How do you know there's a split?

British politics, Political Organisations, Respect

How do you know there's a split?

This is dire. The image shows a flyer put out by the section of Tower Hamlets Respect that has resigned the whip. Is this an attempt to raise or lower the temperature? The text is the branch chair’s response. Why has an advertisement…

Liam

November 4, 2007

1–2 minutes

This is dire. The image shows a flyer put out by the section of Tower Hamlets Respect that has resigned the whip. Is this an attempt to raise or lower the temperature? The text is the branch chair’s response.

Why has an advertisement for this meeting been sent out on the authority of Jackie Turner? The Tower Hamlets Committee has not approved this meeting and Jackie Turner is only the joint secretary of Tower Hamlets Respect. She has no right to call any public meeting in the name of Tower Hamlets Respect.

This meeting advertises two of the councillors who have resigned the Respect whip. These councillors have done enormous damage to Respect in Tower Hamlets. Why
should they be on any Respect platform? And who is this Kumar Murshid? He has been a member of Respect for five minutes and does not hold any elected post in
Tower Hamlets Respect.

If the SWP wants to hold a meeting with the councillors who have resigned the Respect whip, then they should hold it in their own name. They should not pretend it is a Respect meeting. Of course, the SWP does not want to do that because they know only they would come to such a meeting.

The meeting advertised for 12th November with the ex-Respect councillors is NOT a Tower Hamlets Respect public meeting.

Azmal Hussain, Chair of Tower Hamlets Respect
Farhan Zaman, Vice Chair of Tower Hamlets Respect
Latif Khan, Vice Chair of Tower Hamlets Respect
Aulad Miah, Joint Secretary of Tower Hamlets Respect
Ezaz Mir, Organising Secretary of Tower Hamlets
Respect
Ana Miah, Joint Treasurer of Tower Hamlets Respect
Ismail Hussain, Joint Press Secretary of Tower Hamlets
Respect
Goyas Uddin, Membership Secretary of Tower Hamlets
Respect
Kahar Chowdhury, Community Liaison Officer of Tower
Hamlets Respect
Beauty Akhtar Lily, Women’s Officer of Tower Hamlets
Respect

Technorati Tags: Respect, British politics

63 responses to “How do you know there's a split?”

PW

November 5, 2007 at 12:17 am

“Raise or lower the temperature”. Come on Liam. The locks changed on the Respect Office. A boycott of the Respect Conference, with a Rally called on the same day…and a Public Meeting in Tower Hamlets is raising the temperature!

As a fact, the Councillors only resigned the Whip on the Council, they did not resign from Respect. hink about the number of time Labour MPs have had the Whip withdrawn but still remained members of the Labour Party.

And it’s a bit much Miah et al complaining about Kumar being a new member when the candidate he supported in Shadwell only became a Respect member on the day he was selected.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

November 5, 2007 at 12:39 am

Well as a question of precedent in the Labour movement, by reigning the whip they did leave Tower Hamlets respect, and they are not the recognised Respect group of councilors by Tower hamlets council.

So legally and morally they are not Tower hamlets respect.

LikeLike

Reply
Gill George

November 5, 2007 at 4:22 am

I don’t want to be legalistic, but, Andy, my membership card just says Respect – there is no mention of a Branch. The 4 are from Tower Hamlets so automatically members of Tower Hamlets Respect.

I wold have though that those calling for a boycott of the Annual Conference and challenging the Constitution, were more likely to be considered ptting themselves beyond the boundaries of membership.

But all of this is constitutional nitpicking.

Those who signed the comlaint plan to set up a new organisation having failed to win a majority at any level in Respect. Even on the National Council, more members of that body have signed the SWP initiated Appeal than have signed the Renewal declaration.

So where do you and Liam stand politically. Do you believe, as the majority do, that a trade union orientation has to be at the heart of building any mass left alternative to New Labour? Or do you agree with Galloway that too much money was wasted on the Fighting Unions initiative.

I know I’m with the side that won the support of London Region of the RMT for Lindsey German as Mayor.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

November 5, 2007 at 8:03 am

The Westminster conference will be a choreographed SWP rally filled with students who have questionable credentials and branch delegations filled with SWP members who had been instructed to do so. It ha no democratic legitimacy and I don’t intend to waste the time sitting through another day of “everything is wonderful” boosterism.
There are two strategic choices on offer. Top down, bureaucratic manipulation or a fresh start. That’s why I’ll be in Bishopsgate.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

November 5, 2007 at 10:09 am

Gil

The strategic question of whether the Fighting Unions iniative as useful or not depends what was built out of it.

In the case of the national Shops Stewards Network, that the SWP are only marginally supporting, and Respect has not supported at all, we have a major initiative involving grass roots reps, that was initiated by the RMT, and has made a small but promising beginning. Its events have been charactaerised by the approcah of letting the grassroots participate, epaks and share experience, asnd rhere are a series of regional meetings rolling this approach out.

Fighting Unions seems to have been a series of rallies with top down speakers, limited speakers from the floor, and no follow up in netwroking together the rank and file. Geeat for the prestige of the SWP, but it didn’t build Respect nor the unions grassroots.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

November 5, 2007 at 10:10 am

BTW Gil

The RMT constitution requires any political endorsementns be approved by the national executive, good luck with that!

LikeLike

Reply
Non-SWP Respect socialist

November 5, 2007 at 10:22 am

This is all a bit confusing. Has the Galloway lot left Respect, or not? If not, I assume you’ll be coming to Conference. If so, I assume you’ll stop getting upset about people wanting to carry on with Respect, thanks all the same.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

November 5, 2007 at 11:52 am

I’m starting to think that some of the recent posters are not being terribly frank about their political affiliations. “Non-SWP Respect socialist” is an unusual name to give yourself and going to the trouble of creating e mail addresses that begin “nswprs” and “pwtrot” is weird.

This SWP habit of pretending it doesn’t exist when it’s trying to manipulate things is fast losing its charm.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 12:01 pm

The “Galloway lot” as you put it, ARE Respect. They include every component of the original coalition, including key SWP leaders and rank-and-file elements that were committed to Respect and have built it for years. The ‘Respect’ conference at University of Westminster on 17-18th November is an SWP conference under another name. Over 90% of the delegates there are SWP members. It is the SWP in coalition with itself.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Interesting to note that the SWP (Respect) conference has now been shortened to only one day. This is called winding-down – a tacit admission that it will not be a real conference, but a glorified SWP rally. There will be real debate and a real conference, albeit of a preliminary nature, at Bishopsgate. That is where the real Respect conference is taking place.

LikeLike

Reply
PW

November 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Liam:

The suggestion that I am not being frank about my political affiliation is laughable. I made some coments about what happened at the SWP Party Council on Andy’s blog to which you replied. I think even you might have guessed that if I was at the SWP Party Council I might be affiliated with the SWP. And I’ve had that emal address for at least 8 years.

What I would be intersted in Liam is your perspective for making Galloway accountable in the “Renewal” Respect. After all it’s something you have complained about in the past. Are you ging to put a motion on the 17th that he only takes a worker’s wage? Are you going to demand it give’s up his Blackpool event and stops running his media company from his constiuency office (the one where Respect pays over half the rent)?

LikeLike

Reply
newleftparty

November 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm

ummmm, don’t the swp have the respect name though?

clearly they are going to keep using it until they are told by the courts not to. i don’t think this is surprising news at all, they run the website, the ‘office’, the ‘official’ conference etc.

as an aside the rmt london regional coucill did not back lindsey german. email bob crow and ask him if you don’tn believe me. only a part of the london region backed her apparently. i doubt the rmt will touch either wing of respect now.

best wishes,

ks

LikeLike

Reply
newleftparty

November 5, 2007 at 12:22 pm

pw:

have you only just discovered all these ‘faults’ with galloway?

it was only yesterday that hysterical swpers were giving him standing ovations all around the country!

ks

LikeLike

Reply
NL

November 5, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Liam, I am amazed that it has taken you so long to see the wood. It appeared to me that right up until the split you prepared to hop to either camp, until things go to hot. You could have shown your credentials by supporting the motion that I was going to put forward on thuggish behaviour at the local branch.

LikeLike

Reply
Non-SWP Respect socialist

November 5, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Liam – as I’ve already said elsewhere, I could not care less what nonsense you want to make up for yourself about my political affiliation (or indeed anything else about me) in order to fit your prejudices. You carry on.

Does Ian Donovan’s reply mean that the Galloway lot is going to continue to claim to be the party which you have split from?

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Perryman

November 5, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Lets spell this out. Nobody has split from Respect except those wjo resigned thew whip as Respect councillors and the national secretary who orchestrated their press conference.

What RespectRenewal has split from is the SWP. But don’t take my word for it. Go to the ‘Respect National Conference’ and check the dcelegates’ credentials. Please report back on the % not SWP members. Then visit the RespectRenewal conference, helpfully organised on the same day, and count up the different components of the Respect ‘Unity Coalition’ represented including thiose with decades of membership of the SWP , the organisation supposedly being witchunted out of Respect. Oh and which organisatiion has expelled 3 members during this fallout, the initials escape me for a moment, S… W….

LikeLike

Reply
Non-SWP Respect socialist

November 5, 2007 at 1:20 pm

I’ll take that as a long-winded “yes”. That’s a shame.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 1:27 pm

“Does Ian Donovan’s reply mean that the Galloway lot is going to continue to claim to be the party which you have split from?”

The Respect Renewal conference *is* the Respect conference. The Westminster conf. is an SWP rally, now one-day only. George Galloway is still Respect’s only MP, the majority of Tower Hamlets councillors are still Respect councillors. Oli Rahman and co. now call themselves “Independent Respect” councillors, with John Rees’ support, which obviously is not the same thing as ‘Respect’. Even that is a tacit admission that they are not Respect.

Respect is a coalition, and the SWP have no partners in their ‘Respect’, which makes its claim to be a “unity coalition” laughable. Its only a matter of time before they are forced to admit that – the longer they go on pretending, the more of a laughing stock they will be. I doubt it will go to court, but if they do go to court to try to prevent GG and the Tower Hamlets, Newham and Birmingham councillors from calling theselves Respect, they will most likely lose.

LikeLike

Reply
Non-SWP Respect socialist

November 5, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Ditto.

LikeLike

Reply
chjh

November 5, 2007 at 1:33 pm

How do you know there’s a split? Because a minority of the NC have called a conference for the same day as the Respect conference, perhaps? Because a minority of the NC have announced their ‘sacking’ of John Rees as National Secretary, Jackie Turner as Tower Hamlets Secretary and Lindsey German as Mayoral candidate, perhaps? If you’re going to take your ball and go home because you’ve lost, at least have the grace to say that’s what you’re doing.

LikeLike

Reply
Non-SWP Respect socialist

November 5, 2007 at 1:36 pm

That’s what I was hoping for, chjh, but it seems that this group are not willing even to do that.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 1:38 pm

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=467&frmType=partydetail

LikeLike

Reply
Non-SWP Respect socialist

November 5, 2007 at 1:41 pm

What’s your point?

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Explanations are superfluous.

LikeLike

Reply
Marie (non-SWP Respect member, yawn)

November 5, 2007 at 1:44 pm

It’s funny that the democratically elected conference is somehow not legitimate because there may or may not be ‘mostly SWP’ members there. SWP members who are also a part of Respect, no?

Let’s be honest here – the conference is (laughably) being painted as not legitimate because those attending have decided to respect the constitution rather than flock to Galloway’s side and mindlessly join in with the anti-SWP hysteria. End of.

SWP-haters would argue that the sky was red if it meant being on the opposite side of the argument to the SWP.

So tedious.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

November 5, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Thanks Ian. Perhaps that’s why John Rees has taken to slandering Linda Smith as a ballot rigger. Gill George is a leading SWP trade unionist. Perhaps she will do what no other SWP members appears prepared to do: distance herself from Rees’s slander.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 1:47 pm

If the Respect-loyalist group are ‘SWP-haters’, how come they have been collaborating closely with the SWP for so long in Respect? Yawn indeed.

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

November 5, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Well obviously there’s a split. However, on a note of urgently needed unity I have just heard in the last couple of hours that Karen Reissmann SWP and Respect member has been sacked.

Urgent financial and other solidairty is needed:

After several months of suspension, fourteen days of strike action and a six day ‘disciplinary’ Karen Reissmann, chair of the Manchester Mental Health Unison branch has been sacked for the ‘crime’ of opposing mental health cuts.

The 700 strong branch has voted to go on indefinite strike. Urgent financial and other solidarity is needed.

Unison’s national industrial action committee has sanctioned the community mental health team comprising some 160 workers to go on indefinite official strike action from this Thursday. This is a strike Unison must win. Donations need to flood in, with messages of support, invitations for speakers, national publicity and demands of Unison officials that they respect the demand of the branch and that the official strike is spread to cover the whole branch.

Rush donations and messages of support to the Manchester Community and Mental Health Unison branch, 70 Manchester Road, Manchester, M21 9UN. Phone 07972 120 451 or email unison@ zen.co.uk Cheques can be made out to “Unison Manchester Community and Mental Health”

Visit http://www.reinstate-karen.org
The petition can be downloaded here http://www.brickman.dircon.co.uk/reissmann.pdf

More background here

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1748

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1675

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

November 5, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Liam – I think you need to answer the questions being put to you instead of trying to ignore them by attempting to discredit the posters.

Originally you said you thought there should be no conference because it would destroy Respect. Now you, Andy and others are wholeheartedly supporting this “call” for the Respect Renewal conference.

You need to answer why you think this has any democratic authority whatsoever. It’s clear to anyone who has been paying attention that the Galloway grouping did not want to have the conference and when they realised they wouldn’t win the vote to stop the conference going ahead, they formed their own organisation and claim that it’s the true Respect (which is rubbish – you can call a cat a dog but it still meows the same). This is in no way “democratic” and I must assume you support this outrageous behaviour. By what democratic authority have your comrades and Galloway called a boycott counter-conference (let’s call it what it is)? None.

As much as you don’t like the SWP it’s clear that when it comes to actually following the democratic procedure in this case and attempting to carry out the wishes of the majority of Respect members in carrying forward with the conference (which up until the recent debacle WERE SWP members) the SWP is in the right and your comrades and Galloway that are in breach of any kind structures whatsoever that Respect DID have in place.

You tried to justify this to me perviously by saying this was a faction fight and bascially “shit happens” – sorry comrade that just doesn’t wash here. This is a calculated move by a group of individuals to trying to assert their dominance and leaving when they realised they didn’t have the numbers to back it up. This is sleazy, undemocratic and disgusting. You, and anyone with a political soul, should be ashamed to be a part of it.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 2:54 pm

To be frank, who cares what you think about this one way or another? You dont support the Respect project, period. How can organising a boycott conference be an undemocratic move to assert ‘dominance’? If the conference being boycotted was what it says it is (i.e. a genuine conference of the Respect COALITION) then such a tactic would be madness, political suicide, for the boycotters.

It is, however, an effective tactic, for the simple reason that the SWP is trying to junk the Respect project, and its seizing the trappings of the ‘official’ conference is part of a wrecking operation. You should learn to distinguish form from content.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Actually, one fault in my post above is that it is too easy to use the shorthand, ‘the SWP’ when what I am actually referring to is the SWP leadership. Many SWP members are not at all happy about what their higher-ups are doing and are committed to the Respect project. They are being coerced by SWP’s flawed version of party ‘discipline’. It is important not to lose sight of that.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Perryman

November 5, 2007 at 3:11 pm

As I posted earlier, draw a breath and wait until 17 November. If the ‘Respect National Conference’ is anything other than a 95% SWP rally then all talk of the SWP control culture being used to destroy the Unity Coalition will cease.

Likewise if the RespectRenewal conferenhce fails to attract the overwhemling proportion of Respect committed to a unity coalition as a broad, plural left of Labour party all claims to this project on the part of George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Ken Loach and others should cease.

Yes we ‘lost’ the conference because in an organisation of around 2500 members, with close to 500 in one branch, Tower Hamlers, the well-drilled SWP membership of around 1200 can easily dominate delegate election meetings when the response to mild criticisms of its management of Respect is responded to by packing every delegate selection it can get to and tearing up all sense of a coalition and pluralism.

Draw breath, stop the denunciations, wait until 17 November turns out.

LikeLike

Reply
Non-SWP Respect socialist

November 5, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I think everyone would be better off if those at conference and those at George’s rally pay as little attention as possible to each other, meself. We’ll only get another round of people shouting at each other, this time about packing conference/the rally rather than packing meetings/delegations. It’s not as if either side is going to back down on the basis of someone’s estimate of how many conference-goers are not members of the SWP, is it?

LikeLike

Reply
Not in my Name

November 5, 2007 at 4:00 pm

There isn’t an estimate of the number of SWP delegates at their rally. It is a fact that 95% of the delegates to the SWP rally are in the SWP. At least those at the Respect Renewal conference are serious about building a pluralistic, democratic, broad based coalition rather than banging on with empty rhetoric using buzz words such as witchunt…blah, blah…..circumventing democracy….blah, blah……unity……blah, blah….let conference decide.
The SWP leadership have done everything they can to destroy Respect, but we are not going to let them. Respect belongs to us. We are Respect.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

November 5, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I have nor idea why TWP feels so strongly about it either way.

The legitimacy of the SWP confernce is not within rule, there would be sufficient ammunition about the unconstitional student delegations, and the Tower Hamlets events to get an injunction to stop it if it was in anyone’s interest so to do.

Given that the “official” confernce is outwith the constitition (the CAC has for example not been approved by the NC, which is a constitional requirement) I cannot see why tami is so keen to assert its bone fides.

Faced with the choice of submitting to an unconstitutional conference, or challenging that conference in the courts. It was better to take neither of those options, and call an alternative conference instead.

The SWP can vote on what they like on 17th November, they will have a hard job I suspect in convincing the electoral commission that their conference was within rule, and competent to decide things for Respect, even with the weighty judgement of TWP on their side.

The only sensible thing for the SWP to do now is negotiate seriously over Respect’s assets. All this conference must decide bullshit is about saving face for the CC, not a serious attempt to continue with Respect on their own.

One of the funniest aspects of all this has been the wilingness of the ultra-lefts to line up in support of the SWP.

LikeLike

Reply
Non-SWP Respect socialist

November 5, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Is there much in the way of assets? There’s the name, I suppose. I imagine that Respect will carry on calling itself Respect, and Galloway’s lot will call itself something similar, and it will all be very embarrassing for everyone involved, who will have to listen to even more “57 varieties” and “Judean People’s Front” digs.

LikeLike

Reply
Piers

November 5, 2007 at 4:15 pm

There are two issues at stake here: have the SWP leadership factionarlly abused their position within the structures of Respect so as to make a continued democratic political fight impossible? what perspective has the best prospects of building a broad pluralist, democratic, inclusive left alternative to Labour?

Those posting here with varying degree of vehemence against the Respect Renewal conference need to have an answer to these questions.

On the first one: on what basis was it possible to continue a political fight within the forthcoming conference if between a third to a half of the delegates credentials were being contested; and no authoritative Conference Arrangements Committee had been appointed by the NC that could command the support of the whole organisation. If the SWP leadership had made the slightest indication that they were in favour of even discussing confidence building measures on these fundamental points there might have been a chance of a unified conference. But without them there isn’t the slightest possibility.

Added to that, round the country the SWP has openly mobilised (publicly recorded in their Party Notes) to get as many delegates elected as possible. To do this branches that never meet have been “revived”, others have been packed. In my Respect branch the result was that all but one of the 8 delegates supports the line of the SWP leadership even though at the last meeting a third were clearly in opposition (although only fully expressed in a secret ballot vote because some of them were SWP members under discipline to support the line). The “8th”, not supporting the SWP leadership line was so disillusioned that he tried to withdraw as a delegate, stating he thought the conference would be a complete waste of time (he is not an SR or RPP supporter)

What are the critics suggesting? That this isn’t an accurate and representative picture? Or that it is and there is some effective method of dealing with this within the conference structure? SWP supporters celebrate the outcome, but in fact as soon as you have to resort to these methods – rather than winning support on a political basis you have given up the fight for broad based organisation.

This is what signals the collapse of the SWP leadership’s project. Of course only time will tell. But I note that none of the critics have even dared suggest that in a few months or six months time Respect (SWP) will have found any significant allies outside it’s own forces. It won’t because it has no strategy to do this and it is organisationally incapable of it.

This therefore answers the second question. For some, like twp, what is (to quote her repeated use of this vocabulary) “disgusting” and “shameful” – is organising outside the Labour Party. It is a very strange time to pick such a stance. Throughout the 20th century (with a few exceptions – like the late 60s and early 70s) there has nearly always been very serious grounds for considering that any radicalisation would necessarily pass through the Labour party. It was a major debate within the left in the 1920s, 30s, 50s, late 70s to 90s.

Right now the numbers seriously suggesting that are small. I will be very surprised if the LRC conference isn’t replete contributions from very astute observers – like McDonnell himself – alone the lines that not only is future radicalisation not going to pass through the party, but left LP activists have to orient themselves to forces outside the party if there is any hope of rebuilding. They will be looking for non-LP allies. The only question will be where. Very difficult to see the Respect (SWP) as an inviting partner. Morning Star maybe, left unions that have broken with Labour, left wing greens – all almost certainly. Those involved in Renewing Respect have the political perspective and commitment to broad inclusive practice that will also make them an obvious part of this discussion. We shall see whether that is the case.

On a separate point – people talk of SR “throwing in with GG’s lot” and “we’ll see if they hold him accountable” etc. SR is not throwing in with anyone. We simply believe as we always have done in building a broad, democratic, pluralist party to the left of Labour. Tragically, working with the SWP has come to a dead end when it comes to that goal. Even despite this there will still be plenty of individual SWP activists who we will be happy to collaborate with – what ever organisation they are in. And we will continue to criticise George and fight for him to be accountable as we always have done.

As it happens I have never thought that the “workers wage” argument was either a matter of unbending principle or the be all and end all of the matter. The issue of accountability is an organic one – one of substance not form. I don’t think the Militant MPs of the 1980s did a brilliant job of making themselves accountable to the labour movement and working class – rather to the much narrower confines of Militant – whatever their wages. And the SSPs adherence to that principle did nothing to stop the disaster of Prima Donna Sheridan. It has wrongly become a shibboleth, even if it is a very important issue some balance sheets need to be drawn in how to fight for real accountability by representatives.

We’ll have to see where things go on the issue of accountability. But there has been a strong breeze of fresh air among those Renewing Respect (including GG) on this issue, which is a very positive turn of events. If there is need for further argument or criticism in times ahead – I think most people would say that is exactly what you would expect in a broad and mixed organisation based on inclusiveness and mutual respect.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

November 5, 2007 at 4:32 pm

It is worth remembering TWP’s argument from the time that she joined the Labour Party, that she did so after a lecture at Birkbeck college that explained the historical link with the unions, and after this damascene conversion she has been lecturing the rest of us about how stupid we are not to know it.

Personally i joined the Labour party in 1973 aged 12 years old, and spent many years in the party, and I can assure TWP is is not the same oarty now it was in 1972, 1983 or even 1993.

The whole question of whcih party project people particiiapte in (or none) is a red herring, as none of the avaiable options are perfect, what matters now is finding a way to work together to create a better context for all of us.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

November 5, 2007 at 4:39 pm

So now I have no right to an opinion. Andy has “no idea” why I have a strong opinion on this even though he knows full well that I have been participating in debates about Respect for the last 2 years on his blog, this blog and my blog.

I am becoming convinced that it is absolutely useless trying to have a political discussion with people like Andy and Ian any longer. Whether it is on here or on Andy’s blog, people are sworn at, called names and belittled or told they have no right to an opinion.

Ian I don’t know who you are but I left SR precisely over the issue of Respect and was in Respect until early 2005 so I have a very keen interest in what happens here. But enough – I am tired of having to “prove” my politics to people who can’t deal seriously with simple political questions without resorting to insults. Your view that no one can have a strong opinion on this unless they support Respect is incomprehensible. Andy – I never pretended that my opinion holds weight in any way shape or form but I do think as a socialist and a Marxist on the British Left that I at least have the right to hold a view on something which will have an effect on all of us.

To Piers – I appreciate your attempt to seriously answer my questions but pointing to the SWP and say “they’ve done bad things too” doesn’t negate the fact that you and other members of SR hold a responsibility for your tacit support of Galloway’s sleazy tactics.

In addition, I do not think that people should ONLY organise in the Labour Party and the fact that you know my opinion on such matters – given the fact we have worked very closely together in the past – makes such accusations ridiculous.

What is “disgusting” and “shameful” is supporting one side in the destruction of Respect and pretending as though anything Galloway has done cannot be touched or criticized but having no problem with simultaneously going wholeheartedly after the SWP.

But the logic of SR’s argument means that it cannot be any other way. It’s clear that SR has chosen to have a case of collective amnesia about Galloway’s behaviour while continuing on with it’s criticism of the SWP.

It is possible that one can call a spade a spade as far as the undemocratic behaviour of the Galloway group and also think that the SWP rump of Respect will not go anywhere. The only reason people in SR cannot do this is because the logical conclusion that can be drawn from this view is that the Galloway lot aren’t much better than the rump SWP lot – and where would that leave SR? Back at square one admitting they were wrong all along.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

November 5, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Andy – I never ever called anyone “stupid”. It was not only a lecture at university by my lived experience with political activists on the British Left that convinced me to quit SR who insisted on clinging to the Respect project and join with the Labour Left to support the McDonnell campaign.

I have never claimed to have all the answers and I am not sure that everyone joining the Labour Party would be the correct thing to do. What I do know is the best MPs I’ve met, some of the most militant trade unionists I have met and a number of very good activists in Britain are LP members.

I happen to think we’re all in a long process and that this “jumping around” form of politics – ie moving to whatever looks good at the time, attempting to circumvent the working class and so forth – is going to get the Left nowhere. I think it is useful to step back and take a look at the big historical picture instead of beating the hell out of each other on blogs. Is the LRC “the answer”? I don’t know – but I think the very idea that everyone seems to be looking for one answer could very well be a part of the problem.

Finally Andy – I don’t appreciate you making accusations which twist my political views in an attempt to discredit me.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 4:50 pm

There were no insults or epithets in my posting above, but Tami still thinks she has been sworn at and abused. She hasn’t. She finds the political criticisms objectionable, and therefore sees ‘abuse’ when it isn’t there. She puts forward a view, others have the right to criticise it as sharply as she puts it foward. In fact, the whole reason why she is here is to criticise others’ views, but when the favour is returned she cries foul. She is not the only one with a ‘strong opinion’.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

November 5, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Ian – Sorry mate but Andy very openly verbally abuse and swore at people on his blog. This is what I am referring to with regards to the swearing. I think being told

“To be frank, who cares what you think about this one way or another?”

and also being told

“You should learn to distinguish form from content.”

are in fact personal insults

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

November 5, 2007 at 4:57 pm

“The Galloway lot” is one way of describing that group.

Another way is the “vast majority of non-SWP national council members”, several of whom have been very critical of him in public and in private and he knows exactly what they have said about him. There have been rows with him before. As sure as the turning of the earth there will be rows with him again. This time round there won’t be a democratic centralist fanclub to protect him or anyone else.

People have reached the end of their tethers with the SWP’s way of working. Some of us have several year’s experience of it and have concluded it’s an obstacle to a class struggle regroupment. Read Pierre Broue’s book on the German revolution. It’s one split and regroupment after another. That’s the historical process.

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Not insults, but harsh polemical points derived from your political positions, not personal characteristics. And ‘you should distinguish form from content’ is a criticism of your political logic. Compared with being called sleazy, dishonest and undemocratic, which is what you have said about our side of the debate, these retorts are quite mild. Mote and beam, as they say! This ultra-sensitivity on your part is a result of political insecurity.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

November 5, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Oh dear Ian – The difference is when I have a debate with someone and their opinion differs from mine my first response is not “Who cares what you think?”

You actually expect anyone to believe that sort of behaviour is a “harsh polemical point derived from” my “political positions?”

LikeLike

Reply
Ian Donovan

November 5, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Obviously it is, since I know nothing at all about you personally, it can only be just that.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

November 5, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Liam – So if I understand what you are saying you think that it’s good that the SWP are not there to protect Galloway anymore – but Galloway is leading the group of Respect Renewal with now absolutely no democratic structures whatsoever (even though the ones in Respect were pretty rubbish to begin with and violated often by both sides).

How are you going to hold him, or anyone on this “leadership” body accountable?

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

November 5, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Right Ian – because one must know one personally to insult them personally……

LikeLike

Reply
tim

November 5, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Ian, You’re supporting Gallloway.
Clear this up will you
Since the report into George Galloway’s behaviour, he has inevitably issued a blizzard of press and media statements giving his side of the story. His opening line is usually the same

Once more and yet again I have been cleared of taking a single penny or in any way personally benefiting from the former Iraqi regime through the Oil for Food programme or any other means.

What the report actually said is that it found “no evidence” that Galloway had benefited personally.

Perhaps that could be because they haven’t looked at Galloway’s bank account?

In his evidence to the committee Galloway confirmed the following:

Q134 Mr Curry: You only had a joint account?
Mr Galloway: Yes, we only had a joint account. I only had a joint account, I should add.
Q135 Mr Curry: You only had a joint account?
Mr Galloway: Yes.
Q136 Mr Curry: Mr McKay is reported to have told The Sunday Telegraph that you and Dr Abu Zayyad have always maintained separate bank accounts, in fact that was not the case. Your wife may have had her own account but—
Mr Galloway: It is clear that she had at least one account in the Middle East , yes.

Now as was also pointed out in the report Galloway often had his expenses made out to “Amineh Abu Zayyad” and paid into their joint account at the Cooperative bank. Of course it is only necessary to have one of the account holders names on the transaction to deposit to a joint account.

Now what about Oil for Food Cash? Where did that go?

As the Senate Investigation shows, The Mariam Appeal’s agent in Bagdhad, Fawaz Zureikat, made a number payments containing OFF cash in the week of 4th August 2000. including

– $340,000 to the Mariam Appeal
– $150,000 to Amineh Abu Zayyad
– $15,666 to Ron McKay

What was the nature of the payment that was made to Galloway’s wife and press spokesman, by his business partner Fawaz Zureikat? Was this money a gift, or was it in the nature of a commission or other similar payment?

Galloway’s wife had her money paid into a Citibank account in Jordan and seven days later transferred $24,950 into a UK Cooperative bank account in the UK.

So perhaps George could clear all this up.

Did his joint Cooperative bank account receive the payment originating from the Oil Deals?

Or had his wife of three months opened another Cooperative bank account he claims to know nothing about?

And what happened to the rest of the $150,000 paid to his wife by Mr Zureikat?

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

November 5, 2007 at 6:17 pm

The danger with this TWP, I feel, is that Galloway was being witch-hunted by the US senate and the bourgeois press because of his stance on the war.

Does this mean he is beyond suspicion? No. But it does mean that any of this is highly specualtive and in my opinion far from the best way of criticising Galloway’s politics.

If you wanted to concentrate on e.g. refusal to take a workers’ wage, refgusal to make his positions on abortion accountable to the Respect membership in fact lack of an active democracy in that organisation then fair enough,

If there is going to be an organisation Galloway MP is helf accoutnable to – and it’s far from clear there is- then will that be run democratically? I doubt it.

But I think that questions about MPs expenses and corruption are an issue going far beyond the member for Bethnanl Green and Bow.

LikeLike

Reply
twp77

November 5, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Hi Jason – I think you meant that for tim not me.

LikeLike

Reply
Alex Nichols

November 5, 2007 at 6:58 pm

On a trainspotting note. Some years ago, I was falsely accused of being Owen Jones.

I noticed there’s an article by him on the “In Defence of Marxism” site today, about the police strike after WW1.

Anyone know if he’s joined them?

LikeLike

Reply
Jason

November 5, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Yeah sorry TWP- you are absolutely right! Sorry about that.

So apart from saying TWP I should have said Tim.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

November 5, 2007 at 7:54 pm

If we are honest for a minute concerning the Respect Renewal conference, it is essentially a spoiler and meant to galvanise the non-SWP respect members behind a cause

I would suspect that it is part of a political calculation, when Team Galloway (for want of a better word) realised that they wouldn’t necessarily have the numbers to defeat the SWP at the Respect conference they were in a bind

If the original conference went ahead unopposed it would confer a degree of legitimacy, for propaganda purposes, to the SWP and solidify their position in Respect

So Team Galloway created the alternative conference to act as a spoiler and pole of attraction, to draw away non-SWP respect members and any wavering SWPers towards Team Galloway and provide a focus for future actions

It’s been done for **politically expedient** reasons, that’s the background and people shouldn’t kid themselves otherwise

LikeLike

Reply
chjh

November 5, 2007 at 9:34 pm

I think Ian Donovan’s point about the Electoral Commission was that Respect will have to change its address after George Galloway democratically and pluralistically locked the majority of National Officers out of Respect’s HQ.

You can call the conference an ‘SWP rally’ as often as you like, but it doesn’t get round the fact that delegates have been elected by duly constituted meetings. The fact that you think that those of us in the SWP shouldn’t have a vote at such meetings doesn’t alter the fact that we’re also members.

There’s an honourable position to take here: there are two projects and two conferences, and both sides should get on with their projects and test them against reality. The dishonourable position is that you try and do as much damage as possible on the way out. Time to choose.

LikeLike

Reply
Mark Perryman

November 5, 2007 at 9:49 pm

Look there’s no kidding. The SWP manage Respect, they help to ensure the membership remains at woefully low levels given surely its potential. All is OK until some mild criticisms of them are made. They respond by absolutely ensuring their control is maintained.

Respect at the time had around 2500 members, 500 in Tower Hamlets. Given those numbers a well-organised SWP that decides to go all out for control ignoring any previous commitment to a ‘unity coalition’ is easily able to pack out a conference.

So in that sense they have ‘democratic credibility’ but only if you define a ‘unity coalition’ as one perpetually controlled by one group which arrogantly declares itself to be the Left (and not oncluding one of the country’s best known socialist MPs, socialist film-makers and a member of the SWP of 30 years standing…. nooooo none of them could be Left could they?)

The Respect Renewal conference is not a ‘spolier’ its where the overwhelming majority of the rest of Respect will be meeting carved out of their own conference by the SWP. But don’t take my word for it, just have a bit of patience and wait until the 17th and ask neutral observers to compare the two events.

And uf the 0ovberwhelmi8ng majority of the non SWP Respect are at Bishopsgate, including quite a few SWP who have left the SWP over this fallout then will the SWP have the sense to reflect. How and why did we manage to olose the broadest alliance of allies the SWP ever managed to attract to their side? Might be worthy just a smidgin of reflection amongst the slurs and denuncitions. Of course if noboy turns up at Bishopsgate the non SWP Respect likewise should be honest enough to reflect on why Respect is nothing without the SWP.

A bit of balanced reporting and political honesty after 17 November would do wonders for our collective political sanity.

LikeLike

Reply
andy newman

November 5, 2007 at 10:02 pm

uf the 0ovberwhelmi8ng majority

Mark is using my spell-checker.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

November 5, 2007 at 10:23 pm

PW, apologies for that. You are right on the identity business. It’s quite hard to keep track of everything and everyone

Tim have you tried using the internet to develop an interest in cars, badgers or porn as I suggested? It would be a relief for many of us.

LikeLike

Reply
point

November 6, 2007 at 2:15 am

liam, don’t let tim use your blog as a forum for spreading his shit. don’t buy the “free speech” thing. tim would have no truck with you if you tried to spread propaganda on his site. except he doesn’t have a site

all time wants is for people to see his bile, even just for 5 minutes. why give him the airtime?

LikeLike

Reply
Janet Oryem

November 6, 2007 at 9:33 am

I am extremely disappointed and distressed by the apparent break up of our Party snd it appears to me decisions have been made by both sides without consultation with the wider membership

Surely it is time for both sides to be adult and sublimate their collective egos for the sake of the party The fragmentation of RESPECT will have a damaging effect on many groups and individuals both nationally and internationally and left wing politics as a whole.
Please try to get together and resolve your differences I am sure many ordinary members who are not part of the political elite agree with me

LikeLike

Reply
Halshall

November 6, 2007 at 10:47 am

If John Rees did lie slanderously about ‘Linda Smith being a ballot rigger’ to the SWP Party Council (PC) on last saturday, to which effect she has received a mass of abusive e-mails, presumably from SWP members at the PC who were genuinely taken in by said big lie; then surely all that is required is to expose beyond doubt the mendacity of this outrageous fabrication to said SWP rank and file.

It could be done on blogs like this and it would remove any ‘cred’ from the likes of these desperate people, who use the the big lie to raise hue and cry:- ‘Press the alarm button comrade and get all your members running around and knee-jerking. Anything to stop them thinking clearly about the issues, and we can’t have that they might listen to other (more reasoned) views.’
Well comrade SWP members at the PC, i’m sorry but YOU’VE BEEN CONNED!
Linda Smith is innocent. Check it out with the FBU.

It does take some measured thought to get round the fact that this group (the SWP cc) could be so dishonest, but they must be at a loss to sink to such gutter tactics. It can only be a sign of their choatic thinking. What an own goal!

How Did We Get To This?

When the Respect project got going it was fairly clear to all that we were entering a new political game that was sailing into uncharted waters.
What was needed was a gentle hand on the tiller, but what we got was a crude machine politics that showed no regard for any constructive criticism.
It stifled debate for top-down diktat. No national paper for bland tabloids.
No interactive comment on the website.
As a consequence the membership growth stalled and then shrank; activity became confined to a few hardcore activists in the branches, occaisonally supplemented by volunteers at by-elections.
In reality no internal political life in-between. The smothering of which, in an exaggerated fear of factionalism, has led to the present debacle.

The SWP cc have chosen to draw battle lines rather than genuinely negotiate, the sad thing is it could have been so different!

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

November 6, 2007 at 11:13 am

Halshall

This is a difficult area.

I have made a few phone calls, but I have no first hand confrimation that JOhn Rees said what has been reported.

There is a potential liel not only againt Linda Smith, but also against john rees, if we cannot subsantiate that he actually said what is being reported.

If he did say it, then this is a major question for the labout movement as he has attacked the integrity of a leading TU militant. And he should consider his position.

LikeLike

Reply
Halshall

November 6, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Granted, we have to be sure that we are fair to JR as well as LS; and make sure that he actually said publicly what has been reported, not merely rehash hearsay.
Otherwise we risk doing the very thing that we are complaining about.
I can only say that the source I heard it from would not make it up, although it may have been hearsay passed on.
Anyway, it needs checking out.

LikeLike

Reply