Liam redux

, ,

Hapless

This report comes from the East London Advertiser. There are one or two comic gems in it. A comparison between the Gherkin in London’s financial centre and the premises shared by OFFU and Respect is one that wise people don’t often make and expect to be taken seriously. Did anyone who attended the OFFU conference…

Liam
3–4 minutes

This report comes from the East London Advertiser. There are one or two comic gems in it.

A comparison between the Gherkin in London’s financial centre and the premises shared by OFFU and Respect is one that wise people don’t often make and expect to be taken seriously.

Did anyone who attended the OFFU conference in Shoreditch have a sense that they were setting something up? The smart money said it the conference arrangements had been franchised to a North Korean company that organises spontaneous rallies in Pyongyang.

The punchline is heartrending. Tony Benn and John Mc Donnell wouldn’t have attended anything Respect organised.

 

Galloway’s Respect party reels from watchdog ‘donor gift’ ruling

21 February 2008
By Ted Jeory

Easily confused with Respect's office A CAMPAIGN set up to help trade union rights and which accepted a foreign donation of £5,000 was in fact part of MP George Galloway‘s Respect party, the Electoral Commission has suggested.
If the commission’s preliminary findings are later confirmed, it could mean that Respect bosses accepted an illegal donation.
The commission’s investigator, John Franks, said evidence he had considered indicated that OFFU, Organising for Fighting Unions campaign, “is in fact part of Respect.”
But that finding is being challenged by Respect boss John Rees, who was responsible for accepting the cheque from Dubai last year.
The issue is said to be central to the current split within the Respect party.
Mr Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green & Bow, called in election watchdogs late last year, weeks after claiming to have been made aware that Mr Rees had banked a $10,000 cheque from a Dubai businessman.

The donor originally wanted to give the money directly to Respect, but Mr Galloway refused, fearing it would be illegal.
Mr Rees wrote back to the businessman suggesting as an alternative cause, OFFU, which at the time was saddled with around £5,000 debts from a conference held in Shoreditch Town Hall in 2005. He believed OFFU was an independent organisation.
But the Electoral Commission’s Mr Franks, in a letter sent to Respect officials on Monday (Feb 18), said he found it “difficult to reconcile this evidence with the claim that OFFU is an independent organisation, entirely separate from Respect”… since OFFU shared the same office as Respect, the majority of its committee members were from Respect, while Respect described OFFU as “a Respect initiative,” that “most expenses” incurred by OFFU “were met by Respect” and that OFFU was “established” at the annual Respect conference.
He added: “On the contrary. The evidence would seem to indicate that OFFU is in fact part of Respect, and that is my provisional view.”
Even if the law considered OFFU to be a mere “members’ association” only connected to rather than part of Respect, Mr Franks concluded, it would still be governed by the same restrictions on accepting foreign donations as registered parties.
However, Anti-war campaigner Mr Rees challenged the findings and told the Advertiser: “There’s never been any payment from Respect to OFFU or vice versa.
“OFFU was not established by Respect, but at a special conference in Shoreditch.
“It’s simply not true that most expenses were met by Respect. The money was raised for the conference by delegates’ fees and trade union donations.”
He added: “They say OFFU shared the same office as Respect.
“That’s like saying everyone in the Gherkin building in The City works for the same company. Lots of organisations share addresses.
“There’s no way people like (Labour’s) John McDonald and Tony Benn, who spoke at the OFFU conference, would have spoken at a Respect event. They just wouldn’t do it.”

Respect officials have until March 3 to challenge the Electoral Commission’s preliminary findings.

72 responses to “Hapless”

  1. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    It’s a shame that this is another attempt by socialists to destroy other socialists by using the state apparatus. We have the example of the attacks on Sheriden in Scotland and now this. It shows how the left can turn on itself at its weakest and make alliances with the devil.

    This disgraceful behaviour by the anti-SWP contingent will be remembered by socialists in the future not whether Rees used a donation incorrectly or not.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Phil Avatar
    Phil

    Rees made an error with potentially serious consequences; all Galloway’s done is tell the truth. What else should he have done?

    Like

    Reply
  3. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    Galloway and his clique knew full well about the money and had no problem giving it to an organisation on the left (StWC). The only reason Galloway has been able to refer this to the electoral commission is because he has made the bogus claim that OFFU is a Respect front in an attempt to exact his revenge.

    Those involved should be ashamed of using the state to attack another socialist in an attempt to destroy an organisation on the left. They’re no better than the ### (USE THAT WORD ON THIS SITE AGAIN WHEN REFERRING TO OTHER SOCIALISTS AND YOU ARE BANNED – Liam) who are attempting to sink Sheriden in Scotland. The left will remember those involved in such treachery for a long time to come.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Clive Searle Avatar
    Clive Searle

    Ray – get real. It’s not bogus to sugest that “OFFU is a Respect front” – it was set up by Respect, funded by Respect, organised by Respect staff and had it’s liabilities covered by Respect. It was described on it’s leaflets as ‘initiated by Respect” – so if it walks like a duck…..

    Like

    Reply
  5. RD Avatar
    RD

    Absolutely disgusting. Since when have socialists gone running to the state to settle their differences (and then go crowing about it all over the internet)? Galloway and his clique deserve to be boycotted by the rest of the left for this. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the split, running to the state is the ultimate low in this sorry mess.

    Like

    Reply
  6. RD Avatar
    RD

    Absolutely disgusting. Since when have socialists gone running to the state to settle their differences (and then go crowing about it all over the internet)? Galloway and his clique deserve to be boycotted by the rest of the left for this. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the split, running to the state is the ultimate low in this sorry mess.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Jason Avatar
    Jason

    Clive, 1- OFFU may have been set up by Respect members- but not all OFFU delegates or speakers were in Respect- I being one of them- delegates that is
    2- you are effectively siding with an insitution of the state that has no business in how union bodies should conduct their affairs.

    Was Rees naive, silly, unaccountable? May be- but please don’t let political affiliation blind you to what should be a basic issue of solidarity.

    Like

    Reply
  8. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    Jason, if Galloway had not referred the matter to the EC, when they eventually found out (as they would’ve done), it could’ve caused a massive amount of trouble.

    As I’ve said elsewhere – once Rees accepted the money in July 2007, the issue was either gonna turn into a bad situation or a disastrous one.

    What should Galloway have done?

    Like

    Reply
  9. Ian Donovan Avatar
    Ian Donovan

    There is no ‘basic issue of solidarity’ here. Actually, if Galloway had covered up for Rees’ behaviour, then guess who would be all over the tabloid press etc. when the issue came to light? Not John Rees, that’s for sure! Where’s the ‘solidarity’ in that? No doubt SWP hacks, the AWL etc. would be having a good laugh if that had happened.

    Rees is being favoured by sections of the media at the moment on the basis that he is Galloway’s enemy. For instance, the recent bullshit in the Independent. GG was quite right to protect Respect from the consequences of Rees’ criminal negligence and arrogance, and absolutely no obligation to cover up for him.

    He persisted with this course even when the likely consequences were pointed out to him and had plenty of chance to repair the damage. He refused, and judging by the quote above, is still refusing. If people wish to behave like lemmings, then there is no obligation to jump with them.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Jason Avatar
    Jason

    Thje basic issue of solidarity is for the state to keep its nose out of the workers’ movement- absolutely basic.

    Should Rees be held accountable? Yes but by the movement- vote him out if he’s the chair of offu- or whatever.

    I’ve been to 3 offu meetings in manchester and never once been asked to vote on any steering committee-that’s pretty suspect in itself.

    But I’m not going to call the police about it.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Ian Donovan Avatar
    Ian Donovan

    How do you make the state keep it’s nose out of the affairs of political parties, given that they are legally regulated? You can’t.

    Rees chose to defy the legal regulation of political parties in a particularly stupid way, and that decision is his and his alone. No one else has any duty to cover up for his actions, and anyone who does so becomes liable to legal sanctions in the same way.

    Like

    Reply
  12. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Respect chooses to contest elections.

    Therefore it has to abide by the state-controlled machine and laws that regulate elections.

    The Electoral Commission have the power to investigate the affairs of a regulated party and can issue judgements against them that may affect their ability to contest elections.

    Should it be the state that decides the constraints under which Respect stands or members of Respect? The best way to ensure freedom for Respect to stand in elections is to abide by the laws on registered political parties and cooperate with the Electoral Commission. Respect did that years ago when the EC told them their accounting systems were not up to scratch and that they needed to change them. Everyone in Respect accepted that they had to agree to the EC requests.

    Parties that do not contest elections are unregulated and the EC has no right to investigate or issue judgements.

    It seems straight forward to me.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Clive Searle Avatar
    Clive Searle

    Ian is absolutely right here. If we want to take part in electoral politics in Britain then we have the abide by the rules of electoral politics here. It’s what our voters expect. If we don’t like them – eg postal ballots, etc – we can campaign to change the rules as we are but we shouldn’t and mustn’t break them. That’s what the other parties do. We should have been different. It’s counter-productive to be as ‘just as bad as the rest’

    Rees was stupid. He never asked the NC about the taking the money despite being in an NC where EGL reported the £5000 loss. I think he knew what we would say. He’s now digging himself further into a hole by further lies.

    Now Jason – wonder why you’ve never been asked to take a vote? Think about it. You’re already suspicious – now put two and two together.

    Like

    Reply
  14. Jason Avatar
    Jason

    Perhaps by not reporting a donation to a formally independent organisation to the electoral commission- for starters.

    Or defending someone who does.

    Or crowing about it- which some have- not you nor Clive but some have.

    Jason

    Like

    Reply
  15. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    “Perhaps by not reporting a donation to a formally independent organisation to the electoral commission- for starters.

    Or defending someone who does.

    Or crowing about it- which some have- not you nor Clive but some have.”

    How does that stop the Electoral Commission from fucking over Galloway and Respect? I keep saying, this was either gonna be bad (if it was reported), or disastrous (if the EC found out by itself, as it is very good at doing).

    You haven’t explained how this issue could be dealt with. All you’ve done is say it’s not fair.

    Well, it isn’t – but what else is anyone supposed to do? In organisations that aren’t regulated by law, we can all agree that keeping things in-house can be a good way of resolving disputes.

    But the law watches political parties very closely.

    There’s just no way around this, Jason. It’s not pleasant, but given the treatment Galloway has received, he is the one in a position to fully understand the consequences of hiding information about this donation. I would say that out of all of us, he is uniquely able to appreciate what course of action needs to be taken.

    Like

    Reply
  16. twp77 Avatar
    twp77

    I thought Galloway was the one who suggested to this guy that he give money to the OFFU after he thought it might be a problem if the guy gave it directly to Respect.

    It appears that he only “turned in” Rees after the split for something that was his suggestion to begin with. This really is disgusting behaviour and I am surprised that Liam and other in RR are so blinded by their sectaranism over the split that they fail to find a problem with turning people into the state because of political differences – particularly given that Rees was apparently doing this at Galloway’s behest…

    Like

    Reply
  17. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    twp77, you’ve got a few things wrong there.

    1) Galloway suggested Stop The War, a cross-class alliance that would be comfortable politically with accepting money from a rich businessman – after all, rich people are against wars too sometimes.

    2) Galloway was discussing the issue before the split. He was trying to work with Rees to get him and Rees to deal with it together.

    Instead of people continually saying it’s disgusting, it’d be helpful if people took a moment to understand the consequences of covering up the donation and then made a suggestion as to what Galloway should’ve done.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Digger Avatar
    Digger

    Both Galloway and Rees agreed that Respect could not keep the donation and it had to be returned.

    Galloway wanted to suggest to the donor he gives it to the Stop the War Coalition and John Rees wanted it to go to OFFU. John Rees has subsequently accepted this was a mistake on his part. Not because of the Electoral Commission, but because of the companies the donor is associated with and he was unaware of.

    The implication of the letter from the electoral commission is that no political party that contests elections can initiate campaigning organisations with others, without the income and expenditure of such organisations being considered to be the same as that party.

    If this stands it has major implications for all sorts of campaigns. Of course the myopic sectarians just think this is just another opportunity to attack the SWP.

    What if an Respect branch initiates a campaign in a local area to defend an asylum seeker and helps this campaign raise money by approaching trade union branches. Will the unions be in breach of the law on political donations, should all the campaign income be counted as a donation to Respect? All the left should be challenging this!

    Like

    Reply
  19. Claims Avatar
    Claims

    GG claims he paid two extra constituency workers.
    Nothing declared.

    Like

    Reply
  20. Lobby Ludd Avatar
    Lobby Ludd

    How do you keep the state out of this? By not acting in the cavalier way that Rees behaves in dealings which the state tightly regulates. ( And we expect them to do so when the big parties are involved, remember.)

    Rees had the opportunity to avoid all this – he rejected sound advice. The issue was (attempted to be) dealt with within ‘the movement’.

    Rees (and unfortunately some of his defenders) comes across, to me, like the bully who shouts ‘grass’ when his victims resort to the only means left to them – an appeal to ‘teacher’ , the law or whatever. And that is the only means left to them because, being a bully, he has ensured that there are no other means that can be pursued.

    It’s ugly, but given Rees’s behaviour, and an apparent inability or willingness of the SWP to rein him in, what else could happen?

    Of course we want to keep the state out of this, but this can only happen when people like Rees understand that authority does not fall to them alone.

    (There are strange parallels with other events north of the border, I feel. But then, I’m just a grass, scab or whatever.)

    Like

    Reply
  21. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    Digger

    The implication of the EC’s provisional finding is not remotely as you suggest. All the EC is doing is applying the very clear law as laid out in the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

    You may not like it, but it is the law – you know, the one we follow over elections expenditure, party accounts and so on.

    Like

    Reply
  22. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    If you get involved in electoral politics you have to approach it professionally. The Electoral Commission comes snooping and that’s a fact of life that you have to plan for. It’s the mark of an amateur not to.

    This is the result of a political method which thinks that it’s legitimate for five or six people to simultaneously control a range of organisations and shuffle personnel and money unaccountably between them. No one is crowing about it. It’s a complete disaster which has significantly weakened Respect and strangled OFFU in its infancy so making it harder to build a cross union class struggle organisation.

    We could shut our eyes and wish it away, we can throw abuse at people we disagree with or we can look at it and try to draw some conclusions from the shambles. Which of these is the smarter option?

    Like

    Reply
  23. Claims Avatar
    Claims

    Who were the constituency workers that GG says he paid.
    Why was nothing declared?

    Like

    Reply
  24. Jason Avatar
    Jason

    tonyc “Well, it isn’t – but what else is anyone supposed to do? In organisations that aren’t regulated by law, we can all agree that keeping things in-house can be a good way of resolving disputes.

    But the law watches political parties very closely.

    There’s just no way around this, Jason. It’s not pleasant, but given the treatment Galloway has received, he is the one in a position to fully understand the consequences of hiding information about this donation. I would say that out of all of us, he is uniquely able to appreciate what course of action needs to be taken.”

    The way round it is the following-

    1) Have a meeting with Rees and warn him of threat and warn him that you will take this to the membership of either OFFU or Respect or both- two distinct bodies even if many people are members of both (I;m a member of one not the other for example)

    2) Take it to the membership- then it’s on public record you’ve done this. Will this stop the bourgeois media lying? No. Even now they lie by claiming it’s to do wth Galloway’s party. So what? The media always lie.

    Our constituency is the working class. Not the bourgeois media or their electoral commission.

    Like

    Reply
  25. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    “1) Have a meeting with Rees and warn him of threat and warn him that you will take this to the membership of either OFFU or Respect or both- two distinct bodies even if many people are members of both (I;m a member of one not the other for example)”

    I have to stop you there:

    If you take it to the members, it’ll be with the EC in no time. This is what I mean about them being able to find out. People love discussing things online, so information would end up on the blogs – it would get out somehow.

    You’re still avoiding the actually existing regulatory bodies. They won’t sit there and think, even if we put it “on public record”, “oh, what good chaps, trying to sort out their own”.

    They will slam down hard on us for not reporting it to them.

    There is no way this can be put to anyone, except in secret, and have the EC not involved. That’s what I’m trying to get across.

    If it was theft or fraud, your point would be fair enough. But any attempt to deal with this without informing the EC would end up with them knowing anyway.

    It’s part of the game when dealing with electoral law – you can’t just deal with it quietly. You couldn’t just sack Rees.

    If you did that, that proves that you knew about the cheque, and when the EC does come knocking, you’re in the frame for not declaring it.

    Like

    Reply
  26. Lobby Ludd Avatar
    Lobby Ludd

    TWP, you are an honest person.

    I think you might agree that your account of the course of events is mistaken. The consequences of honest mistakes in such a situation is that they unwittingly further confuse the issue.

    People like Rees thrive on such confusion. Perhaps I am naive, but I put the personal probity of an individual ahead of their declared politics.

    Rees has been shown to be incompetent and dishonest – to me that is enough to write him off, and to distrust a party that fails to do so.

    Like

    Reply
  27. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    This whole farago has nothing to do with OFFU or Respect – it’s Galloway and his clique trying to get revenge on the SWP. It’s so easy to see through his strategy. No one on the left is fooled by the bluff and bluster coming from the Galloway camp.

    OFFU is not part of Respect. If Respect members want to initiate a “Stop Nuclear Power” group or “Defend Social Housing” group then any donations given to these initiatives have nothing to do with Respect. Respect did not benefit from the donation to OFFU.
    Galloway has referred this to the EC in anticipation that he can create mischief by claiming that OFFU is Respect when it patently isn’t. That’s why the EC have ruled in Galloways favour but I’m sure this will be challenged.

    StWC is not a cross class alliance. It is very much led by the left and Respect came out of this movement so technically it could be labelled as affiliated to StWC. Using the twisted logic used to condemn the OFFU donation it is quite possible to claim that Respect could’ve equally benefited from StWC receiving the money. Yet Galloway has no qualms about giving it the donation.

    It doesn’t matter how Galloway and his chums spin this it was done with a purely sectarian motive. First they tried to stop Respect using the name by referring this to the EC and now this. I’m sure this won’t be Galloways last attempt at using the state to try to wreck Respect.

    Activists I work with in the NHS are shocked at RR’s behaviour and wonder what depths Galloway is prepared to sink to exact his revenge. It creates an atmosphere of mistrust among workers when socialists attempt to use the state to attack other socialists. During all the witchhunting Galloway received he’s picked up a trick or two about how to launch one against the SWP.

    It’s only a matter of time before Galloway falls out with another group in RR and you can bet he’ll be treating them in exactly the way he is attempting to treat the SWP.

    Like

    Reply
  28. twp77 Avatar
    twp77

    Ok so as far as I can tell the only point wrong in my understanding is that instead of Rees doing this at Galloway’s “behest”, they were in discussions together to get the money directed elsewhere. Not a huge difference in my view but there you go.

    The point remains that Galloway supported this before the split but actually called in the EC because of his sudden “concern” after the split. Why the change of heart? To all but to most politically naive the answer is blindingly obvious. This is wrong – it’s not “professional” as Liam so blithely claims – it’s running to the state because an amicable solution can’t be reached within the workers’ movement and wasn’t even tried.

    There seems to be an utter lack of understanding amongst most RR commentators here that those affected by this could reach far beyond the SWP alone and may well have implications for those on the Labour left who have participated like John McDonnell. It doesn’t take a genius to see how the ruling could be used against those members of the OFFU who are in the LP to get them expelled from the LP for effectively being a “member” of Respect if this were to be upheld.

    In addition, there is a failure to recognise what this ruling may mean for other far left organisations who want to maintain their independence from political parties while still participating in organisations and coalitions around specific issues.

    Like

    Reply
  29. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    twp77 makes a very important point that I hadn’t even considered. This is an attack on all involved in OFFU and by extension any political party or individual member of a political party who may wish to support single issue campaigns. It has serious implications for any attempt at building a left alliance if divisive elements on the left attempt to use the state to attack an organisation they don’t like. Not to mention the ruling class using this tactic themselves to try to atomise any left alliance.

    This has serious implications for those members of Labour who support the initiatives of Respect members such as OFFU. Galloways misrepresentation of OFFU to the EC will mean that any LP member who joins OFFU is a member of Respect. How the hell will any of us in a left alliance be able to attract the labour left to work with us in joint campaigns if they are afraid that this may lead to a witchhunt and their expulsion?

    Like

    Reply
  30. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    “Galloways misrepresentation of OFFU to the EC”

    You’ve gone so far off the rails in your arguments, especially with your decision to completely ignore every argument made to you, there’s only one conclusion to draw about your motives.

    However, it’s interesting that you’re in complete denial here, as well as being atrociously ignorant of the facts on which you claim to be competent to pontificate.

    What Galloway wrote was as neutral as possible – he doesn’t want to assist the Electoral Commission.

    He told them he feared a mistake had been made. That’s pretty much it – he presented as bare a case as it was possible to present.

    But, and here’s what shows you up as the ignorant troll that you are, he also presented John Rees and Elane Graham-Leigh’s arguments as well. And in addition, he said he hoped that John Rees’s interpretation of OFFU was correct. He simply asked the EC to make a judgement.

    You spoke of “fraternal” arguments in the other thread. But “Ray”, your arguments are anything but. Just because you don’t swear doesn’t mean you are being fraternal.

    You are determined to lie about other people’s actions and to ignore the counter-arguments put to you.

    I don’t even believe a word you say.

    Like

    Reply
  31. Andy BH Avatar
    Andy BH

    Ray, this is actually quite contemptible. I don’t what’s worse – that you might actually believe this rubbish, or that you are consciously making it up.

    So this is going to be the “line” is it? GG and RR have “gone running to the state”. Perish the thought that John Rees might actually have to take some responsibility for his actions. Never mind that GG tried to reason with him. Never mind that GG suggested a safe, practical alternative for this donation.

    The most cursory glance at all the publicity for OFFU (still obligingly sitting on the Respect website because Rees hasn’t even the sense to pull it) demonstrates that OFFU is a Respect creation. Try taking your head out of the sand and having a look.

    Do you really think that there is no difference between STWC and OFFU in terms of how the two relate to Respect? Do you….really?

    So activists you work with are shocked are they? Well it all depends on how it’s been spun to them doesn’t it?

    Like

    Reply
  32. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    “The point remains that Galloway supported this before the split but actually called in the EC because of his sudden “concern” after the split.”

    twp77, the point remains nothing of the sort. I’m unclear as to how my explanation could give you any other impression.

    Galloway never supported it. End of.

    “In addition, there is a failure to recognise what this ruling may mean for other far left organisations who want to maintain their independence from political parties while still participating in organisations and coalitions around specific issues.”

    The only implication of the ruling is that if you initiate a campaign, and you’re a political party, do your best to make sure there are clear walls between it and your organisation.

    Respect took money on behalf of OFFU, spent money on behalf of OFFU, used its staff to do OFFU work and was owed a lot of money by OFFU.

    You can’t be that incompetent when you’re a registered political party. You have to be careful. That’s the only issue the EC ruling will raise.

    Like

    Reply
  33. Andy BH Avatar
    Andy BH

    Sorry, more irrelevant nonsense has appeared in the time it took me to make that last post, so I’ll have to have another go now!

    None of this has any implication whatsoever for those few non-Respect members who have had some involvement with OFFU. I think twp77 raises the issue in good faith but it’s almost funny how desperately it gets seized upon by “Ray” (who, I suspect, knows better).

    No, this is a problem for Respect and actually it’s a problem for people in both Respects who were around at the time this money came in.

    “An attack on OFFU”, Ray says. Well no Ray, actually most of the hapless committee members of OFFU appear to have been kept totally in the dark about this at the time. So much for “dealing with it inside the movement”.

    Like

    Reply
  34. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    tonyc I suggest you calm down and have a fraternal debate. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make them a troll. I don’t expect you to believe my arguement because you support Galloway. Perhaps you should return to The SUN where your method of attack is considered debate.

    I note that you now claim that all Galloway did was provide the EC with the facts. The point I’m making is that he got those, “facts”, wrong. It is hardly rocket science to associate the split with his motives in this case. His actions go much further than Respect as twp77 rightly points out. It has implications for the whole of the left.

    How Galloway, who is antagonistic towards Rees, could accurately provide the EC with the opinions of Rees and Graham-Leigh in this matter is highly unlikely to say the least.

    Like

    Reply
  35. Andy BH Avatar
    Andy BH

    Which facts did Galloway get wrong?

    Like

    Reply
  36. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    “. The point I’m making is that he got those, “facts”, wrong.”

    He told them that OFFU had received a cheque for $10,000 dollars. He told them he feared that it may have been a mistake to accept the cheque as he feared OFFU could, for the purposes of the law, be said to be a part of Respect.

    He told them John Rees’s reasons for disagreeing with him. You can’t get more neutral than that – for you to claim that the facts are wrong is just more denial and trolling on your part.

    Ray, your attempts to bait me will not work. You’re clearly a past master at trolling, with your “you now claim” nonsense.

    Give it up and stop embarrassing yourself. A man who does his best to antagonise people by lying and ignoring people’s responses really has no claim on the word “fraternal”.

    Like

    Reply
  37. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    Andy BH, it’s no good ducking this issue by repeating the claim that OFFU is Respect and therefore the donation was used by Respect. Everyone can see through this to the crux of the issue that Galloway is conducting a witchhunt by using the state. You’re right, I do know better that socialists do not try to use the state to exact political revenge. I can’t speak for twp77 but I believe she sees through Galloways strategy.

    The only reason you claim that it’s a problem for everyone in Respect pre-split is because you believe OFFU is Respect. Defend Council Housing is also advertised on the Respect website so I assume they are a Respect front according to your definition? When you’re reduced to using these feeble arguements to support your claim then it’s time to give up and reveal the truth.

    Like

    Reply
  38. Andy BH Avatar
    Andy BH

    You’re right. It’s certainly time to give where you’re concerned.

    Like

    Reply
  39. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    tonyc all we’ve got is your word on what Galloway said. But socialists don’t believe those who use the state twice in a row to attack another left organisation. First you tried to stop Respect using the party name in elections then you try to smear Rees by accusing him of breaking the law. I’m sure this isn’t the last attempt by Galloway and RR to use the state to destroy Respect. It’s so obvious what Galloways strategy is.

    Like

    Reply
  40. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    Ray

    George Galloway included the Rees/Graham-Leigh arguments in his referral to the Electoral Commission. He said that he hoped their interpretation was correct, but that he was not sure about it so wanted a ruling from the Electoral Commission so that should there be any media or political attack on Respect over the donation then we would be on utterly safe ground legally (leaving aside the political disaster of accepting money from the company account of an outfit that forced the sacking of Candy Udwin during the imposition of the PFI deal on UCLH).

    This was action to preserve the integrity of Respect and it began before the split in Respect, with the referral happening before the split had happened.

    The background to all of this, remember, is that Rees solicited a cheque and banked it, thus potentially incriminating others, without even talking to the officers of Respect or the OFFU committee.

    twp77

    I think you ought to have proper regard for accuracy. You started off claiming the Galloway asked for the illegal donation to OFFU and, when you were presented with the truth, shifted, again wrongly, to claiming that Galloway bargained with Rees over soliciting a donation.

    I think you’re proceeding from prejudice rather than any assessment of the facts. You don’t like Galloway. Fair enough. That doesn’t mean you should claim he’s responsible for something he adamantly opposed.

    Like

    Reply
  41. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    Ray, you should go back to posting as “Unity is strength”.

    Like

    Reply
  42. Claims Avatar
    Claims

    (leaving aside the political disaster of accepting money from the company account of an outfit that forced the sacking of Candy Udwin during the imposition of the PFI deal on UCLH).

    OK for the STWC by your own account..

    But you knew though Kevin didn’t you.

    Like

    Reply
  43. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Ray – I’m flattered that you feel this site deserves so much of your time when there’s a whole world out there to discover. However unless the political quality of your contributions rises and the tone becomes less confrontational and abusive I’ll have to add you to the list of four people I’ve banned.

    Claims – are you Tim?

    Tami – I said it’s a complete disaster but that it’s the result of a bad political method which has wrecked the British far left. As for “running to the state” – covering your arse against legal action by asking for advice is fairly basic common sense. The master strategists of the British revolution should have thought of it but when you’ve spent years in an organisation in which accountability is an empty formality it does not come naturally.

    Like

    Reply
  44. Jason Avatar
    Jason

    anyway let’ds just learn the lessons and move on- how are we going to revive the working class movement?

    Any practical suggestions?

    Anyway I’m off to bed. I expect at least 13 posts by the time I get up but sadly not any real answers- but hey ho. It’s good to talk as the advertisers say.

    Like

    Reply
  45. margo Avatar
    margo

    Liam I have sympathy with your position that being involved in electoral politics means the hands have to be clean. This is the best rule of thumb, and is the same for trade union activity etc etc.
    However, I think what is exercising the concerns of many around this issue is the dragging in of the state (alleged), and what might be construed as glee at the latest with the EC and the OFFU cheque. Although never so present on this blog as on SUN, some attitudes are classically sectarien – in that they are only about point scoring and deny the damage to the left this kind of bickering perpetuates. I believe your statement of gaining no succour from this, but sadly it cannot be said of all posters.This is something that should not be welcomed by the left IMO.
    A case in point is happening in Scotland at the moment. Witness how Gail Sheridan has been suspended from her job. The police who visited her home sent a report to her employer about items they saw. they just felt they had to pass the info on.
    Truth be told when we get mixed up with the machinery of the state in a low period of struggle we are powerless and things drift out of our control. It is not the arena we should seek for redress.

    Like

    Reply
  46. Eugen Levine Avatar
    Eugen Levine

    I agree with the last paragraph. The whole courtroom thing has been a total disaster in Scotland.

    It has gone beyond her just being suspended from her job. She has reportedly been charged with theft. She, and her lawyer Aamer Anwar, say it is police harassment.

    Like

    Reply
  47. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    “Ray – I’m flattered that you feel this site deserves so much of your time when there’s a whole world out there to discover. However unless the political quality of your contributions rises and the tone becomes less confrontational and abusive I’ll have to add you to the list of four people I’ve banned.” Liam

    The political quality of my contributions has been clear, consistant and forthright. I have never been abusive. If you think that it’s wrong to put up a robust defence against those who are rude and confrontational when disagreed with then it’s your choice to ban me.

    The last two posters make the point that the sectarian behaviour and baiting of some posters on this blog (who use these tactics on SUN) is why the debate turns into a verbal punch up. This is not good for the left and is why I never go to that blog. But I am interested in having a fraternal debate with non-sectarian comrades about how to build a left alliance post split.

    Like

    Reply
  48. Jason Avatar
    Jason

    “Anyway I’m off to bed. I expect at least 13 posts by the time I get up but sadly not any real answers- but hey ho. It’s good to talk as the advertisers say.”

    OK I was wrong only 3 posts and fairly sensible ones at that. I think it would be silly to ban Ray- I don’t always agree with him but then that’s the whole point of discussion. I think he’s been civil enough.

    Anyway on a wider issue and in direct respons to one of your SR comrades I’ve written this, Liam

    http://permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1935

    Like

    Reply
  49. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    It would be a very dull site if it only allowed comments supportive of its arguments. However moderating is more art than science and you have to make a judgement on tone, the purpose behind repeated comments on a a paticular point and how use of language might be perceived to a reader.

    One of the reasons this site has avoided some of the appalling exchanges on SUN was because the guidelines were clear from the start. People who leave comments are expected to be frank about their political affiliation, have a recognisable internet identity (consistent pseudonyms are fine), refrain from using uncomradely language and avoid trolling. It’s also helpful if things written in a temper are explained later. That’s what most of us manage to do when we talk to real people. So long as people stick to those rules they can argue all day and all night here.

    Like

    Reply
  50. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    Thanks Jason for your support. I know we don’t agree on everything politically but it would be a boring old world if all of us did agree all the time.

    I read your article and it raises some interesting points. The deportation of Wenebau sound horrendous and very distressing. I think it’s important to remember that despite our political differences we are all fighting against these sorts of injustice. It kind of puts the whole issue of the split into perspective.

    I think the key to drawing workers to the left is a successful intervention within the unions. Whether OFFU will achieve this or some future organisation I’m not certain but if we can draw activists in unions into a left alliance then we will be able to build upon the contacts and resources that these activist have developed.

    An anti-deportation campaign is a great idea and I think with union involvement this will amplify the effect of any similar campaign. It’s like tapping into a ready made network of activists that is not possible when focusing mainly on community activity.

    OFFU is an opportunity to develop a left alliance in the unions. That’s why I think it’s a shame if OFFU is scuppered by internicine squabbles because it may make it harder to build in the unions in future. OFFU isn’t just made up of SWP comrades even though we do make up a number of its members. This is inevitable in any alliance because the SWP is the largest left party outside of Labour. I don’t say that boastfully because unfortunately we are very small. If only we had a large left opposition outside New Labour (or even in it!) It would make the work or revolutionaries a lot easier.

    There are significant number non-SWP TU activists involved in OFFU and it has wider support than just members of Respect. There is an opportunity to develop this network of union activists who are sick of neo-liberalism and the timidity of the TU leadership. I hope this will continue to grow.

    Like

    Reply
  51. David Ellis Avatar
    David Ellis

    The Electoral Commission is there to prevent the gerrymandering of elections. It is a democratic reform but you wouldn’t expect the SWP to understand that gerrymandering is wrong.

    Like

    Reply
  52. Jason Avatar
    Jason

    Well I must say I’m edging towards a slightly more neutral position on Galloway going to the EC. At first I thought it was simply wrong- I still think it was wrong but perhaps – only perhaps- he was left with little choice.

    Still though a much better way would have been, assuming that private and committee negotiations broke down, to have this debate openly and frankly within Respect and OFFU- of course this way the EC would find out. Where I am edging towards a different opinion is that if as Clive and Tony C assert the EC would demand that they find out first or simultaneously then may be that does make a difference.

    I still think it’s crap- OK I can accept that it is a reform to address issues of potential corruption in the mainstream parties but still they shouldn’t demand they know before the mass membership of a party or group surely? But if they do then that’s the rules however unfair.

    Where I completely agree with Ray though is that this internecine strife should not be allowed- or we should do everything we can to help prevent- to disrupt either Respect (SWP) or OFFU.

    I am less optimistic that OFFU can be made into a rank and file organisation than Ray- i think it can but it will require a fight against at least some in the SWP leadership to make it a truly membership and membership led organisation with full transparency and accountability.

    Respect in its current form – or to be accurate one of its twin halves- I have many political differences with but I’d prefer to have a revitalised left and workers’ movement by winning the arguments for socialism rather than having it hampered and interfered with by the state.

    Rees was almost certainly foolish and unwise, fell haplessly perhaps into a trap, and it is vital we learn lessons form this debacle- complete openness, accountability and democracy in the movement.
    But OFFU is not coterminous with Respect and all socialists should unite in saying hands off Respect on this issue. This should be argued loud and clear by all socialists including those in Respect Renewal.

    Like

    Reply
  53. DCM Avatar
    DCM

    Ray: “First you tried to stop Respect using the party name in elections then you try to smear Rees by accusing him of breaking the law. I’m sure this isn’t the last attempt by Galloway and RR to use the state to destroy Respect. It’s so obvious what Galloways strategy is.”

    He is doing to Respect what has been done to him for years by the establishment — smearing them in an attempt to destroy them. Pretty transparent stuff indeed. But this isn’t surprising. He wants to punish everyone in Respect who did not blindly follow him and the other celebs into ‘Renewal’, ie practically every last Respect member.

    But no one will touch Renewal with a bargepole now they have seen just how easily and viciously he has turned on those who have been closest to him these last few years – and in the most lowdown and dirty way imaginable. You truly could not have made this one up.

    Keep digging George, Kevin and Rob, you’re doing yourself no favours.

    Like

    Reply
  54. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    Why do you people insist on embarrassing yourselves with such poorly-argued, un-political nonsense?

    I believe you’ve previously said you’re in the SWP, “DCM”.

    As a revolutionary, aren’t you even slightly ashamed of arguing such nonsense?

    Like

    Reply
  55. DCM Avatar
    DCM

    Tonyc, in light of what you and your gang are doing, you really do have some cheek.

    And no, I am NOT in the SWP although the interrogation on that front is getting somewhat tedious now.

    Like

    Reply
  56. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    DCM, you are the same DCM who said it was a “work of fiction” to say that an SWP member had defected to the Tories, aren’t you?

    You don’t really have a track record of credibility here. As I said in the same thread, “DCM, it’s time to stop embarrassing yourself. It’s time to realise that you’ve been conned by the SWP leadership. It’s time to end your role in promoting this mess.”

    I never interrogated you about whether you’re in the SWP. I said I believe you said you were. Given that you’re an anoymous poster, I have to accept it if you tell me you’re not – although you surely don’t expect to have any credibility, having been posting anonymously for over 3 months, and given the level of dishonesty in your posts, do you?

    Like

    Reply
  57. DCM Avatar
    DCM

    ‘conned by the SWP leadership’ – change the patronising record tonyc. If there was any substance to that argument, most ordinary members would not have stuck with Respect in its original form.

    As for ‘not interrogating’ people on whether or not they are in the SWP, you are surely having a laugh? Renewal are so completely obsessed with the SWP that you are starting to sound pretty unhinged. As for not believing whether I’m a member or not, do I care though? I’ve always been more than happy to work with SWP comrades and no amount of smearing on your part will change that for the many non-SWP Respect members like myself.

    You all need to just move on already – this is tiresome as well as damaging to the left.

    Like

    Reply
  58. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    Just because a poster uses a non-de-plume why should they lack credibility? If their arguements are consistant and make sense as DCM’s do then who cares what s/he uses as a name?
    If Stalin rose from the dead and posted would we be vouching for the credibility of his arguements just because he used the name Stalin instead of, for example, Rosebud? I don’t think so.
    This line of arguement has always seemed like a red herring to me and lacks any substance. It might be fair to say that certain non-de-plume’s lack originality but even then that’s a matter of taste as non-de-plumes go in and out of fashion.
    It’s one thing disagreeing politically but resorting to calling someone dishonest and lacking credibility because they post anonymously is rather desperate. There are plenty of posters on the internet who use their real name, are dishonest, lack credibility and are desperate to sadly refute that line of arguement.

    Like

    Reply
  59. margo Avatar
    margo

    Liam, on February 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm Said:
    … People who leave comments are expected to be frank about their political affiliation, have a recognisable internet identity (consistent pseudonyms are fine), refrain from using uncomradely language and avoid trolling. It’s also helpful if things written in a temper are explained later…

    Liam’s house rules seem eminently sensible to me, and frankly this demand about names strikes me to be testosterone-fuelled nonsense.

    Like

    Reply
  60. johng Avatar
    johng

    I’ve just rather sadly noticed how Tony’s rhetoric (‘credibility’ etc) increasingly resembles the rhetoric of people we used to make fun of (a low point for me was ‘you just don’t get it do you?’ a phrase I’ll always associate with 9/11).

    He’ll be accusing people of being LIARS next (whoops). The business about how anyone who doesn’t take the RR line is just an SWP member or an SWP-symp is particularly noticiable (more on SUN then on here). This is simply because those who speak like this have convinced themselves that the only people who don’t agree with them are totalitarian liars. It therefore becomes very hard for them to deal with people who just genuinely don’t agree with them.

    Like

    Reply
  61. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    There is a fair amount of distrust on the questions of posters’ identities. Some people have posted under a range of names and been economical with the truth about their political loyalties. That makes a sensible discussion impossible and the motives of those who behave like this very suspect.

    It’s the people who are straight about where they are coming from who have most authority in a process like this even when we disagree with them.

    Like

    Reply
  62. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    I think the point about anonymity is simple:

    Some people have to post anonymously. I don’t demand that people reveal themselves.

    But this isn’t a public meeting, Anonymous posters could be anyone.

    Therefore, if you post anonymously, you should not expect to have any credibility at all.

    I don’t think there’s any controversy in that.

    The reason there should be no controversy in that is cos of people like “Ray”.

    “Ray” was posting the most nasty, vile poison as “Unity is strength” on Socialist Unity. He did his level best to divert the entire blog into his agenda, which really was built upon lies.

    Now, by changing his name to “Ray”, he has adopted a slightly different persona, thus trying to convince people that he is a different person.

    But over time, he gradually slipped back into the same nonsense that “Unity is strength” was posting. To be honest, I just happen to be quite good at this – I was the person who uncovered the fact that the Fake Sheikh was trying to sting Galloway in 2006. Some stuff just smells bad.

    I think it’s understandable that people like me do not treat people like “Ray” with any respect or give him any credence, given that he has created a separate persona with a different history on this blog.

    Of course, people like JohnG will defend this practice, as he has defended every single political twist and turn of the SWP CC since last August. My decision that JohnG has zero credibility comes from that, and is separate from my discussion about anonymity.

    People like “DCM” have posted the most obnoxious lies, and they’ve done so because they post anonymously.

    I think people should bear that in mind when deciding whether to take anonymous posters seriously.

    That’s all.

    Like

    Reply
  63. tonyc Avatar
    tonyc

    “If there was any substance to that argument, most ordinary members would not have stuck with Respect in its original form.”

    DCM, this is why I treat you with no credibility.

    Most people who joined Respect left it. The membership of Respect more than halved within a couple of years, and continued to go down.

    The majority of SWP members never joined Respect, and the majority of those who did ended up not renewing their subs.

    Even since the split, loads of SWP members have stopped paying money into Respect.

    But most of the remaining members of Respect were SWP members, who have not played any part in the actual arguments about Respect – people like JohnG, who admitted to me that he has had zero involvement in Respect, are the people going on and on (and in John’s case, on and on and on and on and on) about it.

    One of the things that I find most exasperating is people who claim they really want to preserve Respect, but who were never even members.

    DCM, you need to ask yourself why it is that the Tower Hamlets Respect public meetings have been so much bigger since the SWP split away, and why our committee meetings are so much bigger and more political since the split. Ditto Manchester and Birmingham. Why is that?

    Like

    Reply
  64. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    tonyc judging by your behaviour it seems that unity is strength, DCM, johng and whoever else you claim is dishonest and lacks credibility are responding in kind to your shrill, conspiritorial behaviour.

    I’m going to ignore your comments from now on because you seem to launch a vendetta with anyone who supports Respect and characterise them as SWP stooges. If you actually came to a Respect meeting and announced this to those present you’d either receive indignation or be regaled with peels of laughter.

    Let’s get back to debating politics instead of indulging in petty character assasination.

    Like

    Reply
  65. margo Avatar
    margo

    It seems to me that the issue of names is a diversion most of the time. I take all posts with a healthy pinch of salt because of the nature of a blog. I don’t need to be told repeatedly whether to listen to this or that person, I make my own judgement on the nature of the post.
    Political posts are best when they are well argued and considered. The ‘he said, she said’, goes over my head along with the demand for credentials when a poster disagrees. I feel like I am being shouted at by a bully.
    I will say though that ‘trolling’ does seem to get over-played, and often is alleged purely for a point of disagreement.

    Like

    Reply
  66. DCM Avatar
    DCM

    “People like “DCM” have posted the most obnoxious lies”

    Do elaborate tonyc?

    Like

    Reply
  67. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    This discussion is getting bad tempered and unpolitical. I will delete all further comments on the post.

    To take a random example. Tony Kearns’ piece should be opening up a rich discussion. Let’s move on.

    My house. My rules.

    Like

    Reply
  68. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Can we have some positives please?

    In Germany, Die Linke, The Left (Party), has just won enough votes in yesterday’s election to enter the Hamburg state parliament, winning 8 seats for the first time. Off thread I know, but worth celebrating.

    Like

    Reply
  69. Jason Avatar
    Jason

    There was on a much smaller scale admittedly but nevertheless a real sense of enthusiasm and verve, a meeting yesterday in Manchester where a fair number of th left united to plan a convention counter-conference to Labour’s Manchester event

    http://www.conventionoftheleft.org.uk

    report http://permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1937

    Jason

    Like

    Reply
  70. Digger Avatar
    Digger

    TonyC, can’t comment on on public meetings in Manchester or Tower Hamlets, but in Birmingham Respect has had bigger public meetings prior to split, but as politics is a dynamic thing who knows what might happen in the future.

    The thing I find most frustrating is the “blame the SWP” analysis that is so prevalent on the left. Forget the objectives circumstances its all the SWPs fault.

    When George wrote his August missive he seemed oblivious to the fact that his decision to go on BB cost Respect both members and votes.

    However its easier to blame others than admit any mistakes. Hence his attack on John Rees and the SWP.

    As far as I am am concerned there is not a different SWP that used its intitiative and resources (with others) to get Respect off the ground. Also the same SWP works well with others in a range of organisations from Stop the War, UAF to Defend Council Housing.

    Of course Liam and others have criticisms of the SWP (I have a few of the ISG/Resistance). If your response to the Electoral Commission stance on OFFU is its all the SWPs fault I think this is a failure to take serously the impact on both Respect and RR (as well as other on the left) that a campaign initiated by a political party is the same as the politcal party itself.

    Like

    Reply
  71. DCM Avatar
    DCM

    So I get called an obnoxious liar by Tonyc who is then ‘not allowed’ to justify this smear – convenient.

    Like

    Reply
  72. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    DCM – you’ll both be able to fight another day. One reaches a boredom threshold with some of these things.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Digger Cancel reply

Trending