This article is reprinted from The Sunday Times.

One could make a case that it is the first salvo in a nasty red baiting campaign. Much more plausibly it proves that the the people involved in Socialist Action have long ago renounced any scintilla of socialist politics. If you want proof of this assertion try to buy a cash return ticket on London Underground or to get your name on a council house waiting list. If these jokers are trying to make London a socialist island in Brown’s neo-liberal sea most working people in London, or the Labour Party, haven’t noticed.

KEN LIVINGSTONE is embroiled in fresh controversy after allegations that his most senior aides have been members of a Trotskyite faction that plotted to turn London into a “socialist city state”.

The advisers, who include the mayor’s chief of staff and his principal economic adviser, have refused to say whether they remain members of the secretive group Socialist Action, whose members greet each other using codenames.

Livingstone also faced claims that his aides breached the Greater London Authority’s codes of conduct by engaging in election fundraising while continuing to draw public salaries.

The allegations of Marxist infiltration at City Hall will embarrass Livingstone as he begins his campaign for a third term, running on a moderate, pro-business platform. He faces challenges from Boris Johnson, the Tory candidate, and Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat contender, in the May election.

The hidden lives of the mayor’s aides are revealed by Atma Singh, who until recently was the mayor’s senior adviser on Asian issues. Singh claims Simon Fletcher, Livingstone’s £100,000-a-year chief of staff, John Ross, the economic adviser, and Redmond O’Neill, the deputy chief of staff, as well as Mark Watts, the green adviser, and Jude Woodward, the culture adviser, were all members of Socialist Action.

He says O’Neill went by the pseudonym of “Lark”, Woodward was “Lee”, while another Socialist Action member, Anne Kane, who has worked as a consultant to Livingstone, was known as “Swift”.

Singh, 47, himself a former Socialist Action member operating under the name “Chan”, said that until 2000 they used to meet in the upstairs room of the Cedar Room pub in Islington and a down-at-heel printer’s shop in Hackney. But after Livingstone’s election, with so many getting jobs in the mayor’s “cabinet”, the faction began holding meetings in the GLA’s offices.

Singh said: “Socialist Action believed themselves to be the inheritors of the Fourth International – an International Marxist Group seen as the true inheritors of Trotsky’s political vision. They believed that Britain needed a workers’ revolution.”

However, Singh said the group changed its tactics in the late 1990s: “Socialist Action decided to operate as an ‘entryist’ organisation. One of their key objectives was to put their own people in positions of responsibility in other organisations.”

He went on to explain how this marginal group came to form a close relationship with the future mayor. “Ken Livingstone wanted political power. Socialist Action organised his campaigns successfully and dealt with spin. Livingstone was never a member of SA but he was close to the group – almost like the leader,” Singh claimed.

After the 2000 election, members of Socialist Action were rewarded with well-paid jobs in City Hall. Singh said: “The Socialist Action meetings continued while advisers were in office, until at least 2001 – that’s the last one I attended. Members discussed everything from politics in the Balkans to whether the congestion charge in London should be set at £6 or £5.”

But as well as debating routine policy issues, the aides dreamt of creating a socialist state. “They regularly returned to the theme of ‘bourgeois democratic revolution’: essentially, that London should be a city state and a beacon for socialism. They saw themselves as holders of political power in London.”

Singh, who makes further claims about Livingstone’s regime in a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary tomorrow, says the mayor’s link-up with Venezuela’s left-wing president, Hugo Chavez, was driven by his Socialist Action advisers. The controversial barter deal means Venezuela provides cheap fuel for London buses in return for Livingstone sending a team of consultants to South America to advise on recycling and public transport.

Singh, who earned £41,000 a year in his GLA post, claims the management style of the clique surrounding Livingstone also owes much to Trotskyite training – even if they abandoned their ideological purity. “They are driven by a desire to maintain as much political power as possible,” he said, “through control of London’s finances, control over the staff who run London and the removal of opposition.”

The London officials named by Singh have all refused to say whether they are still members of Socialist Action. One, Mark Watts, told Dispatches that to ask about his political affiliations was a witch-hunt.

Singh claims his career and health suffered after a series of rows with Livingstone’s inner circle and that he was bullied out of his job.

A spokeswoman for the authority refused to comment on Socialist Action but said: “Atma Singh was removed from his job in the GLA for failure to discharge his duties, most seriously in failures to meet requests for assistance from the Metropolitan police antiterrorism unit in early 2005 and to contact the GLA during the terrorist attacks on London on 7 and 21 July. This person is an embittered ex-employee.”

 

 

 

34 responses to “Ken Livingstone’s aides ‘in secret Marxist cell’”

  1. The Sunday Times is hardly reporting anything new here, so the story just another cheap shot in the campaign to get Boris the Buffoon elected.
    I might be more impressed by the idea of a very sophisticated entrist operation if they’d bothered to update their journal in the past 5 years.
    But it all seemed to peter out when no left bureaucrats emerged to save the USSR and the CPRF didn’t win back power electorally.
    In reality they’ve moved to the right, along with Livingstone, because of the severe limitations on the GLA’s powers.
    Or is their mass propaganda now conducted in the Islip Unity Group Newsletter, or perhaps via mystery guest column in the Morning Star?

    Like

  2. did you see Nick Cohen’s piece? Makes The Times one look like a ringing endorsement…

    Like

  3. …true, Jack, but at the same time very generous to Socialist Action:

    the programme shows how Livingstone found a sect of his own – a Trotskyist cult called Socialist Action. It is a minute organisation – I doubt it has more than 100 members – but Livingstone has given a fair proportion of them jobs with six-figure salaries at the public’s expense.

    100 members? Surely no more than 20? Anyway the Guardian/Observer’s readers don’t seem too pleased,

    what an absolute load of drivel. although I find the article to be a) nothing new and b) in its conclusions pretty-much spot on

    Like

  4. …true, Jack, but at the same time very generous to Socialist Action:

    the programme shows how Livingstone found a sect of his own – a Trotskyist cult called Socialist Action. It is a minute organisation – I doubt it has more than 100 members – but Livingstone has given a fair proportion of them jobs with six-figure salaries at the public’s expense.

    100 members? Surely no more than 20? Anyway the Guardian/Observer’s readers don’t seem too pleased,

    what an absolute load of drivel. although I find the article to be a) nothing new and b) in its conclusions pretty-much spot on*

    * http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,2243901,00.html

    Like

  5. My attempt to quote properly didn’t work there, sorry about that.

    …true, Jack, but at the same time very generous to Socialist Action:

    the programme shows how Livingstone found a sect of his own – a Trotskyist cult called Socialist Action. It is a minute organisation – I doubt it has more than 100 members – but Livingstone has given a fair proportion of them jobs with six-figure salaries at the public’s expense.

    100 members? Surely no more than 20? Anyway the Guardian/Observer’s readers don’t seem too pleased,

    what an absolute load of drivel

    . although I find the article to be a) nothing new and b) in its conclusions pretty-much spot on*

    * http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/story/0,,2243901,00.html

    Like

  6. By the way, is Guardian commenter “Ishouldapologise” none other than “Comrade” Newman? No-one else seems to constistently mis-spell the Mayor’s name as “Livingston”…

    Ishouldapologise

    January 20, 2008 1:14 AM

    A lot of “research” went into concoting those anecdotes Nick. Very impressive. Guilt by association and smear. A lot of snide gossiping at Westminster Council and Evening Standard cocktail parties, I am sure.

    Very worthy of you and your reputation on CiF. Coner called a spade a spade, I think. He was right.
    I hope Livingston is given the right to reply.
    .
    .
    .
    .

    1. I support Livingston, like all the others who voted for him, because:

    2. He represented democracy in London when Thatcher abolished democracy for London.

    3. Because he has always supported multiculturalism.

    4. Becuase he has made London a more liveable place to be in by introducing the congestion charge and bus lanes.

    5. Because, within his remit, he has tried to help older people with Freedom passes and other benefits.

    6. Because he has supported children with free travel and teenagers with cheaper travel as well as many other campaigns.

    7. Because he has supported the Metropolitan police when the government was attacking it.

    8. Because he called the bluff on the private contractors, who were running massively overbudget on the underground.

    9. Because he supported the Olympic bid to the hilt.

    Let’s make it a round ten.

    10. Because the Standard and people like you never stop attacking him.

    Good luck with your smear campaign. Remember, what goes around comes around and I hope you get some of your own medicine.

    Like

  7. NOt me.

    In my defcne i misspell everything, and everyone’s name.

    I have never voted for Ken, as I have never lived in London.

    Like

  8. What is interesting is leading members of Respect Renewal campaigning for Livingstone with no consultation of the members (ie Galloway and Salma Yaqoob) or that members of Socialist Action joined and voted at Respect meetings shortly before the split.
    More intriguing is that Salma Yaqoob and Respect Renewal were in talks with Socialist Action’s student wing, who hardly represent a progressive campaigning organisation on campuses, but rather a sgroup who insinuate themselves in the NUS bureaucracy and that Respect Renewal are talking about supporting candidates from Socialist Action over Student Respect candidates.

    Like

  9. Adny,
    I do apologise.

    Re. Socialist Action/Respect Renewal….Is it that intriguing, Adamski? I’d say that’s exactly the kind of thing I’d expect from both sides.

    Like

  10. does respect renewal have a position on the mayor yet? what about the isg’s position?

    aligning with student broad left would be a complete joke. i hope the isg will prevent this from happening as it would discredit them further,

    ks

    Like

  11. Why should the ISG have anything against it? After all, Thornett’s grouping isn’t (also historically) best of friends with the other main left NUS faction, Workers’ Liberty…

    Isn’t Renewal’s position on the Mayor to support Livingstone and stand a separate list of candidates to the Assembly?

    Like

  12. To New Left Party:

    “does respect renewal have a position on the mayor yet? what about the isg’s position?”

    Of course, Galloway and Yaqoob make what public statements they like – that’s how the internal regime works. But the mass forces of the ISG will hold them account, though they are getting a little silent since Galloway began praising Thornett.

    Despite this, the unelected NC of Respect Renewal didn’t even discuss the issue of the Mayoral election!

    Like

  13. “Isn’t Renewal’s position on the Mayor to support Livingstone and stand a separate list of candidates to the Assembly?”

    What do you mean by “Renewal’s position”? Renewal doesn’t have an elected National Council who are accountable to members and even this body has failed to have a discussion on their attitude to the Mayor. So it’s illogical to speak of “Renewal’s position” But Salma Yaqoob signs letters as Vice-Chair of Respect that are totally uncritical of Livingstone and Galloway has suddenly began campaigning for Livingstone with no discussion with anyone.

    Like

  14. Well, I’ve just seen the first party political broadcast for the Buffo Boris campaign!
    Complete with our intrepid cub report, risking life and limb cycling through London in his suit.
    Obviously an homage to David Cameron. (No doubt he didn’t turn up for work in it afterwards and it went straight to Sketchley’s to have the sweaty armpit stains removed)

    The “Communist 4th International in Moscow”?
    Blimey that was a bit much.
    I have heard cde Ross make the comment that “Kronstadt was the finest hour of the Red Army” at a party to annoy an anarchist, but I think he’s a bit prone to the gratuitous insult, rather like Redmond O’Toole.

    As for Ken’s whiskey sipping habits. Well he could be on dodgy grounds there.
    Tony Cliff only ever drank orange juice in pubs and his example should be followed if you want to stay out of trouble.
    But I’ve been to union receptions in the House of Commons where plenty of drink was available and the MP’s bars are never short of customers…..

    As to the policies; with petrol at over a quid a gallon, seems like doing a deal with Venezuela is a good move, as is going to China – a major trade partner of the UK.

    Transport for London would be a lot better if they kicked out the private bus profiteers, made travel free for council tax payers and rebuilt Park Royal to produce electric buses.

    Main problem with the GLA is how weak and hamstrung it is, which they sort of hinted at, but only because they want a stronger authority to weaken the Mayor.

    The election offers a chance to put forward the programme London really needs, but
    Livingstone should be supported against Johnson, even if Lindsey stands.

    Like

  15. “Does respect renewal have a position on the mayor yet?:

    The issue of the GLA elections was discussed at the RESPECT Renewal National Council on Saturday 12th Januray. Over 45 members (both elected and associate members, who offer advice from all parts of England) spent over five hours discussing the future of RESPECT Renewal. It was a lively, interesting and democratic meeting with lots of debate (with no secret meetings and decisons made ouside of the meeting!). Some time was given to a discussion on the GLA elections.

    Not one memeber f the NC suggested that RESPECT Renewal stand for the major in the GLA elections. It is clear that a defeat for Ken Livingstone will also be seen as a defeat for ALL the left despite the reservations many may have about many of Livingstones policies and standing as the official Labour Party candidate.

    Livingstone is only 1% ahead of the right wing (and I do mean very right wing!) populist Boris Johnson and we have seen in the last few days and again tonight on TV a concerted campaign on behalf of the right to smear the more progressive policies of Ken Livingstone.

    Livingstone has the backing of the British Muslim Initiative representing 63 main Muslim organisations and figureheads.

    In these crircumstances it would wrong to stand against Ken Livingstone when both the Mayor and the GLA could be won by the Tories trying to discredit ANY progressive policy taken by Livingstone and the current GLA.

    Both Salma and George do speak for RESPECT Renewal on this. We will be standing in the constituency section of East London (Tower Hamlets, Newham and Barking/Dagenham). We may also stand in the GLA (Assembly) elections as part of a ‘left coalition’ which may include George Galloway and this is subject to further consideration depending on talks with other left groups and individuals which is underway.

    Neil Williams
    RESPECT Renewal National Council Associate member

    Like

  16. Hopefully there will be an exciting debate of the mayor in the forthcoming january respect renewal newspaper -if it ever gets printed- after last months dull affair there needs to be some reason for people to read it.

    Like

  17. Neil while it’s true that no one is proposing standing a RR mayoral candidate that is probably due to lack of resources and the fragile state of the new organisation. I don’t think it is because there is a strong consensus supporting him.

    He is opposed to the war in Iraq but so was much of the French ruling class and so were the Lib Dems. He makes some radical gestures on international politics but his long term strategy is to develop London as the leading financial centre. This is contributing enormously to the accelerating gap between rich and poor in the city.

    Inside the Labour Party he has not tried to build any political opposition to neo-liberalism, unlike John McDonnell.

    So while I can see the merit in giving him a vote to keep Johnson out that is by no means the same as giving him political support. I would argue that one necessary stage in developing RR politcally is to develop a critique of Livingstone brand of New Labourism.

    Supporters of Socialist Resistance will be vigorously opposing giving political support to Livingstone. He’s had a chance to be a radical, anti-capitalist figurehead and has opted to be Brown and Blair’s tame “lefty”.

    Like

  18. Liam

    Postion papers were put on the Llondon eletcions and no one spoke against the argument put by Galloway:

    In the last major discussion on the GLA before the split in Respect, in May of last year, the feeling on the National Council was to stand but also to be clearly for a Livingstone victory against a then unnamed Tory challenger.

    There is doubtless a range of views about the merits of Livingstone’s period of office among our supporters and voters. But I am convinced that the vast majority are far from indifferent to a defeat for Ken at the hands of Johnson. It would be a defeat for the left.

    I do not propose that we put forward a mayoral candidate. In any case, we do not have the finances to do so.

    This view seemed to be the consensus of the meeting.

    It is of course the merit of a pluralist organisation that we can debate different priorities, but I am convinced that the overwhelming priority is to robustly defend Ken against the right wing onslaught that we are seeing in the press at the moment.

    I am also convinced that Lindsey german will not stand, as she will be unable to use the Respect electoral banner, and thereofre cannot trade of galloway’s popularity.

    Like

  19. Liam: “So while I can see the merit in giving him a vote to keep Johnson out that is by no means the same as giving him political support. I would argue that one necessary stage in developing RR politcally is to develop a critique of Livingstone brand of New Labourism.”

    I agree COMPLETLY (no political support etc) and the task in May is to stop the very right wing Johnson as well as develop /build a left alternative with RESPECT Renewal as just one part of a larger coalition if this is possible.

    We must accept that a defeat for Livingstone (and I have never trusted the man well before he openly campaigned for Ohna King in Bethnal Green and Bow in the last election) would be seen by all the right wing, City of London and the establishment as a defeat for ALL the left, RESPECT included (just look at today’s many attacks on him).

    I am not even suggesting we campaign for him – just that we dont stand against him (the current RESPECT Renewal position). BUT we must stand in the GLA constituency of East London and I hope in the GLA Assembly elections across London as a ‘left alternative slate’. I am confident this represented the majority view on the RESPECT Renewal National Council.

    Neil

    Like

  20. From Respect(SWP) members’ bulletin this evening: “Lindsey German, Respect’s mayoral candidate said today: ‘Gordon Brown freed the City to gamble without restriction…etc’”

    Why are people so convinced Lindsey German won’t stand? If she does, we should support her and put Livingstone second. I don’t buy this argument that this is some kind of treachery against Livingstone. Livingstone takes a different class position from us (and the SWP), as Liam points out. The best way of showing he doesn’t have the political support of the left is to give a first preference vote to a left candidate.

    I fail to understand why people who claim to be critical of Livingstone, but still want him to defeat Boris Johnson, cannot see that STV elections make these decision very easy. Instead, they go further than Salma Yaqoob and George Galloway, who have been ambiguous, as far as I know (not a virtue, in my opinion), using phrases like “being for a Livingstone victory”, rather than openly saying “give him a first preference”.

    A little comment on Socialist Action (confession: I’m a former member, 1980-85): they provide a good argument for a campaign for a maximum income (and it would be less that £121,000).

    Like

  21. Well if Lindsey stands it will not be as respect candidate, unless the SWP resolve the nominating officer issue.

    Alsoo the SWP have shot their own fox by saying that the six renewal candidtes on the Respect GLA list are being replaced.

    they were selected by the same process as Lindsey, and if their candidature has been overtaken by events, then so as hers.

    I am pretty sure that RR will allow people to make their own choices and cmapaigning priorities, but i will be arguing vote one for ken.

    Like

  22. To d.z. bodenberg.

    It would be mistaken to think that ISG’s policy towards left unity in the student movement is determined by the AWL’s hostile attitude towards us. The ISG has few students, so it’s not going to be a huge factor in the debate inside the NUS. However, the SWP’s opposition to working with the AWL is the result of both currents’ factionalism in the student movement, which makes unity impossible. The AWL has much more experience than the SWP of opportunist electoral blocks at NUS conference, but it seems hard to think that such blocks do anything to build self-conscious, self-confident grass-roots activism.

    Like

  23. Andy Newman pretends that those who insist Linda Smith has been elected for life as nominating officer and will abuse this power to stop Respect standing in elections in Preston and everywhere else remain members of Respect. What an idiot. Andy insists that those who deny that Respect still exists can stand as Respect candidates for the GLA. Not an idiot. A lunatic, clearly. Andy pretends that it does not matter whether or not Respect Renewal members cancelled their standing orders to Respect. They hold onto their rights as Respect members. Ok, he is a liar as well. And Andy insists that he will be voting against Lindsey German even if she is the offical Respect Mayoral candidate. Take all these propositions together, add in everything else he has said and done since conference, and we have grounds for expulsion. Kick him out, comrade Rees. Expel the bastard! What on earth are you waiting for?

    Like

  24. A socialist has to stand against Livingstone. If anyone calls for giving Livingstone a free run in May, they expose themselves as anything but a socialist. The propaganda against Livinstone in recent days has complicated the situation slightly. Only sectarians could deny this. Despite it being the political editor of the New Statesman who presented Channel4’s Despatches programme last night, an enormous amount of the propaganda against Livingstone came from the right-wing. Not all of it, but much of it damned Livinsgtone for being to much in hock to Trotskyism, and supporting progressive causes too forcefully. If Livingstone stood up to this right-wing propaganda, then socialists would have to take this into consideration. It would add substantially to the arguments in favour of arguing for a second preference vote, if and when the socialist candidate falls away.

    However, I think it more likely than not that Livingstone will be told by Brown to sack his Socialist Action advisers, and I think he will probably succumb to this pressure. Even if there was no external pressure from the government (assuming that pressure from the leader of his party could be said to constitute external pressure), Livingstone won’t want to be associated with some of the “ultra-left” rhetoric of his key advisers. Livingstone’s opinion poll ratings are likely to fall substantially unless he kicks out Socialist Action. If he does this, in a manner that demonstrates his abhorence of their alleged revolutionary credentials, that increases the arguments for not granting him a second preference vote. If Livingstone turns to the right in order to appease his right-wing critics (as I expect him to), then again this will strengthen the side of the equation for no recommendation for a second preference. However, it is too soon to take this decision. What is not in doubt is that socialists need to enfranchise workers in London. There needs to be someone who will side with the workers against the bosses, as Lindsey German will. There needs to be a party that will raise general politics that extend beyond the constitutional powers of the Mayor. The fact that Livingstone and Johstone alike represent parties that want to nationalise the debt of bankrupt instiutions while keeping their assets in private hands demonstrates the importance of standing a candidate. The world economy is going pear-shaped as we all give ourselves RSI. Billions are being sucked out of our pensions as a consequence of the free market economy. The electoral system for London Mayor gives anti-capitalists an excellent opportuntity to tap into the consciousness of workers who can glimpse for themselves just how bankrupt and undemocratic capitalism is. No socialist in such circumstances could possibly call for a first preference vote for Livingstone. (PERSONAL ABUSE DELETED – LIAM)

    Like

  25. “And An Oldman” is soooo not Tom Delargy, thought I, as I read his foaming rants.

    Then I came to “as we all give ourselves RSI” and realised it was the o*d w**k*r after all.

    Or o#d w##nk#r if Liam prefers.

    Like

  26. I did think that wnkers cramp might be more likely for Tom than RSI

    Like

  27. Neil Williams tells us what he thinks Respect Renewal voted for at their national council. Does he not know? Did you not vote for a specific resolution that clarified the situation? How come there is so much confusion?

    Secondly, Neil has no idea what he is talking about. He says he is COMPLETELY opposed to offering Livingstone political support. However, he also insists in not standing a candidate against him! By definition, comrade, you are offering him political support. Only if socialists could not stand due to finances ruling this out, or if we had a first past the post election and a close vote that could result in the worst candidate being elected could socialists rule out apriori standing. However, these conditions don’t apply. Writing Livingstone a blank cheque is the worst thing socialists could do months before the election. Standing a candidate against all the pro-capitalist parties can force Livingstone to advance semi-left wing rhetoric. Even if this is opportunism, it nonetheless contributes to a more favourable political climate for the growth of a genuine left-wing current.

    Thirdly, all the arguments against standing against Livingstone apply equally to not standing against his preferred candidates to the GLA. Livingstone and his GLA candidates will denounce Respect Renewal for undermining support for candidates that have the best chance of stopping the Tories. In reality, New Labour’s currying favour with the business class, and being obviously corrupt create the conditions for the growth of the far right. Again, this is why anti-capitalists have to stand to the GLA as well. Having a candidate for Mayor will give Respect a cohesion that Respect Renewal will lack. As having sold their soul to Livinstone and getting nothing in return, the working class electorate will opt for the genuine article, the official Livingstone candidates. For backing Livingstone against German, RMT members and the rest of the most class conscious workers will turn their backs on you lot. Sorry, but your perspectives are as bankrupt politically as Northern Rock is economically.

    Like

  28. LIAM: “Supporters of Socialist Resistance will be vigorously opposing giving political support to Livingstone. He’s had a chance to be a radical, anti-capitalist figurehead and has opted to be Brown and Blair’s tame “lefty”.”

    Opposing in what meaningful sense?
    Galloway and Salma Yaqoob as representativse of “Respect” have already given Livingstone political support.

    They hold the strings in Respect Renewal not the ISG.

    Like

  29. Good question Adamski. And a tough one. Thanks for drawing attention to the flaw in my reasoning.

    Since there is no space inside RR for real debate or differences of opinion we’ll just have to shut up or go away.

    Like

  30. Hunt them down like snarling whippets.

    Like

  31. There is no problem with differences of opinon in a democratic socialist party. However, workers need a political organisation capable of offering a lead, and that means differences hammered out democratically, ending in majority votes binding on all. Respect Renewal takes a different position. It makes a virtue about it’s laxed discipline. In reality, you are all pulling in opposite directions, with no mechanism for handling these contradictions. Despite all the excellent points you, Liam, made about Galloway in the past, and the ISG as an organisation, you have traded in your previous principled attitude towards Galloway with the hope of seats at his top table. You can get a an audience with the Gorgeous One on a regular basis. But this will be one-way communication. Galloway is still haunted by Russian Dolls, by “Trotskyites”. However, they are miniscule in number. They pose no threat to him. Contrary to the bollox spouted by Andy Newman ad nauseum, the SWP and their allies are not trading on the “good name” of Galloway. On the contrary, this anti-abortionist, unprinipled maverick has been an albatross around the neck of Respect. The ISG are welcome to him. And to the Tower Hamlets businessmen. And to Ken Livingstone’s supporters, including Socialist Action. And to the couple of dozen ex-SWP members who apparently never opened a book all the time they were members. Cliff’s biography on Lenin, Molyneux’s Marxism and the Party, even Harman’s brief pamphlet Party and Class. If only they had taken the trouble to find out what their party believed, they could have saved us all a lot of trouble. And now they’re all yours, Liam. Enjoy.

    Like

  32. Paul while Respect Mark 1 had many of the formal structures of a democratic organisation everyone knew that all the decisions were made by the SWP leadership. That is the principal reason most people left. The numbers evidence that.

    My assumption is from your approval of cdes Cliff et al is that you are in or close to the SWP. Those of us who have had a “principled attitude” towards GG during a period when criticism was tantamount to heresy are unlikely to change our attitudes on these things. We don’t see politics as a game of alliances with prominent figures.

    As for RR’s laxness that is absolutely true at the moment. It was made clear from the initial conference that there would be a more formal event in the spring to discuss our political orientation. To the best of my knowledge that is still happening.

    Like

  33. My asumption is that paul is Tom Delargy, and he is the guy expelled from the SWP for his bizarre paranoid conspiracy theories.

    Like

  34. Paul: And to the couple of dozen ex-SWP members who apparently never opened a book all the time they were members. …. even Harman’s brief pamphlet Party and Class.

    That is the pamphlet that argues that the party must ensure that dissenting voices within the party are permitted to put their case to all members and appear in the party’s open publications?

    Pge 18 of the 1983 edition.

    Like

Leave a reply to And an oldman Cancel reply

Trending