JOHN REES’S “FLYING GOOSE”
Once Howard Hughes built a huge plane, which cost a lot of money, it was called the Flying Goose, it never flew. John Rees and Lindsey German are building an expensive electoral adventure called the “LEFT LIST”, it won’t fly either.
SWP-REESpect have finally admitted to their members that they are NOT permitted by law to use the Respect name in elections. Laughably they describe the requirement that political parties should follow electoral law as “a loophole”.
This is not “a loophole” but ineptitude and incompetence from the John Rees leadership of the SWP. They thought that their gerrymandered conference on 17th November would allow them to hi-jack Respect – without realising that a conference conducted with so many procedural irregularities, and where the chair and the vice-chair of the organisation dispute its validity, was never going to be recognised constitutionally or legally.
Instead SWP-REESpect will be standing as a so-called “Left List”, and they will be standing AGAINST official Respect candidates, who will of course have the name Respect on the ballot paper. Iit will be interesting to see whether the SWP-REESpect try to describe themselves as Respect in their literature, and what the returning officers have to say about that when they are standing against official Respect candidate – it could prove to be a financially costly mistake.
Standing against George Galloway, and standing against Respect as “the left list”, will give the SWP very little name recognition, and they must be expecting a very low vote. They can draw on a maximum of a thousand or so activists, probably half that in reality, which is no where near enough to impact on London without the benefit of either George Galloway’s popularity, the name recognition of Respect, or the networks of support that Respect Renewal has in East London.
Bizarrely the SWP-REESpect say they are taking the very financially costly step of standing in each of the 14 GLA constituency, which means they will lose £14000 in deposits for that, they will lose £5000 deposit for the GLA list, they will lose £10000 for the mayoral deposit, and they have to spend £10000 on the mayor booklet.
This means that the entry level costs are £39000. And that is before they print the first leaflet.
This is a very big financial expenditure for the SWP, already in some financial trouble. More on that in a seperate article soon.
SWP-REESpect Members Bulletin
10th March 20081. Respect announces The Left List for London Mayoral and GLA campaigns
Respect’s candidate for Mayor of London, Lindsey German has today (Mon) announced the list of left candidates who will be fighting in the Mayoral and GLA electoral campaigns on May 1 alongside her.
They will be making their stand under the new electoral name “The Left List”.* They are confident that voters will turn out in their tens of thousands to vote for the only left of centre organisation remotely capable of mounting a left challenge to the old parties, and presenting genuine solutions to the capital’s housing crisis, transport chaos and the threat of recession which is now so worrying to the majority of Londoners.
“The Left List is how we will be campaigning in this election’ said Lindsey. ‘The new name highlights the fact that we have an enormously strong collective of candidates and that we are standing in all the elections for London on May 1st’.
‘We have strengthened our organisation in London and we are standing in the Mayoral race, the London wide party list and in every geographical constituency and we are very proud of the real diversity of our candidates.
The Left List candidates include Tower Hamlets councillors Oliur Rahman and Rania Khan, trade union organisers Michael Gavan from UNISON, Unjum Mirza the London political officer from the RMT, and health worker Pat McManus. Afro-Caribbean candidates include Katt Young who has helped win the reprieve of a South London youth facility that was to be closed by the LDA and retired Ford worker Berlyne Hamilton. Kumar Murshid, former race-equality advisor to Ken Livingstone, has recently been in the forefront of organising against the reintroduction of Stop and Search laws.
The full list of candidates is given below.
The Respect Left List will qualify for TV and radio political broadcasts. But we are also introducing are new campaigning methods, says National Secretary John Rees. “We are not just relying on the old campaigning methods. Some 20,000 people have already seen our YouTube appeal and we are looking forward to a very high level of grass roots involvement in our election.
“And we have are launching a new Left List logo to help identification for the campaign which will appear on the ballot paper (attached). The red and green star design is both unique to us but also refers to the affinity that Respect’s Left List has to the European Left Party and the highly successful Left Party in Germany,” he added.
For the full list and biographies of the candidates, see www.lindsey4london.org
* A loophole (other people and the Electoral Commission call them rules .Ed) in the Act that governs elections (The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000) prevents a political party from democratically changing its nominating officer without the old nominating officer signing a form ratifying the transfer to the new nominating officer.
Linda Smith, the old nominating officer who has joined Respect Renewal refuses to do this. This technicality has also meant that the Left List is the viable option for the majority Respect membership in this election. Respect will continue to challenge Linda Smith’s right to bar democratically elected Respect candidates from standing under their party’s name.
It was called the Spruce Goose and it did fly, once, very low and for a very short distance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruce_Goose
A quick looks at the Electoral Commission website informs us that the ‘Left List’ was registered on March 10th with Mr Oliur Rahman as both leader and nominating officer. Rees must be hoping that Oli stays on board otherwise they may be back in a similar situation where they can neither nominate nor change the officers. Perhaps he’s promised not to write any more embarrassing press releases at two in the morning.
“We are not just relying on the old campaigning methods…”
One wonders why.
For inspiration, the new “netroots” leader-guard may want to check this out:
http://jokelibrary.net/yyPictures/m/2008b.html
although some of the parallels with other local power-couples may be a tad too close to the bone!
what a load of sectarian bull.. this site is really scrapping the barrell. The question is for the left would it be good if this list did well…answer.yes. But thtas beyond the Livingstone fanclub like Andy who thinks its ok to court big buisness, say nothing about KL campaign against taxing non dom multi millionaires.. what a result.
Hey, jj, how’s it feel to be running a white bloke against a sitting, asian councillor in the east end?
I thought Galloway was standing under a broad list? Or have things reverted back to a cluch of celebs?
Also if RR are to stand as “Respect” how will the financial question be sorted?
Andy obviously hasn’t seen THE AVIATOR…
“SWP-REESpect have finally admitted to their members that they are NOT permitted by law to use the Respect name in elections.”
For what it’s worth the BBC’s list of ‘Mayoral candidates’ includes “Lindsey German
Respect party”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7286963.stm
5. Well better than GG standing against a labour MP because he supports gay rights.. but don’t let that bother u.
By the way Battersea.why no comment on KL campaigning against taxing the rich, do u agree with Andy in saying it is ok to court finance capital. Sad to see you can’t muster an arguement against such right wing nonsense.
By the way I didn’t have a problem with a white bloke staning agianst a black women a feww years ago.. indeed I remember campaigning for him. what about you? Really moronic point from battersea
Now, now jj you’re gonna hurt my feelings!
I’ll apologise in advance to those who can probably guess my “position” on taxing the rich. It’s the ultra-left lunacy that the SWP is now engaged in that merits further attention.
For jj’s benefit I just have point out that I have campaigned for white men in the past, the distant past, in west London. For, a little known peacenik as he was then who wanted to introduce a policy into the GLC called “fares fair”. Halcyon days!
The SWP are now presented with the fact of having to put boots on the streets of east London to campaign *against* a sitting, asian (and the sensitivity there jj has a tad to do with the other candidacies – namely the BNP) Respect councillor. A fella with a decent track record to boot, who hasn’t expressed any desire to join the Tory party.
So your mob is going to have to make the case as to being what? The Left of the Left, the alternative to the alternative?
Do you have any idea of how doing this, in that locality will effectively destroy any relationships you or the SWP think they can build?
Perhaps you’re not a SWP member (I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt), but by whatever political principle, tactic, calculation or ploy you come up with, you’ve got to see that combining this idiocy with a white candidate is simply rubbing faces in it…
And on what planet exactly does the Mayorship of a major metropolitan centre not include the courting of “finance capital”? Will Lindzee’s campaign move quickly upon victory to the formation of the Balham soviet? I missed that part in her propaganda.
Will the SWP stand as “Left List” in Birmingham, Preston, Sheffield, Manchester (anywhere else? I’m guessing here…)?
Should be interesting seeing their explanations in the local press. “Well Councillor Lavalette, why isn’t your party called Respect any more, and what’s a “Left List” got to do with voters in Preston?”
thanks Battersea.we should all campaign for a mayor who is right to court finance capital and of course oppose taxing non doms multi millionaires as KL has done.. he even argues against the tories £25,000 tax contribution proposal. Just one slight problem Battersea.. what is the point. trudge the streets and get a mayor who then wants the rich to get richer.. no doubt those Londoners who oppose this are seen by u as ultra left.sounds familiar to Blair to me. But of course if you think the rich should pay some tax then attempt to make some stupid comment about Blaham soviets.. really this is very poor. What does courting finance capital mean ? It seems to me courting these people means attacking workers intrests and if you are happy with this then fine.. best of luck.
prinkipo……..I know u would love Lavalette to lose but then u are a bit of a sectarian and this is just the latest example. U make me laugh.. u wet yourself when the revolutionary left gets attacked and can’t contain your joy. By the way are you for courting finance capital as well.. is this RR policy?
jj, stop pointing over there, the argument’s over here…
Personally, I think Lindzee’s campaign is pointless and a distraction. I’m not arguing about that. What I am arguing about is the consequences of Rees’s actions in east London.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that I am Donald Trump’s personal assistant, you can therefore rightly paint me into any corner you like vis-a-vis my “orientation” toward the working class.
Now, engage with the politics of the Respect councillor who has a fine track record of standing as a tribune in his community and convince us all that he needs to be displaced… by the “Left List”…
the swp are bankrupting themselves for a few votes and an organisation that wont last very long and has no chance of attracting anyone or any organisation to join it.
a real ‘left list’ would be a step forward, towards a new broad socialist party hopefully. one that could attract mass support from the working class in the future. unfortunately the ‘left list’ is not inclusive of ‘the left’ and is not backed by rmt, pcs, fbu, and doesn’t even include any other section of the left that is not the swp.
given that the only alternative list to the left is ‘unity for peace and socialism’, the cpb and friends, and that their campaign is non existant, i think a vote for the swp ‘left list’ is the only option for socialists despite the limitations.
renewal are only standing in one constituency as i understand it? has galloway’s attempt to form a ‘progressive list’ completely failed?
the pcs, fbu and rmt need to take the lead in launching a new party and drawing together the fragments on the left towards it. unfortunately only they have the weight and authorrity now to do this.
forward to a new party of the left…
ks
Sorry JJ, this is crazy. Finnance capital exists and isn’t going to disappear overnight (so I’ve heard) so London has to have a sizeable level of investment (otherwise you cannot have buses, trains, roads, sewers).
Given that the one nationalised bank (Northern Rock) really isn’t in a position to invest in London and Brown isn’t going to nationalise other banks (unfortunate, but true), given that Livingstone is a left reformist, not a revolutionary, there is nothing inconsistent here. Of course, no one on the left ever goes to a bank (ie seek the help of finance capital for their needs).
If there was a mass upsurge demanding nationalisation of finance, the situation would be different. Livingstone’s attempts at redistribution including free travel for pensioners, children, disabled are hardly the moves of someone trying to redistribute wealth upwards. Far more effective than increasing the tax levels of the rich, believe it or not.
His attempts to ensure that all housing developments include affordable housing are limited – it is a reform, not a full return to council housing (although he has had some success in making the government allow councils to build houses again). Not enough? Maybe. But it is in the absence of a mass movement to achieve more.
jj are you a supporter of the SWP?
No, I don’t want any declarations, but you are not improving the situation.
“Excellent” post, Andy, those web stats were beginning to slow down again…
harold – ken does nothing to mobilise any mass movement though, for council housing or anything else. he is accomodated to new labour and capitalism and not fighting either. the odd piece of rhetoric and decent reform doesn’t change that.
ks
This is madness by the SWP. They cannot possibly gain anything from this campaign beyond fooling themselves and saving face. It reminds me of when the cpgb ran euro election candidates in 1999 for London and the North West. They got 800 votes apiece, which I believe is a record for the smallest number of votes recorded in a European contest. And they got sod all out of it. It was all about face. What a waste.
ks – I think you’re setting the bar way too high.
the “odd piece of rhetoric and decent reform” puts Ken, in most people’s minds outside NuLabour’s nest – he’s seen as a maverick sure, but it’ll be a huge setback to all Londoners if Johnson wins. And there’s a bit of ultra-left currency in the idea that a Johnson victory will teach workers in London “a lesson”… And that lesson in turn will automatically alert the masses to the need for a revolutionary party.
It won’t.
It’ll lead to more demoralisation, increased attacks on all aspects of daily life and service provisioning, an increased sense of powerlessness, probably an uptick on blatant, local authority backed, racism and a much harder argument for leftists to win…
Had the SWP not engineered the split in Respect, then a coherent, strong, well-known and highly regarded left-of-Ken slate could have been formed and called for a 2nd pref. to KL. and would have been able to hold a few of his fingers, if not the whole hand, to the fire…
Let’s not rush to judgement. The poll that’s been running on my site currently gives Lindsey German 54% of the mayoral vote and until someone can conclusively prove otherwise I’ll carry on believing that my readers are a typical cross section of Metro reading London voters whose views are not being carried by the hostile bourgeois media. Probably.
On the other hand, without a scintilla of doubt, this “Left List” is bonkers. Usually a left list implies a coming together of organisations and activists. All you’ve got here is a very flimsy veneer of non-SWP members on what is a delusional vanity project. How can comrades who saw the potential of Respect to develop into a rooted party persuade themselves that this is anything but facesaving sectarian theatre?
Maybe I’m missing something. But last time I heard it was the position of Respect Renewal (aka Respect Redwatch aka the George Galloway party) that the democratically chosen Respect candidates shouldn’t be allowed to stand and that a proper radical list should be chosen to run in their place … headed if I recall by one George Galloway MP.
Further, it is the position of Respect Renewal that Respect should not be allowed to gain legitimacy from the proud role played in parliament and on talk radio by the same George Galloway MP. Which was only ever a polite way of saying ‘we’re not going to let you run’.
Respect isn’t allowed to stand under its own name. So Respect is going to stand under another name. What’s the problem?
Remind me also of how many candidates Renewal has chosen to stand at this year’s local elections – either in London or anywhere else. So far, it seems that you’ve got a candidate list of exactly 1.
“But thtas beyond the Livingstone fanclub like Andy who thinks its ok to court big buisness”
Ah yes, courting big business…
…One such campaign aims to defend the National Health Service and to support those fighting low pay and poor working conditions. If the cheque were rewritten and made out to the ‘Fighting Unions Fund’ it could be accepted and would greatly assist the work in which we are involved.
I’m sorry that the regulations make this so complex but I very much hope that you will still want to support us in our continuing struggle for peace and progressive values.
Best wishes,
John Rees, National Secretary, Respect
Clearly Harrods has spent too much time shopping and not enough time reading the Respect renewal website. Take a look at the Birmingham report – seems like a few candidates there.
jj – if Respect stand in my ward I will vote for them. Lavalette is not up for election for another three years by the way. The problem is that the SWP have reduced their electoral organisation in Preston into a fan club for him. 4 years ago Respect stood in 5 wards in Preston and won 27% of the vote. There is no way they will repeat this on 1st May – they have only themselves to blame for throwing it away.
SWP-REESpect – Left List. The last throw of the dice and at the end like all bad gamblers they will be bankrupt not just at the bank but with their idea of a ‘Coalition’ of ONE party!
Neil
Of course we should criticise Livingstone’s relationship with financial capital in the city of London – we should foster no illusions in him. But that does not mean we should be indifferent to the possibility of his defeat by Boris Johnson. Given the choice, we support Ken against Boris – but without illusions, etc. That’s also the classic SWP position, and apparently it remains so, at least in theory.
One of the reasons Rees rejected the ‘broad party’ formulation in favour of his ‘United front of a Special Kind’ in his infamous 2002 ISJ article was that he did not think Labour had yet entirely ceased to be a contradictory bourgeois lead workers party.
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj97/rees.htm
Thus he regarded the new broad party building strategy exemplified by the SSP as sectarian, given the need to still continually attempt to make united fronts with reformists who look to Labour. Now, I’m not claiming Rees is correct here – merely pointing that it is still the current SWP theoretical position.
Thus its ironic we are still having arguments with semi-educated SWP members / supporters on this blog about Livingstone. But then this is to do with the atmosphere of over zealous polemicism against either Renewal or the SWP on this blog. Of course ‘jj’ is the worst kind of political glue-sniffer here, and I don’t think the debate would suffer were he / she to piss off.
On the main issue of substance here – it would be nice to be non-sectarian and wish the ‘left-list’ well, along with all who sail in her. It would be nice to simply say any left wing effort deserves our support. But of course the problem is that we now have two rival left of labour electoral campaigns, both occupying the same political ground. And both are weakened by this division. Remember how once upon a time we even tried to unite the Greens and the embryonic Respect project, or at least arrange an electoral non-aggression pact between them?!! But now we can’t even unite these two post-Respect groups. Thats because this division is not remotely political, but driven by the infantile sectarian dynamics of the far left at its very worst.
Those still loyal to the SWP can of course fulminate against Galloway, the Socialist Unity blog or Respect renewal. But really, for them the issue must be the disastrous route their leadership has now taken them down, and their inability to hold this leadership to account.
Now of course, if the ‘left-list’ has a stunning victory, I will be glad to be proven wrong, and will reconsider my position. But I doubt that many remaining SWP members will be rushing into this ‘left-list’ campaign with enthusiasm and any optimism this time around. I’m glad that I for one wont be the one receiving any phone calls from full timers exhorting me to ‘understand the huge possibilities’ of this episode.
The key thing about this email is the dishonesty contained in this statement,
” Linda Smith, the old nominating officer who has joined Respect Renewal refuses to do this. This technicality has also meant that the Left List is the viable option for the majority Respect membership in this election. Respect will continue to challenge Linda Smith’s right to bar democratically elected Respect candidates from standing under their party’s name”
whereas it should read, Linda Smith, the ‘current’ nominating officer of Respect.
The ‘technicality’ referred to is known as the rules, its a bit pendantic I know. The Electoral Commission, stupid !
(like football, two teams of 11, and you have to kick the ball, not pick it up and run with etc)
as for ‘challenging’ Linda Smith’s right to bar democratically elected Respect candidates’
This is where the sophistry really hits the high notes.
Perhaps returning to negoitations, perhaps withdrawing the slurs made against her name. I sure other posts can add to this list.
All the talk of ‘challenging’ is just macho grandstanding. Its the Alistair Campbell School of falsification.
#20 KS ‘ken does nothing to mobilise any mass movement though, for council housing or anything else. he is accomodated to new labour and capitalism and not fighting either. the odd piece of rhetoric and decent reform doesn’t change that.’
Reformist politicians and the labour bureaucracy do not mobilise people and it is pointless to polemicise against Ken for not doing things he never set out to do. I much prefer his odd decent reform (which if you really looked at it you’d recognise that it has been considerable) to hot air.
True, he hasn’t fought New Labour as it would have been a waste of time – he has to fight to get any concessions for London – he doesn’t run the British economy. He got elected as a reformist, not a revolutionary so in the context of British politics as it is now, what on earth would you have expected for him in terms of running London?
Yes he can be rhetorical, which is no more than yourself with ‘forward to the new party of the left’
Is that the one with or without the old Milli?
“Of course ‘jj’ is the worst kind of political glue-sniffer here, and I don’t think the debate would suffer were he / she to piss off.”
Given “jj”‘s position within the SWP hierarchy, one can only conclude that these posts are given tacit blessing by the CC.
After all, we know that they monitor every single post on this blog’s comment boxes, despite the line that is being sent out via the organisers that SWP members are no longer to post on blogs hostile to Rees (or perhaps because of it).
It’s not clear what this challenge is supposed to be. The Electoral Commission took legal advice and that legal advice said that they are unable, under the law that gives them the powers they have, to intervene in situations where the registered officer refuses, for whatever reason, to sign over his or her registered post to another individual, even if the Electoral Commission had been inclined to do so. The SWP have not challenged this advice as they have not sought to get a judicial review of the power of the Electoral Commission, probably because of the expense and the certainty they would lose.
By the way, no SWP Reespect candidate has actually asked Linda Smith to authorise their candidacy. Presumably they are acting under instruction that to do so would be to acknowledge Linda Smith’s legitimacy, which it would. So there is no challenge there either.
But if they are not seeking to overturn the Electoral Commission’s in the courts, exactly what is this challenge – that candidates will stand anyway under no description or as independents or, most absurd of all, as the “Left List”? Not much of a challenge there either.
And as for that nonsense about no candidate being able to stand as Respect without the registered Treasurer Eleine Graham-Leigh agreeing to campaign expenditure, it is exactly that – nonsense.
Given the SWP accepts they cannot remove Linda Smith or force her to give them authorisation, then the future for Reespect is not very promising to put it mildly, as they will never ever be able to stand as Respect again. So the future for Reespect is, let’s say it how it is, non-existent. Do SWP members really not realise this?
It must start to dawn on SWP members soon. How much more are they going to take, though. Plan B doesn’t look too promising: the Stop the War Coalition demo isn’t going to be huge. The public sector pay revolt is in abeyance. It might develop. I wouldn’t bank on it lifting the fortunes of the SWP. Oh well, there’s always Marxism 2008.
Better a flying Goose than a bunch of Vultures.
Do you people ever take an opportunity to stand back and listen to yourselves?
Day after day fatuous, sectarian nonsense in a blog called Socialist Unity. You completely overlook any consideration about the state of working class organisation never mind all the bullshit about socialism
You appear to have lost any sense of agency instead you are looking for the Comic star turn to pull something out of the hat, like Tommy Cooper on a bad night.
You seem to have lost the ability to reflect on your own ideas and attitudes and spend your time spouting
Two legs good Four legs bad
No wonder the left is dead
You should spend your time doing something constructive for socialism any fool can destroy.
In the case of the wrecking of the Respect Project blame can be very equally proportioned.
RP
What exactly is wrong with running a vibrant left campaign across London which has a chance of victory by building on Respect’s previous success? That’s what we are doing. And very successfully.
Elsewhere, we’re realistic but optimistic. The rally in Birmingham on Sunday, following a 200-strong women’s disco on Friday, was a very good start to our campaign for the council elections. Manchester is very encouraging too. We’re pretty sanguine.
Don’t you people evr get bored or embarassed by this bile?
“Swp-Reespect have refused to return to negotiations” – False, as you all well know. An answer was given asking for the basis for negotiations, the reply to this was that Linda Smith was on holiday and would get back. Still waiting.
“No Swp-Reespect candidate has asked Linda Smith for nomination” – I would be very surprised if they had as Linda has already written to several returning officers pre-emptively stating she would refuse any nomination.
Time for some honesty from you guys. Respect have all along said that if Renewel want to do their own thing, then fine go ahead. The problem is, RR just can’t seem to move on. All their leadership seem interested in doing is using state organs (such as the lectoral commission) to block the work and the decisions of the majority of Respect members and then have the audacity to throw the accusation of “sectarianism”!
I for one will be travelling to London on Saturday with lots of people, including both Respect and RR members, all working for one highly noble cause – Stop the War. Those RR members will be happy to march with me and I will be happy to march with them without us tearing each others head’s off. Its about time some of you people here started acting along the lines of “Socialist Unity” and not “yah boo down with the ebil SWP”.
Pathetic.
KCD
You’re being lied to. The last letter re: negotiations was from us to your leaders. We’ve not had a response.
Linda has merely informed returning officers that she is the nominating officer and needs to authorise any Respect candidate.
When you march with us, KCD, I hope you wonder why George Galloway’s not been invited to speak. You’ll have seen the StWC circular advertising speakers.
We’ll be taking the anti-war, anti-racist message to the ballot box on 1 May, with the Respect MP heading up the Respect challenge.
“You’re being lied to. The last letter re: negotiations was from us to your leaders. We’ve not had a response.”
You’re the one lying Kev and you know it. It was admitted so in a previous thread by several people including Carol Swords. What happened to openness and democracy Kev?
When someone disagrees with you, first they are blinded by SWP loyalty, then they are a tool of the SWP, then they are naive and simply don’t know the facts, then they are being lied to. Whats next?
“We’ll be taking the anti-war, anti-racist message to the ballot box on 1 May, with the Respect MP heading up the Respect challenge.”
And still no news on that one yet either Kev? So whos on this so-called progressive list wiyh George, because as far as I know everyone you have asked (including Bob Crow and Tariq Ali) have all turned his Georgeness down. Or am I being lied to again?
Kevin
Nothing wrong at all.
Well done.
I am sure your blood is well chilled, your Rallys full and all your
Womens “Discos” are Respectastic, thank god Disco is not dead.
However the rabid, sectarian, cannibalistic, death drive, so evident above is pointless and destructive.
No wonder the left is dead and its bloated decaying carcass is being picked over by vultures.
I wonder how many special branch agents have been promoted recently.
The Respect challenge for the GLA was given its unofficial launch by the Respect MP in front of 3 million people on the Wright Stuff yesterday. More to come…
“The Respect challenge for the GLA was given its unofficial launch by the Respect MP in front of 3 million people on the Wright Stuff yesterday. More to come…”
So there is no progressive list then, just an RR one?
Kent&CanterburyDan
I dont know what previous thread you are referring to but for your information ‘I do not lie’ can you please point out the thread
Andy Newman is seems so enamored of the law of the land in Britain that I half expect to see him in a policeman’s helmet smashing strikers up by the end of the year, the vile little scab.
Astonishing that any of you think that this little virtual world you inhabit bears any relation whatsoever to reality.
Those whom the gods (or the security services, the state, the establishment, the ruling class, New Labour, etc) would destroy….
Surely we are now seeing the delusions of grandeur of the infallible ones coming home to roost. The SWP oligarchs are expecting their members to deliver an anti-war demonstration which they can boast runs to tens of thousands, a minimum £39,000 to run a full slate of candidates in the GLA elections in order to get a derisory vote, and a successful anti-Nazi festival in Victoria Park, East London, just before the election. Is there not even a glimmer of awareness that this may be a case of severe over-stretch? There will be the usual SWP party notes fantasy about how everything will dovetail but it really is a fantasy as everyone who has heard this stuff before will know.
It is already evident that building for the Stop the War demo has been much more limited, particularly in London, than in the past. There has been one central London rally numbering around 250. Apart from that there are just three public meetings in London this week to build for the demo, two StW and one Respect. George Galloway is speaking at two of them, despite the snub the SWP sectarians on the Stop the War steering committee continue to deliver to him. London, of course, is crucial as it delivers most of the demonstrators to big London demos. Everyone must hope the demo will be very big but the signs are not promising at the moment.
The SWP election challenge becomes more farcical by the day but this is the least important cock-up as there will be a serious challenge from the left in the London elections. The only serious issue is that the Reespect masquerade might take away a small number of perhaps crucial votes for Respect candidate George Galloway who does actually have a chance of being elected to the GLA.
This leaves the Loves Music, Hate Racism Carnival on 27th April and more generally the agitation against the BNP threat – http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=80115.
Now this really is serious. The size of the turnout will be seen as an indication of the strength or weakness of anti-fascist feeling. Everyone should be doing their best to ensure there is the maximum turnout to the carnival which celebrates the 30th anniversary of the great Rock Against Racism/ANL Carnival.
The SWP played a crucial role in the success of the Carnival 30 years ago and of the Brockwell Park ANL carnival in 1993. The general circumstances for those carnivals were more propitious in my opinion than now, with seething anger on the streets against the Nazis marching in the late 1970s and their first London electoral success in 1992.
Now the SWP is smaller and more demoralised and the BNP more entrenched. Surely it makes much more sense for the SWP to pull out of the absurd vanity GLA election. Standing in the GLA elections will fail anyway to do anything other than expose the SWP’s electoral weakness. Instead they could concentrate on what they have always been much better at – campaigning very hard and effectively against the Nazis.
A serious revolutionary leadership would make an honest judgement about the resources at their disposal and the balance of forces in the real world and not give a cuss about face-saving nonsense. The track record of the SWP oligarchs, led by the nose by the Twits, does not bode well for them passing these minimum tests for leadership over the next few weeks. Over the issue of combating the Nazis, that bodes badly for us all. I very much hope I am wrong.
Syme – thanks for the corrective. I will now hobble back to reality.
The one where George Galloway isn’t invited to speak at a national Stop the War rally…
The one where the “Left List” is campaigning against a sitting Respect councillor in east London…
Or I could stay on here and debate with the New Narodniks – the SWP is fast becoming the bitter, petit-bourgeois, anti-working class caricature it used to, correctly, paint the RCP as being.
You’re gonna need that YouTube account!
Does this mean you will change your name back to Respect rather than Respect Renewal?
despite the line that is being sent out via the organisers that SWP members are no longer to post on blogs hostile to Rees (or perhaps because of it).
That must be why Richard Seymour doesn’t post here.
Can you imagine being told not to read and write on a blog?
I mean “discipline” is all well and good, but you’d really have to be a half-wit to swallow that one…
PS. ‘felix’ you’re right about everything, as usual
As I’ve mentioned before, it won’t be any push ‘from below’ that corrects the SWP’s current turn it’ll be good ol’ fashioned folding money.
Kevin Ovenden: What exactly is wrong with running a vibrant left campaign[?]
Nothing at all. I’d be more convinced that RR were running one if their members spent a little less time slagging off the SWP, and a little more time informing Socialist Unity readers of what they stood for.
Fat chance of that.
An Amateur Anthropologist
RP McMurphy 35: “In the case of the wrecking of the Respect Project blame can be very equally proportioned.”
I recognise the grain of truth in your argument, RP. However, the main difference is that the glorious leaders of Reespect have form. There is a pattern of destruction in cutting a swathe through the various left initiatives over the years that blind loyalists are helping to perpetuate instead of challenging to bring about more productive ends.
So they have £39K to blow just for their entry ticket? No print shop, shrinking membership, ossified politics. Perhaps they should try another hobby.
Amateur Anthropologist this blog has its uses, and played an important role in helping to distribute the differnt articles around the time of the split, but you shouldn’t mistake it for the real world.
In the real world Renewal folk are getting on with pushing out work and are trying to move on from the SWP did this or that arguments.
Joseph it was a Renewal supporter that started this thread, not someone in the SWP.
Let’s not call people “Renewal” supporters anymore.
We are Respect.
One brief point followed by another more substantial one.
There are a significant number of French, Spanish and German voters in London. Those who are explicitly socialist may recognise “the Left List” more easily than “Respect”. I doubt this will lead to a large vote, but may mean that the “Left List” does slightly better than expected (although I will be astounded if they hold their deposit). Certainly “Green” is easily recognisable for other EU nationals who have previously voted for Les Verts, Los Verdes and Die Grunen.
Secondly, and sorry to keep banging on about it, but every vote cast for a party that doesn’t win 5% or more of the Assembly list vote makes it easier for the BNP to win a second seat in London (this comes from Searchlight, not us). This isn’t self interest. An increased share of people voting for the parties finishing with more than 5% of the vote will makes it marginally more difficult for the Greens to win a 3rd or 4th seat, unless the Greens were to be explicitly backed by either the Left List or Respect Renewal, which is not at all likely to happen.
In 2000 14.6% of the votes cast were for parties who gained less than 5% of the vote. In 2004 it was 12.5% and this does matter. If there is a high proportion of votes cast for parties gaining less than a 5% share (say above 15%) then only 7% of the vote will probably be enough to gain two seats.
We’ve heard a lot about allocating a second vote for Ken Livingstone, so there needs to now be discussion of the other tactical aspects of this campaign. This means Left List supporters of course voting Left List for the constituency and mayor (first preference), but considering voting for the Greens, Labour or Lib Dems on the Assembly list as a more effective anti-BNP vote.
It seems less obvious to me what flexibility Renewal supporters have if they are only standing in one constituency and their main effort is focused on the list, but I certainly think this is a debate that we need to have.
tonyc # 32
You say: ‘Given “jj”’s position within the SWP hierarchy….’
Really? I would be shocked if that were the case! I mean, his or her posts contradict current SWP positions on the United Front, the persistent or residual Trade Union basis of the Labour Party, etc.
If ‘JJ’ were to be high up within the SWP hierarchy it would either mean a)That the SWP’s politics have now degenerated into an absolute ultra-left sectarian parody of their former selves or b) ‘JJ’ is not posting to promote the SWP’s politics but is acting merely as a provocatuer or troll.
tonyc – what evidence do you have of ‘jj’s identity – or about other pro-SWP posters.
Also – Andy Newman has previously made remarks about certain IP addresses and the SWP centres computers.
Generally, I find that the pro-SWP posters here have a much lower political level than is to be found in their publications or when you speak to SWP members at meetings. That makes me suspect they are not SWP members but random nutters from who knows where. I hope so, for the sake of the SWP and the left in general!
So if Linda Smith were incapacitated tomorrow, the only person who could sign to approve a change of nominating officer would be Elaine Graham Leigh. I bet you’d think it was an undemocratic loophole then, which of course it would be. Just as it is now, even though it suits you to have temporary blindness to it. Quick question – do you WANT the Left List to do badly or just think it will?
Arthur (# 58) in the east London constituency where LL is standing against a sitting Respect councillor I, personally, want them to fail utterly and completely.
Elsewhere I couldn’t care less.
PS. This is likely to be the growing “orientation” of a number of SWP members, if not the adopted posture right now!
Larry #57.
I originaly thought JJ was a provocteur, but some of the information that he comes out with is clearly from within the SWP full timer appararus, and I would make an educated guess who it is, partly based upon the geographical location, writing style, etc. The low political level is a deliberate persona designed to disrupt debate here.
In recent months there have been few comments from people who are leading members of the SWP, but back in October/November we were getting senior SWP CC members commenting here. I don’t beleieve they do any longer.
BTW Larry:
when you say:
” a)That the SWP’s politics have now degenerated into an absolute ultra-left sectarian parody of their former selves or b) ‘JJ’ is not posting to promote the SWP’s politics but is acting merely as a provocatuer or troll.”
Both of these are correct.
Battersea PS post #59
I understand why you wouldn’t want the SWP’s ‘Left-list’ to gain votes at the expense of the sitting Respect councillor.
But you say elsewhere you could ‘not care less’ about the left list.
I think we should all hope that any left candidate does well. So good luck to ‘em.
I doubt if the left-list will be anything other than a failure . But I sincerely hope that I am proved wrong.
Yes, I would like the SWP-CC to be taught a lesson for their appalling behaviour recently – but this should not be our overriding concern in these elections! Not least because you then risk ending up sounding as sectarian as the SWP itself!
The chief lesson is that a divided left is a weakened left.
LarryR, apologies. You are of course completely correct when you say, “The chief lesson is that a divided left is a weakened left.”
I guess my mirroring of the SWP’s cynicism isn’t very helpful. But as time goes by I have to admit that I’m beginning to see traces of the RCP in the SWP’s project/s. Ultra-leftism and opportunism have long been bed mates and by their behaviour the SWP are cutting a deep trench between themselves and “the Left”.
When does quantity switch to quality? I’m just a lot closer to pulling the trigger than most…
The ‘Left list’ sounds like another cynical attempt to capitalise on Galloway’s following! He did after all talk about standing on a left list himself! Regardless of the reasoning, standing ‘Left List’ candidates against Respect candidates must be recognised as a thoroughly sectarian gesture!
Post # 64 – you cannot be serious mate!!
Left list is hardly a well known ‘brand’ lked to GG!!!
Anyway – Now this weeks socialist worker online today finally admits to its readers that it can not call itself Respect. Here is the spin it puts on it to save face
Why Respect is standing as ‘Left List’ in London
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14397
“The evil Linda Smith engineered a split in Respect, the SWP are blameless and innocent, with democracy entirely on their side, blah blah. Besides, our new red star logo will be a massive hit with Londoners, who always will vote for classic socialist symbols… rah rah rah, its all really sooooper, hurrah, the central committee have got it right again, coz they are such geniuses who have an absolute right to lead the movement….now pay yer subs and shut up
#52: “so they have £39K to blow just for their entry ticket? No print shop, shrinking membership”
Mme Miaow – surely they have wads of money precisely from the sale of the printshop? I’d have guessed that the interest on that alone would keep them in business for a good while. Their political apparatus seems to have been maintained despite the shrinking membership (indeed, the CC seems to have grown in recent years) – and presumably it’s the printshop money that has been paying for that. And anyway, from the point of view of the CC £40k or so probably isn’t too much to pay to convince the membership that they are maintaining a consistent strategy albeit that in reality it has collapsed beneath them. It will help keep Rees in a job and, hey, it’s not his money to start with, so why should he care?
I found the sale of the printshop rather odd. Maybe the equipment was old, but running costs can’t have been that high, what with them only paying the printers a fraction of going union rates, employing untrained casual staff on minimal wages to work in the midst of dangerous machinery, having the full timers claim unemployment benefits to top up their salaries, etc., etc. – you would have thought that such cost measures would have made them fairly competitive.
66. Oh it was “competitive” all right. The old bollocks about having to close up due to outdated technology was just that, bollocks. There are two newspapers (one in Germany and one in Toronto, Canada that form the nexus of an exclusive club of newspaper printers producing the best colour quality newsprint on the planet).
Both shops use the *exact* same equipment that used to run in Empson St.
Getting the staff to run it might have been another issue though, (perchance related to pay and conditions?) but that’s another issue…
#67 – how long since you were in the printshop? 15 years? Try talking to someone who actually printed on the Goss towards the end. It was a heap of junk. I defy you to find any of the printers (including the No.1s who aren’t in the SWP so haven’t any line to defend) who’ll say otherwise.
68. Longer.
But the “National Post” (Toronto) is run on several lines of Community’s that are even older than the ones you’re used to… with North American cutoffs mind, and fount solution pouring on the floor to boot… all coldset too…
PS. Give me a hint as to who you are dude – it’s possible that I may have known you, and may have even been fond!
I’m really not that important as some here keep pointing out…
But it wasn’t just the quality of the press – the market for the sort of services they could provide had collapsed. The halcyon days of the contracts with local councils are long gone, the Morning Star wasn’t printing thousands to send abroad any more, the dribs and drabs of wierdo and christian stuff was never going to fill the gap and Private Eye going was the end.
I have no idea how much the building and presses went for (or indeed where it went though I’m sure it’ll provide plenty more opportunities for speculation and conspiracy theories), but I don’t think there’s any monkey business about shutting the operation down apart from it simply being unviable to maintain an aging press and paying the printers (even if it was only a quarter of what they could get outside) to print several thousand copies of SW once a week.
BSP, Your characterisation of the SWP as anti-working class or petit bourgeois is truly astonishing. I mean, when I have a go at Andy Newman I’m at least backed up by his openly English nationalist, pro-scab, pro-police death squad, pro-British state, right-ward sliding sectarianism. I think the most of you just range from misguided to barking mad.
The fact is that Linda Smith remains the nominating officer of Respect and therefore retains control of the name not because of some victory of the Renewal side in arguing or proving their case or because the Respect conference is unconstitutional, it’s because the Electoral Commission is a shitty, undemocratic quango that has dumb rules. The effect of their ruling is that any nominating officer who splits from an organisation retains effective control of the name. Congratulations on being on the lucky side of a silly loophole.
Hopefully your celebrity slate will make up for the fact that you’re just a handful of hacks who think that the opinions expressed by the 3 dozen or so regulars on this blog amounts to anything in the big wide world.
#71
So an anonymous SWP troll accuses me, by name, of being “pro-scab”..
I am a member of the Southern Regional Council of the GMB, and Race and equality officer of Wiltshire and Swindon GMB branch, a committee member of the South West National Shop Stewards Network, and on the editoroal board of “Solidarity, the Trade Union magazine”
Is this how low the SWP have become where they libel trade unionists?
Do none of the other SWP memner who read this feel uncomfortable with accusing a trade unionist of being “pro-scab” just because I disagree with the SWP?
Do you think this sort of libel doesn’t have consequences in the real movement? Do you think that when SWP trade unionist like Yunus Baksh and Karen Reissmann are fighting against victimisation and need support froom the movement that this is the time for the SWP to start libelling other activists in the trade union movement as being “pro-scab”
Actually i think it is worse, becasue I think Syme is accusing me of being pro-Scab because I am arguing for Livingstne to win the mayoral election. In fact virtually the entire labour movement is supporting Livingstone, and almost all the trade union activist in London, all the trad eunion activists that are needed to support Michael Gavan agaist victimistaion by Newham Council. We are all scabs according to SWP member “Syme”.
This remonds me of when Cliff said some years ago, “they told me there was no RCP in Glasgow, there is but they spell it SWP”. Yesterday Glasgow, now everywhere?
I suggest Syme apologises, using his real name.
M. thanks. I’m still intrigued as to your identity – if you’re sensitive then just ping your second initial and I think I’ll be able to work it out from there.
Fair enough on your points. Though *where* the money went and how much is more than intriguing. I’ve stayed in the printing industry since I did my time at EEO and have a fair picture of what the per-kilo value of the contents was and it’s not a small amount…
Syme, I’m definitely in the “barking” camp! If that helps.
And no, one of the lessons of history I’ve learnt is that my pixels carry little weight in world politics.
But here’s the thing: By standing a candidate against a Respect councillor in east London you’re putting yourselves on the other side of working class interests. You may not like it, but that, as a solid party builder for quite a while, and as someone who picks up all sorts of anti-working class shite from your supportive posters, is what I see!
#72 “Do you think this sort of libel doesn’t have consequences in the real movement? Do you think that when SWP trade unionist like Yunus Baksh and Karen Reissmann are fighting against victimisation and need support froom the movement that this is the time for the SWP to start libelling other activists in the trade union movement as being “pro-scab””
Fair point I guess, without wishing to intrude on a private now public faction fight. It does at least bring us back to the perspective that union militants are being victimised- ther’es also the SP militants being victimised in Unison
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1957
#73
“And no, one of the lessons of history I’ve learnt is that my pixels carry little weight in world politics.”
Nice modesty, Battersea, but don’t forget your pixels influence mine influence others etc and ideas can change the world as when ideas are taken up by the masses they can become a material force…
and whatever the virtues and annoyances of electoral politics let’s not forget the very necessary strictly extra-parliamentary alliances between different sections of the workers’ movement to rebuild the working class – in the broadest sense- movement
Jason, don’t take this the wrong way but if I were near you I’d give you a big wet kiss!
G’night.
BPS: OK, so RR was clearly supporting working class interests when it unceremoniously announced the dumping of LG as Mayoral candidate so that GG, Salma et al could go through with their program of uncritical support for Livingstone and whatever benefits they might be able to reap from that? I’m still not 100% convinced of the decision to stand in City and East, but I’m quite clear that it is not crossing class lines to oppose an organisation that has lurched to the right in order to prop up the ambitions of a handful of politicians looking to carve out a political fiefdom, no matter the good intentions of many who have followed.
Andy, I’m calling you pro-scab not only because you support Livingstone uncritically but you chearled Galloway’s turn to the British state to attack OFFU/Respect. You can say that Galloway did it to cover his back, fine, you’re disingenuous, stupid or both. No doubt the absurd decision of the EC to deign OFFU part of Respect is vindication in your eyes since you seem to be happy to elevate the British state as the arbiter of all disagreements.
Needless to say, I won’t be apologising. What was it Rob Hoverman said about you a few months before you became best buddies, “You’ve flickered on my radar, now flicker off”?
Question:
“Do you think this sort of libel doesn’t have consequences in the real movement? Do you think that when SWP trade unionist like Yunus Baksh and Karen Reissmann are fighting against victimisation and need support froom the movement that this is the time for the SWP to start libelling other activists in the trade union movement as being “pro-scab””
Reply:
“…no, one of the lessons of history I’ve learnt is that my pixels carry little weight in world politics.”
No 70 M wrote: The halcyon days of the contracts with local councils are long gone, the Morning Star wasn’t printing thousands to send abroad any more, the dribs and drabs of wierdo and christian stuff was never going to fill the gap and Private Eye going was the end.
Point of information – Private Eye offered to buy the new colour printing equipment for the printshop.
Syme: the ‘absurd’ decision of the Electoral Commission might have to do with OFFU sharing bank accounts, staff and premises with Respect. It’s silly to pretend otherwise.
“Syme” @ 71 “Electoral Commission is a shitty, undemocratic quango that has dumb rules.”
On one point we can (kind of) agree. The fact the electoral commission has no rules which prevent me putting “Respect” on my leaflet even if I’m not the candidate, or for that matter “Liberal Democrat” or “Conservative” on all my leaflets when I am quite clearly not, is pretty silly. But there you go.
But then people always get angry about the rules when they don’t like them…..
BPS you still keep questionable company even from all the way over there. Your suspicions as to the earlier contributions are false. As we both recall the life of the printshop was occasionally threatened by commercial failure and technical change. THE issue was (as with everything) who can change it, how do they do it, and how do you convince them to put themselves in a position to do that (usually over a marlboro and can of coke).
Beyond that you are probably not far wrong.
I hear your the man to see about printing 4 colours off one plate.
Syme – what a delightfully onomatopoeic moniker you have given yourself! I do hope you do not ‘stick’ to this website!
Once more I am shocked at the hyperbolic vitriol and low level of politics indulged in by pro-SWP contributors here.
How the word ‘scab’ is degraded by its casual use outside of its historic working class context. How the absurd name calling – now even of ‘pro-police death squad’ for Andy Newman’s dissenting voice – reminds one of the foam flecked spartacist on amphetamines that we in the oldschool SWP used to be proud to be totally different from. Sadly each bilious utterance you make convinces me that I was right to leave when I did.
I hesitate to respond to the detritus from Syme, but…
The loophole which has enabled Linda Smith to retain her position as registered Leader and Nominating Officer of Respect is no such thing. Linda as National Chair, Leader and Nominating Officer boycotted the SWP’s conference on November 17th, along with Respect’s only MP, most of its councillors and almost everyone outside the SWP, because the SWP had systematically undermined that conference’s democratic validity.
The SWP leadership had instructed its members to join Respect and get delegated to the conference, it invented phantom students and therefore student delegates whom it controlled from its headquarters in Vauxhall, it arbitrarily changed the basis for delegate entitlement, it systematically disrupted the selection of delegates from the biggest source of delegates Tower Hamlets which it didn’t control and it shut out of any oversight of the process national officers hostile to Rees’s manipulation.
What was the purpose of this fiasco? To maintain Rees’s control of the organisation after the SWP reneged on a peace agreement concluded at the Respect National Council at the end of September.
Linda Smith’s decision was therefore entirely justified in not handing over her positions as Leader and Nominating Officer to Oliur Rahman. Oliur Rahman, note incidentally, led the decision for four councillors to resign the Respect whip, which was probably the single most damaging thing that anyone could have done to Respect’s reputation in Tower Hamlets.
It has always been available for the SWP to challenge this in court, as the Electoral Commission made clear, but the SWP has chosen not to do so. In the old days that might have been a principled decision, but as the SWP oligarchs have junked just about every principle apart from their determination to hang on to their pathetic positions under all and any circumstances, the reason is much more likely to be cost and a cast iron certainty that no court would accept the legitimacy of their phoney conference.
Given all this, Linda Smith is entirely within her rights and the norms of democracy to deny to any SWP candidate the authorisation to stand as Respect. So SWP members need to wake up to the fact they are never ever going to stand on the ballot paper as Respect again.
As for the OFFU cheque, there seems to be a danger of us losing sight of the real issue. Rees solicited a cheque from a Dubai businessman working for a company owned buy the principal privatiser in Britain and did so on the basis of an utterly disingenuous letter. In other words, he knew exaclty what he was doing.
He did it in order to cover up his own incompetence in organising a one day conference which managed to lose over £5,000. Moreover, he did it against the advice of Respect’s MP, himself the subject of a genuine and long-running witch-hunt over the funding of his camopaign to lift sanctions on Iraq and clearly in a context which made Respect damagingly vulnerable to censure by the authorities.
In any other circumstances, Rees would have gone the same way as New Labour’s former general secretary, but not in the bizarre world of the SWP where the oligarchs are never ever held accountable for anyhting they do, however completely barmy it is. What a sad end to a once principled, serious and innovative organisation.
Felix,
Your analysis needs to be repeated regular on all the blogs not only to convince SWP members but at every opportunity, in the broader and progressive movement they must question the lack of accountability, and transparency by Rees and the SWP cc. Especially when Rees and co go for nominated positions of influence.
Linda as National Chair, Leader and Nominating Officer boycotted the SWP’s conference on November 17th
…and (here’s the important bit) publicised this decision before the event. As soon as Rees et al knew that Smith regarded the RESPECT/SWP conference as unconstitutional, they must have known that:
- Smith was not going to accept the conference’s decision to replace her
- Smith was therefore not going to be replaced unless she could be sacked or expelled
- under the RESPECT constitution, she *couldn’t* be sacked or expelled
- under the published rules of the Electoral Commission, she would therefore retain control over nominations
In short, going full steam ahead for the November 17th conference (“let the members decide!”) meant handing the RESPECT name to RR. That’s how inept Rees & co have been.
Sorry but couldn’t hold myself back – shouldn’t the left list- actually be known as the ‘what’s left list’!
86# “That’s how inept Rees & co have been”
In their counter actions against RR their main tools has been to remove RR speakers in any undemocratic way they can.
We can only defend ourselves by taking proper electoral actions to remove Rees and co in all democratic spheres of influence. We will do it legitimately
The fact the electoral commission has no rules which prevent me putting “Respect” on my leaflet even if I’m not the candidate, or for that matter “Liberal Democrat” or “Conservative” on all my leaflets when I am quite clearly not, is pretty silly
But, if you solicit for funds under that name you’d get done for fraud. You could also be liable for libel, depending on your policies.
As an outsider, may I ask how democracy regarding the SWP worked within Respect? On key issues did they effectively have a three line whip so that the SWP members in Respect voted as directed by the CC? I am guessing that this is how it worked.
May I also ask what proportion of the non-SWP members of Respect voted with the SWP during the split? In other words, during the key debates what were the numbers of 1) SWP members voting for the SWP line, 2) non-SWP members voting for the SWP line, 3) non-SWP members voting against the SWP line, and 4) SWP members voting against the SWP line. Also, could someone give me a better idea of how many SWP members were mobilised to vote who had not previously been members of Respect, or had been members formally but had not previously been active.
On a related note – in what circumstances, if at all, did the SWP leadership ever say that on such and such an issue they did not feel the need to give directions, but left it up to the members how they should vote and behave, based on local circumstances, etc.
What I am getting at – and it is a genuine question – is whether as a matter of fact (and to what extent) the SWP’s CC were able to make decisions that would, because of the numbers of SWP members they could mobilise, automatically become ‘the democratic decisions of the membership’.
Did the SWP only need to rely on their own members, once properly mobilised, to win key decisions nationally, or did they require a significant number of non-members in order to swing the vote?
I realise that there are no hard and fast figures, but I’d like to know whatever figures there are and what impressions people have regarding the other issues.
#11 Good Point RP McMurphy
How many of the people who post on this site are special branch tossers? Its well established that the state will fund this type of crap. Since Andy started it the main thrust of the site has been to host vitriolic puss-filled comments which promote the break up of left unity project across the UK under the guise of ‘democratic left debate’.
Sad reality is that contributors to comment boxes typically raise more issues with UK ‘s largest left revolutionary party than they do about Gordon Brown et al’s corporate Britain – says it all really. Andy should publish the comment topic stats in graph form and display prominently on site .
We all know this is all just a desperate left sectartarian slagfest of a special meta-jokestering kind.
God, I hate it when people don’t use numbers properly. It’s like when people say “st8″ when they want to say “str8″.
Your pseudonym should be “in4mation”, not “inf4mation”.
Beyond that, nothing you’ve said has any substance at all, except to once again show the total lack of politics coming from anyone supporting the SWP’s side in this.
Go 4n over Rees. He’s looking a bit 4lorn.
inf4mation: “Sad reality is that contributors to comment boxes typically raise more issues with UK ’s largest left revolutionary party than they do about Gordon Brown et al’s corporate Britain – says it all really.”
In the old days, reality used to be what actually happens, sad or otherwise.
If you look back over the site over the last few weeks for example, there have been far more comments on other topics than about the SWP.
You could of cource just not visit the SU blog, if you don’t like it.
“The Left List”????? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!! This has got to be the most ridiculous thing ever in the far-left minutiae of British politics. I pity the valiant, loyal comrades who are going to have to promote themselves under this sad moniker. After all they did to stick up for GG acting like a cat on CBB. Now they have to go through this. No wonder so many people leave the SWP: all you get is constant humiliation and defence of positions no ordinary person in this country would take seriously for a second.
Just to answer Andy’s questions with regard to the split in North Manchester Respect.
At the final meeting (December 07) where we voted to divide the branch, 16 SWP members voted for the SWP line to ‘recognise only the Westminster Conferenece’ (three of these had never been to a meeting of the branch before – most of the others had only attended since George’s letter. No non-SWP members voted for the SWP line. 36 non-SWP members voted against the SWP line. One SWP member (the former Respect branch chair) voted against the SWP line – he’d been told that RR support was incompatible with SWP membership).
In the previous year between AGMs in North Manchester the branch press officer (SWP) sent out zero press releases. The two SWP members on the fundraising team attended one and no meetings respectively. The (SWP) trade union officer attended two meetings – once arriving late and leaving early. The Branch chair who was in the SWP came to every meeting and was the one who voted against their line at the meeting. During that year he regularly attended our street stalls and other activity. The rest of the SWP did not. Two SWP members attended a street activity once each.
After George’s letter there was a flurry of activity. With ten or eleven SWP members attending meetings and a few getting involved in leafletting for a meeting. Though it must be said that meetings became very unpleasant and confrontational.
At the final meeting one SWP member was fuming because she ‘didn’t know’ most of the people in the room. Funnily she was annoyed at Renewal supporters for this rather than the fact that she had last attended a meeting 13 months previously and taken part in no Respect activity in the area in which she lived. It wasn’t really surprising that they carried no one with them.
This is a real shame as I had real respect for quite a number of the SWP members in the area but most of them really didn’t seem to understand what was going on or how they’d lost any credibility in the locality. Further they made no attempt to engage in the actual concrete criticisms we had about the split tragectory instead relying on abstract pleas about ‘letting members decide’ or criticisms of GG.
“We are not just relying on the old campaigning methods. Some 20,000 people have already seen our YouTube appeal and we are looking forward to a very high level of grass roots involvement in our election.”
Trying to sound like Obama? Youtube isn’t new Rees, you genius.
“The red and green star design is both unique to us but also refers to the affinity that Respect’s Left List has to the European Left Party and the highly successful Left Party in Germany,” he added.”
This is an insult to both of those parties.
#90: mal4mation – people can quite legitimately discuss, criticise the SWP to their heart’s content here or anywhere else. I realise how much you hate it as it involves, in principle, the SWP being held to account for what it does, and providing others with a source of information and argument about the arguments in and around Respect that is independent of the SWP’s leadership – get used to it. Then again, perhaps the debate and criticism wouldn’t happen here if there were any sign at all that it might take place within the SWP – if that were the case there would be less of a need (or interest) in taking up the issues elsewhere.
Your call for people to talk instead about wider issues is puerile and shows how far revolutionary politics have degenerated in and around the SWP. As if Lenin didn’t spend a fair bit of time critiquing other socialists, especially at key turning points in the history of left politics (after all, What is to be Done? addresses a simple split in a tiny socialist organisation, and yet Cliff seemed quite keen on it.) As if the behaviour of the SWP wasn’t of political concern to the left.
It’s a truly laughable contradiction – you see (some) SWP members swank around as if they are the only important force on the left, the potential saviours of the revolutionary honour of the working class, and that everyone else on the left is ultimately an irrelevance – and then the same people get all teary-eyed, outraged and offended when you talk about them as if it mattered what they did. How touching that they should turn out in the end to be so pathetically sensitive.
Also, if you really believed what you were saying about only looking at the ‘big picture’, you and the other SWP-trolls who make the same point over and over again wouldn’t do so – you would set an example and stick to talking about what you consider the ‘really important issues’ rather than whining about how you are being treated. Alternatively, you could take up the sensitive issues about what happened to the Respect project and debate them instead on SWP loyalist blogs – except that you and I both know that that would be impossible as such a debate simply cannot take place there.
Of course, the real point of your intervention is that it is sectarian in principle to criticise the SWP and it’s leadership (actually, ‘sectarian’ is way too timid here, since you actually seem to entertain the paranoid fantasy that any criticism of the SWP must be funded by the security services.) Have you ever noticed before that the SWP constitute only a minuscule number of people in terms of society as a whole, and that one obvious logical corollary is that the vast majority of people disagree with their politics. Many even oppose them. Some, like me, think of their leadership and their acolytes as (largely) little more than poseurs. Sadly for you, we live in an age where you and your political bosses are going to find it increasingly difficult to monopolise the debate about what you do and unilaterally control the information available to your members and supporters. That, of course, is actually very good news.
“Its well established that the state will fund this type of crap”
And here’s me thinking that such blogs could be set up and run free of cost. Or perhaps you are implying that the state is funding the entire internet simply in order to undermine the SWP? My, don’t we have a high opinion of ourselves? Not to mention that such a view of the world and your role in it must make your life seem terribly dramatic and important – perhaps disproportionately so?
Do you think it would help or hurt your cause of you stopped blustering and calling people spooks, tossers, etc? I’d have thought that most people realise that that sort of invective and swagger doesn’t really work online, where you can use an anonymous account and be as aggressive as you like without any real world consequences. Won’t people get the impression that you are a sad little braggart hiding behind a keyboard? Is that really the impression you want the world to have of the fearless Bolshevik agitator? Personally, I’d call it an own goal.
Finally, it might help you to calm down and get things in proportion if you were to consider the fact that the “UK’s largest left revolutionary party” has only a very small membership compared to, eg., the Women’s Institute (an impressive 205,000 members). There – does that help?
ps. Clive – thanks for your reply regarding numbers, etc. It is much appreciated.
“If you look back over the site over the last few weeks for example, there have been far more comments on other topics than about the SWP”
This is great news and suggests the site is at last beginnning to move forward but is weak argument perphaps implying recognition of my origuinal point.
If you truly are going to concentrate on moving the blog forward rather than hosting left sectariana comments and SWP digs you will have my full support. My perception could well be flawed and other topics that do not attack the SWP could have attacted far more comments over the years.
But just for clarity what about a compling and dispalying a graph (nae histogram) detailing the concentration and relative incidence of topic comment contributions expressing antipathy towards the SWP measured against all other topics of concern to the left since the inception of the ‘Socialist Unity’project. I know that is is a concept borrowed from the poerfomance indicator world of new managerialism but the findings could help finally put my argument to rest.
“You could of cource just not visit the SU blog, if you don’t like it.”
Don’t worry I’ll still be clocking in to check on your progress.
Good luck
The era of left-sectarian web based meta-jokestering appears to have come to an end.
in4mation
I wasn’t aware that you were my boss, and that I am accountable to you.
You are perfectly able yourself to look back though the site and see how many comments there are on different topics.
SWP members troll this blog, crushing any debate with smears of reactionary behaviour and attempt to make any discussion centre around them and their laughable idiocy – then they castigate anyone (including themselves, presumably?) for using this blog, and for discussing the latest pranks of SWP-Reespect? Um, yeah, I think you need your heads looking at. Stop holding back the Left, you will find once you stop sticking up for Rees and Lindzee that life will improve and you will not hate the whole world so much.
Inf4mation: “I know that is is a concept borrowed from the poerfomance indicator world of new managerialism but the findings could help finally put my argument to rest”.
My, you are up on new management speak! Just had to ask a manager for an interpretation of what you requested. Can you do prole speak instead, ta….
OK I’ll get too. And report back asap. How do you want me to classify your last couple of comments? For example, ‘antipathy full’ or ‘antipathy free’ OR ‘promoting left collaboration and cohesion’ or ‘exacerbating and cementing didvide’.
You are right I am not your boss and its entirely wrong headed of you to make such an assumption. Are you being a bit cheeky? Readers should be clear that I do not have any responsibility for funding or managing this site. But I will help provide you with information which you will have the power to reject, dismiss, attack and ignore or use or self reflection and improvment. I will provide this service for you at no cost. As an exploited worker living under a new work intensity regime it is likley to take me some time but I will get on to it.
Its OK I don not wnat you to feel under any stress about this and apolgies if you found my contibution oppressing. But I will be grateful for any help you can offer.
Thanks again for your speedy response.
I can sympathise with inf4mation’s fury (#90) when s/he writes that the brief of this blog is to “promote the break up of left unity project across the UK”. After all, I thought that was the current SWP leadership’s speciality – see Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party, Respect and so on. No wonder s/he’s all hot and bothered. Stop treading on Rees’s toes, Andy! Whether there’s any need for “special branch tossers” in the movement when we’ve got so many home-grown tossers in the leadership of “UK ’s largest left revolutionary party” is of course an interesting conundrum…..
inf4mation go find a real ife somewhere.
Andy has a great blog and owes you nothing. The views expressed in the comments section (note they are comments to an article)reflect the wide range of views of many on the left and are therefore very intersting for all to read. It is a sign of the succcess of this blog that so many comments are sent in. If you dont like it find another site to troll!
It should read “inf4mation go find a real life somewhere”.
Jay you are affecting the figures.
Andy has inicated that he does not want anymore of this type of comment. Things are moving on. Your comments would only have been appropriate in the previous era of this site. The host is now actively trying to encourage “far more comments on other topics than about the SWP.”
It would be appreciated if everybody commented in the renewed spirit of the site’s organiser.
That’s wonderous nature of Andy’s blog. People care so much that they correct their own spelling mistakes.
inf4mation: What do you suggest we discuss in response to an article about the SWP leadership? Bee-keeping? Although come to think of it Andy Wilson’s comment about the membership of the Women’s Institue was rather illuminating…
You aren’t alone inf4mation, I’ve also been spoken of on this blog, (quite unjustly I think) of being out of touch with reality.
Nevertheless on personal reflection, it seemed to me an instance of misinterpretation rather than fact.
The confusion that has been wrought by the recent antics of the SWP leadership, ( to their own membership as well as others on the ‘left’) has left a gaping hole in many a comrade’s conciousness.
Mine as well as others more au fait with Marxist theory and history than mine; to the point where even the most basic assumptions about the possibilities of acheiving ‘socialism’ have been questioned.
Hopefully when the dust settles things will become clearer, but for now the damge has been done.
#108 me again
with ‘respect’ to TLC #106, the last line in #108, for ‘damge’ read ‘damage’.
Bravo Halshall!
106 “That’s wonderous nature of Andy’s blog. People care so much that they correct their own spelling mistakes”
Unlike your good self, sir!
#111: Are you referring to his spelling of ‘wonderous’? It is a legitimate alternative spelling to ‘wondrous’. Or were you referring to his dodgy grammar? I think wee shoulde knowe!
Sorry, Mr Woolrich, I beg to differ. According to that stern mistress the online dictionary:
“No results found for “wonderous”
We didn’t find a match on “wonderous,” but we found the following alternate spellings for you. Click one to continue your search.
wondrous
wonder ous
wanderoos
ponderous”
And I think you should apologise for calling the comrade’s grandmother dodgy.
And of course what’s even better is that people will also helpfully point out your own spelling errors. Who said this blog wasn’t a helpful and comradely place?
John Rees?
‘Wonderous’ is in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary I have here, but not in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is more current. I am, indeed, showing my age…
BTW Rob, your online perspicacity only confirms my long-held conviction that you are the thinking man’s crumpet.
PS You owe me a fiver for that!
# 109 – 118
I think you lot are being just plain flippant.
Your NOT really serious Marxists are you?!
Not like the SWP.
Yes, comrade ‘Infl4mation’ is right!
Revolutionaries should never discuss strategy and tactics amongst themselves! We should only discuss how bad Gordon Brown is.
Lenin was such a sectarian for criticising Kautsky, Martov & Pleckhanov. He should have just written ‘the Tsar is a very bad man’ over and over again.
Oh, and of course this blog funded by the state. Who else could bankroll such an expensive operation as a blog? Yes, that explains it all! There can be no other reason to criticise our great Central Committee’s blunders in the Respect / left list fiasco. Next time I’m having a disagreement with another comrade in an SWP meeting I’ll just simply accuse them of being state agents. Who needs a Marxist analysis these days?
#119 “Lenin .. should have just written ‘the Tsar is a very bad man’ over and over again.”
Is the central message of this blog not tha the SWP is very bad organisation and is that not repeated over and over again.
Early stats are certainly suggesting this with anti-SWP comments definitely main focus for contributions. These significantly outweigh positive contributions on any other topic relating to challenging the ssytem or uniting left forces. To imply that these same comments are Leninist in nature and written in the spirit of his contributions in and around 1917 is either deep meta-jokestering or delusional.
Will get the full stats out as soon as possible.
#120
It is quite legitimate for socialists to discuss the SWP’s strategy and tactics. I put over a decade of my youth into building that organisation and I still work alongside its members in many struggles. I have a right to voice these opinions.
The reason there are thousands of EX-members of the SWP (who are still active in the struggle) is that we have found that the SWP does not provide an adequate space for disagreement and discussion of its strategy and tactics. If it did, we would still be inside it, and it would be many thousands stronger.
I dislike your pathetic attempt to de-legitimise debate here through a simple command to ‘focus on the class enemy’. If we are to fight properly, we need to put our own house in order. That means a discussion about the nature and history of the revolutionary left. We need socialist organisation – and anything that helps democratise groups like the SWP – like this blog – is welcome in my eyes.
Before you say its a distraction from turning outwards to build the struggle – YOU are the one who is now trawling through every post on this website claiming you are compiling statistics as to its pro or anti SWP content, or whatever!
I’m off to work – where I will spend my lunchbreak building for this saturdays anti-war demo.
The CC would tell YOU to stop pissing around on ‘sectarian blogs’ and go build the struggle!!!
Just to add re post #120:
You ask “Is the central message of this blog not tha the SWP is very bad organisation and is that not repeated over and over again”?
No – it contains a range of criticism – some of it quite constructive – along with valuable anecdotes from comrades experiences of the struggle, and also very useful up to date information from those intimately involved in the Respect split. Information you wont get from official SWP publications!
Besides – Mr Inf4mation – have you retracted your absurd and paranoid claim that this blog is somehow state funded yet? Do so if you wish to have any credibility!
And how many time will you repeat the phrase ‘meta-jokestering’ under the impression this makes you sound clever. Its getting embarrassing!
The CC has told them that. “Enough of the blogs! Enough of the emails!” said John Rees at the SWP conference.
This translates as “there is only one CC leader and Socialist Worker is his messenger”.
“inf4mation”‘s posts, like those of the other “all you do is bash the SWP here” people, should make SWP members cringe. Only something like 1 in 30 posts on this blog are about the SWP.
The simple fact, and inf4mation knows this, is that the comments boxes on SWP articles get so busy entirely because of the behaviour of the SWP anony-trolls, doing their best to divert debate and poison the comments.
The SWP posts are getting more laughable by the day. All I ask is an explaination or reply to George Galloway’s 2007 August letter and John Rees and co actions since.
All I get back is I am using a special branch blog.
What a bunch of unmarxist cretins the SWP cc are.