has lead to this disastrous situation in Respect.
    Is it possible to show that as a result of this policy, one which does not demand of the members of the organisation that they take up elementary defence of the oppressed, that bigots lead the organisation, of course it is. In fact it would be a surprise if this were not the case as it is the obvious and inevitable result of it.
    Is there evidence that there are bigots leading Respect? Well according to a young woman Bengali councillor yes there is. She has complained of her treatment by her male colleagues. Why should we doubt her word? Personally I don’t doubt it, notwithstanding there are certainly factional motivations.
    I won’t go on.

    Comment by bill j — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:23 pm

59. But Bill. Given that you belong to a political organisation that after 30+ years of independent activity have grown to the giddy height of 50 members, and which has zero impact in the world, are you really in a position to lecture the rest of us?

    In real politics, (politics that is about trying to change the world rather than about developing a turgid “line” in every subject to demonstrate the wisdom of you marxist leadership) then things are more complicated.

    You are very conservative, becasue you want to cling to the safe shores of what you know, instead of heading into the open sea.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:30 pm

60. But Andy, given that you belong to a political organisation that has 3 years of independent activity and is about to blow up into a mass of disintegrating fragments and which has done nothing except been a disaster for the British left, are you really in a position to lecture the rest of us?

    Comment by bill j — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:34 pm

61. I’m not lecturing anybody.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:35 pm

62. Sorry the last part of your post hadn’t loaded. You’re right of course, how post modern it all is, when the people who defend radical politics are branded “conservative.”
    And just be careful you don’t drown.

    Comment by bill j — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:36 pm

63. Mark P - my remark was not addressed to you.

    I simply feel that the way for example a female cllr was verbally attacked on Monday is passed over on here because her position don’t suit the argument raging against the SWP.
    I don’t remember you correcting Linda Smith’s assertion that Respect has ‘a national officers meeting with a built-in SWP majority’, so why comment on this?

    As far as the resignations go then I believe it to be the case that both ’sides’ tried very hard to get the cllrs to reconsider their action. They feel so strongly about events that they took the decision to distance themselves.

    Andy - you seem unable to prosecute any arguments too far without throwing out jibes. Re pseudonyms, is it really beyond your ken to realise that there are reasons why people choose to remain ananymous. Would it bother you that much if I sent posts agreeing with you?

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:36 pm

64. Sorry again Mark P I mixed that all up, its mostly addressed to Andy

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:39 pm

65. No WNP - I accept the need for psedonyms, but I have a long running objection to derogatory remarks being made by people using pseudonyms against people who are not. It is against natural justice not to be able to “face your accuser”.

    You made a very specific claim that this blog has a track record of underplaying bad tratment of women.

    You then have the affrontary to complain about me throwing out jibes!

    Surely saying that I underplay the bad treatment of women is a bit of a jibe, thrown out by you.

    When challenged to come up with examples, you have got all defensive and blow smoke that I am the one using jibes.

    Grow up.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

66. Not you personally perhaps but did you not offer Louise an olive branch aftre she detailed how she feels on here sometimes?

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:51 pm

67. I actually didn’t think it was a ‘galloway’ attack. If by Sunday there is no bit on any news channel I will withdraw anything I said about that (seriously).

    Comment by johng — 26 October, 2007 @ 8:54 pm

68. There obviously are all sorts of issues that should be open for debate about how to build a movement that is against all oppression and for the building of a society where the working class is in power.

    There are no easy answers. I don’t think #59 is entirely fair, especiallygiven that this is on a site titled socialist unity perhaps we should be slightly more friendly, welcoming and tolerant.

    Are the failings in Respect partly a result of consciously adapting to a wider movement and not always having clear policies against homophobic, racist and sexist oppression? May be. Are there clear policies against oppression? I suspect there are- is there a right to for oppressed groups to caucus? Not so sure but happy to be informed. Is there a healthy internal life with membership led meetings and accountability? Pretty sure there isn’t.

    Part of the problem has arisen I think from the SWP’s particular politics which encourages adaptations to what the SWP leadership see as their allies which is unfortunately also the leadership of communties- rarely elected.

    Whereas we should be for open socialist policies to be won in open democratic debate.

    It’s not entirely fair to say either that PR supporters haven’t contributed to the wider movement (we’re no longer in Workers’ Power- keep up!). Mark Hoskisson was the trade union officer who drafted the SA election platform and organised a meeting that got over 2000 trade unionists- Respect arose from when the SWP split the SA into something explicitly less socialist as Lyndsey German helpfully explained.

    Despite being out of Respect we in PR have continued to work with others on the left. It was partly down to the hard work of a PR supporter and of course quite a few other people as well that Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Act was not rolled out nationally thus saving thousands of failed asylum seeking families from being made hoemless, children put into care and adults living penniless on the streets. But perhaps that’s “zero impact in the world”- sorry, I beg to differ having put in such a lot of hard work to be told that it is of no importance seems a bit much.

    Of course in general it is right that no one has all the answers and certainly being in a group of less than 50 members no one in PR is pretending we do. This is a blog and an open discussion and good thing to- it’s still pretty rare on the left.

    I’m not quite sure why you are being so tetchy now Andy but hey never mind. Socialist unity is an excellent idea- and I beleive we can have it in terms of unity in action on the ground in the campaigns etc whilst having socialist forums for discussion and debate.

    We should be explicit about not having all the answers; freindly and welcoming to new people and ideas; being willing to learn, experiment and alter our ideas.

    Yes you’re right the experiences of the left have been very insular being in small groups (some smaller tahn others admittdly) and we need consciosuly to begin to look at how we can change this. The more forces we can draw into discussion and the development of our positions, even if in terms of clarifying our differences, the stronger our politics will become.

    For those reasons I think socialist unity groups or forums should may be tried in different localities, working of course with both sides of Respect but also others beyond our ranks. It’s got to be worth a try.

    Comment by Jason — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:00 pm

69. Jason - I am being “tetchy” becasue there is a disproportionate weight of posts (number and frequncy) from PR, whch then pulls the debate into an unrepresentative direction.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:04 pm

70. So I have just really tried my best nonestly to say how we should be more open and everything and now you’re saying I’m posting too much? Come on. Why don’t you respond to the spirit and the substance of the post which is to encourage new ways of thinking and relating?

    And why does my vew have to eb reduced to ‘posts from PR’?

    Do we have to see the world through group tainted spectacles? I don’t take every post you make as such do i?

    Comment by Jason — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:07 pm

71. WNP #66

    And your point is?

    That seems very light evidence to back up the serious charge that bad behaviour towards women is systematically underplayed on this blog.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:07 pm

72. fair point jason.

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:08 pm

73. OK fair enough. I’m going out now with among other people Bill so you’ll be saved from our comments for a little while now!

    However, one final parting point and I’ll come back tomorrow to see your reply. I know it can get emotional and all that- I’ve been there and more than once but admit we’re not in the bun fight this time round. So my point is that despite all th enegative emotions, the feelings of anger because good work seems to be being squandered etc, it really is possibel to find the new ways of working- we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the wider working class and if that sounds too abstract we owe it to families like the Sukulas who were denied benefits for 18 monts and could be deported tot heir deaths, to millions who live lives shattered by this sick system called capitalism. But capitalism was made by human beings and we- that means me and you among others- can make something better.

    I’m a great believer in the exponential power of success- if we get out of this mess still being able to talk and work together (and we can, think of the Sukulas and others)we can really begin to rebuild that left. The more forces we can draw into discussion and the development of our positions, even if in terms of clarifying our differences, the stronger our politics will become.

    So let’s get out there and start planting acorns! Though for now I’m going for a drink and a dance!

    Comment by Jason — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:15 pm

74. Andy,

    Why do you think ex-Labour PArty members would touch either Galloway or the SWP with a barge-pole? As for the 4 million voters, why do you assume that they would be attracted to Respect rather than the Tories or anyone else? Crazy!

    If Respect breaks up it can only be good for the British left as both components are rotten.

    Comment by paulm — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:27 pm

75. Get a life jason……..there’s more to life than blogging…like living.

    Comment by Toots — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:29 pm

76. And there is scant evidence that any of the women cllrs have so little integrity that they would make accusations willy nilly. But it seems to come down to who you want to believe and why.
    I am not so cynical that my first reaction about a woman I have never met is that she is using her gender to make a mark in a faction fight. But I guess that’s just me.

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:34 pm

77. WNP

    When people talk about “inappropriate behaviour towards women” they normally mean sexual misconduct.

    So shit or get off the pot.

    Is that what is being alleged?

    Comment by Andy — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:44 pm

78. Isn’t blogging just another form of armchair intellectual masturbation for a lot of people who havn’t got anything better to do in their time. The idea is to change society and the world instead of just talking about and chewing over it ad nauseum.

    Bring back the old Socialist unity website, updated and post up the articles. I fail to see what really is gained by this complete blogging blurr.

    May be if more socialists and activists spent more time meeting each other and more time in effective communication then things might look a bit better.

    Comment by Toots — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:45 pm

79. I don’t know what is being alleged. To me ‘inappropriate behaviour’ is sufficiently vague that it can mean many things. I didn’t write the release and I don’t know any of the people involved.

    Shit or get off the pot? What a nice image to create

    Comment by WNP — 26 October, 2007 @ 9:52 pm

80. What is so amazing is the way the adherents of both factions are refusing to address the political differences that supposedly divide them.

    It isn’t hard to conclude that the ‘left’ and ‘right’ labels both factions use to label each other, are deployed to evade any serious political discussion.

    Comment by cameron — 26 October, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

81. I don’t question the sincerity of Johng’s (#67) concerns about GG launching a full on media onslaught on the SWP. I do question the sincerity of the people who fed him this line. The ’stop the witch-hunt petition’ is one of the most cynical things I have seen on the left in a long time. The people who are signing it in good faith have been manipulated into so doing on the basis of a lie from the SWP leadership. The only consistent feature in their actions throughout this entire affair has been their dishonesty. To quote from Jerry Hicks resignation letter from the SWP:

    ‘After having overreacted to Galloway’s letter in August, the SWP leadership rallied its membership to emergency party councils and road shows, seeking votes of endorsements predicated on half truths and contorted facts to justify their position, in a dishonest and degrading manner.

    When sound judgement was needed we got poor analysis, when honesty and frankness were required we got a call for blind loyalty and expulsions.

    The situation has been appallingly handled by our SWP leadership, with a series of misjudgements eventfully reaching a position of a self fulfilling prophecy.’

    Comment by Ger Francis — 26 October, 2007 @ 11:16 pm

82. Is the rest of the text of that letter available anywhere?

    Comment by Mark P (the Irish one) — 26 October, 2007 @ 11:24 pm

83. Acolytes in the SWP number to a total of 552.

    Their petition is an own goal. They’ve only just revealed how small the SWP are.

    [I posted this originally on another thread, but this one seems to be more active]

    Comment by red eck — 26 October, 2007 @ 11:30 pm

84. To the SWP Central Committee and membership: From Jerry Hicks:

    Respect is in crisis. How did we arrive at where we are now?

    Was it George Galloway’s letter sent out on 23rd August 2007 to all Respect National Council members stating some observations, expressing some criticisms and making some suggestions? Or was it the hysterical reaction by the SWP leadership in the weeks that followed? Despite apocalyptical warnings and assertions of “no capitulation” in the SWP road shows that took place in September, virtually all of Galloway’s solutions were agreed but only after weeks of vile and damaging blood letting.

    On receiving the letter of August 23rd there were two ways of dealing with it. We had a choice to defuse or to ignite. We, i.e. the SWP leadership, chose to do the latter and have been fanning the flames ever since.

    I attended the Respect National Council meeting 22nd September 2007 where it became evident for the first time to the overwhelming majority of the council that there have been very serious and deeply disturbing problems for nearly two years.

    Every end has a beginning and a number of soul searching questions need to be asked.

    As the SWP is by far the single largest organisation in Respect, should it not then shoulder the greatest responsibility to ensure that Respect not only survives but grows, flourishes and prospers?

    How can it be that the national Respect membership numbers only 2500 when the SWP membership is nearly 6000. Obviously fewer than a 1/3 of the SWP membership are even in Respect?

    When was the last time we as individual members of the SWP took part in a campaign or union activity and identified ourselves as Respect?

    When did we bring anyone - friend, family, colleague or supporter of a campaign that we are involved in to Respect events or activities?

    When was the last time as an individual we recruited or even asked anyone to join Respect?

    Who is responsible for allowing this when the official line is that the SWP throws its full weight behind Respect?

    Why have so many SWP members not even joined Respect yet are called to go to meetings around the country to discuss Respect and are now being urged to join Respect and to get delegated to Respect conference! See email below sent out on the 17th October 2007…………….

    RESPECT ANNUAL CONFERENCE
    ‘The Respect annual conference is going to be very important this year. We are urging comrades do the following:

    You can only get delegated to Respect conference if you are a registered member. You MUST be a paid-up member by THIS FRIDAY, 19 October .Deadline for resolutions is Friday 19 October.
    Deadline for the election of delegates is Sunday 4 November. Once again we are urging as many SWP members as possible to get elected to the Respect Conference. If you have any questions please contact John Rees or the SWP National Office. Martin Smith, SWP National Organiser.’

    We, in the SWP also need to ask ourselves the following questions.

    Did we play any part in reaching this disastrous situation or is it all due to George Galloway’s letter of August 23rd 2007? When did it all start to go wrong? Was it August 23rd or long before that?

    Who or how many knew of the issues? Why was there no debate or discussion within the SWP or Respect National Council immediately problems began to arise to try to resolve the differences and thereby avoid being where we are now?

    In my view the responsibility rests with the SWP leadership for this situation of crisis to have been developing over many months, even years, whilst in the SWP we were told nothing.

    Is Bristol different and is this only a London thing?

    Lots of people in Bristol Respect have done lots of things but we only stood for one council seat in this year’s May elections. Let’s ask ourselves why. Was it because we had grown? Was it because we did not want to stand in any other ward?

    Or, was it in part because not enough people in the SWP in Bristol had either joined Respect or done one single thing to help Respect?

    Whilst we might not have the upheaval of Tower Hamlets, our own Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 27th September 2007 was almost ruined by our full time SWP organiser who wanted to call all the SWP members out of the room 5 minutes before the AGM was due to start, leaving non SWP Respect members (a third of the meeting) sat there not knowing what the hell was going on.

    That potential disaster was averted because I refused to let it happen, but it would have without my intervention. Who would bet that this is not happening elsewhere.

    Galloway was and is a maverick, warts and all. We all knew this. I am not making excuses just stating the blindingly obvious.

    The Big Brother experience was considered by many a mistake but his performance before the US Senate was unrivalled and made the name of Respect known across the globe.

    To describe Galloway as right wing is farcical. To vilify him and demonise him as the enemy beggars belief.

    The 27 members of the Respect National Council who are also critical of the SWP do not represent a “Galloway faction” as is being presented, nor are any of them right wing or witch hunters as we are being asked to believe. They include people like Ken Loach, Linda Smith, Victoria Brittain, Salma Yaqoob and Yvonne Ridley. They are all socialists, they are all remarkable people in their own right and they are all senior members of Respect.

    I feel that our SWP leadership has created an atmosphere where an observation made is described as a criticism, where any criticism is taken as an attack which is transposed as being ‘right wing’.

    Are we really supposed to believe that we were in an ‘all or nothing’, ‘them and us’ situation where everything we the SWP say must be true and that everything the ‘other side’ says must be lies. Everything we the SWP do is right but everything they do is wrong!

    Frankly, as in life or politics this
    ludicrous.

    After having overreacted to Galloway’s letter in August, the SWP leadership rallied its membership to emergency party councils and road shows, seeking votes of endorsements predicated on half truths and contorted facts to justify their position, in a dishonest and degrading manner.

    When sound judgement was needed we got poor analysis, when honesty and frankness were required we got a call for blind loyalty and expulsions.

    The situation has been appallingly handled by our SWP leadership, with a series of misjudgements eventfully reaching a position of a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Have we just thrown away a fantastic opportunity? Are we now dashing the hopes of millions having given others and ourselves a glimpse of what is or was possible?

    Was it right that so many were ready to join the chorus of catcalls vilifying some of Respect’s brightest stars without more thoroughly questioning the denouncements.

    I have seen things that I can no longer accept.
    I have heard things from meetings I have been at described in a way that I don’t recognise.

    No longer will these things be done in my name.

    For the reasons that I have set out, as from this moment I am resigning from the SWP.

    To those of you who will feel let down I offer an unreserved apology, to those who will feel disappointed I am truly sorry, to those who could not care less and who may from here on invent their own distorted version I wish you well in your world.

    We all have to live with our own decisions and I know I am leaving the SWP with my integrity and honour intact and feel sure that I will be able to sleep well at night, safe in the knowledge that I did what I did for the right reasons at the right time and with the best intentions.

    Jerry Hicks.

    Comment by Ger Francis — 26 October, 2007 @ 11:43 pm

85. Jerry Hicks resignation letter from the SWP
    Comment 82: “Is the rest of the text of that letter available anywhere?”

    Yes, I woud like to publish it in full on the Respect Supporters Blog to prove once and for all this is not a Left v Right debate or Witch Hunt. Jerry Hicks record speaks for itself and many Respect and SWP memebers would take note of his statement. I will publish what we have from Comment 81 from Ger Francis and then amend it later with the full contents of the letter if Ger or anyone else has it.

    Neil Williams

    Comment by Neil Williams — 26 October, 2007 @ 11:49 pm

86. I notice that one Ger francis is commenting her: I wish to place on record the fact that this character is a hooligan and a gangster who has, personally, threatened me with physical violence: he has no place in the workers’ movement and is a disgrace to any organisation that is willing to keep his company,

    Comment by Jim denham — 26 October, 2007 @ 11:50 pm

87. Neil, feel free to publish. I have sent to Andy and expect him to post when he gets round to it.

    Jim Denham is hilarious. My memort of the last meeting I attended in which he was present was, Ihooligan and a gangster

    Comment by Ger Francis — 26 October, 2007 @ 11:57 pm

88. Interesting - people who agree with the SWP are “acolytes”, “deluded”, “manipulated”. Those who support the other side, presumably, are “thoughtful”, “independent minded”, “clever” - perhaps “beautiful” too, just to ensure all bases are covered. The mainstream media couldn’t do a better job of using language as a substitute for analysis in the Chomskian mold. Sadly, you may convince yourselves but you’ll mostly just offend your opponents rather than winning them.

    The jargon on here epitomizes the saying “more heat than light”

    red eck - i suppose your petition has many more names.

    Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:00 am

89. Opps. Posted by mistake. What I was about to describe was the final Socialist Alliance meeting I attended in Birmingham, which Alan Thorenett addressed, in which the highlight was Jim drunkenly following Stuart Richardson around the room threatening to punch him. And this while the meeting was in full flow. Glory days.

    Comment by Ger Francis — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:01 am

90. The letter is so well written I am surprised Jerry was not employed by Socialist Worker

    Comment by WNP — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:08 am

91. This blog has hosted the debate on the SWP. Can’t you relate such arguments with events in the real world? - no - therefore, i’m justified with using the word ‘acolyte’ to describe your ilk. Why don’t you get that spammer Johng to come on and waste some more space?

    Don’t you see Jerry Hicks criticism? Or will you still be suggesting that he was ‘duped’?

    Don’t worry Canadien, all us ‘gallowayite, communalist, homophobic , right-wingers’ will all be purged in due course. You’ll have a nice little concentrated sect then. Enjoy.

    Comment by red eck — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:09 am

92. John G

    You’ve been had. The only contact between George Galloway and the media this week has been Question Time. He did Talksport all this week and as with Question Time there was no mention of the SWP or splits (why should there be, only a microfraction of the audiences is even aware of these issues.

    I know the centre has pushed this line but it has lied. I put it that bluntly because you, Bat, James, Richard and all the other bloglanders in the party need to confront this. (Others need to too but let’s stick with us in this medium for now.)

    There’s no right wing attack; there’s no recourse to the media by those opposing the CC; there’s no attempt to split from Respect except by two SWP councillors, one of their daughters and a councillor who was told that it was advisable not to join the SWP at this juncture.

    John, we know each other. You are arguing here as you used to on Harry’s Place. You know that’s incommensurate. You and other SWP members are reading this blog. You must ask why the CC is abandoning the perspective we developed over a broad left formation. There’s no point saying you’ll raise these criticisms in the pub or around the dinner table after this absurd loyalty parade in defence of the CC. You will compound the damage. Look reality in the face and give an honest account.

    If you say you are doing that internally, I look forward to hearing it. So far you have been silent. John, this isn’t the voyage we signed up for

    Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:15 am

93. red eck wrote: “Don’t you see Jerry Hicks criticism? Or will you still be suggesting that he was ‘duped’?

    Don’t worry Canadien, all us ‘gallowayite, communalist, homophobic , right-wingers’ will all be purged in due course. You’ll have a nice little concentrated sect then. Enjoy.”

    See, this is what’s called a “straw man” argument. It’s perfectly suited for bullying people but not so good at convincing anybody or accessing the truth. Shall I explain to you why it’s an absurd argument point by point?
    1) Will I “still be suggesting” Jerry Hicks is a dupe? I never suggested Jerry Hicks was a dupe anywhere at any time in any place.
    2) I never called you a “Gallowayite etc etc” nor suggested you should be purged. I don’t even know who the hell you are.
    3) I’m not a member of the swp.

    Once upon a time there was a man in America named Dale Carnegie who ran courses called “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” You, I humbly suggest, are badly in need of such a course.

    Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:24 am

94. Well then, do you see Jerry Hick’s argument? Or are you going to keep looking for the ‘truth’.

    ‘gallowayite, communalist, homophobic , right-wingers’ is a summary of all the smear the Leadership have flung at those who who dared to rattle their cage. My ’straw’ man is very much real I’m afraid.

    The ‘duped’ suggestion I believe originated on Lenin’s Tomb in response to the news that Ken loach and co did not back the Leadership. You can’t find that thread anymore, as Richard has wiped out the thread.

    And your third comment, well, what’s it to you if I want to express my disdain at the conservatives in the SWP? As you’re so keen to defend them and not concede to the arguments being put against here, perhaps you should join? Although I’d rather you didn’t.

    Comment by red eck — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:41 am

95. I can’t understand why people are taking the statements of the ex-swp Respect people at such face value. Jerry Hicks resignation is clearly dis-ingenous (aside from the the fact that since when has salma yaqoob been a socialist as he states, as for Yvonne ridley!). What Ovenden, Hoveman, Wrack and now Hicks fail to explain in anything they have written since leaving is 1) why they didn’t stay in the SWP and fight for what they think is the correct line on respect. 2) why they never raised even a murmour of criticism before the galloway letter. It’s been almost a religous conversion from revolutionary socialism to populist reformism in the space of 4 weeks.

    If Ovenden in comment 92 can’t admit Galloways orginal letter, his morning star article and the post on his website weren’t open attacks on the SWP then he’s either a fool or a liar.

    Comment by martin ohr — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:43 am

96. “Get a life jason……..there’s more to life than blogging…like living.”

    Well as Jason post’s have said:

    i) that he is about to go out for the night

    and

    ii) that he is active in many community campaigns

    what you’re saying is clearly a load of olly ‘ollox

    The thing that is sad about this debate, as with the SSP, is the apolitical nature of it all. Everything is reduced to cliques, personalities and structures. Now for sure the lack of democracy and the way the SWP operates is a real problem, but not many people on here seem to relate this to the fact that it flows from the SWPs politics.

    Andy might not like the comments made by PR members but the fact is that many people (not just PR by any means) have pointed out the inherent flaws in RESPECT from day one and this is just the chickens coming home to roost. How ironic that the SWP are complaining of a lack of democratic practices and complaining that the Gallowayites are being opportunistic and that they pander to rightist and communalist politics. When people raised these points not so long ago they were branded Islamophobic and sectarians. Am I missing the dialectic here?

    However it seems that the split in the SWP will be to the right, not to the left, meaning that the lessons of what has happened (in my view anyway, don’t want to lecture), will be largely lost. Like with the SSP. And the left will be set back from its already pathetic standing.

    It’s easy to drop revolutionary politics for short term gain but history has shown it never works. Refondazione (sp?!) in Italy is a classic example and the Left Party in Germany seems to be showing all those signs. It’s not about being pure as Andy has said but relating revolutionary politics to concrete struggles. That doesn’t mean you stand there shouting one solution, revolution, it means you apply revolutionary politics to real situations and enter into real united fronts that don’t involve hiding your politics.

    I mean what happened with RESPECT? We were told that it came out of the mass anti-war movement, but that’s utter rubbish. It’s membership has never topped 6000 and is now about 3000. It’s always been a tiny organisation that was created in a lash up between Galloway and the SWP and never attracted any real forces. Now it’s one things revolutionaries entering real reformist organisations that arise from class struggle but another thing when revolutionaries think they can pretend to be shadow reformists to attract real reformist forces. That tactic will always fail.

    Comment by CR — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:46 am

97. “1) why they didn’t stay in the SWP and fight for what they think is the correct line on respect. 2) why they never raised even a murmour of criticism before the galloway letter. It’s been almost a religous conversion from revolutionary socialism to populist reformism in the space of 4 weeks.”

    Well doesn’t this suggest a problem with the SWP, that leading “cadre” can switch like that overnight?

    However I suspect the real reason they didn’t say anything earlier is because the SWP has such a stalinist/cult-like internal life where organised opposition to the leadership is banned for 9 months of the year. I mean what kind of organisation does that?

    Also I should think the SWP CC is rubbing their hands with glee that the people concerned didn’t form an internal oppositional faction as it would have caused them far more damage.

    Comment by CR — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:50 am

98. Canadien, you’re in no position to accuse others of using strawman arguments:

    Interesting - people who agree with the SWP are “acolytes”, “deluded”, “manipulated”. Those who support the other side, presumably, are “thoughtful”, “independent minded”, “clever”

    Not a single reference to a specific comment or even a specific poster. No attempt to engage, persuade or even express disagreement - nothing anyone can use or learn from.

    Comment by Phil — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:52 am

99. Jerry Hicks letter is now published in full on the Respect Supporters blog.

    This is one of the most important contributions made in the last two weeks, and that made by NIck Wrack as well, as they are both repected SWP/Respect members and can give the ‘inside story’. The Left v Right myth is now totaly in tatters and the real debate about the future of Respect can now begin without the lies and distortions getting in the way.

    Neil Williams
    http://respectuk.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Neil Williams — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:54 am

100. Thinking about it, the only straw man here is the one the acolytes had erected: Mr gallowayite communalist homophobic right-winger.

     No-one was impressed by this. No apology was subsequently given, no retraction.

     Comment by red eck — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:54 am

101. 1. Because they were expelled you moran. And Jerry would have been.
     2. They did.
     3. Give me ‘reformism’ over the pro-imperialist cheerleading of the Alliance for White Liberty anyday.

     When the AWL are on your side be afraid. Be very afraid.

     Comment by Ger Francis — 27 October, 2007 @ 12:54 am

102. Let’s hope GG continues this approach to the media…to paraphrase Kev O, it’s no more than we should expect from him.

     Comment by WNP — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:01 am

103. “When the AWL are on your side be afraid. Be very afraid.”

     Indeed, ironies of ironies, the AWL now siding with the SWP.

     “The Left v Right myth is now totaly in tatters”

     Yeap lets get down to the real nitty gritty of the upcoming split. Personalites and cliques.

     Also have we got a gangsta on the boards? Are you related to Al Capone? I’ve gotta be honest and say most people I’ve come across on the far left couldn’t fight there way out of a paper bag, but anyway, moving on.

     Comment by CR — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:03 am

104. red eck: “And your third comment, well, what’s it to you if I want to express my disdain at the conservatives in the SWP? As you’re so keen to defend them and not concede to the arguments being put against here, perhaps you should join?”

     “what’s it to” me? Hey dumbass, this is a discussion board where people debate and stuff. Perhaps you’re familiar with the idea: you know, the interplay of opposing beliefs to test their veracity, internal consistency, etc.

     Funny how you sound exactly like the people you condemn: “shut up and agree or you’re the enemy and to hell with you.” Luckily, we don’t live in your manichean fantasy world. And even luckier, your vile method of arguing is absolutely unconvincing so there is no fear that anyone will join your particular cult, whatever it may be. Galloway should shudder that you’re on his side.

     As a side note: At first I thought this was an interesting board with some thoughtful articles but now I see that was simply an attractive outer shell, underneath which are nasty, mindless sectarian zombies, slavering over the possibility of having a go at the swp. God, what would you have to talk about if you weren’t obsessing about the swp? You’d be stuck yelling at each other.

     Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:05 am

105. “God, what would you have to talk about if you weren’t obsessing about the swp? You’d be stuck yelling at each other.”

     SHUT UP

     (this is a joke by the way, before I get yelled at)

     Comment by CR — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:15 am

106. Time for bed, I reckon. Kudos to Jerry Hicks for setting out the position so clearly - and to Kevin for trying to reach out in a humane way to poor John who is, I’m afraid, still very much inside the cult.

     One last titbit. A mate who knows the hierarchy of the SWP very well tells me that there is at least one person on the CC who is seriously considering their position. Might come to nothing but, hey, we live in interesting times.

     Comment by Tony T — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:17 am

107. ‘The Big Brother experience was considered by many a mistake but his performance before the US Senate was unrivalled and made the name of Respect known across the globe’

     It’s interesting that Jerry Hicks choses to put these events in this order. If only this was the way it happened.
     I for one would like to know the memebership numbers at the Senate hearing, and then see how far they slumped after Big Brother. I personally know many who left and others who had managed to get collegues to vote Respect and then faced their disappointment and withdrawal of support.

     Comment by WNP — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:17 am

108. Ger,

     calm down,

     in response to your points:

     1) wrack, ovenden, hoveman were expelled for refusing to follow CC instructions relating to their work inside respect -they could have complied and fought the policy like an honest revolutionary would have done. What pretext would the cc have for expelling Hicks?
     2) when? where?
     3) are you suggesting that AWL are some sort of proto facists? or just a feeble joke to cheer yourself up?

     as far as I know AWL are not backing any side in this crisis, for my part I’m surprised that this site has swung over into full scale idiot mode in joining the swp witchhunt, after years of patiently criticising all aspects of the faults with respect.

     Jerry Hicks is clearly off his trolley if he genuinely thinks Yvonne Ridley is a socialist -have you ever read anything she’s written -makes you wonder if anything in Jerry’s letter is true.

     Comment by martin ohr — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:19 am

109. Phil:

     #41 - people who support the SWP are being “manipulated”.
     #81 - once again supporters are manipulated
     Everything by “red eck” - SWPers are “acolytes”, he also seems to like the word “ilk” (post #91).

     Would you like me to go back through other threads to find quotes which express disdain for people who don’t support the Galloway side of the argument? When I read Glyn Robbins letter on Liam’s blog the first three posters threw around personal insults at him and didn’t engage with his arguments. That seems pretty typical here.

     Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:19 am

110. Phil, one more for you:

     #106 - “poor John who is, I’m afraid, still very much inside the cult.”

     Clear enough yet?

     Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:20 am

111. It is easy and correct to sympathise with Jerry Hicks when he relates the toytown manoeuvres of his local SWP appointed fulltimer. It is also easy and correct to agree with Kevin Ovendens completely correct argument that there is no right wing attack on the SWP on the part of GG and his wing of Respect the populist alliance.

     What I cannot agree with is the total abandonment on the part of these comrades of the revolutionary socialist project and the neccesity of constructing a revolutionary party. Nor can I agree that there is no element of a split between a socialist left and a populist/communalist right in Respect.

     The fact of the matter is that the current leadership of the SWP co-founded Respect aware of the class nature of their allies and their dodgy politics. The fact of the matter is that the conception of respect as a ‘United Front sui generis’ dreamt up by the good Professor Callinicos was nonsense from start to finish but why did none of the erudite comrades of the SWP say this at the time?

     The crux of the matter is that this split in Respect is a split between a socialist left and a populist right. A split in which any decent socialist will take the side of the SWP rank and file as the immediate cause of the split, namely Galoways affront to the position of John Rees, is of no importance.

     Comment by Mike — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:22 am

112. martin ohr, Canadien, WNP - what’s it like to be in a cult when it’s being subjected to criticism from outside, and even some within the cult are mistrusted?

     Must be pretty weird.

     Comment by Tony T — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:23 am

113. Canadien

     The SWP leadership is not representing the International Socialist Tendency’s politics here. It’s a very crude and self regarding turn.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:25 am

114. Kevin - I’m not on the ground there. I live a far, far way away. I’m obviously interested as someone involved in the anti-war movement, etc. I’m trying to find some light in the heat but you must admit that if this lot on here are your allies, it’s a pretty sordid bunch of sectarians you’re keeping company with - with some notable exceptions - who give credence to the swp claim of being witchhunted - I point to the comment directly above yours.

     Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:30 am

115. Tony T. I’m not a member of a cult, nor the SWP -I’d don’t think they’d let me join even if I wanted to.

     Comment by martin ohr — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:31 am

116. Also - if you think the leadership is betraying the politics that you’ve spent so many years fighting for - why didn’t you stay in and fight? You know, take the high road as a means to boost your credibility and the power of your argument.
     I say this not as an attack or being smug at all but from a strategic point of view.

     Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:34 am

117. Canadien, Kevin did “stay in and fight”, including submitting his argument to the internal bulletin. He was called up and told that he had to quit his job (and, incidentally screw up the functioning of Respect’s only MP’s office). When he refused, he was expelled.

     On your other point, about “sordid sectarians”, most of the most lurid comments (on either side) have been posted by people who are not members of Respect.

     Comment by Mark P (the Irish one) — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:38 am

118. Galloway continually describes Ovenden as “my clever comrade Kevin”, presumably he also pays his wages - I think the reason not to stay and fight must have just been a straight choice between the high life or the hack life.

     Comment by martin ohr — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:40 am

119. Well Martin, let me apologise to you. Your relentless support for the SWP’s position(s) and denigration of its critics led me to suppose you were a member.

     Statements such as “wrack, ovenden, hoveman were expelled for refusing to follow CC instructions relating to their work inside respect” could lead one to draw such a conclusion.

     Comments like “What Ovenden, Hoveman, Wrack and now Hicks fail to explain in anything they have written since leaving is 1) why they didn’t stay in the SWP and fight for what they think is the correct line on respect. 2) why they never raised even a murmour of criticism before the galloway letter” might suggest that the author has inside knowledge. How else could he know that none of the individuals concerned raised their concerns internally?

     I’m sure you can see how the confusion arose.

     Comment by Tony T — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:40 am

120. Tony T:

     The confusion can only arise if you start with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you must be in the SWP

     Comment by martin ohr — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:42 am

121. martin - I suspect you are simplifying it considerably.

     Mark P - I didn’t say it was an easy thing at all. But the same thing can be posed if you work for a union or any political organization or political leader - at a certain point it may implement policies that are in contradiction to your stated beliefs or in conflict with your first political priority, which I would assume to be your long-standing membership of a socialist organization. Then you have to make a tough choice.

     Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:46 am

122. Canadien

     I wasn’t able to stay in because I was expelled after putting my position, including formally during the permitted pconference discussion period which has just begun.

     As for your point about what others here might be saying - that’s execrable guilt by association. Ask me who I’m working with politically; don’t use fake syllogism’s.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:47 am

123. Canadien

     I wasn’t able to stay in because I was expelled after putting my position, including formally during the permitted pconference discussion period which has just begun.

     As for your point about what others here might be saying - that’s execrable guilt by association. Ask me who I’m working with politically; don’t use fake syllogisms.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:47 am

124. ‘…there’s no attempt to split from Respect except by two SWP councillors, one of their daughters and a councillor who was told that it was advisable not to join the SWP at this juncture’

     only a daughter eh? What hapeened to you Kevin?

     Comment by WNP — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:47 am

125. Kevin - fair enuff, re: the people on here. I stand corrected. And I don’t know what you are doing to fight the expulsion - I hope something. You have contributed a lot over the years. However, the position being put forward is that it wasn’t for disagreeing - and your position paper was published in the IB, I see. The argument being put forth is about breach of party discipline, which is a different thing entirely.

     Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:52 am

126. Who are you WNP?

     Rania was pushed strongly by her mother as “my daughter” in the attempt by both to get Rania nominated as PPC for Bethnal Green & Bow. Some SWP members in Tower Hamlets know that the SWP backed Rania rather than Kumar Murshid for the nomination in order to accommodate her mother, Lutfa. So, yes the family relationship was worth noting.

     (Incidentally, it was none other than George Galloway who bigged Rania and Lutfa up as a unique mother and daugher councillor team.)

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 October, 2007 @ 2:01 am

127. Canadien

     The issue is about unreasonable and politically wrong demands from a leadership. We argued that resigning from working for Respect’s only MP, thus denuding him of political staff, would create an unbridgeable chasm between him and the SWP, which would split Respect. So we opposed the politics behind the instruction and asked the CC to reconsider. They did not, because they were on a split perspective. So they expelled us. And now, post the Tower Hamlets defections, they appear to be executing a split, but not with the spoils they imagined, I believe.

     Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 27 October, 2007 @ 2:36 am

128. “only a daughter eh? What hapeened to you Kevin?”

     Oh this tactic. The old “now you have left our cult you aren’t worthy and oh look how you have dengenerated, I really thought better of you”. Grow up. He clearly wasn’t saying that the councillor in question was “only a daughter”. I took it, as anyone would who wasn’t trying to have a pathetic dig, as suggesting that close family ties might create similar loyalties and mean it’s not surprising that they’ve taken the same line. I know this might seem strange to someone in a cult, but family loyalty is fairly normal thing.

     And so the debate carries on concentrating on apolitical issues with no-one looking at the underlying politics that have caused all of this. And the SWP lives in the twilight zone and accusses the Gallowayites of things that if anyone else said a few months back was an Islamophobe and sectarian. But don’t let logic get in the way of opportunism.

     I agree with the poster who has said that the SWP is the left side of this dispute but given the politics of the other side that wouldn’t be too hard considering they’re meant to be revolutionaries and Galloway is a reformist. But its the SWPs opportunistic and tailist politics that have caused this and considering they seem to have learnt nothing from their mistakes giving them support seems a bit pointless.

     Comment by CR — 27 October, 2007 @ 2:56 am

129. I caught Channel 4 new. What were the SWP doing terror training in the New forest?

     Comment by Alex — 27 October, 2007 @ 3:00 am

130. Kevin: “The issue is about unreasonable and politically wrong demands from a leadership.”

     I don’t think I can really comment because, of course, I’m not there and would only be repeating the viewpoint that I’ve read in the notoriously apocryphal world of the internet. I can see what you’re saying and I can foresee situations in which telling members to quit their position with someone who is perceived to be leading a fight against them is reasonable - difficult, messy, etc but reasonable. I honestly don’t know which is the case.
     What I do know is 2 things: 1) I hope you are appealing and have the strength (patience?) to fight your corner. Even if you are wrong - and I’m not saying you are - it is still a legitimate argument from which people can learn. and 2)I think the tearing apart of Respect is a damn tragedy and that both sides have a responsibility to wind down the rhetoric. Unfortunately, I don’t see any of that in evidence and, having been through ugly fights like this, don’t know if it is possible after a certain point.

     Comment by Canadien — 27 October, 2007 @ 3:39 am

131. Just a small contribution from me to this thread. BUt it seems to me that many are treating it as axiomatic that working in a broad party is the same as abandoning being a revolutionary.

     (or indeed that to no longer find it useful to deescribe your politics as revlutionary is the same as abandoning the aim of a socialist society, if necessary by revolution)

     This is clearly not the case, as there has been a whole tradition of theroy built up in recent years from parts of the revolutionary left, not only Murray Smith of the SSP/LCR, but also in the Australian DSP to say that working through broad parties is the strategically best way for revolutionaries to build mass revolutionaries in the future. In fact the DSP position is more sophisticated (although perhaps less fully articulated) because they recognise the positive role that a caucus of revolutionary socialists can play.

     So the SWP did not have to play this game as all or nothing.

     Comment by Andy — 27 October, 2007 @ 8:27 am

132. It should nonetheless be pointed out that the DSP houses a small faction that has a contrary position and who does indeed think that working in a broad party such as the Socialist Alliance here “is the same as abandoning being a revolutionary.” But that reflects a reticence held more broadly among the Marxian left groups here in Australia as elsewhere.In fact this is the core divide on the organised far left in our two countries is it not?

     While the Socialist Alliance is not as broad nor as large as we’d like, the hard yards are nonetheless very instructive in way of learning to deal with the challenges such an orientation throws at you.

     The way I read it, the DSP’s initial orientation here had to confront the problem that confronts the SWP today — a dilemma they thought they could subsume by forcing Respect to live by their ‘united- front- of- a- special- kind’ schema. This issue was thrown up here when the momentum in 2003 was strong in the SA to shift the project in a partyish direction.

     All the other SA affiliates opposed the move but were completely by passed by the momentum for a new party.

     This seems to me to be the political issues at stake in Respect now.

     While the other affiliates worked to stall & roll back that change, the DSP, with the support of the massive bulk of the non aligned SA membership, began to commit its resources to the Alliance and underwrite the project as its primary party building commitment.

     The DSP’s present perspective is rather hard to articulate because it is not a simple explanation as one thing or the other as the DSP’s projected rate of embeddeness had to be adjusted. The resolution The Democratic Socialist Perspective and the Socialist Alliance explains its orientation in some detail and updates the party’s experience to 2006.

     This document concludes:
     

     33. While the Socialist Alliance has adopted as its perspective transforming itself into a multi-tendency socialist party, this is just a beginning of such a new party project. If there is a new rise in the class struggle, new potential partners will be drawn into the project for a new party and the Socialist Alliance may have to become part of or be transformed into or be supplanted by new structures for best organising the strongest political voice for anti-neoliberal resistance.

     34. In accordance with the perspectives outlined above the objectives of the DSP within Socialist Alliance are as follows:

     * To build the Socialist Alliance as a campaigning alliance in the social movements (particularly the trade union movement) that seeks to build, in actions and in words, a new mass workers’ party because the greater political unity, confidence and active commitment required to advance this new party project will be forged through such collective struggle;
     * To promote internationalism and comradely collaboration between the Socialist Alliance and socialist organisations in other countries on the basis of solidarity and mutual non-interference;
     * To win other Socialist Alliance members to revolutionary socialism; and
     * To provide revolutionary socialist political leadership within the Socialist Alliance.

     The DSP will pursue these aims and objectives within the democratic framework of the Socialist Alliance.

     35. We are totally open about our revolutionary politics and seek to win others in the Socialist Alliance to it. Those comrades with whom we work now — and the many more who will join the Socialist Alliance in the future — will always know where the DSP is coming from. It will not seek to trick them into collaboration by hiding its revolutionary perspective.

     Revolutionists can commit and be loyal to these broad party building projects. The key problem the oppositional affiliates had with the exercise here was that the collaboration on day to day campaign issues was very easy to relate to and be politically comfortable with. This wasn’t supposed to happen according to the preferred schematism. And, if you read the SA polemics, political differences were never a major problem. You either won or lost the argument. Full stop. Or, as was most often the case, a strong consensus was arrived at and ruled what was done.

     In effect, the problem with the SA was never its politics, you see.No conference ever got hung up over politics or platform. So the ‘revolutionaries’ versus ‘reformists’ is a bit of a straw argument.

     In the final instance struggle was always the decider..

     Comment by Dave Riley — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

133. 111.- in response to

     “The crux of the matter is that this split in Respect is a split between a socialist left and a populist right. A split in which any decent socialist will take the side of the SWP rank and file as the immediate cause of the split, namely Galoways affront to the position of John Rees, is of no importance” MIKE.

     Mike you must be living in complete denial or severely deluded.

     Clearly John Rees does not have inspire (if any)sufficient trust and confidence necessary to make his present role and position within RESPECT tenable. The call for his immediate resignation should be repeated and amplified. JOHN REES MUST RESIGN NOW!

     To say the issue and his position is of no importance is to try to create a complete distraction from one of the main triggers of this whole crisis. More smoke and more mirrors.

     For you to say that the crux of this matter is that the split in Respect is between “socialist left” and “populist right” and that any “decent socialist” should support the SWP. Well !!!

     What is your definition of a ‘decent socialist’ exactly?

     What is your definition of socialism?

     As far as I can see the Socialist worker “rank and file”, as you call them, have several choices at this present time of great internal strife, division, confusion and disarray within the organisation.

     1. Leave the SWP and as far as possible make clear the basis for why they are leaving. This group is ever growing.

     2. Rebel and stay in the SWP to try to fight for a ‘democratic space’ within and create an internal opposition prepared to organise to change the present position of the leadership, in it’s ill considered and wholly appalling tactics, to say nothing of it’s present wayward trajectory.

     Better still FIGHT TO OVERTHROW the wholly duplicitous leadership but given the fact that the rank and file have only really one time of the year at party conference, where they are allowed any kind opportunity to put a ‘differing view’ to the leadership, then the time to organise and act is now!

     Whether the SWP as a party has any “integrity” left to salvage is of course highly debateable.

     3. Continue to act like unthinking robots.Continue to obediantly follow orders and apply the dirty wrecking tactics of the wholly unaccountable party leadership, whose present line is leading to confrontation, potential disaster, further disintegration, decomposition and degeneration leaving further DEVASTATION and demoralisation in it’s wake…..Socialist Alliance…….Scottish Socialist party………to end up ever further marginalised and discredited ……burnout wreckage! Or is this the aim?

     Future scenario: To end up OBLIVION with a small group of twisted and bitterly fucked up,wholly discredited individuals like Tommy Sheridan and his puppet show.

     Comment by Gramsci's breakfast — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:36 pm

134. That should read to end up “in” OBLIVION…

     Comment by Gramsci's breakfast — 27 October, 2007 @ 1:37 pm

135. ‘Canadien’ #88: The jargon on here epitomizes the saying “more heat than light

     ‘Canadien’ #104: At first I thought this was an interesting board with some thoughtful articles but now I see that was simply an attractive outer shell, underneath which are nasty, mindless sectarian zombies, slavering over the possibility of having a go at the swp

     It’s true that there’s mud flying around, but I think what’s more important is that some of us are putting a lot of effort into debating civilly and rationally. Apparently that doesn’t include ‘Canadien’.

     Comment by Phil — 27 October, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

136. To call for John Rees to resign would exacerbate the tensions that are threatening to destroy Respect. I have to say as a rank and file member of Respect I have found him personally courteous and helpful whatever the tensions in the leadership.

     What is needed is some kind of reconcilliation between Galloway, SWP, Salma Yaqoob et al.

     If Respect goes the way of the SSP it will be a catastrophe

     Comment by LJ — 27 October, 2007 @ 3:43 pm

137. LJ,
     my thougts exactly.
     Without some kind of reconciiliation and forward movement, there will be: no Respect, no credible SWP, No credible ‘left’; just the little warring splinters you get on blogs.
     What a prospect!

     Comment by Halshall — 27 October, 2007 @ 6:28 pm

138. In response to post 34 and subsequent suggestions that the SWP have invented the media interest about divisions in Respect the BBC website had this as early as September:

     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     A showdown is expected at the Respect party’s National Committee meeting, which may see George Galloway leave the party.

     www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7000000/newsid_7007800?redirect=7007822.stm&news=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1

     Comment by Tim Malone — 28 October, 2007 @ 1:02 am

139. I’ve noticed in several comments regarding various posts on the crisis in Respect that people are some how making a link between the break up of the SSP and the role of the SWP. The implication seems to be that the SWP caused the break up of the SSP and so the break up of Respect is inevitable unless the SWP are given the boot.

     I won’t comment on the latter idea but I want to address the idea that a) the SWP caused the break up of the SSP and b) this is related to what is happening in Respect.
     I’m not an SWP apologist (far from it, SP comrade forever!) but the idea that the SWP caused the break up of the SSP is patently ridiculous and gives them far bigger role in the SSP than they actually had. Certainly they have joined Solidarity for their own reasons that doesn’t quiet chime with what other SSM members have but the break up of the SSP was more complicated than an SWP plot and is completely different to what is happening in Respect like concessions to Left nationalism, a narrow view of feminism (i.e. calling female comrades who disagree on approachs to prostitution etc as “anti-woman”) the role of the bourgeois media in attacking a socialist and so on.

     Comment by Neil — 29 October, 2007 @ 1:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain

• Recent Comments
  • Michael Rosen on MUMIA WILL NOT BE EXECUTED
  • Andy Newman on MUMIA WILL NOT BE EXECUTED
  • Mary Edwards on MUMIA WILL NOT BE EXECUTED
  • Michael Rosen on MUMIA WILL NOT BE EXECUTED
  • Jimmy Haddow on OCCUPY XXX
  • john p reid on GET BEHIND MARTIN McGUINESS - THE PEOPLES' PRESIDENT
  • john p reid on GET BEHIND MARTIN McGUINESS - THE PEOPLES' PRESIDENT
  • Vanya on ELECTRICIANS DISPUTE AT THE CROSSROADS
  • john p reid on LUKE AKEHURST DEPARTS PLANET EARTH
  • john p reid on McGUINNESS CAMPAIGN RALLY - 13th OCTOBER
  • Anonymous on ELECTRICIANS DISPUTE AT THE CROSSROADS
  • john p reid on LEFT FIELD IN MOTION TOUR
  • john p reid on LEFT FIELD IN MOTION TOUR
  • Vanya on ELECTRICIANS DISPUTE AT THE CROSSROADS
  • brian the dog on ELECTRICIANS DISPUTE AT THE CROSSROADS
• Recent Posts
  • OCCUPY XXX
  • MUMIA WILL NOT BE EXECUTED
  • WANDA SINGS
  • ELECTRICIANS DISPUTE AT THE CROSSROADS
  • AMERICANA MUSIC AWARDS
  • FOX AND WERRITTY
  • GALLOWAY SPEECH AT OCT 8 STOP THE WAR RALLY
  • GREAT WRITERS: CHARLES BUKOWKSI
  • LUKE AKEHURST DEPARTS PLANET EARTH
  • McGUINNESS CAMPAIGN RALLY - 13th OCTOBER
• 
  
• about this blog
  • admin
  • comments policy
  • CONTACT US
  • follow us on facebook
  • follow us on twitter
  • Swindon Roundabouts
  • WHO WE ARE
• links
  • 21st century socialism
  • Amandla (South Africa)
  • At Ease
  • Bella Caledonia
  • Bolivia Solidarity Campiagn
  • Challenge (Israel)
  • china.org.cn
  • CND
  • Colombia Solidarity Campaign
  • Commitee for a Workers International
  • Common Wealth
  • Compass
  • Country Standard
  • David Harvey economics course
  • Democratic Green Socialist
  • Edge of Sports
  • End Child Poverty
  • FPTP v AV
  • Frontline (scotland)
  • George Galloway
  • Global Womens Strike
  • granma international (cuba)
  • Green Left Weekly
  • haiti action
  • Hands off Iraqi Oil
  • Hands off Venezuela
  • hegemonics
  • International Socialism Journal
  • international socialist review
  • international viewpoint
  • ISJ & Review (archive)
  • islamophobia watch
  • KEN Livingstone
  • Labour Against War
  • labour left briefing
  • Labour Representation Committee
  • Latin American Workers Association
  • Leanne Wood AM
  • Left Women's Network
  • Links International Journal
  • Marxism Today (archive)
  • Marxist Economics
  • Military Families Against War
  • morning star
  • NATIONAL SHOP STEWARDS NETWORK
  • New Left Review
  • New Reasoner (archive)
  • New Statesman
  • open left
  • Pambuzuka (Africa)
  • philosophy football
  • political economy of football
  • Politics Home
  • Progressive London
  • Radio Galloway
  • Reality Radio
  • red pepper
  • respect
  • Scottish Left Review
  • Scottish Socialist Party
  • scottish socialist voice
  • Searchlight
  • socialist action
  • Socialist Campaign Group
  • Socialist Economic Bulletin
  • socialist renewal
  • socialist resistance
  • SOCIALIST WORKER (New Zealand)
  • socialist worker (USA)
  • Solidarity trade union magazine
  • Soundings
  • Stand Up Tall
  • Stop War Coalition
  • Student Broad Left
  • Student Respect
  • swindon stop the war
  • The Poverty Site
  • tigmoo
  • Union Renewal
  • unlock democracy
  • venezuela analysis
  • Witangemot
  • Women of 1970s punk
  • Xinhua
• other blogs
  • A very public sociologist
  • After US Hegemony
  • Another Green World
  • Barry Kade
  • Bethan Jenkins AM
  • Beyond the Transition
  • Bickerstaffe Record
  • black looks
  • Britology
  • Buckdog (Canada)
  • Cedar Lounge
  • Charlie Pottins
  • Che's warlog
  • Climate and Capitalism
  • Colin Fox
  • Collective Resistance
  • cosmoproletarian solidarity
  • counterfire
  • Darren o'Neil
  • Dave Osler
  • Dear Kitty
  • DebtoNation
  • Dr Nazir Khan
  • Flip Flopping Joy
  • Gaolhouse lawyer
  • Gaping Silence
  • Gay dissenter
  • Geoff Reid
  • Go Fourth
  • Godless Liberal Homo
  • Grace Fletcher-Hackwood
  • Green Party Trade Union group
  • Green ribbon
  • greenman
  • Harpy Marx
  • History's Revenge
  • international Rooksbyism
  • Jews Sans Frontieres
  • Joe Bageant
  • John Gray
  • Justice for Iraq
  • Kasama
  • Ken Macleod
  • Kevin Maguire
  • key trends (John Ross)
  • Labour Home
  • Labour Left Forum
  • Labour Uncut
  • LabourList
  • Leanne Wood's blog
  • Left Banker
  • left click
  • Left Foot Forward
  • Left Futures
  • Lenin's Tomb
  • Liberal Conspiracy
  • life of riley
  • Louis Proyect
  • lysis
  • Madam Miaow
  • March the Fury
  • martin wicks
  • Moments of Clarity
  • MUTINY!
  • Natalie Bennett
  • Notts TUC
  • NSSN south west
  • Ost blog
  • Our KIngdom
  • Paul Flynn MP
  • Paul Mason's idle scrawl
  • Penny Red
  • Pink Pasty
  • Politics in the Zeros
  • prisoner of starvation
  • Rachel North London
  • Random Blowe
  • Rebellion Sucks
  • renegade eye
  • respect blog
  • Rupa Huq
  • Rustbelt Radical
  • Salma Yaqoob
  • selection spotlight
  • Solomon's Mindfield
  • Splintered Sunrise
  • SWP Notes
  • Ten Percent
  • The devil and all his works
  • The Palestine Center
  • The Soul of Man Under Capitalism
  • The Third Estate
  • Though Cowards Flinch
  • Tower Hamlets Respect
  • Trueten
  • UCAPV
  • union futures
  • Unity Aotearoa
  • unrepentant communist
  • We English
  • Wednesday's blog
  • Women of color
• Meta
  • Login
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain