In the interests of geographical balance here is an account of a north London branch meeting provided by SR comrade Piers. A feature of a lot of these branch meeting reports is the number of pretty prominent SWP members who are leaving in disgust. I imagine it’s because they have been petit-bourgeois scumbags all along or something like that.
News has reached me that all this information leaking into the blogosphere is making some people cross. GOOD! Only manipulating bureaucrats want to keep control of the flow of debate.
Haringey and Enfield Respect had an “emergency” meeting last night. The turnout higher than usual (27 out of a membership between 70 and 80). Overwhelmingly SWP who had clearly mobilised.
I went in with a resolution calling for the appointment of a balanced Conference Arrangements Committee, procedures for checking delegates credentials that would command confidence and postponement of conference. As a way of reaching out to the waverers and SWP dissidents and politically opening the debate.
In walks Gary McFarlane, with a very similar motion, having 2 weeks ago walked out of the SWP of which he was a leading local member (of 30 years standing). He also stood as a local Respect council candidate and has been involved in some very important work in the black community around gun crime, education etc. I had no idea he had left them.
I withdrew my resolution in favour of Gary’s. Without any prior discussion the two of us and two others (one of whom, Mark P, has this morning posted his own account on the Socialist Unity blog #266 under the “Respect doesn’t belong to SWP” posting) had a joint intervention into the meeting on exactly the same line. What was most interesting was the highly demoralised state of the SWP, a few of whom broke with their comrades and voted for us. Gary’s resolution ended up being defeated by 6 to 22.
Gary stood to be a conference delegate (as the branch discovered it is entitled to one more) not on the basis that the conference would be anything but a farce, but so that he could “witness the debacle” and “report back to the other lot who are likely to be meeting down the road”. Despite this bold stance he got nine votes – including several SWPers. Interestingly the vote was a secret ballot – 3 or 4 of those 9 weren’t voting our way on the open votes. He also launched a scathing attack on John Rees saying the leadership had got things badly wrong and it was in danger of destroying the SWP. The SWP candidate got 18 votes and was duly elected.
The political level of the SWP contributions was very low. One referring to the opposition (us) as not only right wing, opposed to taking up LGBT issues and witch-hunting but “from the sewer”, probably winning us more support.
The issue that went to the core of the debate was whether under its present trajectory the SWP line was going to leave them anywhere but as a rump in a room with no one else. An SWP comrades who asked where it was all going to lead in relation to this, was given no answer by her own side. The impossibility of combining a broad-based left alternative to Labour with the SWP methods of intervention and leadership in Respect is an obvious conclusion if there is a complete collapse of confidence in the democracy and integrity of Respect by all other forces.
In summary it was a worthwhile intervention, effectively into an SWP branch meeting. I have no doubt that everyone outside the SWP and some inside think that Respect’s over. The only lingering issue was whether the SWP might pull back from the brink which they haven’t and made clear they won’t.
Coming back to the debate about where we go from here I take from my meeting a contradictory conclusion: on the one hand there is a raging debate in the SWP that we have to tap into. But on the other none of the independents or of the SWP waverers have the slightest confidence in the conference.
We need to strike quickly while the SWP are reeling – they retain their cool inscrutable exterior as a party but there is a lot going on beneath the surface. My guess – taking into account local members who haven’t signed their petition and members who failed to turn up but who normally go to Respect meetings and therefore may have been opposed to the line – that there are 5 – 10 locally who are deeply dissatisfied. Possibly more.
What will put massive pressure on the SWP will be a rump conference attended only by their people. What is demoralising them is the thought of isolation, the pricking of their hubristic leadership’s over-inflated opinion of itself, suddenly finding themselves alone in a room
On the other hand there will be people (a few independents, but more importantly some SWP) who need to be addressed.
On balance the most important thing is to seize the initiative and organise our forces. The danger of going down the route of going to the conference is that it will give it a veneer of credibility and will drag out the process. The longer the fight goes on, the less people will have a heart for it apart from hardened hacks. I think the SWP are banking on this.
I think the fight has gone beyond the symbolism of NC or conference authority.
Waverers, the wider left and history will judge this by an objective judgement on:
1. Whether the SWP are actually behaving factionally to wreck Respect in order to try and retain political control – thus justifying an effective walk out because the democratic mechanism are worthless in face of their methods. We say yes.
2. Which side in the dispute has the best chance of building a broad left alternative to Labour. There is little doubt on that one.
Piers
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to chjh Cancel reply