From the latest edition of the SWP’s internal bulletin Party Notes (Monday October 22)

Respect – but not for the SWP

Last week George Galloway led a concerted series of attacks on the SWP and attempted to weaken or smash up SWP delegations going to the Respect Conference. Below are short reports of the meetings. The facts speak for themselves.

Tower Hamlets – Galloway goes on the rampage

Two extremely unpleasant meetings have laid bare the attack on the left at the heart of the present disputes. At the first (a Respect members’ meeting) there was an attempt to derail the only constitutionally supplied list of delegates for the Respect conference. During the meeting a handwritten list with partial names was suddenly produced, and an attempt made to get it endorsed. A group of people who support George Galloway walked out. The meeting continued and the original list was passed (see enclosed report).

At the second meeting (a committee meeting) after an initially calm beginning, George Galloway launched a vicious assault on the SWP and on “Leninists”. This is a disgraceful attack on the party which defended him during the Big Brother episode, played a crucial role in getting him elected and is the backbone of Respect in most parts of the country.The meeting ended with Galloway telling members of the SWP to “off you go” – “fuck off, fuck off the lot of you”.

Newham – when only some Respect members will do!

At short notice George Galloway announced that he wanted to address members of Newham Respect. A meeting was set for last Friday at the Newham Respect Office. At the time the meeting was due to start, a spokesperson for George entered the room and said that George was not prepared to speak to a meeting with SWP members present and would hold the meeting – for non-SWP members – at a Respect member’s house. This was further evidence of a declaration of war against us.

Birmingham – What a carve up!

Several week’s ago myself and John Rees held a meeting with Salma and Ger from Birmingham Respect. The meeting agreed that we needed to try and rebuild trust between the SWP and Salma. We also agreed that Helen one of our full time organisers would become a ward captain for Salma.

Last week Birmingham Respect was due to hold a meeting to select its candidates for Respects annual conference. Ger contacted our organisers saying that he did not want to have a big row like Tower Hamlets Respect, and could we come to an agreement on the number of delegates the SWP would put forward.

We were told that there were 12 delegates. After some discussion we agreed that we would nominate 3 comrades and withdraw two others. At the start of the meeting it was announced that 34 new membership forms existed, and that Salma planned to claim a delegate entitlement of 17 for the branch .This was done without informing the SWP, and obviously if we had known that the claimed delegation size had grown by over a quarter we would have argued for a proportional increase in the number of SWP members going.

Student Respect groups – are they going to be banned?

It was decided at the Respect officers’ meeting of Monday 3 September that for the purposes of this year’s Respect conference, members of Student Respect would be treated as members in terms of constituting branches in each college and university, and sending delegates and motions to conference. No opposition was voiced to this proposal.

Furthermore, it follows the precedent from last year’s conference where the arrangements were identical. All of a sudden Student Respect groups have had two deadlines imposed on them. One for Friday 19th for all groups to send in their numbers by midnight for the number of delegates to be calculated. While this was being acted on by groups around the country, the debate between the officers was ongoing about whether students were going to be allowed to attend the conference.

On Friday evening we were told that all Student Respect groups must send the names, addresses and emails of ALL members declared for the group by today (Monday).

Student Respect have sent a statement, expressing concern over the potential exclusion of Student members from the democratic structures of Respect which is being signed and sent to the office by student groups across the country. This is an attack not only on a radical layer of Respect but on the genuine democracy of the organisation as a whole. Make no mistake – Galloway is trying to drive the SWP out of Respect and is using witch-hunting methods to do so. Sadly Kevin and Rob, who we expelled last week, are going along with Galloway.

The SWP is not going to be driven out of Respect. We played an important part in creating Respect and have done as much as anyone to make the project work. We are also going stand up for the ideals of Respect – a party that defends all working class people.We are urging all SWP members to try and get elected to the Respect conference. We will be calling on the Respect leadership to allow student groups to go to the conference on the same terms as previous years and we are also going to demand that it puts a stop to the outrageous attempts to stifle democracy in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham and finally we are going to demand that if Galloway is going to call members meetings, all members should be entitled to go.

Scottish Aggregate

Some 55 comrades attended a Scottish SWP aggregate on Saturday in Glasgow. The main session, introduced by Mike Gonzalez, was on the specific tasks facing comrades in Scotland. Chris Bambery introduced a report on the crisis within Respect. After discussion, a dozen comrades spoke, a motion to endorse the decisions made by the Central Committee over the Respect crisis was passed unanimously as was a motion to hold a festival of resistance type event, modelled on this year’s Marxism, in Scotland in the coming spring.

Petition – is this what democracy looks like?

Some comrades are circulating a petition calling on the CC not to expel Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman and Nick Wrack.

These comrades did not raise the petition in their branches, but instead approached a select group of comrades to sign. Neither did they inform the CC they were launching a petition.This is an undemocratic method of winning a position inside the party and alien to our method of operating. Comrades in the SWP have always aired their disagreements at district meetings, aggregates or branch meetings.

If they feel they need to launch a petition, it should be raised and debated at any of the above meetings and that gives all comrades the right to debate the issues in an open manner. It gives all comrades the right to sign or not sign as the case may be. I have enclosed a letter sent to me from two comrades explaining why they are not prepared to sign it.

SWP Members meeting

We will be holding an emergency SWP National meeting to discuss the latest developments in Respect.

Every SWP branch and student group can send two delegates to the meeting. Branches need to hold elections and send delegates names into the National Office ASAP. NC members attend by right. Details of the meeting are: Saturday 3 November 2007 11.30am – 4pm Room 101 ULU, Malet Street, London (nearest tube Euston Sq /Goodge Street). There will be a pooled fare of £15 per delegate.

SWP Conference and IB

IB1 is now out, they can be ordered from the National Office and they cost 50 pence each and branches must pay for their IBs in advance. Deadlines for submissions to the pre-conference bulletin are:

Pre-conference bulletin No 2 – Monday 29 October.

Pre-conference bulletin No 3 – Monday 19 November.

Submissions should either be sent by post to the National Office or to martins@swp. org.uk. Please keep articles as short as possible.

The SWP’s a
nnual conference is on Friday 4 January 2008 – Sunday 6 January 2008. The conference will be held in central London and every SWP branch and student group is entitled to send 1 delegate for every 10 registered members.

That means if there are 1-9 registered members in your branch you are entitled to send one delegate, If there are 10 – 19 registered members you are entitled to send 2 delegates, 20 -29 members three delegates and so on and so forth.

Delegates should be elected at SWP district aggregates which will be organised by the National Office and held sometime in November / December.

20 responses to “"Galloway goes on the rampage"”

  1. You can understand why George Galloway is livid with the SWP (and as human being might even lose his cool on one occassion) when when he reads this distorted view of events and no doubt others in SWP’s internal bulletin and Party Notes over the last few weeks/months.

    Would you not, if in George’s shoes, be just a teeny, weeny bit ‘bloody angry’! after this and the attempt to take away the two key aids (Rob Hoveman and Kevin Ovenden) to Respects only MP by the SWP telling them both ‘its working for George (working for Respect for gods sake! not George) or membership of the SWP? To their crdit they both chose Respect and working for George as did Nick Wrack when asked to choose nomination for National Organiser or membership of the SWP (this cannot have been easy for any of them).

    I am proud to work with Socialists who understand the need for democracy and pluralism in Respect such as: Jerry Hicks, Rob Hoveman, Kevin Ovenden (the last four all members of the SWP until a week ago), Linda Smith (Chair), George Galloway Respect MP, Salma Yaqoob (Vice-Chair), Ken Loach, Victoria Brittain, Alan Thornett, Clive Searle and many many other Socialists in Respect.

    See also:
    RESPECT AT THE CROSSROADS- Linda Smith (Chair of Respect)
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=898
    AND
    JERRY’S HICKS RESIGNATION FROM THE SWP
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=912

    Neil Williams
    Secretary Milton Keynes Respect

    Like

  2. Neil,
    You do realise that Rob and perhaps Kev were also getting involved in George’s “business” activities?

    Like

  3. As a neutral on the question, but someone with over 30 years experience in socialist organisations and unions, including as branch secretary, membership secretary, union president, n.e.c member and conference delegate, here a few questions:-

    1) Why given, that the membership of Towe Hamlets Respect Branch were circularised by letter and e-mail over 2 weeks in advance was an alternative slate of conference delegates presented on the night?
    (I’m not questioning the constitutional legality of this, but the tactical advisability and implications for branch democracy of such a procedure)

    2) Would George Galloway be prepared to accept any personal responsibility for Respect’s showing in local elections such as Southall, for instance following his decision to appear on “Big Brother”, which I understand was not authorised by Respect, of which he is the sole MP. This gave the tabloid press a field day, but is not mentioned as a factor in his document “It was the Best of Times, it was the worst of Times”

    3) Could the proposal to create a National Organiser position, in parallel to National Secretary in any way have been interpreted as an attempt to lay the blame for the Southall election at the feet of John Rees, even if he wasn’t mentioned by name? Especially as there had already been “requests” for Rees to resign at a previous national meeting.

    4) Are Kevin Ovenden, Nick Wrack and Rob Hoveman full time paid officials of Respect?

    5) If so, how much are they paid?

    6) Would the SWP have offered them full-time paid positions again had they left their positions in Respect?

    7) Is it true that George Galloway has refused to take part in meetings with other members of Respect who are in the SWP?

    Like

  4. Surely whats gone here is fairly unexceptional in terms of arguments in local politics. There have been some arguments about the selection of candidates. Some of them turned a bit bitter. The SWP lost these arguments but provided the bulk of the activists to campaign for the candidates nonetheless (and they won).

    Then George suggested that in even having arguments about this we were being divisive and should shut up in future. For us in the SWP this was a step too far and we defended our corner. A number of councilers saw this as an opportunity to mount a coup in TH Respect, and unfortunately George decided to use his very real prestige to throw his weight behind them. All the nastiness followed from this. The solution is to accept that we have differences, and that these arguments will continue, but to cease trying to drive out one or other of the largest components in the alliance. There is nothing extraordinary about having arguments about candidate selection.

    All the other issues raised about pluralism and relationship between leaders etc, are perfectly legitimate issues to discuss, but are surely unlikely to be resolved in the midst of the fight described above.

    Like

  5. On Tims post what on earth are you referring to? If you have a view make it clear so others can reply
    On Alex’s I can reply to some of your questions but not others
    2) As far as I know Galloway still believes he was right to go on Big Brother. I continue to think he was crazy to do so. Socialist Resistance said so openly at the time, while Socialist Worker kept quiet
    3) I dont think anyone thought the proposal for a national organiser was anything to do with Southall
    4) Nick Wrack is not a full timer for anyone and hasnt been for some years. Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoveman are employed by George Galloway not Respect (in the same way as people who work for other MPS are employed by them and not the party they represent).
    5. I dont know how much they are paid
    6. I dont think the SWP ever suggested they would employ them if they resigned their jobs with Galloway –
    7. George Galloway certainly agreed to be billed at a meeting in Manchester together with Michael Lavallete. He has also appeared on several STW platforms with SWP members. I heard that he might have indicated he didnt want to appear on Respect platforms with John Rees at the moment but I dont think thats unreasonable given what has been going on

    Like

  6. Rob is involved with Galloway in a company called Miranda Media Ltd,being run out of Respect headquarters.

    Like

  7. While who runs which business operation from where may not be unimportant, lets not forget what is really at stake here. In George Galloway’s document to the NC, which set off the current train of events, he made an issue of both the Fighting Unions Conference and the intervention in Pride. Anyone tempted to take his side in this dispute surely needs to consider carefully just what Galloway has in mind and what kind of organisation would remain if the SWP are defeated. Could an organisation that had only a narrow electoral strategy, focusing on ‘winnable’ seats have any real future? What counterweight would exist to prevent the ever greater adaptations required by the logic of this approach? Would the organisation that emerged be in anyway attractive to groups and individuals looking for a campaigning, fighting alternative? Wouldn’t any serious socialists find themselves in an impossible place?

    Martin Lynch
    Walsall Respect Convenor

    Like

  8. I am curious that some publicly-known SWP members are listed on the SWP petition on their website as “Respect supporter“, whereas some others are listed as “Respect member“. (No names, no pack drill, though putting all the names of SWP supporters on the internet does seem to be a strange practice to my mind).

    But is this ambiguity in whether they are mebers of Respect not evidence of the claim that the SWP have never wholeheartedly built Respect by ensuring all their members are also members of Respect? Jerry Hicks makes an important point around this in his resignation letter.

    Like

  9. But the SWP, for very good reasons, never argued that all SWP members would be members of Respect. It would have swamped it. Its also true that whatever the merits of arguments that the SWP should dissolve itself into Respect (I don’t buy it personally) this was never what the SWP said it would do, it was never an issue previously, and is not why this argument is happening.

    Like

  10. Terry:

    “6. I dont think the SWP ever suggested they would employ them if they resigned their jobs with Galloway ”

    Ermm, if true possibly a blunder of catastrophic proportions.

    Were they suggesting they make themselves unemployed?

    Given the internal bulletin contribution by K.O, I doubt if his future employment prospects as a full-timer would be that great. But it does lead to some doubts about the motives involved.

    It might be interesting to know from the Respect blog bloke how much his organisation is now paying them.

    Like

  11. To be fair, despite my own obvious political disagreement, not to say anger, with the SWP members involved I don’t think any of them are in it ‘for the money’. The SWP does not have a practice of offering people jobs to buy them off politically, and I doubt very much that, even if they did, it would have altered either of their decisions in the slightest. Lets stick to politics.

    Like

  12. John – If some SWP members were not even convinced enough about Respect why should those of us who are members listen to them now.
    On Pride as someone who has been on three or four Pride marches trying to build Respect with no support from SWP members – not to mention being told by Lindsay German that my comrades had a shibboeth about the issueI find it a bit rich that they have suddenly discovered the importance of the issue. Actually Im not at all convinced that having a float was the best idea – leaflets and a walking contingent on the march and a stall at the end are much more important. But GG was right to ask why we werent at the Mela.
    As for the Fighting Unions stuff – well I didnt think they were that useful when trade union activists need a opportunity to discuss organising against neo-liberalism not just listen to stirring speeches. An
    I dont think there was anything in Georges letter which suggested a purely electoral formation – and many of those who have supported him (may be all – I cant claim to know them all) would be completely opposed to such a thing. But his letter was written when everyone thought there was going to be an election in 10 munutes which of course didnt happen – so thats what it focused on..

    Like

  13. It was the Fighting Unions conference that was the last straw for me in Respect a year ago. I’d never set through a more turgid, patronising event. Organising for fighting unions requires a bit more than having 86 platforms speakers, a tiny handful of “on message” floor speakers boring the audience to death for a day.
    Absolutely nothing came out of it. No networks, no discussions no strategy. It actively alientated the majority of non Respect participants and was a good example of an atrocious, bureaucratic, manipulative method of tying to control people.
    Otherwise it was great.

    Like

  14. well I think Lyndsey was quite correct to say that we should not make support for gay liberation a condition for working with people. This is what the statement she said literally means.

    I do not buy at all that this conflict is not centrally about the relationship between those who do the leg work in getting people elected and those elected. such tensions are well known and nothing new. we were being told that getting involved in such arguments was ‘divisive’ and should stop. Yes, with the possibility of an election on the way (to which our response at that stage was to try and patch things up: my interpretation would be that this fell apart after it became clear that a national election was not on the way).

    There had been tensions around this before but on each occassion SWP members had campaigned for those selected and actually got them elected. Of course its not a bone of contention for other socialists because, whilst they no doubt do sterling work and I am not in any sense questioning their commitment, they do not have the kind of base where this becomes a serious issue.

    The attempt to appeal to people on the various things they dislike about the SWP (and perhaps those things are real and perhaps they should be addressed etc, etc) is in my view wholly disengenuous and covers over a much more traditional attempt by those with an electoral base to remove any influence of the activist base.

    This is not a good sign in a left wing coalition however fractious. There is nothing wrong with people saying so.

    Like

  15. I should add that in TH you actually had a situation where people were not allowed to have their vote counted if they opposed a section of the councilers. Again, just how are people supposed to respond to this? Liam finally acknowledged that the meeting was run in an anti-democratic and abusive way but seems to believe that this is because the chair was inexperianced or otherwise unfamiliar with proceedures. I think he’s wrong about this and this was actually about politics. I’m arguing that much of the left wing blogging on this is ignoring these very, very basic issues.

    I wonder whether it has something to do with different attitudes to labourism and the traditions associated with this.

    Like

  16. Of course it has.
    I’ve argued repeatedly that there was no meaningful effort made to create a working class party. In a coalition people are free to retain their old ideas and ways of doing politics. In this instance it was blustering, tantrums and conducting a farce of a meeting. That’s why I called an earlier piece “The chickens come home to roost”.
    It’s since been followed up by a summary expulsion of the councillors who resigned the whip which really cannot be allowed to stand. But summary expulsions are quite the fashion at the moment.

    Like

  17. JG:- “I don’t think any of them are in it ‘for the money’. ”

    No, I wasn’t suggesting anything quite that crude.
    They clearly regarded the way the SWP leadership was operating as sectarian and were confronted with a loyalty test that would have effectively made them unemployed. That doesn’t strike me as an example of political astuteness by any standard.
    Nor does losing experienced T.U members and important allies in the FBU.
    Other than being herded behind the SWP leadership and possibly out of Respect, what mechanisms do ordinary members of the SWP have for examining this self-evident blunder?

    Like

  18. Does anyone know if Respect NC went ahead today?

    Like

  19. But the SWP, for very good reasons, never argued that all SWP members would be members of Respect. It would have swamped it. – John G

    The SWP is not going to be driven out of Respect. … We are urging all SWP members to try and get elected to the Respect conference – Internal Bulletin

    John’s statement is contrary to this SWP internal bulletin – the SWP does want all its members to try and swamp the RESPECT Conference . I find it shocking that the Bulletin speaks of SWP delegations – are independents not supportive of the SWP positions? can they not be won over at the Conference? or can only SWP members be relied upon to support SWP positions at a Conference?

    Obviously a critique of the SWP’s leaders as control freaks is merited!

    Like

  20. This is the most dishonest document you could find. “Don’t tell lies to the class” as Tony Cliff used to say. But now the CC tell lies to the members.

    Party Notes doesn’t seem to make mention of the authoritative rumour on the Socialist Unit yBlog, that the SWP CC are negoiating their departure from Respect.
    I wonder why, and how will you explain it to the children later. The contempt for the membership is breathtaking,

    Let Conference decide ! What when the SWP have gerrymandered it and pack it to the rafters with their members. Do they really think we’re that stupid. Wecome to North Korea

    Oh dear how will they explain this when it all comes out in the wash. What a great way to trash the best of the IS tradition.

    You wonder what Paul Foot would make of all this

    Like

Leave a reply to johng Cancel reply

Trending