The SWP say that it’s a very straightforward left / right split and they are on the side of the red angels. Dave Osler contends that there aren’t any politics behind it. Well of course there must be. There is always a political rationale behind a split even when it is not expressed in political terms either because the participants don’t have the vocabulary or they choose not to use it.

In this case the witch hunting, red baiting allegations are just ludicrous. What happened to the Militant in the Labour Party was an example of how you do these things properly. Labour used the bourgeois press for months, drafted in the union bureaucracy, mobilised the party right. To its credit Militant had some idea of how to fight a defensive battle. It didn’t flounce off at the earliest opportunity. That’s the way to resist a witch hunt. Instead what what we have seen, most obviously in Tower Hamlets, was a moderately coherent group of people finally lose patience with a bureaucratic controlling way of running Respect. Some of their politics are confused, under-developed and, on some issues reactionary. My contention has always been that by retaining the coalition model they would not be given the chance to develop politically because in a coalition every point of view is as valid as every other one.

Most of the time this bureaucratic control was masked with an organisational looseness. There is a revealing sentence in the SWP’s October ’07 Pre-Conference Bulletin (PCB).

The diversity of political forces represented in a formation such as Respect is best served by a relatively loose constitutional structure that allows supporting organisations such as the SWP to retain their own distinct identity.”

Of course the other great thing about a loose constitutional structure is that for most of the time you can pretend that the only people who really drone on about boring things like constitutions, structures, rules and procedures are the sort who don’t want to turn the movement outwards and who want to restrict to the old left. So if you have your people in the top jobs they are free to make up the rules as they go along. And they don’t have to stop at making up the rules. They can decide on the politics, the internal regime and the staffing as well and justify it on the grounds of revolutionary elan, necessity or anything else. Right from the start of Respect in Tower Hamlets I argued for regular branch meetings, branch committee meetings, in person reports from elected officials to the branch committee but it was explained to me that the “old, boring” way of doing politics puts people off.

There is another aspect that has not been mentioned in the discussion. Is there an evolution in the SWP’s thinking away from the conception of a broad, left formation. Some quotes from the PCB may illustrate this.

The emergence of these new left formations as broad coalitions of different kinds, involving both revolutionaries and reformists, was a very important development and one that our international tendency has actively supported and participated in.

True that. In fact this was pretty much the basis on which Socialist Resistance was established.

But the new left parties are facing a different context from the heady days of the Genoa protests in July 2001, the first ESF in Florence in November 2002, and the great anti-war protests of February arid March 2003. A polarisation is developing between left and right in the movements resisting liberalism and war.

Accordingly, the radical left is in crisis in a number of countries. In Italy Rifon­dazione has moved sharply to the right, joined Romano Prodi’s centre-left coalition government, and expelled a far-left senator for voting against Italy’s military mission in Afghanistan.

You can’t argue with that either. Though what is doesn’t mention is the fact that Sinistra Critica have resumed the struggle to build just such a party

Most abject of all, the SSP has, since the defeat of both its and Solidarity’s candidates in the Scottish parliamentary elections in May, -virtually disappeared off the political radar screen. Die Linke in Germany was only finally formed in June and it represents the biggest break so far within the ranks of reformism, but precisely for that reason there is a powerful right wing that will want to form a federal government with the Social Democratic Party when the latter’s Grand Coalition with Angela Merkel and the Christian Democratic Union collapses.

Now here you have an incredibly subtle line of argument that only the brightest minds of their generation could deconstruct. Can you remember who provided Solidarity with its foot soldiers when the SWP decided that the days of fusty old democratic, socialist parties were over and what was needed was a charismatic leader to head a coalition? Tough question that. The support given to Sheridan’s vanity project is what weakened the SSP, ended Sheridan’s political career and is allowed to pass without a mention. Then, and this is the clever bit, it’s followed in the same paragraph by a (probably accurate) prediction of the struggle that might happen in Die Linke. Conclusive evidence that all these projects are fundamentally dodgy. But when the document was written the authors had to hedge their bets.

None of these actual or potential crises invalidates the strategy that we have pursued of building Respect as a broad coalition of the radical left. As we have already argued, space to the left of New Labour and its counterparts in conti­nental Europe continues to exist, and it is likely to grow over time. But Respect and formations like it will also continue to face tough challenges posed by their larger political and social environments. Just because they are coalitions of different kinds, uniting diverse political forces, there will often be divided responses on how to react to these pressures. Revolu­tionaries need to understand this, and to be prepared to fight to preserve these formations as coalitions of the left challenging social liberalism.

Not entirely accurate that bit. Is it? There is no evidence that Respect’s present leadership has pursued a strategy of building a broad coalition of the radical left. Most of the radical left, if questioned, would give answers either saying “good idea but not just now thank you” or something about a bargepole. In fact it was left to Alan Thornett to produce a resolution after John Mc Donnell’s campaign calling for Respect to open a dialogue with the Labour left and the Communist Party.

Now let’s consider the bit about “reacting to the pressures”. It’s been a first class demonstration of how not to do it. Having defended George Galloway when he embarrassed every Respect supporter in the country the current leadership demonises him as a red-baiter for suggesting that a bit more democracy and transparency might be helpful. This set in train a process that is, without doubt, going to split Respect. Why do something so shortsighted? It’s probably got something to do with the way the SWP functions. Essentially what George Galloway was challenging was the transplanting of the SWP’s internal regime into Respect. To accept the validity of this set of criticisms inside Respect has the potential of allowing that discussion to spread. That is why there does not exist a refutation of the points made in Galloway’s original letter or any of the subsequent statements. Where there should be political answers there is a cloud of false argumentation over non existent charges.

Without the Tower Hamlets Respect votes Lindsey German’s GLA election aspirations are fantasy. At the moment I’d be sceptical that the SWP councillors who have resigned the Respect whip have a real chance of getting re-elected. Now it is unlikely that the organisation will make an overnight turn away from some form of electoral work but it will be doing so having cut itself off from the mass of its voting base. Indicating the weaknesses and failures of the other left formations in Europe is putting down the marker that the time for ending this tactic is drawing near. Reality butted in with the Galloway letter and speeded things up but it seems that the SWP’s strategic project from 2008 is going to be a return to recruiting in ones and twos.


Technorati : ,
Del.icio.us : ,

22 responses to “Are there any politics behind the Respect split?”

  1. Well this is how I see the politics of thing. I wonder whether or not certain sections of the left don’t have a blind spot regarding political issues connected to the logic of the electoral process, probably in the same way that many are dismissive of analyses which focus on the ‘trade union bureacracy’ as merely ‘sociological’ and not ‘political’.

    it is remarkable how reticent people are to actually look at what sparked these arguments. They were all focused around the issue of candidate selection. The argument was that the SWP was being ‘divisive’ by having arguments about this. Maybe so. However in each case the SWP lost. And then went on to provide the bulk of activists to campaign for the candidates (who won). Then George intervenes and, basically, implies that we should not even have arguments about these things. The SWP says no, thats a step too far. And then an attempt is made to mount a coup in TH Respect, in one case a transparently dodgy attempt to pack a meeting in the second simply refusing to count the votes of people who are either in the SWP or support their arguments (interestingly by this stage, the section of the councilers doing this were losing the ability to command a majority, its been suggested to me that this was one reason locally things came to a head so rapidly and so nastily). The poisen out of this embitters existing tensions nationally.

    Whats the politics of this? Essentially the relationship between activists on the ground doing the campaigning and mantaining the branches, and those elected as councilers or MPs. Its not unusual in the history of the municipal left.

    Obviously there might be all kinds of things about the style of particular organisations or individuals. There might also be all kinds of things about how we mantain pluralism in a broad coalition (or how the coalition should be organised). But they’re hardly likely to be resolved when this kind of thing is going on. I think there is a fair bit of naivity about all this amongst some left bloggers, as well as a tendency not to know anything about the real politics of local situations (this is particularly so amongst islamophobic idiots actually).

    There is also a tendency for people who don’t have a dog in the race not to understand that in such situations those on the left who command no forces won’t be seen as a threat and therefore no one objects to them standing around smiling and making friendly noises. Its an added bonus if they start going on about the ‘control freakery’ and otherwise unpleasent behaviour of those socialists who do have an organised presence on the ground of course.

    To read the fine and nuanced programatic declarations of some well meaning individuals about all this is, if you have some knowledge about whats actually happened on the ground in the last few weeks, a deeply surreal experiance.

    In the context of inevitable clashes like this what needs to happen is for an understanding on both sides that this is a fight that cannot be fought to the finish if Respect is to survive (its why many of the more ‘programatic’ arguments are not so much damaging but irrelevent). Arguments about how nice individual swp members are (i would not expect to hear such inanities on a sophisticated blog like this of course!) in the context of what is locally a straightfoward left/right fight in the time honoured traditions of local electoral organisations, rather remind me of people who used to claim that they really liked muslims on demos just as long as they didn’t turn up in groups.

    disengenuous crap really.

    Like

  2. I’m having this strange sense of déja vu. Déja vu deux fois sur deux autres blogs, to be precise.

    those on the left who command no forces won’t be seen as a threat and therefore no one objects to them standing around smiling and making friendly noises

    Since you’re posting this on the blog of an SR member, could you just clarify who this is aimed at?

    Arguments about how nice individual swp members are … in the context of what is locally a straightfoward left/right fight in the time honoured traditions of local electoral organisations, rather remind me of people who used to claim that they really liked muslims on demos just as long as they didn’t turn up in groups

    Well, the more I read about this, the less I believe it is a straightforward left/right fight. And I don’t know any individual SWP members personally – they may be a dreadful bunch with no class at all – but I do believe there’s a genuine distinction between the SWP as a whole and the SWP leadership. Although, in the current loyalty-oath culture, it’s clearly a distinction the leadership is keen to do away with.

    Like

  3. The battle lines in Respect are indeed remarkably free of explicit politics.

    It has been a largely apolitical fight about which faction is going to gain control of Respect. The SWP’s leadership is trying to play the card of a left-right divide but this is disingenuous given that the SWP helped found Respect on the basis of a broad left project ‘less explicitly socialist’, without ‘shibboleths.’

    There is of course politics behind these power struggles and in many ways it goes back to the question that has exercised Marxists for the last eighty years or more- how to build mass movements?

    Reform or revolution?

    The question may be old but we need to find new ways of answering it- by rebuilding socialism, involving as many ordinary working class people in the debates and struggles for the way forward and building mass movements not by being coy, hiding our politics, or dishonest or manipulative.
    We should argue for clear socialist politics whilst relating it to the everyday needs of the working class where we work and where we live. We need to be open to new ideas, to position ourselves into situations where we can help lever the masses into action for working class people to take power for themselves.

    More debate here

    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1755

    Like

  4. In theory, and ideally, it should be possible for Respect to pull back from the brink.

    But that would involve all sides taking a deep breath; agreeing to sort out the credentials of branches and sections in dispute; agreeing to draw back from personal attacks; agreeing to cease operating outside the collective frameworks and structures of Respect; agreeing to cease use of language and actions that militate against a collective political resolution; agreeing to act openly and in good faith in order to build up trust etc; agreeing to build and reinforce an inclusive, pluralistic culture. It’s very difficult to see how this would be acheived between now and conference unless it is postponed.

    But if this did happen, the net outcome of the conference may well be one in which the SWP lost it’s dominant political position. This isn’t simply a case of numbers it is a question of political allies. The SWP has to have political allies of some weight and size to regain authority in a pluralistic environment.

    The reason the net outcome is likely is because there is a growing momentum outside their ranks (also impacting within their organisation – as shown by the missives of Wrack, Ovenden and Hicks) for a fresh start for Respect which involves building it positively as a priority, a big recruitment drive, serious fundraising, efficient finance and organisation, a proper system of propagnda and press, a more pluralist, democratic and inclusive internal culture etc and most importantly an urgent strategic intervention into the debates involving other left currents following Brown’s election as Labour leader and the marginalisation of the Labour left.

    The logic of this is a move away from the coalition model towards building a party-type organisation with functioning branches, well functioning internal and external communication, proper accountability etc which the SWP opposes. The reason it has opposed this is because it would contradict the whole party-building model on which SWP operates.

    The SWP leadership have most probably thought through this dynamic and will also realise that to accept this outcome, particularly in the run up to it’s own conference would be an extraordinary political humiliation – given its highly centralised and hubristic style of leadership.

    This would be the wrong approach of course. You shouldn’t seek to build a mass organisation unless you are willing to be a minority within it – even if you think the majority is wrong and you have made no mistakes you should trust in your own judgement, patiently argue your positions and bide your time. Better still sometimes you have to accept that mistakes have been made and a re-orientation is necessary.

    Tragically for the SWP and the left as a whole this is not how the SWP has operated. And so it is quite probably preparing for a strategic withdrawal.

    But rather than openly explain this to the left and it’s own membership, the leadership has dressed the decision up as “a concerted campaign to drive the SWP/left out of Respect”, as a result of a rightist bureaucratic trajectory by the rest of Respect, captured in some way by Galloway.

    Of course there is no such campaign – the most that can be said is that GG has made some stupid abusive comments and some Respect members (mainly in Tower Hamlets) with very little experience in the traditions of the left have found sorting out their differences within a branch well-nigh impossible. There is another story there (alluded to by Liam): the SWP have little business complaining about the procedures in Tower Hamlets when they have singly failed over the past 3 1/2 years to fight for and build the ordinary trappings of an accountable, demoratic, pluralist party structure that are precisely what you need when the TH type crisis erupts.

    In any event this false schematic scenario ignores the fact that Socialist Resistance and others have for a long time been pushing the arguments about democracy, pluralism, accountability, the need for a system of press – tying these together in the call for a move towards a party-type structure. This has been combined with fighting for more socialist content – including around prioritising LGBT work. The broader Respect Party Platform which SR works within this been taking this forward in the last couple of years.

    What has happened has been the coming together of seperate strands within Respect – internal opposition within the SWP (which has been met by bureaucratic centralism and expulsions); an independent socialist opposition current within Respect (SR and RPP); and a range of individuals from Galloway and Yacoob to Linda Smith who have all drawn similar conclusions.

    Liam may well be right that the SWP are going on to theorise this strategic withdrawal after the event. This bears some similarity to the SWPs schematic theorisation of the “downturn” in the late 1970s as a way of justifying a wrenching turn in its line.

    But we cannot accept any of this as inevitable. We have to arguing for a pulling back, debunk the falsehoods, persuade the membership of the SWP that they are not being pushed out and that working together is a necessity if a left alternative to labour is to be built.

    Piers

    Like

  5. Without meaning to be rude to jason, the politics of reform or revolution is at the heart explicitly.

    I have eritten before about this ad nauseum, and it IS the politics of the current situation, that thr SWP beleive in principle it is necessary for there to be an organisational delineation between revolutionaries and reformists, and the revolutionaries have better strategic and tactical vision.

    That is what is behind the coalition model, and that is politics.

    I think there has been a lot of politics discussed, I am sorry we have mentioned Murray Smith and the SSP and the Australian Socialist Alliance, thus mentioning Marxist thinkers and events 80 years later than you are familiar with relating to, but it is politics all the same.

    Like

  6. Well I must admit to not knowing an awful lot about your politics, but from what I know, your a nice enough and reasonable bunch. My point though about ‘making friendly noises’ etc, was that Liam’s rather extraordinary belief that the attempt to exclude the activist base of Respect in TH was the product of ‘inexperiance’ or ‘lack of development’ is testement to a political naivity of quite extraordinary dimensions. This had its rather unpleasent side in Liam spending really quite a lot of time getting round to admitting that the way the meeting had been run was ‘abusive’ and ‘anti-democratic’ rather then simply incompetant. There might be political reasons why this occured as opposed to supposedly ‘inexperianced’ people who require missionary intervention of some kind. Its all rather silly and almost wilfully blind. As well as (wholly unintentionally I’m sure) wierdly patronising. But I’m sure it would cause no offence. Its quite useful really.

    Like

  7. it is the politics of power that are behind the dispute in Respect, who in the end as the final say, that’s what it’s really about

    the rest is political windowdressing

    it is the result of politicos trying to manipulate the situation, it is the result of half-truths, lies and downright stupidity

    whatever the fallout, it is the responsibility of those taking part, they are not children, most are seasoned political activists, with decades of experience, they know the consequences of such a clash and they will reap the “rewards”

    Like

  8. Lets not forget a few facts here.
    1.Galloways initial concern over which seat he would target this year was to maintain his Talksport income.
    2.Talksport pay George £150,000 per year.
    3.George has a long history of arranging majorities at meetings.
    4.Abjol Miah wants the Bethnal Green nomination.
    5.Abjol can provide new voters for George in the dispute with the SWP
    6.George will support Abjol as PPC in Bethnal.

    Like

  9. Tim – Wouldn’t Galloway have got chosen whatever seat he went for? As John G says the SWP had lost in recent election battles in Tower Hamlets so why would Galloway precipate a dispute if the SWP were likely to be on the losing side again in any selection battle – this is if they had any popular candidates to propose for these seats?.

    This is not a dispute about selection contests – as Jerry Hicks, Nick Wrack etc have made clear – why don’t SWP bloggers respond to their points or the issues raised by Piers above?

    Like

  10. Yes he would’ve been “chosen”
    Where he had to choose was within reach of Talksport studios at the weekend.

    Ruling out non London seats.

    Like

  11. There might be political reasons why this occured as opposed to supposedly ‘inexperianced’ people

    Some people are more experienced than others, I think we can agree. There are easier and more effective ways to stitch up a meeting than feigning incompetence.

    who require missionary intervention of some kind

    This is an unfortunate choice of words – it could easily be misread as an attempted smear.

    Like

  12. Andy there is politics as I said- my point is that the politics aren’t being made explicit.

    “The battle lines in Respect are indeed remarkably free of explicit politics.” I wrote.

    In fact you agree as on Socialist Unity you argue, #105 Jerry Hicks’ Resignation from the SWP,
    “As the SWP leadership have not sought to argue their case politically with the Respect membership, and make their own decisions and have their own discussions only with their own members, then i don’t know what could have been done about it.”

    In actuality there is very little difference between the politics of the SWP leadership and the Galloway group in Respect. Socialists should argue for our ideas openly in the class and test those ideas in struggle. Over the coming weeks that is what we should concentrate on whilst attempting to learn the lessons of the failure of broad left parties based on a simultaneous dilution of socialist politics and a lack of democratic debate.

    In order to bring out the debates and make them relevant to how we can win new adherents to the movment we need to draw out th epolitics, argue for them, involve people in the debates- something you seemed to agree with in the comment I quote.

    Like

  13. Jason: “In actuality there is very little difference between the politics of the SWP leadership and the Galloway group in Respect. “

    there is no differences in Policy, but there are differences in polictics.

    Like

  14. That in fact is the sort of Rubicon situation I think is cogent: you either go one way(more toward Respect organisationally to embed your politics) or the other (back to the bunker). I think this is, in fact, an iron law of far left politics. There’s no way to fence-sit as our sentence has to be to run very fast on the spot just to be able to survive.

    The problem is whether Respect is to be cherished or considered — like the English Socialist Alliance project & the SSP — to be expendable.

    The same default exists here in Australia, where the Socialist Alliance –since it will not work to rule — is summarily expunged from the political landscape as most of the far left moves back to ” recruiting in ones and twos.”

    I have this difference with regroupment supporters in the UK in that they tend to make out that the SWP’s politics are egocentric when I think they are of a nature shared more broadly across the far left. What is being fought over is the rise of a ‘new left’ that is attempting to transcend the marginalisation of Trotskyist style propaganda groups in the context of the collapse of Stalinism and the the undermining of traditional support base for social democracy (bourgeois workers parties).

    Thats’ the context. But, I fear, these far left formations have tended to equate a preference for propaganda politics with being the summation of their Lenininism. So there’s this massive confusion underpinning their actions which, I consider, can be fatal to them even in the short term.

    The Respect style mode (or the SSP one), if given its head, will be caricatured as addictive exercises in liquidationism; while off stage the real revolutionary program will be defended by its acolytes holed up in their bunker.

    That was the counterpoint vis a vis the SSP wasn’t it? Now we learn that Respect’s recently discovered fatal flaw is “communalism”. What could be more ‘liquidating’ of one’s Marxian intent than that?

    If these new party formations survive and prosper then the far left format of groupuscule politics won’t get a look in — especially if its shibboleth driven. And we move into a new epoch of party building.

    But we are for the moment caught between one thing and another as we suffer the consequences of timidity, arrogance, confusion and hesitancy (and at times political stalemate)where the comfortable existence offered by programmatic and propaganda certainly is so darn appealing that that can be seen as the preferred default.

    Like

  15. gosh. sorry to ‘smear’ anyone. after all four councilers have been expelled, an atmosphere of hysterical hatred against the activist base of Tower Hamlets Respect is being cultivated, and Liam goes to a meeting and choses not to notice any of this. Its ridiculous. The problem in the meeting was not INCOMPETANCE. If you need to win a vote but the majority of those in the room don’t agree with you, then that is how you HAVE to behave. You need to wake up comrades.

    Like

  16. John how to you answer the issue that the swp never raised problems about candidate selection in Tower Hamlets outside the borough – including on Respects NC? They did raise the issue in Birmingham where Helen Salmond was not selected in Socialist Worker and Salma Yacoob replied suggested they put forward a candidate in another seat – which seemed to me a reasonable response. But none of this was taken to the leadership of Respect. So when you and other refer to some TH councillors as being more left wing that others I have no basis to judge this. Maybe you are right. But why has this only come out now after GG made some criticisms of the SWP? And the idea that his open letter is about candidate selection beggars belief…

    Like

  17. Well if you read the original open letter it was about candidate selection. Its hard to work out how this can be persistantly ignored in this way. I have no objection to us losing a vote on selection. I do have an objection to being told that we’re to shut up and not object in future.

    Like

  18. I also don’t mind a bit of fractious disagreement about candidate selection. Don’t object to a debate about whether the SWP was right in this case etc, etc.

    But, again, I do object to a situation where activists are not allowed to discuss this, and the situation now where people are not being given a vote in a meeting if they happen to disagree with a group of elected councilers who are treating the people who got them elected as if they are a kind of vermin.

    That IS right wing. And if socialists involved in broad coalition work don’t understand that the logic of this is right wing (in any left coalition whatever the formal politics) then god help us all.

    Like

  19. sorry i responded to liam on Dave’s part and thought this might clarify what I mean:

    Liam seems to have re-joined Tower Hamlets Respect because he thought it was a Faction Fight and that there would be a chance to put foward his own politics in a way he didn’t think possible before. What he’s actually walked into is a situation where a group of elected councilers are treating the activist base that got them elected like vermin and expelling any councilers who don’t toe the line. This is because they want the organisation to be controlled by its politicians rather then its activists. The line of march here is away from attempting to build a political home for activists moving away from Labour and towards building local electoral machines which may or may not have politicians who espouse good general positions on such issues as war and social justice. My argument is that the language of ‘faction’ fight is inaccurate in this situation, and that people who see it like this are in for a rather nasty surprise.

    The fact that people make formal statements about a range of questions (which they may very well believe) does not always capture what is really happening, as very often political results depart from individuals intentions. It is therefore foolish simply to add togeather formal pronouncements and see which set are closer to ones ‘program’. A coalition of the left which subordinates its activists to its elected councilers and MP’s and effectively tells the activists to shut up or get out has its own logic.

    Long term members of the Labour Party surely have some experiance of this.

    I think the account I give above is an accurate enough summation of the line of development of the crisis. Which, yes, is how I see it.

    Like

  20. after all four councilers have been expelled

    Let’s be a bit more precise. Four councillors have resigned the whip, split the group and cost RESPECT its status as Labour’s main opposition on the council. They say that they remain true to their principles as RESPECT representatives, but they’re prepared to vote against the local RESPECT leadership. Would any party *not* expel councillors who took a stand like this? It’s true that their expulsion doesn’t appear to be valid, but I can’t see that they can make much out of that – they clearly should be expelled.

    Like

  21. Liam says
    “Right from the start of Respect in Tower Hamlets I argued for regular branch meetings, branch committee meetings, in person reports from elected officials to the branch committee”.

    Funny that, there is a resolution to this years conference from North Manchester Respect on Branch building that says just this but was opposed by the SWP, who lost it on the vote anyway.

    ( sort of we can have branches but you can’t )

    My friend tells me that this pesky branch has carried on meeting once regularly , with elected branch officers accountable to the membership ( rather than the SWP fulltimer, dancing to whatever tune the CC is whistling that week)

    This branch produces the Manchester respect newspaper, print run 13,000, 12 pages, distributed free. Edited by NC member Clive Searle
    ( half the national print run of Socialist Worker)
    ( The SWP line is we can have paper but they can’t)

    Last years North Manchester AGM saw the SWP turn up, vote to do nothing then go away, until this year AGM In the meantime the South Manchester respect banch ( mostly SWP), which stood in the Rusholme ward got less votes than the year before, and didn’t meet for 6 months in the run up to this years council elections.
    This is Not just a matter of coincidence !

    This is become somewhat of an embarrasment to some long standing SWP members who have now left but are still active in respect.

    This then is the nightmare scenario for the SWP CC. That the membership have a better time respect branch and reject the all or nothing of being just in the SWP.

    This explains the current mad witch-hunt hubris, its trying to seal of its members from having good and viable political practice thats going somewhere

    Like

  22. John G
    “Long term members of the Labour Party surely have some experiance of this.”

    “Long term members of the Labour Party” are used to arguing their positions inside the structures of the Party – at Branch Meetings, General Committees, District/County Parties (that control policy on councils) etc. No decent left wing Councillor member of the Labour Party would have ever just walked out of the Group and set up their own, without fighting for their position through the structures.

    In a trade union you wouldn’t resign from the union and set up another one if you disagreed would you?

    Like

Leave a reply to johng Cancel reply

Trending