Liam redux

, ,

Manchester Respect sorts things out

Regular readers may recall that supporters of the SWP side of the Respect split got pretty cross when non-SWP members walked out of a stacked meeting in Bristol. Something similar but different happened in Manchester. Here’s a report from someone who was at the meeting.   50 members of North Manchester Respect met this evening…

Liam
2–3 minutes

Regular readers may recall that supporters of the SWP side of the Respect split got pretty cross when non-SWP members walked out of a stacked meeting in Bristol. Something similar but different happened in Manchester. Here’s a report from someone who was at the meeting.

 

50 members of North Manchester Respect met this evening for to discuss the split.  Richard Searle of Renewal moved a resolution (see below) calling for the branch to split into two branches – one for Renewal supporters and the other for those who adhere to the decisions of the Westminster conference.  Penny Hicks of the SWP moved a counter resolution which would have committed the branch as a whole to the decisions of the Westminster conference.  Following a heated discussion, the SWP motion was defeated by 35 votes to 15 and the Renewal motion was passed by the same margin.  The SWP then left the room and the 35 Renewal supporters held a positive and vibrant inaugural meeting which selected Kay Philips as the Respect candidate for the ward of Cheetham Hill in the forthcoming local election.

 

A proposal for managing the divisions within Respect in the North Manchester & Bury area.

As campaigners and activists there is more that unites us than divides us.

Many of us have stood alongside each other in countless struggles over the years.

It is vital for the outcome of current and future struggles in Manchester that the Left and other progressive forces can work together in a spirit of cooperation and unity.

However, there is a split in Respect. This is not something that anyone would have chosen. There are two visions of Respect. This is what lies behind the split. Both sides of this debate are equally convinced of their position.

We have to manage this division as best as possible. We have pull back from unnecessary confrontation and stop a bad situation from getting worse. The decisions about the future of Respect will not be decided in North Manchester. There is no value in meeting up on a monthly basis in one room to see divisions harden and deepen and to watch political relationships deteriorate.

We therefore propose this solution.

We separate North Manchester and Bury Respect branch into two separate branches. One branch will be a Respect Renewal branch aligned with the Bishopgate conference and accepts RR members. The other branch accepts those who support the Westminster Conference decisions.

This arrangement is for the mutual benefit of all activists. No side of this debate should proclaim a ‘victory’ over the other in this agreement

The two branches will work together jointly over campaigns and struggles. This will necessitate an ad-hoc coordination on an open and fraternal basis

Proposed by Richard Searle

Seconded by Paul Kelly

48 responses to “Manchester Respect sorts things out”

  1. Bristolian Tony Avatar
    Bristolian Tony

    The splitting of left-wing branches: what success!

    Have you no idea how pathetic all this is to ordinary working class people blissfully ignorant of or frustratingly disengaged from the so-called socialist activism bubble people seem unable to see out of?

    Opinion on the left was always divided on whether Respect was a worthwhile or viable socialist electoral coalition. If it ever was, it isn’t now. One single party coalition (what’s the point?), and one party of next to no footsoldiers, both competing over the Respect name. Everyone outside of Respect seems to think it’s a stupid name anyway, and after the lack of respect shown on both sides it defies satire.

    Self-confessed triumphalism belies the real agenda of those involved in splitting from Respect, while trying (for the life of me I don’t know why) to take the Respect name with them.

    There are socialists in Respect for whom it is worthwhile persevering with it, like everyone’s favourite councillor Michael Lavalette.

    For every other socialist, surely the priority is to form something new, and something better.

    Only people with personal vested interests in the Renewal Party seem to want anything to do with it, and the Respect Coalition is now so overwhelmingly SWP that there seems little point in the separate identity.

    After a week away from this website I was naive enough to hope things might have improved here. I’m gutted. But then, I’m a working class nobody, so what would you care?

    Like

    Reply
  2. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Richard Searle hasn’t left RESPECT any more than John Rees has. As for ‘next to no footsoldiers’, that’s not what this report says.

    Any chance of a fraternal mission to the South of the city? I think our RESPECT branch could do with revitalising.

    Like

    Reply
  3. tadpole Avatar
    tadpole

    The fact of the matter is that there are now two separate organisations. It’s absurd to pretend otherwise. The leadership of the two groupings need to agree between themselves as soon as possible what is to be done with the loose ends such as what the new groupings will be called and what will become of the money. The fact that these kind of arguments are taking place at a local level reflects the continuing failure of the leadership of both sides to deal with the situation in an effective practical way.

    Like

    Reply
  4. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    Given that there is indeed a split, strictly in terms of Respect as an organisation, this is a perfectly sensible resolution.
    In Manchester we could do with more co-ordination and hopefully there will be opportunities to do that over the next year.
    I’m thinking of StWC work in particular, which has fallen into abeyance over the last period, but also No Borders, Karen Reissman and other joint areas of struggle. Maybe we should look at a loosely meeting co-ordinating group, just so we can touch base on reasonably regularly, plus I think there’s maybe room for organising a joint – cross Manchester day event sometime next year, involving all the left.
    There has been over the last years anyway pretty good co-operation amongst the left and hopefully we can build on that.
    If people want an example of how not to operate, I suggest they take a look at the mis-named site “Socialist Unity.”

    Like

    Reply
  5. Birmingham Respect Member Avatar
    Birmingham Respect Member

    Tadpole is right to say that “The leadership of the two groupings need to agree between themselves as soon as possible what is to be done with the loose ends such as what the new groupings will be called and what will become of the money.”

    Tadpole is wrong to say that it is the “failure of the leadership of both sides” that these matters haven’t been resolved.

    There were a series of negotiations in the presence of a respected third party. The SWP unilaterally walked out of these negotiations. They can and should be re-opened. All it takes is for the SWP to make the phone call to the third party. The sooner they do this the better.

    Like

    Reply
  6. modernityblog Avatar
    modernityblog

    the split in Respect is in many ways very English

    it is just like a Christmas panto, plenty of laughs, a few villains, even less “goodies” and still it is not sorted out

    it tells you a lot about the political priorities and organisational abilities, when after months of this going on, it is still not sorted

    the longer it goes on the more foolish both parties look

    Like

    Reply
  7. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    Bill J

    “If people want an example of how not to operate, I suggest they take a look at the mis-named site “Socialist Unity.””

    Do you think you are a litttle disingenuous not to point out that some of the culture of cooperation in manchester between the different strands of the left is conducted by the Socialist Unity group, and key members of that collective are associated with the Socialist Unity blog?

    Perhaps you might note how the SU blog has in fact promoted the NO Borders campaign, Karen Reissmann’s campign, and other areas of collaborative work for the left?

    What we have faced though is a concerted campiagn of disruption. When a senior member of the SWP;s CC spends the entire day posting comments on the blog (as happened yesterday) seeking to disrupt debate and discredit Respect Renewal, and the blog, then the debate does tend to rotate around the axis they create.

    We face a lose-lose situation. If we reply to their disruptive comments we look like it is a tit-for-tat war, if we ignore them it looks like they have a point that we are affraid to answer.

    So it is a bit rich for Bill to then blame the SU blog for the terms of the debate being forced upon us by the SWP.

    Like

    Reply
  8. johng Avatar
    johng

    “We face a lose-lose situation. If we reply to their disruptive comments we look like it is a tit-for-tat war, if we ignore them it looks like they have a point that we are affraid to answer”

    oddly had an exactly similar discussion with friends the other week. On the SWP side. We haven’t been posting all this divisive stuff just responding to it.

    Like

    Reply
  9. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    So the branch voted to split into two along factional lines, and the SWP then accepted the vote and left to allow the other branch to have their meeting. The evil bastards!

    Like

    Reply
  10. Clive Searle Avatar
    Clive Searle

    Oh dear Charlie. That’s the problem with this debate. Instead of actually relating to the issue you resort to make silly points. No one has called the SWP ‘evil bastards’ on this thread – except yourself.

    The whole purpose of our motion last night was to reduce tension and allow us to work togther where we agree instead of constantly fighting over where we disagree. No one can proclaim victory from last nights meeting but the left in Manchester hopefully will avoid some of the deepening damage inflicted in other places. The fact that the such a strategy was adopted by a vote of two to one suggests that it was a sensible suggestion to many.

    The fact that the SWP branch then held a meeting with themselves upstairs while Respect Renewal held a meeting downstairs is to the credit of everyone involved in recognising a democratic decision. In must add that the chairing of the meeting, by an SWP member, was exemplary.

    We will now see in practice whose vision is the most successful.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Syme Avatar
    Syme

    Excellent work. Now you just need to hold together for 2 years, spend the time raising money and, come the next general election, campaign to get GG, Salma and Miah elected. BEcause for the “national” RR organisation, this is all that GG et al have in mind. Groups outside East London and Birmingham are just sauce for the goose. Frankly, I think that 2 years is too much to hope for and that unless there is the emergence of a significant new “left unity” organisation in the next two years, that a significant layer of RR supporters will be back in the Labour Party (if not before then, certainly by the time GG fails to get elected in Poplar and buggers off for good).

    I’m curious to know the opinions of some of the posters on this site regarding Galloway going to the Electoral Commission and spilling his guts to the ELA re: the donation to OFFU. Do you think that Galloway was justified in doing it? Do you think it was really about “smelling a rat” and protecting his back or are you concerned about the way that Galloway is using the state as a tool attack John Rees and the national Respect organisation?

    Also, what is your opinion of the Student RR organisation that is chiefly populated by wacky Socialist Action Labour supporters who have entered Respect to further their aims? Do you think that Socialist Action members have joined Respect because they have decided that Labour is no longer an arena for working class politics and they want to build Respect? Or do you think they have ulterior motives?

    Essentially, I’m asking are ISG comrades that far gone down this dead-end of opportunism that they will support crossing class lines and creating a student organisation full of Labour supporters who are hostile to a left-of-Labour alternative?

    (TWO SENTENCES DELETED – LIAM)

    Like

    Reply
  12. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    LOL

    Like

    Reply
  13. Andy BH Avatar
    Andy BH

    So RR is working to get three left-of-labour, anti-war, anti privatisation MPs elected? To quote an earlier contributor, “the evil bastards!”

    As to Student RR, I have just read about the “Student Respect” conference, which by all accounts was barely “populated” at all.

    Like

    Reply
  14. Clive Searle Avatar
    Clive Searle

    Thanks for the tip-off Syme. I hadn’t realised that I my branch was just ‘sauce for the goose’. I’ll rush home and tell the 40 odd people that attended last night’s renewal meeting that they’ve all been conned by the pervidious Galloway/Yacoob/Miah conspiracy.

    Perhaps the SWP member who told one of our Pakistani Muslim members that “all the uneducated people in the room voted for the first [renewal] motion” was right after all. We’re all just a bit thick and haven’t seen the light.

    Like

    Reply
  15. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    Clive,

    I was making the point (with perhaps clumsy sarcasm) that when the SWP lost the vote in North Manchester we accepted the decision. When RR lost the vote in Bristol they walked out. I’m glad that you want to reduce the tensions between the two sides, but not all RR supporters do.

    Like

    Reply
  16. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    But Charlie there was a different nature to the two decisions.

    In Bristol the decision made would mean that the supporters of RR would be politically subordinate to SWP-Respect.

    In Manchester, both groups have the possibillity of building their own vision.

    The common denominator in Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester is that the SWP are compleyely politically isolated.

    the only way to defuse the tension is for the outstanding national issues to be resolved so that we are two seperate organisations. That requires negotiations, over the name, and other assets.

    It is the failure to have such negotiations for a clean divorce that is prolonging all the friction.

    Like

    Reply
  17. margo Avatar
    margo

    I am intrigued by this notion of cc members spending all day on the SUN site.

    Question – how can you tell the position of the poster by the ISP address?
    They all come from the same place dont they …@swp.org. I know you can see the address but not what computer is being used on their network.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Andy BH Avatar
    Andy BH

    It’s not the ISP address, it’s the IP address – the unique identifier for each COMPUTER that accesses the Web

    Like

    Reply
  19. margo Avatar
    margo

    Yes but does it say for example John Rees’ computer? Or rathe does it give the identifier of the computer which is likely to be a number, or still have the name of the original owner of the computer? The point I’m making is the original identifier will never be in the name of an officer of the CC, it’s just not how it works.

    Like

    Reply
  20. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    It seems like everyone else is always forcing you to do things you don’t want to Andy. Shame you’re so easily manipulated.
    As for the tradition of co-operation in Manchester – I’d suggest I know a little bit more about it than you do – and if the Socialist Unity Group, of which I’m a part I should add, are in someway associated with your site – I can only put down to a historical anomaly – and hopefully it isn’t a sign of things to come. I’ll be pointing out its damaging effect at our next meeting – on the 13th if I’m not mistaken.
    Just to re-iterate the main point though, I think the resolution from North Manchester was in its own terms perfectly reasonable. I don’t know why the SWP are really getting in a huff. It’s a different group – but so what? Why should that mean the end of co-operation? Doesn’t this rather reveal that unless its under the control of the SWP then it needs to be cast into the depths of hell – and isn’t that surely a big part of the problem in the first place?
    As well as being down right silly.

    Like

    Reply
  21. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Syme the law is pretty clear about who parties can take money from. That’s the sort of thing a national secretary should be expected to know about, as Labour has just discovered. Without knowing any more of the details than are in the East London Advertiser it looks like GG was just exercising a bit of commonsense driven by a desire not to get shafted.

    As for Socialist Action, I know nothing about them, their motives, their ideas or anything else. So long as they don’t use their weight of numbers to control the organisation I’m not particularly bothered about them. If I were in the other branch of Respect I’d be more worried about the imminent arrival of the AWL on a mission to redeem the SWP’s revolutionary soul.

    Like

    Reply
  22. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    chjh:

    I was making the point (with perhaps clumsy sarcasm) that when the SWP lost the vote in North Manchester we accepted the decision.

    And, er, walked out.

    Like

    Reply
  23. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    Bill

    The association of the manchester Socialist Unity group and the blog is not that historical – bear in mind that John Nicholson posted his report of last night’s meeting to the blog himself only a few hours ago. And Richard Searle has kindly contributed several photo stories for the blog recently.

    If you recall it was me who suggested that the Manchester group change its name from “people before Profit” to Socialist Unity at a meeting in the Friend meeting house earlier this year, to align with the similar project in Swindon.

    The task of building cooperation on the left is a difficult one, it is not acheived by just being friendly, because it is a political battle against those who oppose cooperation. We have had to hold our own againist the SWP trying to disrupt debate (I note margo doesn’t dispute that, only that we could hvve known who it was (and it wasn’t Rees)). We also have to concentrate on the 80% we agree on rather than the 20% we disagree on.

    Like

    Reply
  24. Bristolian Tony Avatar
    Bristolian Tony

    I enjoyed Modernity’s pantomime analogy, which I’m annoyed not to have thought of myself. And while I may not be a bubble member, I know enough bubble members to know Syme is right about the Renewal Party’s single aim: getting George, Abjol and Salma elected. And that aim, for any party calling itself ‘socialist’ (in fairness the Renewal Party does not such thing other than emblazoning their new content-light website with the embarassing RESPECT backronymn), is tragic. I rate their chances of success as very slim, but if they really were able to get their three superstars elected, their parliamentary presence would be two-thirds non-socialist, and the other third (Galloway) whose socialist beliefs are not universally accepted.

    Anyone genuinely concerned with furthering socialist campaigning by getting socialists elected has no place in the Renewal party.

    It’s more a faction of New Labour than a faction of the radical left!

    And that is what Galloway wanted all along. He said more than once on talkSport that his preferred general election outcome is for New Labour to get a majority of one – him.

    To uniliaterally pronounce coalition with New Labour was a set-back I’m only now truly appreciating!

    It’s not in my nature to wish failure or collapse to anything left-of-centre. But it does feel that a socialist electoral challenge will have to wait until Respect, however many Respects there are, are finally wound up.

    I hope every genuine socialist who writes or comments on any of these blogs, and more importantly all of the socialists in the country, will be able to put aside this horrid affair and build a mass socialist party with the democratic and organisational structure enabling us all to remain within it for the long-term, disagreeing about allsorts, but agreeing on ‘enough’ to work and fight together in unity. And win.

    What is ‘enough’? Socialism is enough. Everything else is bollocks.

    Like

    Reply
  25. Duncan Avatar
    Duncan

    The comrade who wrote that Renewal is at the point of crossing class lines because people from Socialist Action are supporting Respect Renewal really needs to take a deep breath. If the AWL, which supports Rees-pect, joins the SWP rump then that does that also bring the SWP to the point of class-collaboration?

    Socialist Action have their agenda, as do Workers’ Power and the AWL. I am sure they are all trying to do their best. However, if Socialist Action starts to support Respect against New Labour then that is a step forward, and it should be praised. Similarly, if the AWL break further from Labour (its CC meets tomorrow to discuss the issue), then that should also be welcomed.

    Of course, both groups have a lot of heritage to work through. They may not consistently support class struggle candidates who stand against New Labour. We should, however, be critical of them when they are wrong, and not when they are right.

    Duncan.

    Like

    Reply
  26. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    Andy it is clear to me that your website has nothing to do with building co-operation on the left, or of gaining agreement on the tired old 80-20 formula.
    Paradoxically in promoting RR, you are simply building another, (smaller and more right wing), left wing group of the old style. Who is it uniting?
    Certainly not the left.
    Instead I think we need an entirely different approach, i.e. not one which begins by mechanically imposing “unity” or demands that in order to work together we need a “party” structure. There is not enough political agreement or frankly trust, across the left for that to work at the present moment.
    As the mis-named “Socialist Unity” site demonstrates everyday and at great length.

    Like

    Reply
  27. margo Avatar
    margo

    Andy I am not in a position to disput it as I am nowhere near the place. But as a techo-phobe constantly learning new things I doubt how you can tell who is on a key board.
    Also knowing enough about the set-up, I suggest the computers cannot tell much either as they are sure to be second-hand or composites.
    Finally, who has the time or the will to sit on your blog all day?
    But let’s move on now.

    Like

    Reply
  28. AA Avatar
    AA

    Duncan – are you suggesting the AWL CC are discussing applying to join Respect (SWP) ?

    Like

    Reply
  29. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    Bill

    Where has the Socialist Unity blog ever argued that everyone should join Respect Renewal, or any other group? .

    One of the most frequent contributors to the blog is Louise Whittle, who is a labour Party member, and on the LRC committee and the editorial board of briefing.

    Martin Wicks also contributes who is fairly implacably opposed to Respect in all its forms.

    I often post articles by Gregor gall, who is in the SSP,

    and we consistently promote support for the left in the Labour Party, which by my definition also includes Jon Cruddas and Compass. We also promote the Green left in the Green Party.

    We advocate practical cooperation between socialists over real life campaigns, and at least 80% of the posts on the blog have no connection with Respect.

    The “manchester model”, if we can be presumptious to call it that, is for a Socialist Unity group to foster practical cooperation and discussion between left activists without organisational preconditions.

    In parrallel some of us are also involved with Respect.

    Never once have I or indeed anyone associated with the SU blog ever argued that we need a party structure as a pre-condition for practical cooperation. Indeed this was the very speech that JOhn NIcholson made at the Respect renewal conference.

    I agree with you that:

    “we need an entirely different approach, i.e. not one which begins by mechanically imposing “unity” or demands that in order to work together we need a “party” structure. There is not enough political agreement or frankly trust, across the left for that to work at the present moment.”

    Indeed I couldn’t have summed up my own position more eloquently than you just put it there.

    Indeed to make it worth your while I will donate £200 to Permanent Revolution if you can find a single article by me that argues that we all need to join the same organisation as precondition for unity, or that we need a party structure before practical cooperation. Or that says that Respect Renewal is the solution for left unity.

    Like

    Reply
  30. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    Phil

    I was making the point (with perhaps clumsy sarcasm) that when the SWP lost the vote in North Manchester we accepted the decision.

    And, er, walked out.

    Yes, the decision being to organise two separate groups. If we hadn’t left, we would have been defying the majority decision.

    Like

    Reply
  31. martinohr Avatar
    martinohr

    Andy BH, boring technical nerdy point, but IP addresses aren’t unique to any individual device, and there is no easy way to trace an ip address back to a particular machine, less so to a user. Most home users will have frequently changing ip addresses which are masked further the fact that the ip address visible to anoter device on the internet(such as a web server) will be that of their broadband router or firewall -for business users something similar happens.

    It’s impossible for any web administrator to do better than guess who is accessing their site based on IP address. Whatever method Andy Newman is using to discover which people are trolling his site, it is not by the IP address of the poster, unless he has magical powers.

    Like

    Reply
  32. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    If we hadn’t left, we would have been defying the majority decision.

    I don’t think a walkout was mandated. The vote you lost was about whether the branch divided at all; once there was a division, you – or some of you – could easily have decided you’d rather stay in the RESPECT (Bishopsgate) branch. Or am I missing something?

    Like

    Reply
  33. Jack Ray Avatar
    Jack Ray

    the North Manc/South Manc split kind of belies the whole communalist Renewal v SWP Respect I should of thought. As I would imagine the muslim small businessman would have been in the South Manc bit (containing Rusholme as it does)…

    Like

    Reply
  34. Louise Avatar
    Louise

    Bill J: When you have a blogsite with more than one person you will have people with different political orientations and that blogsite will reflect it. So what if Andy supports RR, I don’t and am a LP member. But again, so what. People come from different political traditions. People will agree or disagree and that’s called debate (and pluralism)

    “Paradoxically in promoting RR, you are simply building another, (smaller and more right wing), left wing group of the old style. Who is it uniting?”

    What do you mean by building another “left wing group of the old style”? Do you mean democratic centralism?

    Well, Bill, if SU blog is based on democratic centralist principles including following the party line then I wouldn’t stick around and indeed I have been arguing the opposite to the usual adherence to Leninism esp. democratic centralism on the SU blog and elsewhere.

    We do need new fresh ideas in building alliances but to say that SU runs on some party line is incorrect. I mean, if it did then as a LP member I would be “breaking the line” but I haven’t received any edict telling me I am an undisciplined Bolshevik by not being a RR member!

    As I said at the beginning blogs reflect different political orientations and that should be encouraged. I don’t see how SU is running on some “party line” formulation and certainly as an ex-Trot I kinda would see it…..

    Like

    Reply
  35. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    Well as a qualified engineering professional with a specialism in security (CEng and CISSP) I have an ethical duty not to bullshit.

    Suffcie to say. not all intelligecne and counter-intelligence is technical.

    Like

    Reply
  36. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    Well its news to me that the Socialist Unity website is such an example of upstanding behaviour. I’ve glanced at it over the last few weeks and its been nothing other than a sackful of ferrets chewing one another to death.
    But maybe I’m misunderstanding things. Perhaps this is the way people traditionally conduct themselves when they’re debating on the left.
    Great tradition.
    And no I was not referring to democratic centralist principles, what I was referring to was the notion that we must defer to the “correct” group. In the instance of the Socialist Unity website, RR – and OK there maybe the odd post by people with various allegiances, but lets not pretend that’s anything but cover for its real project – to promote RR.
    Which of course it can do if it wants – but then that’s not Socialist Unity is it? And hence its operating under a false label.
    What do I mean when I say that RR is nothing other than another “left group of the old type”?
    I mean that it is a group which demands allegiance without any real political foundation. It is another example of prioritising organisation of politics. It is in other words an organisational solution (or non-solution more accurately) to the crisis of the left in Britain.
    Clear now?

    Like

    Reply
  37. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    Except that is bollocks Bill. The Socialist Unity blog does not exist to promote RR, and more than Liam’s does. It would seem that we would have needed remarkable powers of prediction to set up the blog two years ago, as a spin of from the old SUN web-site started four years ago, when our “real project” was to promote RR, that is only a few weeks old.

    What it does exist for is to promote the idea of cooperation and convergence on the left, around a broad number of issues. Before the current crisis in resepct the atmosphere of debate was very friendly and polite – and we were broadly successful in our modest way of doing so – it still tends to be that way when the issues are unrelated to respect.

    Now if you look at it only over the last few weeks you see it in a particular context where it has (somewhat accidently) become the main online forum whereby the crisis in Respect has been run out., Indeed you will note that it was because of our contacts within the SWP and Respect that we published most of the early documents from both sides before they were available anywhere else, and that was before I decided to join RR.

    And part of the subsequent context is that there was (and it has receded a bit) a sustained attempt by SWP members and supporters to troll the site and disrupt debate.

    The other thing is that can you honestly say that the articles posted have been “a sackful of ferrets”, or just the comments threads, most of the comments are of course not made by the people running the blog – and the slanging matches therefore has a certain autonomy. This is even more exagerated when a proportion of the comments are directly hostile to the politics represented by the articles (and I don’t mean disagreeing, I mean hostile)

    The effect of such trolling is well known on discussion forums, that the “debate” begins to revolve around the trolls, and becomes increasingly bad tempered. Since this is a recognised phenomenon with electronic bulletin boards of all types, and since the evidence is quite clear that there was a step change in the character of the debate once the SWP started intervening to defend their position in Respect, then i think it is simply unfraternal for you to blame us when we have been doing our best to manage a situation not coompletely under our control.

    Like

    Reply
  38. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    Except that is bollocks Bill. The Socialist Unity blog does not exist to promote RR, and more than Liam’s does.

    should read

    Except that is bollocks Bill. The Socialist Unity blog does not exist to promote RR, ANY more than Liam’s does.

    Like

    Reply
  39. Syme Avatar
    Syme

    I am not suggesting that working with Socialist Unity is in any way crossing class lines – it’s just utterly stupid and another step down the road towards RR’s leading members ending up back in the Labour Party – as is becoming more and more clear after Galloway’s groveling before Ken Livingstone last week.

    On the other hand, approaching the Electoral Commission to try and hit at Respect and John Rees is so utterly obviously scabby that I am truly astonished that so many of you think it’s not totally out of order.

    Like

    Reply
  40. Louise Avatar
    Louise

    “The odd post by with various allegiances”… Well, Bill, seems you don’t read the blog that often as there are more than the “odd post” on many issues, on real issues that impact on real people. Have a look, there’s one I have written on prisons, another on the lottery, an interview and so on. Nowt to do with promoting RR.

    But hey, no point explaining this as you seem to believe this is all a “cover” as for the real purpose is to build RR. Bill, there aint no hidden agendas.

    Like

    Reply
  41. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    I think you can get a good feel for Andy’s commitment to building unity and co-operation through his choice of words.
    The form is coincident with the content.
    When people disagree with Andy, he says they’re talking “bollocks”. And just in case they don’t get the message. He repeats it three times.
    Bollocks. Bollocks.Bollocks.
    Now call me thick if you want, but when people use such an abusive and uncalled for tone, don’t be surprised that it’s clear to the world that Andy’s site has nothing to do with “Socialist Unity”.
    The ferrets are in the sack. The cats out of the bag.

    Like

    Reply
  42. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    approaching the Electoral Commission to try and hit at Respect and John Rees is so utterly obviously scabby that I am truly astonished that so many of you think it’s not totally out of order

    Galloway is a high-profile figure, almost universally hated on the mainstream political scene, with a long history of people in the media attempting to hang various scandals on him. In this case Galloway spotted a chunk of incoming mud and passed it to Rees, who deflected it – but did so so badly that it looks like sticking to both Rees and Galloway. Would you really expect Galloway to take the fall in this situation? Would it really benefit the Left for him to do so?

    Like

    Reply
  43. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    And just in case they don’t get the message. He repeats it three times.
    Bollocks. Bollocks.Bollocks.

    Now you’re scraping the barrel. He used the word once, then quoted it twice in the course of correcting a typo.

    Like

    Reply
  44. andy newman Avatar
    andy newman

    I didn’t reallise that debate in Permenent Revo took place at such a rarified level that the word bollockks would cause such offence

    (and if I remmebr the court case over the sex pistols LP, the word is officially and legally not obscene!)

    Like

    Reply
  45. Miles Avatar
    Miles

    My report of the Manchester meeting – with both resolutions – is here hhtp://www.action-without-theory.blogspot.com/2007/12/respect-renewal-set-up-in-manchester.html

    Like

    Reply
  46. Miles Avatar
    Miles

    Try this http://www.action-without-theory.blogspot.com/2007/12/respect-renewal-set-up-in-manchester.html

    Like

    Reply
  47. Bristolian Tony Avatar
    Bristolian Tony

    I feel responsible, having first introduced the word ‘bollocks’ in the comments on this item, which I now regret. I apologise; I did not intend for my crude diction to be directed at other people’s contributions, and regret that Andy did so. A little more socialism and a little more unity is called for.

    Renewal is organised around MP George Galloway. Respect is organised around the Socialist Workers Party.

    http://www.action-without-theory.blogspot.com/2007/12/respect-renewal-set-up-in-manchester.html
    As a working-class socialist, this sentence succinctly states exactly what is so stupid about our situation, in combination with the fact that we have two tiny and increasingly irrelevant groups with the same (naff) name.

    People like me don’t want to join the George Galloway party or the Socialist Workers Party, and New Labour denies us the democratic mechanisms to promote socialism within the original labour party. So we are left without a party.

    That, was the point of the Respect Coalition. OK, so it had a stupid name, and it comprimised iteself for transient electoral success, and it failed to attract the mass membership that could have made it outgrow GG, the SWP, Andy Newman, et al, and be a socialist success story. But, however flawed it was, it wasn’t a one component entity. Both Respect and Renewal now are exactly this.

    Many of you are happy to join one side, presenting the dubious opportunity to slag off those on the other.

    This doesn’t attract us. We don’t want to join the George Galloway party, nor do we want to join the SWP front.

    Some of you guys, on both sides, care about us. Sadly most of you, annoyingly often the most influential, don’t.

    It goes so plainly against socialist beliefs to organise any attempt at a mass party around either one professional politician or one disciplined vanguard.

    Remember those words we all use too often but apply to rarely: ‘from below’. We don’t care about John Rees or George Galloway. They are well equipped to look after themselves. We care about each other.

    Like

    Reply
  48. KrisS Avatar
    KrisS

    I have a deal of sympathy with some of what you say there, Tony. What I’m really interested is what you think I, as one of those “happy” to join one side, could or should do about it.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to AA Cancel reply

Trending