38 responses to “Respect reborn”

1. 

   Adam J

   November 13, 2007 at 1:30 pm

   Much of the division within Respect seems linked to local events in Tower Hamlets – as a member in that area what is your opinion of things?

   It seems significant that someone like Kumar Murshid, a respected left wing Labour activist is backing this faction.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   KrisS

   November 13, 2007 at 1:36 pm

   There’s another report here:

   http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/11/tower-hamlets-respect.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   RR

   November 13, 2007 at 1:57 pm

   ‘Respect Reborn’ – no just the SWP using the Respect label which they clearly intend to use and abuse for as long as they can get away with it.

   Nice that is was a good RESPECT meeting though.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   twp77

   November 13, 2007 at 2:10 pm

   I’d expect a full statement from the ISG/SR condemning this attack rather rapidly as hopefully those NC members who have gone with Respect Renewal will also do. A failure to do this will speak volumes.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   modernityblog

   November 13, 2007 at 2:15 pm

   it is pretty appalling that the Split has now descended into violence, hardly the type of activities that you need within the Left

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Lobby Ludd

   November 13, 2007 at 3:59 pm

   “I’d expect a full statement from the ISG/SR condemning this attack rather rapidly as hopefully those NC members who have gone with Respect Renewal will also do. A failure to do this will speak volumes.”

   Reading this there seems to be something that doesn’t seem quite right. There was a condemnation of the violence and abuse at the head if the article – as indeed it goes without saying there would be.

   The quote above smacks of ‘getting your retaliation in first’, or perhaps a better description is passive/aggressive. A kind of half-way condemnation in advance of an act (or lack if it) to condemn.

   Not very helpful.

   As to whether the split ‘has now descended into violence’, (as opposed to a couple of isolated incidents) who knows, but without knowing the facts that is only speculation. Again not very helpful.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   twp77

   November 13, 2007 at 4:38 pm

   No sorry – it’s pretty clear as day that this type of behaviour is the worst sort of Stalinist type thuggery that can be practised. Bricking people’s windows, beating people up in the street – It’s important for SR/ISG and anyone else who is supporting the Respect Renewal project to distance themselves as much as possible from this – and indeed Galloway himself would do likewise if he wants to run a serious campaign in Poplar. Liam mentions it in passing and this is hopefully because the comrades are in the midst of discussing their response at this very minute.

   This isn’t a minor event – it’s extremely serious for elected councilors to be getting physically assaulted by those whose sympathies obviously lie with the Galloway lot.

   If comrades do not issue very public and forceful condemnations of this event, I think that will tell everyone what they need to know about the character of the political alliances that they have chosen to make.

   Finally – the facts are there as stated and given to the police – so why I am being accused of “speculation” is beyond me.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Andy BH

   November 13, 2007 at 4:42 pm

   Any individual of good intentions would condemn the use of violence to settle political disagreements.

   But I do not see why a particular organisation or group should be “expected” to issue some statement of condemnation. I’d be more interested in the motives of the person having such “expectations” in raising it in those terms.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   twp77

   November 13, 2007 at 4:54 pm

   The reason that it should be condemned is very clear. SR/ISG have insisted that their participation in this new Respect Renewal is based on support for internal democracy and a new culture of internal functioning inside the organisation which supposedly radically differs with the way the organisation functioned when the SWP were members. They have insisted repeatedly that there is a “new space” for this better way of working now that the SWP is no longer involved. These recent events appear to completely contradict this.

   If these are their primary reasons for being within this organisation then I would expect a very strong and public condemnation of this type of behaviour as alien to what they are trying to build with Respect Renewal.

   I have no hidden agenda or “motives”. It’s pretty straight forward.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Ian Donovan

    November 13, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    “This isn’t a minor event – it’s extremely serious for elected councilors to be getting physically assaulted by those whose sympathies obviously lie with the Galloway lot. ”

    Why do you jump to the conclusion that this is what happened, though? Are you aware that there is a history of false accusations of violence against the ‘Galloway lot’ as you put it …. from the party you support, i.e. Labour. Recall the case of the pensioner who Labour claimed had been beaten up by Respect ‘thugs’ during the 2005 BG & B election campaign. A proven lie.

    There are people out there with a political interest in deepening the divisions in Respect. We dont. The accusation that Resistance, or Respect Renewal, are behind this other than an anonymous email note that could be malicious and false, amounts to saying ‘guilty until proven innocent’.

    Actually, this placing of a special duty on Respect Renewal to condemn this above anyone else sort of reminds me of insistent demands that Muslims dissociated themselves from acts of terrorism that they are not involved in. Very pernicious.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    modernityblog

    November 13, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    the abusive email should be easy enough to trace, if they truly want to

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    Phil

    November 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    A packed meeting of Tower Hamlets Respect

    There’s an adjective you’d have thought they’d avoid…

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    bill j

    November 13, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Rubbish. This should be condemned by Respect Renewal because they may have influence over those that carried it out, that’s not to say they had any part in organising it, I don’t believe that, and doubt if anyone else does.
    But clearly this is pretty disgraceful and needs to be stopped, if RR can help do that then they should, and frankly given the number of statements that have been flying about, around the most trivial and incidental matters, to not put one out of this would be very telling.
    Seriously I can’t believe that you object Ian. If you really want not to deepen the differences, I would have thought this is not only elementary but expediant as well.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    newleftparty

    November 13, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    yeh respect renewal should condemn this in a statement.

    i fear that the tower hamlets situation is more to do with personal and family power, with ambitious individuals jockying for positions as future candidates.

    clearly there are careerists and opportunists on both sides (the swp backed gang of 4 negotiated with the lib dems so they are also opportunist to put it mildly).

    what a disaster that respect has been dragged down in this electroralist, careerist, opportunist swamp that is community politics in most places. this is what happens when socialists take an opportunistic turn and drop socialism in an attempt to gather votes.

    why couldn’t th respect select socialist and labour movement candidates, people with a track record in the movement, not blatent careerists and jonny come latelys and defectees from bourgeois parties???

    who is responsible for this mess? the swp leadership. they need to own up to their opportunist errors and resign their posts. let some other swpers have a turn at leading – they can’t do a worse job!

    will isg members in th respect renewal oppose opportunism? will they argue against selecting careerists as candidates? will they argue for democratic accountability? will they argue for class based and socialist content in election and other public material? if yes, what will they do when they are told to get lost or just massively outnumbered by friends and family of the careerists?

    ks

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Alex Nichols

    November 13, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    Anyone who tries to imply that this attack is the work of political opponents within Respect is being stupid.

    It has all the hallmarks of the type of thing fascists would do and the note is intended to widen the divisions between the two sides of Respect.

    I not only received threatening letters like this at home when I was active in the ANL, but was also verbally threatened as I went into a supermarket after leafletting for the Socialist Alliance by a large white male, who clearly had been following me and wanted to make it obvious. I just ignored the creep, but they like to make it clear they’re watching you.

    Anyone who remembers the events around the Blade Bone pub in Brick Lane knows the fash have got long memories and scores to settle in the area, even now.
    There are also probably some spooks doing slightly less obviously criminal things on the internet too.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Adam J

    November 13, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    Another report of this meeting from Socialist Worker:
    http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13552

    Some other interesting comments on Respect in same edition

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    Liam

    November 13, 2007 at 7:33 pm

    My hunch is that the attack was probably carried out by one or more arseholes who would define themselves as supporters of Respect Renewal. They probably assumed that political disputes can be carried on using the methods that are used in this part of the world to settle disagreements about parking spaces, girlfriends and debts. It says something about the political level of a portion of Respect’s base and this is an issue that was wilfully ignored for some time. Because that’s how coalitions work.

    Abjol Miah has issued a statement forcefully condemning these attacks which I will post when I get it.

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    WNP

    November 13, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Abjol Miah is right to condemn this, and I don’t see the problem with doing so really.

    Look at it like this

    1. It is a provocative act by unspeakables like the state or far right, so condemn and maintain solidarity with each other as we refuse to be split further. No to violence.

    or

    2. it comes as a distorted reponse to the real arguments in Respect. In which case speak out to say this is not the way we want to conduct arguments. No to violence.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    Ian Donovan

    November 13, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Actually, my reponse to TWP’s post did not remotely imply that Respect Renewal should not condemn this alleged assault. I’m 100% in favour of condemning any such action, and made this clear rather earlier (see Socialist ‘Unity blog) than when TWP took up the cudgels for her latest ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ campaign.

    That’s an entirely different matter from the malicious and reactionary assumption in TWP’s post that Respect Renewal (or “the Galloway lot” as she puts it) were in some way indirectly responsible for this incident, if not directly responsible for it And dont pretend that was not what was implied, i.e in this little gem:

    “it’s pretty clear as day that this type of behaviour is the worst sort of Stalinist type thuggery that can be practised. ”

    This clearly implies a judgement that this was a dispute between leftists, not any kind of provocation by third parties,or other explanation. It implies that it is “pretty clear as day” that supporters of the “Galloway lot” were responsible. Without any credible evidence judgement is given. “Guilty until proved innocent” in other words. Bill J’s weasel words to the contrary butter no parsnips, to mix a couple of metaphors.

    This is a nasty, unsubstantiated smear. This is the stuff real witchhunting is made of, actually.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    bill j

    November 13, 2007 at 10:09 pm

    You really do take the biscuit Ian. I explicitly said the opposite to what you accuse me of. But so determined are you to pursue this rather mad accusation that you carry on regardless.
    Get a grip.

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    S

    November 14, 2007 at 12:30 am

    Liam, the meeting last night from the SWP’s perspective was good, a packed room, although this was forced on the organisers as someone had cancelled the meeting for the main hall. Lots of talk about unions, housing health, all of the issues that Respect was set up for, and this was commented on by a number of people. Although there was plenty of hypocritical talk about principles from the SWPers, was it not a lack of principles by Rees that afforded Miah and his supporters space to drag down Respect? After last nights meeting it is clear that Abjol Miah has been a troublemaker from the start opposing the SWP and undermining democracy and common sense from the start. It is only until recently that he has managed to use he pocket votes, to out vote other coalition partners for his egoistical ends.

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    Andy Newman

    November 14, 2007 at 1:09 am

    It seems to me that if anyone is subject to a witchhunt it is Abjol Miah.

    I think it is highly regretable that Oli Rahman has been attacked, and he has my sympathy and solidarity.

    But clearly TWP is claiming something by her insinuations of “worst sort of Stalinist type thuggery ” .

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    modernityblog

    November 14, 2007 at 1:19 am

    Andy,

    Have they traced the emails yet? that shouldn’t be too hard a job?

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    Andy Newman

    November 14, 2007 at 1:42 am

    I have no idea Modernity

    Clearly the e-mails was sent to Mehdi Hassan, who is a perosn I have no contact with. I should imagine that the police are involved, and as you say e-mails can usually be traced, unless the person sending them is sligtly clever.

    I have every sympathy for nboth Mehdi and Oli, I have been threatened by the BNP in the past (my personal deails posed on Stormfront) and I used to get regular phone calls from Mark Bullman, a BNP member currently doing 7 years for racially agravated arson, so I do know that such threats (and in Oli’s case actuall violence) is very stressful.

    Whatever the motivation for the violence and threats, I hope that it stops.

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    lobobreed

    November 14, 2007 at 5:02 am

    Wherever there’s gun control, you find fascists and racists assaulting innocents. In America, these miscreants would soon be dead from a serious case of lead poisoning, or get life without parole instead of 7 years for trying to burn someone to death.

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    Liam

    November 14, 2007 at 10:11 am

    S thanks for the additional detail. Those are certainly the themes that the SWP rightly emphasised inside Respect. What seems to be absent from the discussion was any attempt to engage with the criticisms, explain why the organisation has made itself unappealing to most socialists and activists in Britain or address the issue of the SWP’s right to hegemonise all the major decision making processes.
    Assuming that this section of Respect is successful in its own terms it will quickly come up against the problems of the old model because that’ s what it is based on.
    Based on a long track record we can assume that on a national level the SWP’s plan for Respect is for it to be another of its Potemkin villages like Globalise Resistance. What is the point of that?

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. 

    Ian Donovan

    November 14, 2007 at 10:32 am

    “You really do take the biscuit Ian. I explicitly said the opposite to what you accuse me of. But so determined are you to pursue this rather mad accusation that you carry on regardless.”

    The opposite of what? I didn’t accuse Bill of anything, except propogating ‘weasel words’ excusing the smears his comrade TWP is putting about that this was a ‘Stalinist’ act by supporters of the “Galloway lot” – without any verifiable evidence of this. Methinks Bill doth protest too much.

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    Piers

    November 14, 2007 at 10:58 am

    It is a tragic and deeply regrettable fact that individual violence has been an occasional feature of left politics over the years.

    In part this is because the left is not immune from the social and psychological pressures that exist in general society.

    I remember in the late 1970s an incident where an SWP member attacked someone in another organisation with a knife. There was never any issue about SWP members “denouncing” this – that was taken as a given. Basically the guy had an anger management problem, possibly drink was involved. The debate was what to do about it.

    The other organisation thought the individual should be expelled. The SWP said no. They took a sort of “prefigurative politics” approach – under soclalism we would not use repressive methods, we should work to “re-educate him” and rehabiliate him. Against this it was said that these are very laudable aims but within the small confines of the far left they are dangerous idealism and wholly utopian. In the mean time people will not go to meetings if they think they have to work with this guy.

    There was a genuine issue here and both sides had a legitimate position – although I still think the SWP were wrong. I don’t raise this, by the way, to make any criticism of the attempt by some (ie Mark P) to argue for a “prefigurative” approach to how we approach building a left alternative to Labour. The situation I have described is an unusual exception.

    But applying the experience of such isolated incidents of violence over the years, I would suggest that the real issue is what can we do to prevent or minimise this sort of thing.

    Clearly whether we have confidence in each other’s opposition to such violence cannot not be an issue of substance – otherwise we wouldn’t even be discussing the possibility of building a common organisation.

    But regarding this question of who such incidents can be prevented or minimised, the SWP leadership do bear some political responsibility. Not simply as the major and dominant component of the leadership of Respect since it’s foundation.

    The idea of a “coalition” was a good one for setting up Respect in the first place. But as Socialist Resistance argued for the past 3-4 years it was necessary, from the start, to take concrete steps beyond this towards developing it as a party – with all the trappings, structures and culture associated.

    The SWP leadership not only opposed that but has been vociferous in suggesting that such a course would be wholly detrimental – suggesting it would drive away members and prevent Respect from flourishing and growing.

    In fact the opposite has been the case. Not only has Respect’s membership declined from 4-5,000 to just over 2,000. But the strict and continued refusal to develope the trappings of a party structure have had two further consequences.

    Regular and properly organised branch meetings conducted around properly set out norms, rules and standing orders – with minutes taken, report backs and accountability from elected representatives and officers etc etc – may seem very “boring”, but they are an essential structure to have in place if and when differences emerge at local or national level.

    A top down coalition structure is incapable of dealing with this unless the main parties have a consensus about an issue and how it is to be resolved. Not only does it make a split highly likely where the coalition partners can’t so agree but it leaves in place no well-developed and understood mechanism for working this through democratically. We have just reaped the fruits of that scenario.

    The second consequence is that raw recruits who join are not educated and inculcated into the culture and traditions of the labour movement and left as to how to deal with differences – personal as well as political. With reasoned collective discussion through the structures of the organisation, based on balanced presentation of competing arguments, fair and efficient chairing and the winning of arguments politically and not through packing.

    This culture takes time to evolve and sink in. It is a process and it can take years. Every single branch or ward meeting – however mundane or poorly attended – is an essential part of that process.

    Instead of actively cultivating this dynamic the SWP ledership’s line has been to actively oppose those of us (like Socialist Resistance and the Respect Party Platform) who have advocated it.

    New young people coming into the orbit of Respect have been treated as fodder for leafletting, demos and rallies. We were told that the “new politics” can be organised through barbeques and picnics. Of course these are great fun and a good idea but no substitute the developement of such a structured democratic culture and institution.

    In Haringey, where I am, there were no regular branch meetings. Only an annual AGM which elected a small steering group which then organised public meetings, co-ordinated electoral activity, sent out mailings etc. Now, I am happy to report that there has not only been no thuggery in Haringey (to my knowledge) but relations have been civilised even in the midst of heated debated.

    But that has been largely due to two key features – a very highly regarded convenor (SWP member) who has run Respect very well within the limitations of such a structure and a membership in which highly experienced left activsts have been the majority. What happens if you don’t have such high-calibre leadership or many members don’t have that experience? Well TH is one example.

    The second way in which the SWP leadership bears some responsibility is it’s use of a-political methods rather than seeking to win arguments politically. Meeting packing and the intervention of disciplined phalanxes of members is the most obvious. But we have also seen the use of a level of invective and labelling.

    Two years ago SR and other delegates trying to argue for Respect to take up LGBT issues were labelled as Islamophobe at Respect conference. Now the same people have been labelled as homophobe. SWP have run a campaign suggesting there is a witchunt and this is a right wing plot against it.

    These are not only wrong but profoundly apolitical methods of dealing with the opposition. It raises the temperature but it also can have the effect of encouraging foolish individuals (on either side) to go further down the apolitical road. Once you abandon political means there is no logical limit.

    Of course – no split is ever a pleasant affair, tempers are lost, emotions rise. Perhaps, for instance, some of the torrent of abuse and invective on the blogs is a sad inevitability. But we should do all we can to avoid it and the resort to apolitical methods encourages such a dynamic rather than reigning it in.

    A third way in which the SWP leadership bears some responsibility is far more explicit.

    It became apparent to both sides that a split was inevitable about a week before it happened. Mediated by a mutually trusted independent individual, talks were held to see if an amicable seperating of ways could be negotiated. A full report on what happened has been written up by Wrack, Yacoob, Smith and Thornett (see the Socialst Unity blog).

    The SWP leadership has yet to give it’s interpretation of what happened except perhaps to encourage it’s supporters to spread a lie that the non-SWP side wanted talks to demand the SWP leave. That this is a lie is transparently obvious to anyone taking a moment to consider the issue. Would 4 members of the SWP CC have attended two meetings and agreed to a third on the basis of such an agenda? Of course not.

    In retrospect it may be concluded that the SWP side were always entirely disengenous (given the Rees-organised Tower Hamlets councillor split press conference that immediately followed). Or it is possible that after a moment of calm and sensible lucidity the comrades performed a vicious U-turn. It matters not.

    The point is that both sides initially appeared to understand that pursuing a split through to its logical end result without some attempt at amicable separation risks a damaging, unproductive, unnecessary political fight with inevitably detrimental consequences for both sides.

    Perhaps poor Oli Rahman has been the victim of such consquences. Who knows? Perhaps, in a moment of reflection, he and others might wonder whether the SWP leadership should have stayed in those talks and sought to amicably seperate in the way originally agreed. It is certainly very difficult for SWP leadership supporters to credibly throw mud at the other side when their side quite clearly abandoned any attempt to sort divisions out in an amicable and civilised way.

    Just one more geneal comment.

    The organised way in which SWP leadership supporters have rapidly intervened over this Oli Rahman issue on this and the SU blog will leave many observers concluding their concern is entirely cynical. It has all the hallmarks of a party-organised blog intervention.

    And it follows a clear pattern over the weeks, going something like this:
    (a) First label opponents as witchunters, right wing, homophobes, communalists etc primarily in the hope of whipping your own ranks into line etc;
    b) when it’s apparent that all the non-SWP Respect members are deserting the SWP side – organise people to pose as “non-SWP respect” on the blogs (without exposing their true identity so that it can be checked) to creat a false impression that this isn’t true;
    (c) when it’s clear that not only is there a split but it will result in the long term and devastating isolation of the SWP organise a fake “unity” offensive – the very same individuals trying to bolt the stable door when it’s far too late;
    (d) Once it’s clear that Renewal Respect looks like it might be going somewhere focus attacks on “ISG”, Thornett and “SR” – in the vain hope that the unity of the opposition will evaporate once internal divisions are exposed and people realise who they are in bed with; (e) and finally now, whip up a febrile mood over the fake issue of “violence”, insinuating that opponents are either organising it, responsible for it or through “failure to condemn” in some other way morally inadequate – the main function of this being to frighten off “faint.hearts” from going along to the Renewal conference or supporting it.

    If you go back over this and the SU blog over the past few weeks, you will see a remarkably co-ordinated symmettry among the pro-SWP leadership comments along these lines. Among the opponents of the SWP leadership you will see no such organised intervention. The Oli Rahman affair, sadly for him, is possibly but the latest episode.

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. 

    Adam J

    November 14, 2007 at 11:53 am

    I actually am broadly sympathetic to much of SRs analysis of how Respect should be built.

    The trouble is when you talk about for “Both sides” a split was inevitable, this is only in the leadership. Outside of Tower Hamlets and possibly Brum there are probably no branches polarised into two camps.

    In my branch (probably not untypical) there are people who sympathise with either faction but we are not polarised and have broad consensus over strategy and tactics locally and how to build the organisaton locally. We have no desire to split into two organisations.

    Two Respect’s is a farce – I think the majority of members and branches overwhelmingly oppose a split!

    I also think that SR have had the wool pulled over there eyes by Galloway and I think there announcement of a split was premature.

    Finally, Liam is in the shit. The SR strategy means locally alligning with the petit-bourgeois elements in TH Respect – how many non-alligned socialists are in your camp in Tower Hamlets Respect?

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. 

    bill j

    November 14, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
    Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
    “Almost always misquoted as “Methinks the lady doth protest too much”
    http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks

    Ian – you can’t even get your quotes right.

    LikeLike

    Reply
31. 

    Andy Newman

    November 14, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    Adam J

    Manchester is also effectivley polarised into two branches.

    LikeLike

    Reply
32. 

    Liam

    November 14, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    Adam,

    that’s an interesting point. If you look at the SUN site you’ll see some postings from Tony C who was driven out of the SWP for not being sufficiently loyal despite having been one of the moderators of Lenin’s Tomb. He is now in Respect Renewal. I’m rather hoping he won’t be the last.
    However it’s true that the layer of independent socialists has been getting thinner. There were some excellent former SP people who have drifted away. But this is a new start, with a new framework.
    I’m up for a row with the petit bourgeoisie if need be and I won’t do it behind closed doors away from the membership.

    LikeLike

    Reply
33. 

    Ian Donovan

    November 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Ye gods, Mike Pearn is posing as Bill J now;-)

    LikeLike

    Reply
34. 

    johng

    November 15, 2007 at 11:42 am

    was tony c ‘driven out of the swp’? My understanding is that he has deep disagreements with the swp’s current course. not really the same thing…

    LikeLike

    Reply
35. 

    Andy Newman

    November 15, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    Tony C was excluded from the SWP with some dubious claims that his subs were not being paid.

    LikeLike

    Reply
36. 

    Adam J

    November 15, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Another interesting review of this meeting at the Weekly Wrecker.

    LikeLike

    Reply
37. 

    Liam

    November 15, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    A pattern is emerging. Comrades who disagree with the SWP’s leadership are being told that they have not been in good standing, as in Tony’s case. Others have been summarily expelled. A nurse of my acquaintance said that it would take his hospital much longer to sack him for beating up a patient than it takes to get expelled from the SWP.
    Why is this happening now? Obviously to intimidate all but the most confident or most loyal dissidents and to make sure that they are not able to accumulate a base of support in the pre-conference period.

    LikeLike

    Reply
38. 

    tonyc

    November 19, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    Sorry, I never saw the later posts.

    I actually would’ve ended up being expelled, that’s pretty certain.

    But I was driven out by the actions of Martin Smith, Roddy Slorach and others who prevented me from even taking part in democratic debates, who ridiculed me, who lied about me and tried to undermine my credibility throughout the party and in the RMT.

    It would be inaccurate to say that this sort of behaviour drove me towards the Renewal project, but essentially, the *politics* of the way they treated me are exactly the same as the politics of the split – mindless, unpolitical, and nothing to do with the actual issues.

    I wasn’t pushed away cos of my subs. I was pushed away cos I disagreed – but they won’t admit that.

    Just as they won’t admit that there is/was no witch-hunt, no left-right split etc.

    So I see my own case as a sort of micro version of their wider politics. Now, I know that my friends in the SWP who are on the other side of this won’t agree with that, but it’s pretty obvious to me.

    LikeLike

    Reply