Liam redux

, ,

Respect councillors did talk to Liberal Democrats

Thanks to Neil Williams for being the first to spot this story. It comes from the East London Advertiser. The whole text of the article is below. It confirms that Oli Rahman and the other Respect councillors who resigned the whip were in talks with the Lib Dems. The odd thing is that this week’s…

Liam
3–4 minutes

Thanks to Neil Williams for being the first to spot this story. It comes from the East London Advertiser. The whole text of the article is below.

It confirms that Oli Rahman and the other Respect councillors who resigned the whip were in talks with the Lib Dems. The odd thing is that this week’s edition of Socialist Worker, which has a fair bit of coverage of events in Respect, didn’t break this scoop first. After all at least two of the councillors are members of the organisation. The editor must be very cross with them for letting the local paper be the first to share the news. There will probably be a centre spread next week to make up for it explaining what a tactically astute, highly principled move it was.

The Advertiser quotes Oli as saying “We’ve had discussions with Lib Dems and Labour about how to work together effectively in the council”. Now no one could object to Respect councillors canvassing Lib Dems to get their signatures on an anti-war resolution or trying to persuade Labour members to oppose a PFI scheme. But this was, on the face of things, going behind the back of the Respect group to negotiate as a group of individuals. And what precisely does “work together effectively” mean? As a rule the Respect group has been at its most effective when it has being confronting and challenging everything that is identifiably New Labour in the council.

The talks says Oli “came to nothing”. What outcome was hoped for? The local Lib Dem leadership would find the arguments for socialism so compelling that they would join the breakaway councillors en masse? The content of these talks needs to be made known to Respect members and there needs to be an explanation of the long silence since the story broke.

The other pertinent question is just how far the SWP’s leadership was involved in all this? Does anyone who knows the people involved think it credible that these discussions were kept a closely guarded secret from John Rees? So all the bluster that we have read in the blogosphere denying the possibility of such a thing happening turns out to be just that. Yet we cannot criticise those who were righteously indignant. They too were misled by a leadership which knew the truth.

Galloway rebels in talks with Lib Dems

07 November 2007
By Ted Jeory
THE rebel leader of MP George Galloway‘s respect Party on Tower Hamlets council in his East London constituency has confirmed having had coalition talks with the Town Hall’s Lib Dem group.
But Cllr Oli Rahman has decided against any deal, he told the Advertiser today (Nov-7).
His breakaway ‘gang of four’ met Lib Dem leader Stephanie Eaton, he admits, but it has come to nothing.
The rebel councillors who split from the official Respect group last week had also been in talks with the ruling Labour group.
“We’ve had discussions with Lib Dems and Labour about how to work together effectively in the council,” said Cllr Rahman. “But we are not going into coalition with any party.”
They are trying to find organisational back-up following their break with Galloway and Abjol Miah‘s rump group of seven councillors.
Last week’s Advertiser revelations that the rebels were considering a coalition with Lib Dems sent shockwaves through the Left Wing movement.
Galloway’s allies partly used the news as a pretext for changing the locks on his constituency HQ in Club Row, Bethnal Green.
They believed the Socialist Workers Party who have had a rift with Galloway had been behind Rahman’s breakaway. But Cllr Rahman denies it.
Respect’s troubles deepened this week when Galloway’s allies called a ‘Respect Renewal’ party conference at London’s Bishopsgate Institute on November 17, deliberately clashing with the long-planned annual party conference which the MP is boycotting.

48 responses to “Respect councillors did talk to Liberal Democrats”

  1. the digger Avatar
    the digger

    ISG members oppose split?

    ISG members in Birmingham have writtena a letter to SWP members supporting the Newham Unity statement opposing a split and saying the SWP is an essential part of the realignment of the left.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Nick Wrack Avatar
    Nick Wrack

    The confirmation by Ted Jeory of the East London Advertiser that Olliur Rahman and the other three breakaway Respect councillors in Tower Hamlets did have coalition talks with the Lib Dems is a devastating condemnation of John Rees and the SWP leadership.

    Over the last few months the SWP leadership has been attacking its opponents in Respect as ‘communalist’ and ‘succumbing to electoralist pressure’. Now we see that those very councillors that John Rees and the SWP Central Committee have backed against the official Respect group on Tower Hamlets council have themselves succumbed to ‘elecoralist pressure’ by seeking some sort of rotten deal with both the Lib Dems and New Labour.

    The only reason raised by Rahman and his three stooges for resigning the Respect whip was that Cllr Abjol Miah was an ineffective leader. Rahman had twice stood against Miah for the position of leader and was twice defeated, not by a vote of the councillors alone but of a vote of the whole of the Tower Hamlets Respect membership.

    Now Rahman has sought to further his thwarted ambition by seeking a coalition with the Lib Dems, backed by John Rees and the SWP CC.

    The SWP CC has argued that the division within Respect is a left/right battle, with the SWP on the left. Now, they have always had a problem convincing more thoughtful people that Ken Loach, Alan Thornett, Nick Wrack, Clive Searle, Linda Smith, Bernie Parkes, John Lister and others were on the right. But now they will have some difficulty explaining how their members (two of the breakaway councillors – Lutfa Begum and Ahmed Hussain – are members of the SWP) and their close allies (Rahman and Rania Khan) are on the left when they were involved in coalition talks with the Lib Dems.

    We need a response from John Rees. Don’t hold your breath.

    Like

    Reply
  3. George T Avatar
    George T

    Oli makes some strange decisions at times like standing this year for Regional Learning Rep in our Union while a Councillor. At the time he hadn’t even done a learning course or held a position as a local learning rep. It may not be the greatest position to advance the class struggle. Also I was surprised his council work allowed him to consider such a role. Infact after several months inactivity in this role he resigned after calls from some reps for his resignation. These calls were not political.

    Oli is an excellent public speaker and he has genuine passion for the cause. However he has exhibited naivete in talking to the Liberal democrats and his support for the SWP Respect. There is a tendency from some bloggers (i imagine SWPers) to speak up Oli as something he probably wouldn’t claim to be himself. I’m sure Oli will admit his mistakes in future – unfortunately the SWP leadership may never admit the errors of their ways.

    What does this mean for the left-right split debate in Respect?

    PS. I should add I campaigned for Oli in the General election and supported his election as Regional Union Learning Rep.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Simon Kennedy Avatar
    Simon Kennedy

    There is still an ambiguity here isn’t there? The angle of the article – “coalition talks” isn’t supported by the quotation, which mentions instead “talks”. The only support that has been forthcoming is on Dave Osler’s blog, and this must go down as hearsay. From here, to implicate the SWP in the matter is yet another step. One too many maybe.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    There were talks with not only the Lib Dems but also New labour.
    What were the hoped for outcomes of those talks?
    Now in a sense, as New Labour are the ruling group on the council, and Oli Rahman has formed a new political group in opposition to Respect, it makes sense to talk to labour about committee representation, etc.
    But why would you talk to the Lib Dems? They have no sway (as the fourth largest group on the council) over committee composition or anything else important. The only outcome that makes sense to me is that 6+4 = 10, making a coalition the official opposition.
    It is a simple question. If the talks were not about forming a coalition, what were they about?

    As I wrote in August 2004:

    “Should anti-war activists be elected into council chambers who are not socialists then they may even contemplate alliances with ostensibly anti-war parties such as the free market Liberal Democrats. This may seem unlikely at the moment, but the Respect coalition combines very diverse elements and not all future developments may be to the liking of the socialists within that coalition.”

    I didn’t foresee it would be the SWP’s councillors though!

    Like

    Reply
  6. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    The only support that has been forthcoming is on Dave Osler’s blog, and this must go down as hearsay.

    Hearsay?

    Dave osler is a professional journalist who checked with the Tower Hamlets Lib Dems, who confirmed there had been colaition talks.

    Like

    Reply
  7. KrisS Avatar
    KrisS

    It’s pretty daft to have had any talks with any council political group during this last week or so. However, there’s nothing in the story, and particularly nothing in the Oliur Rahman quotations, which supports the contention that there were any coalition talks.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Lobby Ludd Avatar
    Lobby Ludd

    Kris S said:

    “It’s pretty daft to have had any talks with any council political group during this last week or so. However, there’s nothing in the story, and particularly nothing in the Oliur Rahman quotations, which supports the contention that there were any coalition talks.”

    What were the talks about then? If they were about council business, no problem – you just have to say so. But that hasn’t happened.

    Rather than conspiracy, this looks like cock-up. Were I a member of the SWP, I would be very concerned about the abilities of my ‘leading comrades’. Or are the dissident Respect councillors about to be reprimanded or expelled?

    Like

    Reply
  9. KrisS Avatar
    KrisS

    I haven’t a clue what any discussions might have been about. I’m happy to ask the question, and will expect an answer.

    Like

    Reply
  10. modernityblog Avatar
    modernityblog

    until recently various SWPers (on the SU blog) were denying that this even took place, I wonder if they are now speechless?

    Or will they have the honesty to admit the facts?

    Like

    Reply
  11. KrisS Avatar
    KrisS

    As far as I can tell, the SWPers were saying that there have been no coalition talks with the lib dems in Tower Hamlets. It seems just as easy to stick to that now as before this story was published.

    Like

    Reply
  12. Lobby Ludd Avatar
    Lobby Ludd

    Actually, Kris, they said there will be no coalition. They did not say what the talks were actually about. If the talks were about particular council matters, they could, and should, have said so. They did not.

    They show themselves to be at best incompetent, at worst unprincipled.

    As to the leadership of the SWP, I now believe it is probably both incompetent and unprincipled. The acrimonious split did not have to happen – they were incapable of dealing with simple criticism of the course of Respect (however base the motives may have been from some quarters). Instead, in a panic, they have tried to shore-up their dominant presence in Respect without thinking through what that meant. They still claim to be in favour of building broad parties to the left of Labour but do not considered what effect their actions might have on their potential allies .

    Like

    Reply
  13. charliemarks Avatar
    charliemarks

    Perhaps the acrimonious split hasn;t happened (he says, crossing his fingers).

    It’s possible that there will be a realisation that Respect cannot be thrown away without serious consequences.

    Just think though, if there had been a General Election…

    Like

    Reply
  14. Canadien Avatar
    Canadien

    Hmm… this kind of thing has never happened before. It’s only the influence of the SWP that has caused this terrible deviation. Luckily under the Renewal leadership of Abjol Miah, no cooperation with the Lib Dems will happen:

    From Evening Standard in February, as posted by bysshe on SUN:

    “Hush-hush ‘alliance’ of Tories and Respect

    The Conservatives were accused of being “in cahoots” with George Galloway’s Respect Party today after it emerged the two parties had held joint meetings in Tower Hamlets.

    The alliance was revealed by accident on the East End council’s website.

    Tory group leader Simon Rouse let slip on his town hall timesheets that he had repeatedly met Respect group leader Abjol Miah and the local Lib Dem leader in private ahead of meetings since last August.

    The two parties have been voting together on housing, planning, policing and other issues. Tory councillors even nominated the Respect leader for a key council committee.

    Council leader Denise Jones said: “Last May, the Conservatives said that the Respect Party would spread chaos and land lead Tower Hamlets into the abyss. Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters now have a right to hear what has changed and why their councillors are in cahoots with one of the most extreme and divisive parties in British politics.”

    Like

    Reply
  15. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Canadien a little bit of weight should be given to the context. This was a breakaway group which had just issued a public statement criticising the local leadership. The press conference was overseen by a national secretary who has lost the confidence of a significant part of the the membership.

    This was not just the normal business of politics in a bourgeois institution. It was incompetent, dishonest, unprincipled scheming.

    Like

    Reply
  16. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Abjol, who led the main opposition group on the council, had regular meetings with the second opposition group to discuss forthcoming votes. That’s just good tactics. Tories also nominated him for membership of a committee (not to lead it); when the order of the day is opposition to New Labour, this isn’t that surprising.

    Oli’s actions, as leader of a newly-formed group, are completely different.

    as New Labour are the ruling group on the council, and Oli Rahman has formed a new political group in opposition to Respect, it makes sense to talk to labour about committee representation, etc.

    But why would you talk to the Lib Dems? They have no sway (as the fourth largest group on the council) over committee composition or anything else important. The only outcome that makes sense to me is that 6+4 = 10, making a coalition the official opposition.

    Holding talks with the Lib dems for the new rebel group, though. What for. Did they have one meeting, or more?

    Professional journalist Dave Osler checked with the Tower Hamlets Lib DEms, and reported that they confirmed the Advertiser Story.

    As Dave reported the Lib DEms saying: “Anyway, I’m told that the Lib Dems are disappointed that the Gang of Four seem so determined to hang on to the Respect name. Deep Throat adds that everybody’s favourite centre party are more than up for a deal:”

    So the Lib DEms were certainly under the impression the talks were about a coalition.

    Like

    Reply
  17. Simon Kennedy Avatar
    Simon Kennedy

    Dave Osler say: “I’ve just had a second email from a source with an intimate knowledge of the ins and out of Tower Hamlets politics…”

    Sorry, this is not solid information. Nothing to do with Dave’s professionalism.

    Further we find, “There were talks with not only the Lib Dems but also New labour”.

    So, the councillors talked to everyone. When you are organising a split, that seems understandable.

    Everything else is inference. That’s worth keeping sight of.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Adam J Avatar
    Adam J

    It’s perfectly plausible that the LibDems are themselves spreading rumours of coalition talks in order to divide Respect and strengthen themselves.

    Like

    Reply
  19. The Tower Hamlets Rat Avatar
    The Tower Hamlets Rat

    Plausible? Surely downright probable? It’s what they do.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    But no talks with the Tories, who have more councillors than the Lib Dems?

    If the talks were strictly administrative, then they would have talked to all politicall groups on the council.

    BUt they talked to the Lib Dems, and not the Tories.

    It is a simple qustion, what was the hoped for outcome of those talks?

    Like

    Reply
  21. Digger Avatar
    Digger

    Interesting post from Canadian, by the standards of the blogosphere, Liam, Andy and Nick Wrack are in a popular front with the Tories.

    Like

    Reply
  22. Digger Avatar
    Digger

    “Yes, it is perfectly true to say that Galloway is pandering to a communalist agenda.” Dave Osler, professional journalist blog, 26 October 2007.

    Must be true!

    Like

    Reply
  23. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Digger

    Can you not tell the difference between a journalist reporting a fact, and a journalist expressing an opinion?

    You are getting desperate.

    Personally i support the idea of Respect becomeing more explicitly a popular front, I’m not ashamed of that.

    Like

    Reply
  24. Duncan Avatar
    Duncan

    Simon,

    You can I both worked with Dave on the same paper, and I wonder if your gut is telling you that if Dave had a ‘smoking gun’ then he would have published it. And that’s true.

    However, also remember that one of the standards of journalism is independent confirmation. Dave would not have published without reliable sources, because his reputation is important to him. Without Dave’s report, the councillors would not have admitted to the talks.

    I think that means that he deserves thanks.

    So the open question is: what happened? Dave must had sources that also tell him what happened at the meeting. The SWP’s form of words – there would not have been a coalition – is very open, and could mean that the SWP feels it could have vetoed any coalition proposal. But that is not the same as saying that the talks were not about forming a common block.

    In some countries the Trotskyists do form common blocks (with the Agalev greens in Ghent for example) but that is done totally out in the open, because the radicals have to understand and agree.

    Like

    Reply
  25. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    So it’s OK for the Respect group leader to speak to the Tories about forthcoming council business, but it’s proof of Oli Rahman’s duplicity that he didn’t talk to the Tories. Must be dialectics…

    Like

    Reply
  26. Digger Avatar
    Digger

    Andy you are so naive about journalists. Of course they never let their opininons influence how they report facts!

    And you never filter pieces on blog to support your views. Get real!

    Like

    Reply
  27. modernityblog Avatar
    modernityblog

    it seems that SWPers, their supporters and apologists are still in denial about the ex-Respect Councillors talks with the LibDems?

    Like

    Reply
  28. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    East Londoon Advertiser journo, Ted Jeory wrote

    I have to say that I’ve been wetting myself reading all these blogs over the last couple of weeks. It’s clear that most of the contributors haven’t got a clue about what’s been going on in Tower Hamlets. Some also seem to have lost some grip with reality, concocting their own conspiracies to feed their state of denial.
    I don’t normally leave comments on blogs, so I apologise for intervening now, but Mr Lenin’s total rubbish has pushed me into it.
    Thank you kindly for describing me as ‘esteemed’, but forgive me for not returning the compliment. Yes, I do occasionally drink with people from the MP’s office, as I do with members of all other parties: that’s one of the beauties of my job.
    But if you think that this controversy is being fed from the MP’s office, you are deranged.
    Let me try and be clear: the Lib Dems and Respect Independent did have talks about a coalition. This has been confirmed to me by both sides. They were not mere “discussions” about how to work together. When I put Oli Rahman on the record about this, I repeatedly asked him to deny the “discussions” had been coalition talks. He did not once deny it. Instead, he simply repeated the same line about having “discussions” with both the Lib Dems and Labour. He would go no further.
    I also asked him if John Rees and the SWP were aware of the talks: he said no, it had been an independent initiative (those quotes are included in our print edition—available from all good bourgeois newsagents in the East End for 45pence).
    I can understand the speculation about the headline and intro versus the quotes, but I suppose that’s the downside about letting politicians go ‘off record’.
    There have been no denials, official or unofficial, from anyone involved in this. Oli and the rest of his group know the truth, as do the Lib Dems. Hmm, let’s see, why would I be so sure of all this….

    Like

    Reply
  29. Shawn Whitney Avatar
    Shawn Whitney

    So, Ted Jeory has proof. Really, really important proof – but he can’t share it with us or anyone else. No quote or anonymous source, nothing. We just have to believe him because otherwise we would have to doubt his integrity and wonder why his headline was directly contradicted by the only quote in the story.

    And, oh, the rule is, if it’s off the record then you don’t get to say it publicly. It doesn’t just mean you don’t get to put in the exact quote where the off the record comment is revealed.

    Like

    Reply
  30. Chris Edwards Avatar
    Chris Edwards

    So, the Respect Blog is in a coalition with a crapitalist rag. Tut, tut!

    Like

    Reply
  31. Simon Kennedy Avatar
    Simon Kennedy

    Well, Ted Jeory’s intervention tips the balance. He has gone out on a leg for this: joining up the dots between the headline and the article’s content. He has been admirable clear. This, combined with the lack of a denial from the four, and Dave Osler’s contribution, make a strong case. Utterly plausible.

    Like

    Reply
  32. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    According the website of the TUC-affiliated National Union of Journalists, Ted Jeory is an NUJ member and is (or was) FoC (‘Father of Chapel’ – the NUJ equivalent of trade union convenor) for the East London newspapers group.

    As such, he is bound by the NUJ code of conduct to report events fairly and accurately:
    http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=59
    I presume Dave Osler is similarly bound by the code.

    Ted Jeory was the principle spokesperson for the union in protesting to Tower Hamlets (Labour) council about the way they mistreated reporters at the general election.
    http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1335

    He seems an impeccably reliable source that all socialists can accept. Chris Edwards demeans himself by talk of the Respect blog “in coalition with a crapitalist rag”.

    Like

    Reply
  33. Digger Avatar
    Digger

    Shock horror read all about it, all journalists (at least NUJ ones) always tell the truth, no spin, no lies, no Alistair Campbell, no 45 minutes claim, Elvis is alive….

    Like

    Reply
  34. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    The point is digger, that the NUJ has a code of conduct for reporting.

    If you think a member (and in this case a senior member occupying a convenorship position) has breached the code of conduct you should complain to the Union who will investigate.

    That’s the proper way for socialists to deal with it – not through innuendo and snidy remarks. It is disgraceful that the SWP has not done if they genuinely believe that they have been misreported. Tell us what Paul Foot would have done had he still been around?

    Like

    Reply
  35. Chris Edwards Avatar
    Chris Edwards

    Pity there isn’t a code of conduct about innuendo for bloggers too, Prinkipo.

    And the sudden socialist reverence for hacks in the corporate media is deeply touching.

    Like

    Reply
  36. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Chris – if you are unhappy about what these hacks/fellow trade unionists write, the solution is in your hands; contact the NUJ and make a complaint that a. Do you think the SWP are going to do this?

    And your innuendo is a bit like those anarchists who say they aren’t going to support the PCS striking, because all those benefit clerks are agents of the capitalist state trying to stop state assistance getting to the unemployed and that they are no better than the police or army. 😉

    Like

    Reply
  37. Canadien Avatar
    Canadien

    this is all so surreal. A journalist makes a claim that he can’t back up with any quotes or sources about something that, in any case, didn’t happen. There is no coalition. You can only flog this non-existent horse so long before you realize the only thing there is for you to make contact with is your own ass.

    Like

    Reply
  38. modernityblog Avatar
    modernityblog

    I suppose that if the talks with the LibDems had been held on camera there would STILL be some people in denial?

    Like

    Reply
  39. RedRaph Avatar
    RedRaph

    It’s a bit like the Sheridn case. Funnily it’s the SWP who are in denial on that one despite all the evidence. It requires one of them to break ranks who has some principal left.

    Like

    Reply
  40. Canadien Avatar
    Canadien

    Yes – it’s exactly like the Sheridan case: the private sex lives of socialists SHOULD be used by the media to determine their fitness to lead the working class and not at all their record in leading actual struggles.

    Like

    Reply
  41. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Canadien don’t you find anything the slightest bit dodgy about all this?

    Here is a quote from the Advertiser’s print edition: “Cllr Rahman said John Rees and the SWP had no idea what we were doing – we didn’t tell them”.

    So having resigned the whip 4 councillors unilaterally open discussions with a hostile party on their own authority. But at least two of these councillors are SWP members and Oli is saying the SWP didn’t know. Eh?

    Having had some dealings with both John and Oli I find it difficult to accept that John was kept in the dark about this.

    The coalition issue is secondary and we can forgive the Lib Dems for wanting to take advantage of a crisis. The more pertinent question is “what were the talks about?”. It looks duplicitous and underhand but if you are able to provide an explanation which tells us how it is part of a masterplan to develop a mass class struggle party I’ll happily publish it.

    Like

    Reply
  42. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    the private sex lives of socialists SHOULD be used by the media to determine their fitness to lead the working class

    Trenchant satire of a position nobody on the Left actually holds. But I forgot, you’re posting from Canada and don’t know a lot about what goes on over here.

    Like

    Reply
  43. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Not a strong argument Phil. The comrade is following the British discussions closely and is actively participating in them.

    Like

    Reply
  44. Canadien Avatar
    Canadien

    Liam – The trouble with the first part of your argument: “So having resigned the whip 4 councillors unilaterally open discussions with a hostile party on their own authority” is that Respect has always held discussions with the other parties as per the Evening Standard article I posted above. If it was done before, why are you raising a stink now?

    As for you finding “it difficult to accept that John was kept in the dark about this.” Well, all we have to go on is Oli’s statement. Personally, I don’t have a problem believing his statement because I think John Rees would have considered the move by the councilors a tactical mistake even if entirely within their right. But in the heat and chaos of a faction fight people make all kinds of mistakes – for instance the Galloway people in TH pushed for a new members meeting (against the terms of the constitution) to ratify their own slate and then couldn’t even pull a majority. That was clearly a tactical error on their part.

    As for duplicitous and underhanded, I’m afraid the Renewal people have enough of that going around themselves – changing locks, calling a competing conference on the same day because they didn’t think they could get the votes at the proper conference, etc. The trouble with these faction fights is this is all becoming angels dancing on the head of a pin, rather than being about the politics. And I’m afraid I just find the Galloway people’s argument convincing – neither, I fear, do you Galloway folks, otherwise you wouldn’t be so fixated on hand-waving stuff like talks that didn’t lead to a coalition with another party. It is, after all, hardly something to rally your troops around: “They might have betrayed our principles. They might have made a mistake.” Outside of the insular world of the blogs most people will point out that there’s nothing to see here.

    Like

    Reply
  45. Canadien Avatar
    Canadien

    That would be “I just DON’T find the Galloway people’s argument convincing.” Teach me to edit while typing.

    Like

    Reply
  46. Canadien Avatar
    Canadien

    Phil – “Trenchant satire of a position nobody on the Left actually holds.”

    RedRaph – “It’s a bit like the Sheridn case. Funnily it’s the SWP who are in denial on that one despite all the evidence. ”

    Sounds like the sex life of Sheridan is an issue with some.

    Like

    Reply
  47. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    No Canadien

    Expecting the party to engage in a dangerous criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to preserve his hypocritcal repuation as a “familly man” is the issue

    Like

    Reply
  48. RedRaph Avatar
    RedRaph

    It’s about denying a fact or series of facts despite it being corroborated by several different types of independent sources. The denial happens because it will undermine the political positions or line of the SWP. Admit the fact and the whole pack of cards collapses so there is a lot at stake. Only an admission of the fact by a major member of the SWP or an independent will convince those who are blindly following the denial line although there are those will never admit it till the day they die as in the WRP with Healy. This behaviour is normally described as sect like brainwashing.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to RedRaph Cancel reply

Trending