John Lister, a SR supporter on Respect’s NC examines the possibility of unity. This is a reply to a piece by Glyn Robbins called “It takes two to tango” which I hope to post later.

And it takes both sides to carry out a process towards unity. Unfortunately those who are most opposed to it are in the driving seat of Respect.

I appreciate (and to some extent share) the frustration and the instinctive search for unity that underlies your appeal and today’ss follow-up.
But it is not reasonable simply to equate the two sides in the polarising debate: it is not six of one and half a dozen of the other.
One side ­ around the National Secretary ­ has consistently been driving the organization towards a split, has pushed the debate into the public domain, and has connived at the first public expression of a split.

None of these crazy sectarian responses had to happen. All of them flow from decisions that have been taken at top level in Respect.
Many of us deeply wish that things had gone differently.

But you can’tt just wish away what has been done deliberately (and now also publicly) to undermine the unity that many of us thought we were voting for in all those unanimous votes on the last National Council meeting on September 29.

The reality is that while we all voted for them in good faith, some on the NC were determined then, and became even more determined afterwards that they should not be implemented.

It was that re-escalation of the conflict, most notably over the appointment of a National Organiser (ironic now to recall that this was a proposal designed to help unify the organization, with Nick Wrack proposed as an SWP member trusted by both “sides” ­ until it became clear that the SWP did not trust him and would not allow this unity process to take place) which triggered the current polarisation process.
When the National Chair did attempt, quite properly, to call a National Council meeting to discuss some of the contested issues in advance of the conference, her right to do so was immediately challenged by one side of the debate, and pressure was put on her to call it off: there is no reason to believe they would take any different view if she tried to do so again.

Even if an NC could be convened, there have been so many additional points of conflict since September 29 it is impossible to envisage a measured process of debate “identifying the main issues of contention” and agreeing “a timetable for reconciliation talks aimed at resolving these issues in a democratic and fraternal fashion”.

There has of course been no hint of fraternalism in any of the actions of the Respect officers in the last two weeks.
And even if both of those proved miraculously to be possible, it is inconceivable that the process could facilitate a viable and constructive conference as soon as November 17.

We have now been told by the National Secretary that the conference has to proceed on that date, regardless of the impossibility of it achieving any meaningful consensus or useful outcome.

The disputes over delegations alone would almost certainly log-jam even the basic running of a conference for hours on end, and could well get out of hand.

Your appeal should perhaps be aimed first and foremost at the National Secretary to climb down from this ridiculous position, which allows no space or time for any meaningful progress.

I do not expect you will have much luck.

I would argue that this is no accident.

This is, after all, the same National Secretary who has not only failed to issue any serious appeal for unity, but who has instead openly supported a political split by four Tower Hamlets councillors to launch Respect (Independent) as a rival to Respect.

Technorati : British politics, Respect
Del.icio.us : British politics, Respect