"Sometimes "bollocks" is the only word that will do", as Trotsky almost certainly once said. I think that applies in this case. Here is John Rees' reply to Linda Smith and Salma Yacoob which you can read at the Socialist Unity site. The SWP is mentioned only as doughty defenders of Respect or as the traduced victims of a dreadful conspiracy. The appeal would be much more convincing if it explained why the original criticisms in George Galloway's letter were wrong and why on earth every Respect branch, including ones that haven't met in 2007, is suddenly electing delegations that are somewhere between 80-100% SWP members. The bit about the conference arrangements committee is especially rich.It has one member who is not a member of the SWP. It selected itself and "forgot" to get ratified by the NC.
Respect belongs to its members
Yesterday 'a spokesman for George Galloway' tried to sack the National Secretary of Respect and deselect the Respect Mayoral candidate in a press comment to the Morning Star. Today Linda Smith and Salma Yaqoob want to unilaterally abolish the Respect conference by edict. The democracy of Respect is under threat and every Respect member must now stand ready to defend the right of the democratically octogenarians to take place. Until and unless the members of Respect decide otherwise at a properly constituted National Council or Conference I remain the National Secretary and will act to defend both the policies and democracy of the organisation. I will accept any vote or decision taken by such a conference. I remain committed to ensuring a full and representative debate takes place at our conference. I, many of my fellow national officers and the national office staff remain committed to ensuring that the duly elected representatives of the Respect membership can exercise their democratic right to participate in the conference and to take informed decisions about the future of Respect. No one can be allowed to frighten, intimidate or circumvent the right of the conference delegates to attend the conference and vote on our future. I call on all Respect members to assist the national office in maintaining proper democratic procedures in Respect and to assist the national office in organising a properly representative national conference. Every argument used to try and convince Respect members that they should abandon the conference is false. 1. At the meetings called at the request of George Galloway's supporters to try and resolve these issues the SWP and its supporters were told, at the first meeting, that they should leave Respect and, at the second meeting, that George Galloway's supporters should keep the name Respect and that the SWP and others should go away and choose another name. When this 'offer' was refused George Galloway's supporters first called a recess and then ended the meeting. After the meeting George Galloway's supporters repeatedly briefed in private and to the press that 'the SWP are leaving Respect'. At all times George Galloway's supporters have absolutely refused to accept that any agreement would have to be discussed and voted on by Respect conference. It is this bad faith that ended the discussions. 2. The charge that the National Secretary is behaving in a factional manner is a moment of breathtaking hypocrisy when it is absolutely clear that the Respect MP, his entire office, the Chair and Vice Chair are doing nothing but behave in a factional manner. There is only one difference: they are trying to close down the possibility of a democratic conference taking place whereas I am trying to defend it. 3. The four Tower Hamlets councillors are absolutely within their rights to protest at the undemocratic nature of Tower Hamlets Respect in which the disruption of meetings, the packing of meetings, the abuse of procedure by the chair and other supporters of the Council group leader are routine. It is simply incredible that the very people who have watched the destruction of democracy in Tower Hamlets' Respect now assert that a democratic delegation does not exist from Tower Hamlets. 4. Linda Smith was at the officers meeting and agreed the basis of student delegations to this year's conference. It is exactly the same as it was last year. The sudden uproar over the student delegation is not based on democratic concerns but on an attempt to ban delegates who may not agree with George Galloway~the same George Galloway who praised the student involvement in last year's conference. 5. The numbers of the Tower Hamlets delegation rose on the initiative of George Galloway's supporters in Tower Hamlets! But even then the chair of Tower Hamlets got half way through a vote at the last meeting called, at his initiative, to discuss the conference delegation and then closed the meeting in the middle of the vote when it was clear that he would lose the vote. Thus the original and only properly elected delegation in Tower Hamlets stands. 6. The Conference Arrangements Committee was elected long before this row and stands just as it did at that time. This objection is being raised now to try and force us to abandon the conference. 7. The Respect National Office. Every claim made against the Respect national office~ being used for factional purposes, staff appointed to their jobs without open advertisement of the job, an independent appointments panel or any proper job description~is as true of George Galloway's office which has never been accountable to the Respect membership. But whichever office people work in they are absolutely entitled to act as political activists in their own right. The are you now or have you ever been a member of the SWP' approach is simply designed to stop them doing this and to provide an excuse for people who are too afraid to face the membership at a national conference. 8. The same office staff who have always had access to the data base still have it. No request for information has ever been refused to any Respect officer or NC member. Of course people are still joining Respect but the accusation that SWP members have registered members to vote for conference delegates after the appropriate date is utterly untrue. 9. The SWP wants it members to come to conference. I have long since given up expecting logicality from our critics. Is the SWP too engaged or too disengaged from Respect? Are our critics not seeking to get their supporters to conference? Or is it simply that they do not have that many supporters? 10. The story all week has been that the SWP has split Respect. But now we can all see who will and who will not be willing to face a united conference. Of course the national office is willing to meet with any Respect member who has concerns about conference and to try and resolve these problems. In the meantime I call on all Respect branches to call emergency meetings and reaffirm their commitment to the democratic structures of Respect.Yours, John Rees, National Secretary.
Technorati Tags: Respect, British politics
Liam redux 
Leave a comment