0104_roostvThere were many positive aspects to tonight’s Tower Hamlets Respect branch meeting. Here are four that come straight to mind.

  • No blows were exchanged.
  • No chairs were thrown.
  • The ceiling didn’t collapse.
  • The toilets were pretty clean.

This was the sequel to last Tuesday’s meeting to select conference delegates. The branch committee had appointed a sub committee to come up with a mutually agreeable slate. Tonight’s meeting was supposed to ratify it but couldn’t because the sub-committee didn’t reach agreement.

So again tonight we were presented with two slates. Except that makes the thing sound better than it was. The meeting was advertised to start at 7pm. There was an hour and a quarter of milling around, deciding who was allowed to come in, shouting and abuse. Then it got worse.

There is a reason I’ve never been invited to dance principal male lead in the Bolshoi’s production of Swan Lake. I’d be rubbish. There is a reason Azmal Hussain is not the best qualified person to chair contentious Respect branch meetings. Watching hidden camera footage of the ten worst supply teachers in London with the toughest classes seems to have been his sole preparation for taking on the job. Ignoring everything for an hour, screaming and threatening to walk out are not, as a rule, successful strategies. But, credit where it’s due, he tried them.

There were a few minutes at around 8.25 when it looked like a meeting might happen. Paul, a founder member of Respect moved the SWP’s resolution. He argued it on the basis of the constitution, democracy and so on. It would have been more persuasive if he’d said something about the phony student delegates, dodgy conference arrangements committee and the instructions to SWP branches to pack conference delegations. His motivation was followed by some depressing contributions from individual SWP members complaining about how they had been left off the delegate slate. It was truly disheartening to see keen young militants allow themselves to be manipulated like this. The issue was the political balance of the delegation in a context where the dogs in the street know that the SWP has been trying to stack delegations all across the country. Here individual hurt feelings are not important.

So there was a bit more shouting. The chair said he was leaving. There was more shouting followed by a more of less contemporaneous walk out by both sides. I went to the pub, listened to Martin Hayes’ version of The Lament For Limerick and downed three pints.

This is what was built into the coalition model. You could count the number of independent Labour Movement activists without taking off your socks. Respect in Tower Hamlets was built without trying to incorporate the contribution that Labourism and trade unionism offers to working class organisations. The SWP leadership consistently derided these structures in the certain knowledge that the only political training people need is to learn how to defer to their wisdom. That fell apart tonight. My guess is that the SWP will set up some joke organisation like “Globalise Respect” or “The proper socialist Respect”. This is a real setback. There were a lot of SWP members in that room tonight who should be part of a mass class struggle alternative to Labour. I’ll add to this later.

Oh, and neither police nor ambulances were needed.

Technorati Tags: ,

22 responses to “Chickens come home – Tower Hamlets Respect splits”

  1. Liam. When you’ve recovered from the 3 pints can you briefly detail the outcome of the meeting. If both ‘sides’ walked out does that mean no delegates to National Conference have been elected from Respect’s strongest locality in terms of members, elected Councillors and MP?

    If thats the case we now kinow the cost of this dispute. So depressing when you see George Galloway put on the kind of performance on Question Time that should make any Respect member and thousands not members proud to have him as an MP. He’s not perfect, and I share many of the criticisms expressed by others on this site, but he is a really effective communicator and and represents a progressive politics New Labour gave up on more than a decade ago. Thats not to ignore the contribution of John McDonnell and others but even his most dogged supporters would recognise that he represents a distinctly monority trend in Brownite Labour.

    With Tower Hamlets spilt what future for Respect? It is hard to see a co-existence betwen the control culture the SWP insists on defending to the end and the vision of a plural, participative and broad Left of Labour Party. Galloway tonight gave the kind of performance which spells out the potential for the latter and the sheer recklesness of the SWP denouncing his efforts to renew Respect as a rightward drift, red-baiting and the like. His is a political critique, you may or may not like it but it is in no meaningful sense either a rightwards move or a witchunt.

    The two conceptions for Respect, a plural left or the ‘united front of a special type’ in terms of personalities and practice are increasingly incompatible which it is perhaps best to simply accept, and move on. But how?

    Like

  2. My strong impression is that when the SWP walked out of the room tonight they walked out of Respect. I’d prefer to be wrong. What is certain is that there is no agreed Tower Hamlets conference delegation and that any attempt to have a conference in November would be a bloody mess. As for the rest let me mull it over.

    Like

  3. They might have got back in time to see Galloway on Question Time – he was generally rather good, especially on the first question on Iran. Despite his faults it is still a major asset to the left to have an MP who is able to go on TV in this way.

    Rerun it here:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/default.stm

    Like

  4. There was a vote on a list which was representative of the TH Respect, ie that the list contained around 10% the SWP. This was carried 30% for, no votes against, because the chair did not ask this question. The best part of the meeting came when the chair said that everyone had to get out of the hall and then come back in again, no one moved, it was cold and dark outside, unlike the sweetness and light inside.

    Like

  5. Galloway and Co will sow the SWP like a kipper, they haven’t seen anything yet

    Like

  6. And you think there is something worth preserving about Respect? How absurd.

    Like

  7. Ah, so this is why, Liam, you were so keen to resume your Respect membership. I see it now.

    What nice friends you’ll have to work with in TH Respect.

    Like

  8. For goodness sake Liam. Isn’t what really happened that the majority was in favour of the original slate and therefore the chair refused to continue with the meeting? And packing? Is this some kind of joke?

    Like

  9. Liam: “I went to the pub, listened to Martin Hayes’ version of The Lament For Limerick and downed three pints.”

    There is something so soulful, kinda upbeat yet sad about the above statement. If that was me I woulda downed half-bottle of Russian vodka and taken a couple of Valium and listened to some Amy Winehouse…

    Regards to those darn clever dogs on the streets laughing away..I think even they would turn down membership and cats are damn bright as well as I am sure my neighbour’s moggie is far far sussed on the correct political line to take on Respect/SWP…. and is very analytical on the price of cat food.

    Like

  10. Incidently the chair of the meeting, as far as I know (I’m checking at the moment) was the same person who singlehandedly refused a compromise on the slate, despite everyone else being really quite eager to do so (the meeting which had called for this comprised a big cross section of opinion). His chaotic behaviour reflected the fact a) that it was clear that he had lost any moral high ground and b) that large numbers of Respect members (not SWP), Bengali and non-Bengali were pissed off with this.

    You’ve simply made a political error Liam and should cease attempting to bend reality to fit your perspective. Its a damaging to the movement as a whole. You should join those SWP and non-SWP seeking to keep Respect as a broad coalition with an important socialist component. Its clear that you have no real taste for the other side of the argument in practice, despite the fact that they’re not too keen on the SWP.

    Like

  11. A correction. I was wrong about the chair being the person who initially was opposed to the compromise. I should have checked before posting. The rest is right though.

    Like

  12. […] the chaotic members meeting in Tower Hamlets last night, which seems to have failed to elect a slate of delegates for conference, the councillors […]

    Like

  13. The problem is that RESPECT is not a broad enough coalition ie it lacks important sections of the left and TU activists – its not broad enough due to the way it was run by the SWP/Galloway in the past e.g it wasn’t democratic enough. The importance of the Galloway critique was it recognised some of the problems with RESPECT – unfortunately SWP leaders took a purer than thou approach and admitted no errors. They now claim it is a battle between left and right – but up to Galloway’s critique there was no criticism from SWP leaders of the political positions that RESPECT had taken. In fact the lack of democratic discussion in RESPECT fostered by the SWP and Galloway in the past prevented real debates on policy. No doubt the SWP leaders will now form an electoral front with a fully socialist programme but what will make their appeal stronger than RESPECT. In order to grow any left formation will need democratic functioning – this may take a little while to develop in a Galloway RESPECT but its more likely to develop there than in an SWP front organisation.

    Hopefully comrades from the SWP will refuse to take their marching orders and seek to build a left of Labour party rather than another SWP front organisation.

    Like

  14. I should have said RESPECT was not a broad enough party as the SWP/Galloway agreeing to it being a coalition was part of the problem – it left it without the internal functioning of party.

    Like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Like

  16. It’s surely time that Respect’s ruling bodies put a stop to this nonsense and took a grip on the situation by suspending Tower Hamlets Respect and setting up a group to investigate any allegations and complaints and to mediate between the different sides.

    Like

  17. Under normal circumstances absolutely. But there is a problem at the moment isn’t there.

    Like

  18. johng, if the issue which divided the meeting was about who goes to the conference, how the hell do you interpret this as being about building a “purely electoralist movement”? Smells like a power-play to me.

    I’m assuming you were at the meeting and thus can overrule Liam, and are not repeating talking-points. You can confirm this, can’t you?

    Like

  19. I’m repeating things that were told me by people who were at the meeting. Its open to Liam to confirm or deny what I’ve said. Of course there are power plays involved. Who said different?

    Like

  20. […] get themselves delegated to the UUC by their Orange districts, just to make mischief. It all makes Tower Hamlets Respect look like a model of professional […]

    Like

  21. It’s impossible to reply fully to all the points raised in the 50 plus comments today. I’ll deal with a couple raised by Johng.

    In a formal sense Azmal’s handling of the meeting was an incompetent, bureaucratic, anti-democratic mess.That is beyond argument. I long ago decided not to join that odd bunch who take contemporaneous notes of meetings. What I present is a sketch of a shambles. Not being involved with any of the Tower Hamlets groupings I’m a bit vague on who blocked what. The one clear thing was that both sides had taken a decision to split if they didn’t win and individual comrades sharing their hurt feeling at being left off a slate, as a political argument, is pretty feeble.

    The other key thing is that it was common knowledge that the SWP had been instructed to get all its local members elected as delegates. That was throwing petrol on the fire. That is not how marxists should participate in broader alliances.

    As for the street meeting I know nothing about it. Finally it was this obsession with the stupid idea of a coalition, tightly controlled by the SWP’s leadership, that got us in this mess. Azmal’s behaviour last night was undemocratic, abusive and wrong. The trouble is that he, and people like him, were never given the chance to learn how to function inside a party.

    Like

  22. So, the meeting which should never have taken place on this date finished earlier than planned – what a shame not more than one person came on to the Tower Hamlets & Jenin Twinning benefit event afterwards. A fine alternative to laments to Limerick and beer, or vodka, valium and Winehouse.

    Like

Leave a reply to Guy Cancel reply

Trending