30 responses to “From: office@respectcoalition.org”

1. 

   Ger Francis

   October 24, 2007 at 11:20 pm

   All the Birmingham signers are either SWP with one possible ex-SWPer. It will be the same for the vast majority of the rest. In light of the fact that the SWP will be pulling out the stops to get their members to kick in and give this the pretence of being signed by non-members, what is striking is that they have only got 100+ names. And this from an organisation with a claimed 5,000+ members. Unimpressive.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Liam

   October 24, 2007 at 11:27 pm

   It’s similar for Tower Hamlets. The majority are declared SWP members. There are several notable absentees but I would not read anything into that.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Andy Newman

   October 24, 2007 at 11:56 pm

   It may also be tactically inept in the sense that such a loyalty test will be deeply resented by some undecided SWP members who are currently wavering.

   Particularly among some on the old lags, who dislike being patronised by a bushy tailed full timer.

   I notice by the way that both of the two petitions going around have one former Big Brother housemate on them!

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   twp77

   October 25, 2007 at 12:01 am

   Liam it is becoming more and more clear that you are drawing your political line in the sand on the side of the Galloway camp. Personally, I think taking a position with either side in this split is ridiculous and the very fact that you feel compelled to do so should show you how much the rot has set in within this supposed left organisation – the big happy alternative” to Labour.

   When Galloway uses red-bating language he should be condemned and not excused or disregarded. If one can condemn the SWP for undemocratic behaviour and unsavory dealings (and they should be condemned) then surely Galloway can be equally condemned for his red-baiting.

   As far as I can tell you’ve chosen not to address this episode altogether and even allude to the fact that you have only ever been “witchhunted” by the SWP themselves – so that makes Galloway’s sneering comments about “Leninists” ok then? So that means whatever Galloway and his cronies do inside Respect in the name of getting rid of the “Leninists” ok then? Just what on earth are you supporting here Liam?

   And I don’t expect a political response from you on this either – whch is precisely why I haven’t been participating in this discussion as of late on either your or AN’s blog. Instead of addressing why you now choose to support an anti-choice, homophobic MP, you simply falsely claim that I support warmongers by supporting the Labour Left. It’s as if you’ve stuck your fingers in your ears and don’t want to have a discussion with anyone who doesn’t agree with you anymore.

   I have always had a lot of respect for you as a political activist Liam but I have to say this whole episode has made me lose that to a great degree and while you may not give a toss about it now, when Respect falls apart and you want to work with other activists again it just might.

   Again, please think about just who you are supporting and what precisely they represent – upon further reflection you may want to reconsider and for your sake I hope you do.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Andy Newman

   October 25, 2007 at 12:18 am

   you are funny TWP. Your dislike of Galloway cleatly stops you thinking straight about him.

   In the context of this argument, the critique of Leninism is about the Toy Town bolshevism of the SWP, it is not a critique of Lenin himself.

   Indeed galloway supported the actually existing socialist governments which adhered to official Leninism. So his critique of Lenininsm now must be understood in that context, not as general red-baiting.

   This also reminds me that over some important issues, like solidarity with the latin American revolutions, particularly Venezuela and Cuba, galloway is to the left of the SWP – and this may prove a very imprortant factor to Respect’s benefit

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   twp77

   October 25, 2007 at 1:18 am

   No AN – I am not funny. In fact this whole conversation is very far from funny. I also think I am more than capable of “thinking straight” about Galloway and have given a political critique of him and Respect on many occasions on here and elsewhere.

   But it is precisely what I said in my last comment directed at Liam – you cannot address the political issues that are raised so you claim I have some kind of problem – I can’t “think straight” or am “blinded” by some kind of misguided loathing. None of this is borne out by the facts about Respect as an organisation and Galloway that I have consistently been bringing to light since quitting the organisation in early 2005.

   It is your and Liam’s critique of Respect and Galloway that has changed – not mine.

   Finally, your attempt to excuse what is clearly red-baiting as some kind of brilliant “critique” by Galloway is very unconvincing.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   modernityblog

   October 25, 2007 at 1:28 am

   exactly,

   people should try to answer TWP77’s point politically, if they can.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Mike

   October 25, 2007 at 4:59 am

   All the signatories based in Wales are SWP or ex-SWP. Two of them almost totally politically inactive for decades.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Jason

   October 25, 2007 at 7:55 am

   I think TWP77’s points are right.

   There are many legitimate reasons for criticising the SWP in Respect- the way they have not openly argued for socialist ideas, the way they have acted bureacratically.

   But Galloway’s comments are red-baiting- using a label Leninist as a smear- and his general political trajectory is to make Respect electable by turning it right.

   I think Liam and Allan Thornett are being very naive in siding with Galloway on this. Yes SR raised some good points about democracy in Respect that very belatedly Galloway has taken up- or similar points.

   Why? Because he’s had a sudden change of heart abot making Respect open, democratic, acountable?

   Or could it be that he a few weeks ago deliberately detonated an argument within Respect with a very particular aim in mind to blow it apart?

   If he really wanted to make the organisation more efficient and democratic he is sufficiently shrewd and skilled to have approached the whole affair in a different more constructive manner. He knwe what he was doing. The fact that the SWP has haplessly fallen into his trap is no argument either- of course they could and should have launched an open and comradely political fight in Respect. And of course they haven’t because the way the SWP operates now- as everyone knows including Galloway and Liam for that matter- the SWP can’t.

   I think the only solution is a longer term strategic one to step back from all this mess, to start initiatives on the ground in the localities now for unity in action between different left groups, for frateranal open and hopefully mutually enlightening discussion of differences and socialist theory, related to the practicals of class struggle.

   This is what members of socialist unity in Manchester are attempting- of course Respect, SWP, and anyone else is welcome.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Jason

    October 25, 2007 at 7:59 am

    And just one slight addendum before anyone says that the socialist unity is just the left relating to themselves- all the campaigns and struggles we would relate to are precisely designed to draw in as many people as possibel, for the Karen Reissmann strike, for the let Flores Sukula study campaign (Flores cannot take up her place at Uni because she faces deportation), for the march against Academies.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Matt Sellwood

    October 25, 2007 at 8:33 am

    Am I right in reading this post as saying that the SWP sent this out from the RESPECT national office?

    If so – surely that is a major abuse of national structures? I know that if there was even a hint of the Green Party national office getting involved in any of our controversies (over the leadership question for example) there would be total outrage….

    Matt

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    splinteredsunrise

    October 25, 2007 at 9:29 am

    It looks to me like the CC is on a loyalty oath crusade. This may not go down well with waverers in the ranks.

    Do they think we came up Lough Erne on a leaf?

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Andy Newman

    October 25, 2007 at 9:51 am

    Bt TWP

    Given that you continually say things about Galloway that are counter factual, like claimig he is homophobic, and your utterly bizarre interpretation of his Al Quds speech that it was against western decadence, this does make it difficult to debate with you politically about it.

    You base your arguments on facts that are not true.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    George T

    October 25, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Has any SWPer been expelled from RESPECT? However several members have been expelled by the SWP recently. Where is the witchhunt? Has Galloway an organised force to lead a witchhunt? Are all lefties inside RESPECT backing the SWP leaders? This petition is solely to get SWP members to stand up and be counted for the SWP leadership. Rather than trying to heal rifts, this is going to open up a divide throughout RESPECT branches – are you with us or against us? SWP leaders seem to be intent on returning their organisation to political isolation. Many SWPers have worked enormously hard in RESPECT and should not throw away their good work by withdrawing from RESPECT. The time to build a left of Labour party is good and we should seek to strengthen and develop RESPECT with other forces. SR has been consistent critics of both Galloway and the SWP leadership’s conception of democracy. Comrades should continue to fight inside RESPECT for a democratic party – SWP leaders are falsely claiming to fight for this through struggling against an imagined witchhunt – no one should be fooled – their past actions show they want RESPECT as a machine controlled by themselves. Rank and file SWPers should reject their leaders approach and seek to win comrades to ideas posed by Nick Wrack et al.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Liam

    October 25, 2007 at 10:14 am

    “Drawing lines in the sand” is a great phrase if you are making a film about the French Foreign Legion. It’s less helpful when you are trying to describe a complex, surprising and fast moving situation.

    The core issue in all this is what sort of internal regime a successful alternative to social democracy requires. The SWP has given one answer to this. The regime needs to be tightly controlled by that organisation. It’s a point of view that GG was willing to accept for quite a long time.

    The other point of view is that the regime needs to be pluralistic, democratic and accountable. This has always been the view held by supporters of Socialist Resistance. The current alignment of forces suggests that it is now shared by the overwhelming majority of non SWP Respect NC members. One of these is GG. There are a number of suggestions as to why he has arrived at this conclusion. I don’t know which one is right.

    GG’s faults are many. Is he anti-choice? He describes himelf as a Catholic. Let’s keep out all the professing Catholic is one answer. To my knowledge he has not pushed an anti-choice agenda inside Respect. Is he homophobic? That’s simply wrong. In any case anti-abortionist Catholics are not a rare commodity inside the Labour Party either. It had one as leader until a couple of months ago. Would it be wrong to make a tactical alliance with an individual around an issue relating to internal democracy?

    Supporters of SR have been on the opposite side of an argument with GG more frequently and more openly than any other participants in Respect. Sit through the videos and look through the articles on this site for proof of that. It is absolutely certain that we will be again. But in this fight around the single issue of inner party democracy we agree with each other.

    As for the “anti-Leninism”. The SWP has been practising a crass method of “democratic centralism”. It can hardly be surprised if people start getting fed up with pre-planned interventions, stacked meetings and three line whips. It is only the SWP that is posing this as an anti-left crusade because that is easier than dealing with the other side’s point. To my certain knowledge every SR supporter inside Respect wants the SWP to remain part of it. I have gone further and suggested on Andy’s site that no one leaves the SWP and fights around this issue at its upcoming conference.

    This is an unpleasant fight. It may result in Respect disintegrating. This will put those of us who despise New Labour back in the position of wishing there was something out there to be part of and that we could vote for without feeling dirty. But it does offer the promise of a complete re-establishment of a an alternative mass, class struggle left project.

    MIKE: I DELETED A PERSONALLY ABUSIVE REMARK YOU MADE ABOUT A COMRADE. IT’S AGAINST THE HOUSE RULES.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Andy Newman

    October 25, 2007 at 11:02 am

    What Mike said was true though!

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    modernityblog

    October 25, 2007 at 11:57 am

    talking of unfortunate phrases, Andy Newman has a whole article dedicated to his use of the expression “the Muslim lands”

    http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=7430

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    Phil

    October 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Do they think we came up Lough Erne on a leaf?

    You’re just making them up now.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    Jason

    October 25, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Some good arguments in principle, Liam.

    I’m not sure anyone on here is saying we should never work with GG- I’m certainly not- because of his views on say abortion. If I thought Respect offered a real alternative and represented a real movmeent in the class and that a vote for and participation in Respect took forward the class struggle then of course Galloway should be allowed to be a member and pout his views to it in a democratic way.

    Of course there have been very many problems with the way the SWP and Galloway have run Respect undemocratically. It’s just if Galloway in the media is, as the SWP allege, going to come out with attacks on SW for being Leninist or socialist or marxist or whatever we should not join in.

    Not of course that you are at all. However, you do seem to be aligning yourself, perhaps unwititingly, with one side in this increasingly unpleasant argument

    By aligning yourself with Galloway in this factional war I think there is every chance you could be dragged down a mutually unpleasant and hostile atmosphere.

    In terms of ways forward I think there are still plenty of ways forward in terms of practical initiatives on the ground, discussion of diffferences in a full, open and democratic manner and much of this can come about by taking a step back and thoroughly re-examining what sort of left movement is possible.

    In terms of the current dispute in Respect not sure if there are any nice ways out now Gallowaty has (quite deliberately in my opinion) set off his bomb.

    I agree any movmeent should be democratic and accountable. Not sure what pluralistic means- does it mane that all types of people- e .g. ethnic groups, genders, sexualities etc- should be encouraged and made to feel welcome as equals within a democratic farmework? Then defintely it’s a good and essnetial idea. But some seem to mean by it that we shouldn’t take up or debate any policy that may offend some of these groups- in which case no it is patronising and anti-democratic. We should be for the fullest and most open democracy, with mutual respect for different points of view and democratic voting to decide matters with full rights for minorities to orgnanise within the wider movement.

    Jason

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    twp77

    October 25, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Liam Wrote: “GG’s faults are many. Is he anti-choice? He describes himelf as a Catholic. Let’s keep out all the professing Catholic is one answer. To my knowledge he has not pushed an anti-choice agenda inside Respect. Is he homophobic? That’s simply wrong. In any case anti-abortionist Catholics are not a rare commodity inside the Labour Party either. It had one as leader until a couple of months ago. Would it be wrong to make a tactical alliance with an individual around an issue relating to internal democracy?”

    Let’s pick this paragraph apart. Is he anti-choice or just Catholic? Let’s look at a letter published in Tuesday’s Morning Star by Richard Sunderland from Leeds. He correctly points out that Galloway “has backed every attack on abortion rights in the past on religious grounds, including the Alton Bill”. The Alton Bill – (1987-88) in which Liberal Dem David Alton attempted to get the time limit for abortion lowered to 18 weeks. 18 weeks! These are not just Galloway’s “personal opinions” but his public record – things that he publically supported and voted for AS AN MP.

    Let’s look at Galloway’s record from the Public Whip website which takes account of votes and positions in Parliament taken by politicians throughout their careers.

    Here are Galloway’s stats with the title being the policy and the percentage being the “agreement” unless otherwise stated:

    Alcohol – increase its availability (provisional) – 50%
    Alcohol – restrict its availability (provisional) – 50%
    British Humanist (provisional) – 14%
    Civil aviation pollution – For limiting – 50%
    Conservative party abstentions (provisional) – 92%
    Control Orders – 43%
    Corporal punishment of children – Against – 50%
    Crossrail – In favour – 0%
    Educational Reform Rebel (provisional) – 50%
    Euthanasia and abortion – Against – 72%
    Foundation hospitals – In favour – 40%
    Fox hunting – Don’t ban – 30%
    Freedom of Information – Apply to Parliament – 89%
    Gambling – Against permissiveness – 50%
    Homosexuality – Equal rights – 89%
    Homosexuality – Not acceptable (provisional) – 30%
    House of Lords reform – Elected – 50%
    Identity cards – Against introduction – 87%
    Iraq 2003 – Against the invasion – 99%
    Iraq 2003 – Unconditionally pro-invasion (provisional) – 8%
    Iraq Investigation – Necessary – 81%
    No to ID Cards (provisional) – 100%
    Nuclear power – For – 63%
    Parliamentary scrutiny – Reduce – 50%
    Parliamentary scrutiny – Strengthen – 50%
    Pro American Pro War and Anti-Euro Party (provisional) – 50%
    Pro-Liberty (provisional) – 74%
    Protesting near Parliament – Unrestricted – 50%
    Recreational drugs – Against legalization – 50%
    Renationalisation of public services (provisional) – 50%
    Smoking ban – In favour – 50%
    Socially Free, Economically Free. True Libertarian (provisional) – 50%
    Stand as an MP based on signatures of support (provisional) – 75%
    Stop climate change (provisional) – 100%
    Taxes – Favour decreases (provisional) – 24%
    Taxes – Favour increases (provisional) – 100%
    Terrorism laws – Against – 70%
    Transexuality – Against legal recognition – 50%
    Trident replacement – In favour – 0%
    University education fees – Should be free – 75%
    Vote for Radical Change (provisional) – 65%
    Voting age – Reduce to 16 – 98%
    War – Parliamentary authority not necessary – 50%

    You can see the link here:
    http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=George_Galloway&mpc=Bethnal+Green+%26amp%3B+Bow&display=alldreams

    That is his record with an attendence of just 12.1% – far below the average for most MPs as you can see from looking at this link: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mps.php

    Now I’d like to compare this record with that of John McDonnell in order to show what type of MP the left should be supporting. John had an attendence record of 65.8%.

    Here are his stats:

    Civil aviation pollution – For limiting – 83%
    Control Orders – 7%
    Corporal punishment of children – Against – 100%
    Crossrail – In favour – 50%
    Euthanasia and abortion – Against – 6%
    Foundation hospitals – In favour – 0%
    Fox hunting – Don’t ban – 0%
    Freedom of Information – Apply to Parliament – 50%
    Gambling – Against permissiveness – 70%
    Homosexuality – Equal rights – 100%
    House of Lords reform – Elected – 62%
    Identity cards – Against introduction – 64%
    Iraq 2003 – Against the invasion – 100%
    Iraq Investigation – Necessary – 81%
    Nuclear power – For – 72%
    Parliamentary scrutiny – Reduce – 19%
    Parliamentary scrutiny – Strengthen – 60%
    Protesting near Parliament – Unrestricted – 91%
    Recreational drugs – Against legalization – 16%
    Smoking ban – In favour – 76%
    Terrorism laws – Against – 87%
    Transexuality – Against legal recognition – 21%
    Trident replacement – In favour – 0%
    University education fees – Should be free – 91%
    Voting age – Reduce to 16 – 83%
    War – Parliamentary authority not necessary – 50%

    Now I make this comparison specifically to highlight the issue of attendence but also the percentages of someone like McDonnell on abortion and LGBT issues in comparison to Galloway.

    Why? because Liam is claiming that is is important to “work with” people you have disagreements with on issues such as this. But Liam and SR are not simply “working with” Galloway – they are supporting him, calling for votes for him and downplaying his atrocious record on women and LGBT rights (obviously it is true that his voting record is somewhat better on LGBT issues but his homophobia is clear from his opposition to participation in the Pride parade and lest we forget – the infamous bit of the Respect constitution that was mysteriously “left out”).

    Is it really true that Liam and AN for that matter are merely “make a tactical alliance with an individual around an issue relating to internal democracy” as Liam suggests? All of the documentation, comments and support you have given to Galloway in the last few weeks suggests that this is beyond a simple “tactical alliance” and has transformed into outright support.

    I can’t really stand by and allow these shallow excuses of support for someone with such an atrocious record on abortion rights to pass without comment – particularly as Saturday is the 40th Anniversary of a woman’s right to choose in the UK.

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    Gadget Queen

    October 25, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    First of all – why have you included the e mail address to respond to if you want to show your support? I’m sure all the SWP members that will be encouraged to sign will be rung up anyway and told what to do – they don’t need anyone else legitimising their sectarian bullshit petition with their signatures. Then again – maybe that’s not what you meant….

    Secondly – I didn’t receive this despite being a Respect member, which actually is probably just as well as I’ve nearly blown a gasket reading it here. SWP members are being fed a constant stream of anti-Galloway propaganda of this kind from what I can gather. Delaying conference by three months so we aren’t ripped apart by these current divisions is a good idea – let’s push for it. I don’t agree that SWP members should stay in and fight for democracy within their organisation – get out, stay in Respect, and fight for that. I agree with George T, and can’t see why those SWPers who have been so active and effective in Respect can be anything but disgusted with what’s happening at the moment. Their leadership is treating them like ignorant fools.

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. Neues vom RESPECT-Zerfallsprozess « Entdinglichung

    October 25, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    […] und Demokratie gegen das durch George Galloway & Konsorten verkörperte Programm des Bösen verteidigen werden will … nur blöd, dass sich alle daran erinnern, dass die SWP bis vor 14 Tagen […]

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    newleftparty

    October 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    firstly, if the swp has over 5000 members then why are only about 1000 in respect? are the other 4000 refusing to join it, or has no one asked them to join, or what?

    secondly, if swp members refuse to sign this petition are they going to be disciplined? expelled even?

    ks

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    Louisefeminista

    October 25, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    Galloway speech at Al Quds was appalling and the question you need to confront who is he appealing to? The left? Socialists? secularists? Who…? he threw in national liberation struggles, Che, Chavez and Fidel …but so what. the rest of his speech was terrible.

    And Galloway could be far far far better on lesbian and gay rights as he’s tepid as hell and ambiguous which smacks, as ever as, of opportunism.

    Andy, I think you are being utterly unfair and objectionable to Tami. She makes comments yet you belittle them to, “you are funny TWP. Your dislike of Galloway cleatly stops you thinking straight about him”

    And it personalises her views. I don’t like Galloway either as he is a maverick who is waiting for the next big thing to jump on. I don’t like Gordon Brown either so does that stop me thinking straight about him or his disliking Brown acceptable?

    You reduce her arguments to “you are funny”.. What’s that mean? What you say it to a bloke?

    Argue her politics not personalise or make them subjective. She puts forward her views in good faith and you should argue them in good faith.

    Her arguments about Galloway are pretty similar to mine yet for you, “this does make it difficult to debate with you politically about it.”
    Why ‘cos her politics are seemingly groundless? the evidence isn’t there. Just ‘cos you see things from one political perspective doesn’t make it correct.

    Debate people on equal terms and don’t just dismiss her ideas.

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    George T

    October 25, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    I think it is funny for TWP to argue we should all be in Labour because of John Mcdonnell’s voting record – Clause 4 has gone, Iraq has been occupied, the LP-TU link has been cut, democratic conferences are gone, labour ward meetings are dead and Labour left MPs are standing down – but John Mcdonnell’s voting record makes everything ok.

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    Phil

    October 25, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    I really, really dislike the tendency to reduce the debate about RESPECT (any debate about RESPECT) to accusations of being a member of the George Galloway fan club. I loathe the man and will freely admit that McDonnell is a far, far better MP. I also believe that Galloway’s critique of the way RESPECT has been run is correct, and that a renewed RESPECT would be a major asset to the English Left. That to me is worth fighting for – and Galloway deserves credit for starting the fight.

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. 

    Louisefeminista

    October 25, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    Ok George, what exactly has Respect done in the last year that had a impact on the Left? Other than making the same tired comment about the LP, what exactly has Respect done other than indulge in factionalism driving it towards implosion?

    Where is Respect going other than off the rails?

    “and that a renewed RESPECT would be a major asset to the English Left.”

    How? It has splintered and will splinter again. It has no roots in the labour movement and the working class. And that certainly is no asset.

    Oh, and I really, really dislike the way the McD campaign and the Labour Left are dissed. But unfortunately, whichever way you slice Respect it looks like the Galloway fanclub.

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    Phil

    October 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm

    I’ve just said I’m not a Galloway fan, and that I respect McDonnell. I’m sure Liam could say as much. Arguing with strawmen does nobody any good.

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. 

    bill j

    October 25, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Tami is dead right, the issue in Respect is not about whether it is democratic or not (its not) but about the political basis of the organisation and what it means by “pluralism”.
    And what it means by “pluralism” is that you can have a party policy which can be read, as pro-choice, but you have an MP who is anti-choice. It’s pluralism. In theory you support women’s rights – in practice you allow your MP to oppose them.
    But that’s OK because both sides can co-exist in this “left” party. On paper you support Lesbian and Gay equality but you allow homophobes to leave the policy out of your election manifesto in 2005 and councillors the choice not to support Lesbian and Gay rights in public i.e. they don’t have to attend Pride.
    That’s “pluralism”, you have the anti-homophobes and the homophobes united in the same “left party.”
    And you can go down the list, workers wage for MPs, abolish all immigration controls, secular education, the Leninists and the anti-Leninists, pick which ever policy you care and Respects “pluralism” means that both the supporters and the opponents of the policies are united in the “left” party.
    Except now GG and his supporters have got tired of the hypocrisy and wish to resolve the contradiction to the…right. What will Respect look like without the SWP? Well we’ll find out soon enough, probably after the NC at the weekend, but who knows it may be a little later, it will be a populist party, run by GG and his careerist small business mates.
    Paradoxically the likes of Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoverman are busy cutting away the branch that supports them. Once they’ve helped ditch the SWP, what use will GG have for them? They’ll be the next ones out.
    They’ll be no room for “Leninists” in the new Respect.
    So what

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. 

    Phil

    October 25, 2007 at 11:22 pm

    Except now GG and his supporters have got tired of the hypocrisy and wish to resolve the contradiction to the…right.

    In the immortal words of John Cleese, explain the logic underlying this conclusion. RESPECT has moved to the Left on almost all the issues you mention since it was founded; some of the people and groups who have been pushing it to the Left are on Galloway & Yaqoob’s side in this debate. The only people who see this as a battle between principled socialists and electoralist opportunists are the SWP CC, and they’re hardly an objective witness.

    LikeLike

    Reply