Here is a message from Respect/Left List to its local groups.

1. National Council discussion on Respect name

The National Council of Respect discussed the situation regarding the organisation’s name. As members will be aware, as a result of a legal
loophole, we are currently unable to stand candidates as Respect. In the recent elections, we ran candidates either with no description on the ballot paper, or as the Left List or Left Party.

The NC reviewed the ongoing work of the officers to try to recover the name from Respect Renewal and members wishing to know about the state
of discussions about legal action and with the Electoral Commission should contact Elaine Graham-Leigh on 020 8983 9671. However, we
cannot continue to operate with a variety of different names and it is clearly necessary for us to have one name under which we can campaign
and stand in elections.

The name of the organisation can only be changed by a conference decision and it is intended that there should be a full debate on this issue at the annual conference scheduled for early autumn. In the meantime, the NC felt that it is important to take some preliminary steps that can give members in the branches some guidance and enable groups to continue their campaigning work over the next few months.

The NC agreed that if it is necessary to change the name of the organisation and for the purposes of standing in elections until this question is fully resolved by conference there should be a recommendation made by the next NC (scheduled for Saturday 28 June).

All branches should use the time before the next NC to consider their views on this issue. At the last NC a majority favoured using the name The Left, either in on its own or in combination with another description (i.e. The Left Alliance or The Left Coalition). But some other NC members thought that another name entirely would be better, although the two suggested at the meeting (Solidarity and People before Profit) are already registered as party names with the Electoral Commission are therefore unavailable to us. A list of registered names is available of the Electoral Commission website.

Members and branches are welcome to discuss and recommend one of these names or an alternative name to the NC in time for the meeting on the
28 June. That meeting will make a recommendation to go forward to conference. The minutes of the NC meeting on 21st June are now available from the website www.respectcoalition.org.

2. 10 Point Charter For The Left

Respect/the Left List is supporting the 10 point charter launched by John McDonnell MP, demanding an end to privatisation, restoration of the 10p tax and defence of pay, conditions and trade union rights. John McDonnell’s points are aimed at changing policy within the Labour party, but his demands have resonance far beyond the Labour left and we want to collect signatures as widely as possible, particularly from within the labour movement. Use the attached sheet to approach local trade union branches, local campaigns, Respect/Left List supporters and anyone who wants to sign. Please return completed sheets to the national office.

3. Campaigns and Fundraising

All groups should be aiming to have at least one fundraising event and a public meeting between now and the summer holidays. Suggested public
meeting topics include immigration, the economic situation or the BNP – while it’s important that Respect/Left List members and supporters are also involved in building Unite Against Fascism work in areas where the BNP have made gains, we should also use our own public meetings to present our particular perspective on the BNP, New Labour’s meltdown and the Left.

167 responses to “Rebranding Respect”

  1. Fascinating. I’d suggest they go with the proposal that they call themselves ‘The Left’. This would fit nicely with the controlling group’s tendency to describe themselves as ‘The Socialists’ (as in their recent local flyer titled ‘Why You Should Join The Socialists’). Hugh Briss is obviously alive and well and working at the centre.

    As for my mate Rob’s suggestion of ‘Listless Left’, well…..that’s just plain spiteful!

    Like

  2. Manchester Observer Avatar
    Manchester Observer

    At every stage of the split the SWP CC went for a winner takes all strategy, and lost everytime, and the thought that this bunch assumed that they were going to be leading us to glory at that October 1917 moment. Well at least we’ve been saved from that !

    From one mild email from George last summer this lot have systematically pissed away the political capital built up over the years by the IS/SWP tradition, this was the result of the countless and unsung efforts of thousands of socialists. It’s all been squandered by these numpties. I wonder if we can claim a refund.

    Lenins !! more like Lemmings!.

    Like

  3. McDonnell’s 10 point charter is really weak.

    I have a lot of time for McDonell’s idea that we need to build working class action outside of parliament around migrant workers’ struggles, campaigns against climate change and other issues like privatisation.

    I would of course support his ten points but they hardly even begin to challenge New Labour.

    Manchester observer- not sure who you are but the idea that if we have a 1917 moment that it will be led by a small group of people is I think quite inaccurate.

    When or if the working class assumes power it will be a general and massive rebellion- there is a question of leadership in terms of the guiding ideas and political organisation but without a thoroughgoing workers’ democracy we’ll never get anywhere so the idea of being led by a group is quite forlorn I think.

    Also I’m sure George knew what he was doing- but never mind all that now. We need to reconnect to community and workplace struggles and start rebuilding a deep rooted working class tradition of socialism which sees working class people as capable of ruling our own lives through democratic councils of elected and recallable delegates.

    That’s a way off admittedly but we can make connections with struggles happening now such as solidarity with the Bolton strike and the strike in Derby.

    http://WWW.SAVEWITHINS.EXOFIRE.NET

    Like

  4. Last week I noticed my neighbour had bought a nice new car- much nicer than mine- so I decided to take it. Imagine my surprise when, half an hour later two burly policeman knocked at my door and arrested me.
    It turns out i wasn’t allowed to take the car due to a legal loophole.

    Like

  5. sorry don’t really understand what people are complaining about.

    Like

  6. Oh well perhaps more sufi poets discussing the pitfalls of sectarianism (it has to be said that the independents in those days were pretty full on with their contributions):

    Bullhe Shah (1680-1752) acclaimed Punjabi Sufi poet. He wrote treatise in Persian prose and was drawn to the philosophy of Vedanta:

    Neither Hindu nor Mussalman, let us sit and spin, abandoning the pride of religion.
    Neither Sunni nor Shi’a, I have taken the path of peace and unity.
    Neither hungry nor full, neither naked nor clothed
    Neither weeping nor laughing, neither exiled or settled
    Neither a sinner nor pure, I do not walk in the way of sin or virtue.
    Bullhe! In all hearts I feel the Lord,
    So I have abandoned both Hindu and Muslim.

    on legal matters:

    Love and Law are struggling: I will settle the doubts of your heart, holy sir, the questions of Law and the answers of Love.
    Law says: go to the Mullah and learn the rules and regulations;
    Love says: one letter is enough, close your books and put them away.
    Law says: perform the five baths and worship alone in the temple:
    Love says: what is this veil for? Let the vision be open.
    Law says: Go inside the Mosque and perform the duty of prayer:
    Love says: go to the tavern, read the naphal drinking wine.
    Law says: Let us go to heaven, we will eat the fruits of heaven;
    Love says: We are the keepers and will ourselves distribute the fruits.
    Law says: faithful one, perform the haji, cross the bridge:
    Love says, the Ka’aba is the door of the Beloved, from there I will not stir.
    Law says: We put Shah Manur on the stake (mystic heretic put to death 922)
    Love says: through you he entered the Beloveds door.
    The place of love is the highest highest heaven, the crown of creation;
    Out of love he has created Bulha, humble, and from dust.

    Waris Shah (1730-1790) Punjabi: the divine beloved is male according to convention and the soul longing for communian is female:

    Ever new, ever fresh is the Spring of Love!
    Ever new, ever fresh is the Spring of Love!

    When I learnt the lesson of love,
    My heart dreaded the sight of the Mosque.
    I went into the idol temple,
    where a thousand horns were blowing,

    When I grasped the hint of love,
    I beat and drove out all senses of ‘I’ and ‘you’,
    Both my heart and my vision became clear.
    Now in whatsoever direction I look, I see only the Lord.

    I am tired of reading Vedas and Qur’ans;
    My forehead is worn by constant protestations in the mosque.
    But the Lord is neither at Hindu shrines nor at Mecca,
    Whoever found him, found him in the light of his own beauty.

    Burn the prayer mat, break the bucket,
    And do not touch the beads or the staff.
    The lovers are proclaiming at the top of their voices,
    “Give up the lawful and eat carrion”

    I have lived all my life in a mosque,
    But my heart is still full of dirt.
    I had never vowed for the prayer of unity of God
    Now why do I rave and cry.

    Love has made me forget to prostrate myself before you,
    Now why do you quarrel with me in vain?
    Waris is doing his best to keep silent about it,
    But love says “Kill-destroy all show and formality”.

    Khwaja Mir Dard (1720-1785) son a Naqshbandi teacher of Delhi. An ascetic recognised as a spiritual leader in both Naqshbandi and Chisti orders. Wrote much poetry and prose in Persian but best remembered as one of the “pillars” of Urdu poetry. Here is the pain that comes from loving the divine:

    If someone has not seen you here on earth,
    It makes no difference if he sees the world or not.

    Compressed so tight with sorrow is my rosebud heart
    That no one yet has ever seen it open.

    Ah, you strange one, you solitary mystery,
    Never have I seen another such as you.

    What pain and misery, what trials and disgrace!
    Within your love, there’s nothing that I have’nt seen.

    My scars have made me like a tree of lights,
    And yet you never came to see the show.

    Your negligance has bought me to this pass,
    But you’ve never looked, never looked my way.

    The veil across the Beloved’s face was nothing but myself:
    When my eyes opened, I did not see the veil.

    Oh Dard! Night and day, I am at his door,
    Whom no one here has ever seen ever seen or understood.

    perhaps the veil on the beloved is here sorrow about the split (ah the trials and disgrace). but in the end the answer lies with us to move on. Then again, perhaps not. comrades! let us cleanse the filth from our hearts….

    oh would that we had a few sufi poets in the movement

    :).

    Like

  7. So, johng, I’m dying to ask: is this the new SWP tactic for stifling debate on blogs? Posting the same looooooong bit of Sufi poetry on several left blogs at the same time? At least its original Not trolling, but whirling…..

    Like

  8. Briz Blogger it’s quite telling that you think that Respect/Left List having an open discussion with it’s members about a name change is a manifestation of SWP control.
    Renewal doesn’t even consult its members or the rest of Respect when Galloway makes unilateral decisions about policy so you’ve got used to foregoing the trappings of democracy.
    If the best you can do is resort to childish name changing then your contribution to any debate about how we build a left alternative is thankfully redundant.

    Manchester Observer you have little grasp of what socialism actually entails. Perhaps that’s why you believe the majority of Respect who remained in the organisation and did not split off to form the undemocratic Renewal minority owes a debt to you. Who cares about fairness and democracy when you can ride rough shod over these principles by just splitting off and stealing the name. No wonder you have a reactionary attitude towards socialists and socialism.

    Like

  9. Ah well you see Sufi poetry was actually materialist communism in poetic form- see Farid ud_Din Attar’s Parliament of Birds- the mythical Simurgh is revealed to be the thirty birds i.e. us- we should rule ourselves and not look for an essence outside or beyond us.

    We are those fractions of the sun
    if only we could all be as one

    is my free translation (so can’t get banned by Liam as it’s not my poem but a translation!)

    On a slightly more prosaic note
    it might be worth sending messages of support to NASUWT anti-academy strike
    davewilkinson@ nasuwt.net
    and signing the Bolton NUT online petition
    http://www.savewithins.exofire.net/index.htm

    Unity and all that
    Jason

    Like

  10. After reading Ray’s post I withdraw my criticism. Of johng that is. Bring on more of that Sufi poetry!

    Like

  11. It looks as if the poor left results in May have not encouraged either side of Respect to try to reach an agreement with the other. This will hardly encourage the SWP to be part of the wider left reallignment which is needed. They are not going to trust some on the left again
    And without the SWP, there will be no credible left political alternative. You cant do it without them

    Like

  12. How about a bit of Buddhism?

    I have recently discovered this text and have re-interpreted it for modern readers seeking after the truth of a united left.

    “Though I have somehow come to a right unattainable place of advantage, and though I understand this (ie we all know we’re right), still I am led back those self-same hells once more (endless debates about the split presumably), I have no will in this matter, as if bewildered by spells. I do not understand, by what am I perplexed? Who dwells here within me (everyone is convinced they are right, are equally convinced that there is no convincing the other but still they persist), Enemies such as greed and hate (read sectarianism?) lack hands and feet and other limbs. They are not brave, nor are they wise. How is it that they enslave me? (Why on earth are we continuing with these spiteful little arguments?). Lodged within my own mind it, it is me they strike down, themselves unshaken. Yet I do not boil with rage at this. Oh, such ill-placed forbearence! (in other words as the Sage Rosen pointed out: everyone who takes part in this is only hurting themselves).

    So let us resolve:

    “I do not care if my guts ooze out! Let my head fall off! But never shall I bow down to the defilements! Even if banished, an enemy may aquire retinue and support in another country, and return from there with gathered strength. But there is no such resort for this enemy, the defilements. Based in my mind, where might it go once cast out? Where might it stay and work towards my destruction? I make no effort simply because my mind is dull. The defilements are weaklings to be subdued by wisdom’s glare”

    The defilements do not dwell in objects, nor in the collections of the senses, nor in the space in between. There is nowhere else for them to dwell, and yet they churn the entire universe (well the blogsphere anyway). This is but illusion! So, heart, free yourself from fear, devote yourself to striving for wisdom….

    Why, quite needlessly, do you torment yourself in hells?
    (no interpretation neccessary really).

    Saatideva, The Bodhicaryavataara, written at some time between the 7th and 9th century in what is today modern Bihar India. Until today I did’nt realise that Saatideva, aside from being an important figure in Mahayana Buddhism, was also a seer. Its obvious that he’s referring to the Respect split and, in particular, these threads. Obvious.

    Like

  13. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    yawn … lets not rerun all the debates again.

    When I read this recent SWP/Left-list email it seem like they are grasping at straws, when an SWP member reads it i’m sure it honestly seems like a good peice of practical stuff.

    The problem is that we have fundemtally differnet visions of what has been going on in the last however many mnths.

    Lets not keep rerunning it. Let’s get out there and all do our best to build mass left radical parties … if either side succeeds then we can join back together again and all be happy and smash capitalism and neoliberalism … horar!

    Like

  14. “Let’s get out there and all do our best to build mass left radical parties … if either side succeeds then we can join back together again and all be happy and smash capitalism and neoliberalism … horar!”

    Once again Kisolo completely underestimates the importance of buddhism and reading poetry from sufi and bhakti saints. sorry. nothing doing till i see what the program has to say on these vital matters.

    Like

  15. “When I read this recent SWP/Left-list email it seem like they are grasping at straws, when an SWP member reads it i’m sure it honestly seems like a good peice of practical stuff.”

    I think this sums it up pretty well. We have our different perpectives on events but we can still work together on some things. After all, the left has a history of viewing things from different perspectives but that has stopped us from uniting in the past. No use going over old wounds. If there’s one thing we can take from Buddhism it’s that only the present is important. What we do right now affects our future and is a testament of the past. Do we keep reincarnating as an ant or do we progress?

    Like

  16. actually i’m beginning to regret my buddhist deviations…i can feel a heated theological debate coming along.

    Like

  17. In its original form Buddhism wasn’t a religion it was a philosophy. My impression is that it’s a mix of Descartes, “I think therefore I am”, and Hegalianism.

    1. Nothing is real – we just think it is.
    2. Everything is made up of the same material.
    3. Clinging to possessions is poisonous.
    4. Only the present exists.
    5. Everything changes dialectically.
    6. Enlightenment is understanding this.

    Buddha said to his followers that if they met anyone on the road who claimed to be Buddha and wanted to show them enlightenment they should kill them because enlightenment can only come from within.

    Buddhism spread from India and incorporated various elements of local prevailing religions where ever it spread to make it more palatable to the indigenous population.

    Like

  18. well i dunno really. i think it is pretty religious really but others disagree (don’t really get the stuff about the present, although you might be right. stuff i’ve read is obsessed with various kinds of eternity). I think there is a difficulty that many read it as a supplement to problems of christianity or western philosophy (or on the other hand how to get ahead in advertising) when it was in reality very much its own thing. interesting stuff though no doubt. came across this rather wierd passage which was designed to put young novices off the pleasures of the flesh. extremely poetic but also terrifying in a deeply medieval and not, I think, particularly progressive way. It illustrates perhaps the down side of all that non-possessive business and the doctrine of non-attachment. Mostly though I just imagine a shivering young peasents son being terrified out of his wits listening to this (“STOP FIDDLING WITH YOURSELF BOY!” etc). Its true that its very different from say, Catholic theology, but the result doesn’t seem THAT different, although its not mysogeny per se (although you are right about the adaptation to other religions and all that sort of thing it has to be said: this doesn’t though seem to be about that).

    SantiDeva, The Bodhicaryaavataara, perfection of meditative absorption sutras 38-70):

    Therefore I shall always follow the solitary life, which is delightful and free from strife, leading to the auspicious and calming all distractions. Freed from all other concerns, my own mind in a state of single pointed thought, I shall apply myself to taming and increasing the meditative concentration of my mind. For passions bring forth misfortunes in this world and the next: through imprisonment, beatings, and dismemberment in this world; in hells and other lower realms in the next.

    For whose sake you respectfully greeted messengers and go-betweens many times; for whose sake you hitherto counted the cost of neither misdeed nor disrepute, And even threw yourself into danger and wasted your wealth; on embracing whom you experianced the highest bliss; She is nothing (now) but bones, independent and indifferent. Why do you not willingly cuddle them and feel bliss? You saw that face before; you tried to lift it up when it was lowered in modesty; or maybe it was covered by a veil and you did not see. Now that face is stripped by vultures as if they can no longer bear your frustration. Look at it! Why do you recoil now?

    Why do you not jealously shield what was shielded even from the glancing eyes of others, now that it is being devoured? Seeing this pile of meat being devoured by vultures and other scavengers, is what is food for others to be worshipped with garlands, sandlewood scent and jewelry? Although it does not move, you are terrified of a skeleton when it is seen like this. Why have you no fear of it when it moves as if animated by a Vampire?

    They produce both spit and shit from a single source of food. You do not want the shit from it. Why are you so fond of drinking the spit? Taking no pleasure from silky pillows stuffed with cotton because they do not ooze a dreadful stench, those in love are entranced by filth. You had this passion for it when it was covered over, so why dislike it now uncovered? If you have no use for it why do you rub against the cover? If you have no passion for what is foul, why do you embrace another, a cage of bones bound by sinew, smeared with slime and flesh? You have plenty of filth of your own. Satisfy yourself with that! Glutton for crap! Forget her that other pouch of filth!

    You want to see and touch it because you think you like its flesh. How can you desire flesh, which is by its own nature devoid of any consiousness? That mind that you desire can be neither seen nor touched, and what can be is not consious, so why embrace it pointlessly?

    It is no wonder that you do not see that the body of another is formed from filth. That you do not understand your own body to be formed from filth is astonishing! Aside from the delicate lotus, born in muck, opening up in the rays of the cloudless sun, what is the pleasure in a cage of crap for a mind addicted to filth? If you do not want to touch something such as soil because it is smeared with excrement, how can you long to touch the body which excreted it?

    If you have no passion for what is foul, why do you embrace another, born in a field of filth, seeded by filth, nourished by filth. Is it that you do not like a dirty worm born in filth because it is only tiny? It must be that you desire a body, likewise born in filth, because it is formed from such a large amount! Not only are you not disgusted at your own foulness, you glutton for crap, you yearn for other vats of filth!

    Even the ground is considered impure when pleasent things such as camphor or rice and curries are dripped or spat out onto it. If you are not convinced that this is filth even though it is right before your eyes, look at other bodies, too, discarded and gruesome in the charnel ground. Great is your fear when the skin has been ripped from it. Knowing this how can you still take delight in that very same thing again?

    Though applied to the body this scent comes from the sandlewood alone, not from anything else. Why are you attracted towards one thing by the scent of something else? Surely it is good if your own natural stench prevents passion towards it. Why do people take delight in what is worthless and smear it with scent? What if the sandlewood smells good? How does that effect the body? Why are you attracted towards one thing by the scent of something else?

    If with its long hair and nails, its teeth stained and yellow, bearing blemishes and grime, the naked body is revolting in its natural state, Why is such an effort made to dress it like a weapon, for ones own destruction? The world is a confusion of insane people trying to destroy themselves.

    Apparently you were horrified when you saw a few corpses in the charnel ground. Yet you delight in your village, which is a charnal ground thronging with moving corpses.

    Like

  19. On the other hand i get you on the ant business. i was looking at these debates and i can’t really imagine that even those on the other side of them enjoy them anymore. there is just this sense of lowness really. I’d rather have my head chopped off, my guts leak out etc, etc. whether its endless discussions about whether salma is wrong to be a government adviser or whether its about the evil SWP WASTING everyones time with a SECTARIAN demonstration. Please. Enough already. I am tired of the hadiths and the sutras. can’t we all just give it a rest? its soul destroying reading this stuff.

    Like

  20. Johng: these debates would be a lot more interesting if you did not resort to spreading more SWP muck about Salma. From a post on SUN that nails the latest smear:

    ‘I would just point out that Salma is not a “government advisor”. She is a member of a cross party task force, set up for a 12 month period, whose members are unpaid and drawn from the ranks of local councillors (or those who have been local councillors). It seeks to tackle the gross under representation at councillor level of black and minority ethnic women. The members of the task force are not beholden to the government either financially or politically. And Salma’s first intervention flowing from this participation was her attack on the government’s postal vote legislation.’

    Like

  21. I was actually opposing such things Ger. If you noticed. I also happen not to believe the following bit about the SWP. If you think about it….in any case bit unsure how interesting all that stuff was. i was buried in it for other reasons, then switch on here and it DID ring a bell…

    Like

  22. actually that reminds me of Kabir: the world is mad. you tell the truth and people beat you. you tell a lie and they trust you.

    Like

  23. I seem to remember Cliff saying the Russian revolutionaries retreated into pornography and esoterics after the defeat of the 1905 revolution – so is it to be Sufism after the defeat of the Left List-style ‘unity coalition’? ; – )

    Like

  24. Nah its just me. Its my work. Still a bit of esotoric thinking might not do a lot of harm, not that its by way of much of a contrast. Don’t know about pornography though. That last bits enough to put anyone off that whole area really…

    Like

  25. Interestingly, there is a theory that St Francis of Assisi, whom Negri regards as the model militant, met the Sufis and was influenced by them. Sure did like the old film, Brother Sun, Sister Moon

    Francis’s order of Monks called themselves, the Little Brothers, could this be an allusion to the Sufi Order, the Greater Brethren?

    Francis also embarked on a journey to the Middle East , could this be where the links were forged.

    Like

  26. “When I read this recent SWP/Left-list email it seem like they are grasping at straws, when an SWP member reads it i’m sure it honestly seems like a good peice of practical stuff.”

    Perhaps, the old parable of the blind men and the elephant sometimes attributed to the Sufis, sometimes to Brother Socrates might help facilitate left unity:

    The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

    A wise man explains to them:

    All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.

    Maybe the blind men represent the left wing organisations, and the Elephant, the working class?

    Like

  27. When Alexander the Great went East (cue appalling Oliver Stone Movie) its reputed that Greek philosophy and Buddhists came into contact for some time, and there are debates about reciprocal influence. A number of Greek kingdoms were scattered about the area as were a number of other northern tribal invaders of unestablished provenance. Megathenes (I think its him) wrote an account of India which is pretty well known and includes debates with Buddhists.

    So there was quite a lot of interchange of ideas going on. But its also true that a Marxists would be quite interested in the apparent synchrony of the big religious developments, hand in hand with philosophical developments, that were going on right across the world at the time. Monetheism in what is now the Middle East, Buddhism, Hinduism and related currents etc in the far East, Greek philosophy etc.

    Idealists have called it the axial age and whilst this doesn’t explain much Marxists do need to explain the material basis for these transformations: travel doesn’t quite do it. The fact that communication of this level and intensity was possible suggests comparative levels of cultural and intellectual development between the civilisations coming into contact with each other.

    Then of course comes probably the greatest globalisation that had yet been seen by humanity: Islam. The Sufi’s who played the role of pathfinders for Royal power quite often (most conversions, contrary to widely held beliefs were not through the sword but through Sufi mystics who, like buddhists before them, often combined Islam with local beliefs to make it more palatable, and like the Greeks often became fascinated by these earlier histories…the later islamic reformers were horrified by this of course). A good example of this fascination is the following verse (which is also relatively late, giving some indication of how late later islamic reform was):

    Shah ‘Adu’l-Latif (1689-1752) born Hydrabad, Sind, joined a group of wandering Yogis and later settled in Bhit, where his tomb is still a revered shrine. His verses in Sindhi, composed according to Indic rules of prosody and sung to Indian melodies, remain immensely popular today..

    The Yogis pack their bags with hunger, and prepare themselves for oblivion or bliss.
    They do not desire food but greedily pour thirst in their cups and sip it.
    They flog their minds until they are like beaten flax,
    Thus they wade through the wasteland and at last are near liberation.
    Take advantage of their presence, be with them and enrich your experiance.
    Soon they will go on a journey to the distant land of which they think,
    Leaving this land of pleasure and reaching the holy Ganges,
    They wear only a loin-cloth and need no sacred baths.
    They hear the subtle call that sounded before the advent of Islam.
    They sever all ties and meet their guide, Goraknath.
    The yogis become again the Whole, their only concern;
    Whose seat is Nothingness, I cannot live without them,
    Where there is no heaven and no trace of the earth,
    Where the moon and the sun neither rise nor set.
    Thus far have the yogis set their tryst with Supreme knowledge,
    And they see the Lord in Nothingness.

    But the trouble with having arguments about whether, for instance, buddhism was a religion or a philosophy or not, is that, in those days, knowledge was not seperated in that way. whats above is a complicated theological attempt to reconcile Islam with the existence of other beliefs (they see the Lord in nothingness perhaps being an important line) much like attempts to reconcile Islam with Aristotle, and then later, the Islamic Aristotle with the Christian faith etc, etc. Today people look at this stuff for interfaith dialogue but in reality this was much more weighty then that and connected to serious questions of politics and philosophy. religion wasn’t something seperate for anyone back then.

    Given all this unity on the left really ought to be a bit more simple really (boom, boom). We need Sufis.

    Like

  28. Rebranding Respect as Sufi mystics?

    Like

  29. I suspect we have as much to learn from Robert Graves’s poem about the battle of Marathon:

    Truth-loving Persians do not dwell upon
    The trivial skirmish fought near Marathon.
    As for the Greek theatrical tradition
    Which represents that summer’s expedition
    Not as a mere reconnaisance in force
    By three brigades of foot and one of horse
    (Their left flank covered by some obsolete
    Light craft detached from the main Persian fleet)
    But as a grandiose, ill-starred attempt
    To conquer Greece – they treat it with contempt;
    And only incidentally refute
    Major Greek claims, by stressing what repute
    The Persian monarch and the Persian nation
    Won by this salutary demonstration:
    Despite a strong defence and adverse weather
    All arms combined magnificently together.

    Like

  30. Right folks. That’s enough poetry thank you.

    Like

  31. Limerick?

    Like

  32. Well I almost feel dissuaded from contributinh lest my eloquence is mistaken for poesy!

    However, whilst a welcome diversion perhaps from mudslinging I think Sufi mystics don’t really have much specific to say to us about the current political siutation despite being great poets and indeed in many cases briilliant thinkers in spirituality, emotional health, medicine, philosophy and other endeavours.

    Of course we need all these things to operate effectively in politics at times.

    In another matter I saw a tremendously powerful play about asylum seekers sleeping tough and migrant workers which made me want to screw up all my energy into a great big ball and launch it at the world to try to stop the injustices going on.

    It is the day to day difficult depressing matters that need to be reinterpreted into a coherent political philosophy that gives us power as subjects to think and act so as we can change our conditions.

    Like

  33. which is probably just a very abstract way of saying we need to get the million or so migrant workers including those here ‘illegally’ involved in a joint working class campaign

    Like

  34. damn i knew the attempt to raise the cultural level would fail. thankfully.

    Like

  35. that’s quite putdown johng but never mind I won’t hold it against you

    Like

  36. […] finally realised that there’s no mileage in continuing to use the Respect name in elections. Mac Uaid’s blog and the Socialist Unity blog have both carried stories on SWP-Respect’s recent circular to […]

    Like

  37. […] to the point will be a discussion about what to do next. Reespect is at the end of the road as a serious venture, although there will, I imagine, be continued electoral interventions on a […]

    Like

  38. no it was’nt jason. it was a reference to liam’s joke about the same.

    Like

  39. I was just joking!

    It’s a zen thing (apparently)

    but anyway now the party’s over I think there is a serious case for reconsidering how socialists act in and indeed help assemble mass campaigns

    Like

  40. “I would just point out that Salma is not a “government advisor”. She is a member of a cross party task force, ”

    Phew! That’s alright then. Placards being amended from sell-out to saviour as we speak, Ger.

    Like

  41. “Salma Yaqoob (Respect, Sparkbrook) called for a return to the traditional system of voting at polling stations, as she was appointed an advisor to the Government on encouraging more black and Asian women to become involved in politics.” Birmingham Post.

    Please enlighten us, Ger. The difference between an advisor to the Government and a Government advisor is…?

    Like

  42. Perhaps more importantly could PatC explain what he has against Salma taking on this role and in what was does it make her a ‘sell-out’ Just curious, because I would have thought that a radical muslim woman, who is an inspiration to thousands of young women across the country – muslim or otherwise – getting such a role would be a cause for celebration by socialists.

    Like

  43. Obvioulsy having a prominent anti-war Asian woamn politician as advisor is in itself no bad thing but hardly a cause fior celebration. It’s just a fig-leaf- the government is still pro-war, anti civil lliberties, pursuing racist immigration policies such as the attempted deportation of a Nottingham University student.

    The left, socialists and anti-war activists should use all such positions to speak out against government policy sure so it’s not a criticism to take up these posts but it’s pure tokenism from an imperialist racist government.

    Like

  44. The problem with advising the government is that New Labour calls the shots when it comes down to deciding policy. I really hope Salma can influence New Labour but I anticipate it will be the other way around.

    Encourgaging more women to become involved in politics is commendable but how impartial will a campaign run by New Labour actually be? Salma herself was politicised because of a commitment to fighting the injustice’s of a New Labour government. I think that’s what will encourage more women to become involved in politics.

    Like

  45. Agree, I think its highly questionable if this is a good idea. In fact I think its a bad idea. Everyone knows that these bogus consultation exercises don’t actually decide anything, but simply provide cover for whatever outrage they’ve planned next.
    And personally I find all the “inspiration” “role model” stuff pretty off putting, to put it mildly, its way to cult of the personality for my taste.

    Like

  46. Patc claims Salma is a ‘sell-out’ because she is taking part in a taskforce in which she intends to use the platform provided to campaign for the abolition of postal voting on demand, the single biggest reason why Asian women are being denied their right to a secret ballot in places like inner city Birmingham.

    Apparently ‘Ray’ thinks it more likely that Salma will be influenced by the taskforce. Really? Like she is going to come out in support of postal voting on demand? (SENTENCE DELTED. SEE POLICY. GER, YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER -LIAM). You obviously don’t know her.

    It is not often I agree with Jason but his instincts on this are right. Even if it is a tokenistic gesture from New Labour, it is right to use the position to further the issue of ending postal voting. Raising it on the taskforce is one part of a campaign strategy, not the totality of it. But we need to find as many ways as possible of exposing this issue. It is simply a national disgrace the way postal voting on demand corrupts the election process and in Asian areas reinforces the hold of a patriarchal and reactionary clique. Salma is the only prominent Asian politician seriously raising this issue and in so doing is incurring considerable wrath and personal hatred from those within the community who laud their ability to wield bloc votes. If her intention was simply personal ambition, these are not the people to piss off. Already her 2010 General Election campaign is shaping up to being particularly vicious. Rather than attacking Salma, SWP members should be supporting her.

    Like

  47. It really does reveal the pathetic lack of confidence in their own politics that anybody should criticise Salma for accepting an invitation to be part of a government taskforce.

    Will theyh attempt to ‘mould’ her to the government’s agenda? Use her participation in a tokenistic manner? Not implement everything she suggests?

    Er, yes.

    Is Salma capable of speaking her own mind, exposing any tokenism, stick to he principles? Er yes.

    Might some of what she has to say be listened to? Will she gain a platform, particularly on the postal voting scandal? Most certainly yes.

    I have served on Home Office Task Forces. To turn down that opportunity would have been a huge error. Yes the consultation is sometimes tokenistic, but you argue your case, seek to broaden the consultation, raise issues, use the platform.

    For those incapable of recognising any of this I suggest they stick to student union politics, likely to be more fitting to your sensitivities to the real world.

    Anon

    Like

  48. But who cares what you think? You won’t even say who you are.

    Like

  49. Well excuse me for doubting Salma, Ger, but she did ok an all male slate in Birmingham not so long ago which does lead me to wonder about the consistancy of her politics.

    Like

  50. I think as I said before that the government uses these sorts of projects as a fig-leaf but that sometimes they can be used to speak out, to create a base for real change, to expose the limitations. The key point is not to be compromised- to not be gagged, to use such opportunities to build independent working class socialist politics.

    I don’t know the details of this ‘taskforce’ (horrible word) and there may be times when a socialist or antiwar radical can create more publicity by resigning. However, I don’t think it’s wrong necessarily to use such opportunities where you can.

    On the wider issue there will be all sorts of details where we- whether Respect Renewal, the SWP, other activists (such as myself)- disagree but the main question is how can we go forward in building united front on particular campaigns- e.g. against imperialist war, privatisation, racism, catastrophic climate change.

    Out of practical unity in action we can begin to see and discuss organisational ways forward. Of course the different sides of Respect, and others, will argue their politics, their particular ways forward and that’s all fine and good as long as we don’t allow it to fracture or be used to fracture rebuilding a popular political protest movement and working class militancy.

    Like

  51. “And personally I find all the “inspiration” “role model” stuff pretty off putting, to put it mildly, its way to cult of the personality for my taste. ”

    Honestly Bill you really should try to live in the real world. You may not like ‘role-models’, you may find nobody ‘inspiring’ but the FACT remains that many people – especially young muslim women – find what Salma has achieved in Birmingham ‘inspiring’. Perhaps as a white man you might want to ponder that fact and ask yourslef why that may be.

    Those same women are also well aware of the FACT that their votes are being systematically stolen by the older men in their families. Now you may feel that this is not very important, I don’t know, – but when you see certain local councillors going down the streets collecting postal ballots by the handful I would have thought any democrat – revolutionary or otherwise – would want to shout about this affront to democracy.

    That Salma can use the taskforce to expose this disgrace will be to her credit – and if New Labour ignore her it will be to their further disgrace not Salma’s.

    The left constandtly talk about the need to break out of the ghetto of talking to themselves alone and reaching wider audiences. Yet when it appears that someone has the ability to do this those same socialists start sharpening the knives and preparing to shout sell-out. Perhaps this may partly explain why the revolutionary left have remained so isolated for so long.

    Like

  52. Ray: Your posts smack of desperation. Having lost the argument you feel the need to shift the goalposts. Regurgitating old SWP smears about Salma wanting an all male slate won’t wash when she specifically requested the SWP submit female (and male) candidates for the 33 uncontested wards for the 2007 elections:

    http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10628

    Opposing Helen Salmon had nothing to do with her gender. It had everything to do with getting a candidate who could bump up the vote, and giving the SWP a reality check.

    We have been around the houses with all this many times before. The reality now is that the SWP have lost the faction fight in Respect, your Left List adventure has been a fiasco and you are fast beating a retreat. Move on, try learn some lessons and channel your energies into something more positive. Sectarianism rots the brain.

    Like

  53. “Yet when it appears that someone has the ability to do this those same socialists start sharpening the knives and preparing to shout sell-out. Perhaps this may partly explain why the revolutionary left have remained so isolated for so long.”

    Not sure if this is entirely fair to be honest. This may be true of some on the revolutionary left- it’s also true of more that they believe the only way to advance is give up on some aspects of principled politics- leading to electoral alliances where the ‘revolutionaries’ vote for reformist programs as anything else is too advanced for the working class, without actually asking the working class what they think.

    However, a possible and positive way forward is that we have united fronts around key issues without asking people to dissolve their particular tendencies or distinctive political analysis but unite in common action.

    I think that would indeed be trying to learn some lessons and channel all our energies into something more positive without concealing differences- in fact why not celebrate discussion and debate in the context of common action?

    Like

  54. I think the point I made was not fully understood…of course there are no placards saying “Salma is a sell-out” , these are as likely as ones proclaiming she is a saviour. It is far too early to tell whether she has performed towards one end of scale or t’other.
    And fair play to her if she uses her new post to stick one on New Labour now and again.
    On the whole, though, this is a worrying move. How much more confidence would she had given to the movement had she publicly told New Labour to stick their token post, that she would not be the fig-leaf or provide any succour for a Govt that terrorises our brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan, attacked asylum-seekers, demonised Muslims, attacked and divided working people?
    I have a great deal of respect for Salma’s achievements in building the anti-war movement and a left alternative within it.
    If we are to have role models (I am not a Muslim and I am not a woman but up until the split I think Salma was an inspiration to so many of us on the left), I prefer mine a little less accomodating and career-driven. I prefer my role models to understand that when you have a Govt like this on the ropes, you realise that such token posts can only help them and so refuse and concentrate on building an alternative.

    Like

  55. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    PatC

    It would be better all round if, instead of knee-jerk quips about sell-outs, you engaged with the actual reasoning behind the course of action Salma has in fact taken.

    Postal voting on demand is a major corruption of the democratic process. In addition to outright fraud it intersects with pre-existing oppressive structures in various communities, reinforcing them and providing blocs of votes, against the wishes of the voters, for the established parties – principally Labour, followed by the Lid Dems in some areas.

    The government is wedded to postal voting on demand as a means to shore up a large chunk of the Labour vote in many inner cities.

    At the same time there is gathering opposition to the system. We were virtually isolated when we raised the issue two years ago. Now there are critical reports from the Council of Europe, judge Richard Mawrey sitting in the elections court, the Rowntree Trust, and others.

    There is the possibility of forcing a change – not simply propagandising, but actually restoring the right to secret ballot, enshrined in the 1872 Act, to some of the most oppressed voters in Britain.

    Now, that is the context in which Salma, with the support of Respect, is exploiting the government’s attempts to bolster its position among ethnic minorities through this taskforce on political participation by BME women.

    It is a timely and correct move.

    It makes all the difference in the world when you deal with the reality around you rather than phantoms that haunt the minds of what someone once called opportunists who are frightened of their own shadows.

    To be fair to you, though, Pat: it is evident that what you think you know about Salma has, as with Ray, come from the SWP Central Committee. These are the people who claim she is a communalist when this important intervention over the postal vote is diametrically opposed to the communal/clan-based politics Labour is defending in inner-city Birmingham.

    I understand that there is an argument going round the SWP to deal with a parallel flat contradiction in their leadership’s claims about George Galloway. He was, if you remember, giving coded signals to the right last August and September in order to win votes in an anticipated general election.

    Well, despite having gone through an election since, there is some recognition in the SWP that his speeches, articles and interventions have been decidedly left wing since the split. The explanation, so I’m told, is that he is cunningly making these left wing noises to hide the fact that in reality he is appealing to the right.

    This is where you end up when you first ignore and then deny reality.

    Like

  56. “up until the split I think Salma was an inspiration to so many of us on the left”

    This is quite an interesting phrase.

    There were no real political arguments during the split, only accusations about Salma and George moving to the right.

    Nothing changed about Salma. She said nothing different. She did nothing different.

    But now she has to not be “an inspiration” to a particular type of person on the left cos there’s been a split.

    See, Lindsey German used to be an inspiration to me until I realised just how many lies she was prepared to tell the party and the class – I don’t have abstract reasons for not being inspired by her anymore; I saw her lie and lie and lie and wreck Respect, and I then saw her take part in a horribly ultra-left election campaign during which she painted George Galloway as a homophobe and his Muslim supporters as extremists, on a website which everyone who’s dealt with Respect media work knows considered Respect to be a homophobic “Muslim party”.

    Concrete reasons not to be inspired by someone. Not just cos of “the split”.

    Salma was almost entirely quiet during the split. She didn’t hold press conferences, she didn’t get people to resign the whip, she didn’t ask Nick Cohen to come to hear allegations of violence. Rees did this, of course, but I was never inspired by him.

    Pat, you undermine so much of what could be a good argument when you reveal such black and white thinking. You know, surely, that Salma hasn’t changed her politics. You also know that she cannot be accused of doing any of the things people on my side accuse Rees and German of doing – all people like you have ever done is bought into some weird arguments about “communalism” which have never been fully explained.

    So, now there’s been a split, she’s not an inspiration to you. Well, fine. I’m not primarily interested in inspiring people already committed to socialism – my first aim is to get more people understanding that a better world can be built. And Salma is an absolute inspiration when it comes to generalising from war to council housing and from pensions to climate change, to a generation of people who don’t even know what “socialism” means.

    Good for you that your allies are gonna be so much purer than her.

    Like

  57. “The explanation, so I’m told, is that he is cunningly making these left wing noises to hide the fact that in reality he is appealing to the right.”

    This has already happened – on Socialist Unity, an SWP member said just that about a Galloway article (or speech, can’t remember) some months back – that he had to try to appear left wing in order to make the SWP look bad for making accusations about him.

    I remember how much of a laugh we had at the fact that these people will shape reality to fit whatever they think should be happening, rather than reality as it, well, really is.

    Like

  58. This is all very well but the whole point of this article is as far as I can tell to try to get byond the ‘you said this’, ‘he said that’ style of politics.

    It’s not just about Respect but about the whole left finding a new way of doing politcs. Someone fighting to keep their job, their house, preventing our family from being evicted or someone fighting for their life against deportation or fighting for democracy in Africa or Aisa or fighting for a woman’s right to choose or agianst racism or a school closure- a 1001 fights- how are we going to relate to them?

    One suggestion is that we have united fronts around key issues without asking people to dissolve their particular tendencies or distinctive political analysis but unite in common action. That way we would be building a left open to and welcoming debate (even if you must debating the finer points of the Respect split though I may sit that one out if you don’t mind) to learn, to lsiten, to unite around things that are important.

    A farily popular stereotype of the left is that we fight more amongst ourselves than against a common enemy. It’s probably quite important to show in practice this is not true.

    I must say though at times I am beginning to think it is true of some people, sadly.

    However, if it is then leave them to their sad little spats and let’s actually do something.

    Like

  59. Kevin, tonyc, when you resort to making up stuff about the SWP then I know you’re desperate. I’ve heard lots of rumours about Renewal but if you notice I base my opinions on fact.

    Namely Salma did choose an all male list in Birmingham and that contradicts your assertion that she is consistant about putting muslim women forward. Ger, if the excuse in that case was to get more votes by using prominant male members of that community then that’s pretty sad and not something I’d use as an excuse if I were you. I don’t see how that undermines patriachal control over muslim women who may have wanted to see more women representing them.

    I doubt very much that Salma will be able to use this job to end postal voting because as we’ve seen with other government task-forces such as the ones on crime they usually fail to achieve anything or make things worse. This is my opinion and not the SWP line but I’m sure you’ll be spinning yarns on SU about what Rees and German said when you had them round for tea.

    Like

  60. PS if anyone feels tempted to reply ‘well they started it’ or ‘you’re right those sectarians in Renewal/SWP really do need to get over themselves’ perhaps resist.

    You can of course denounce me as some kind of starry eyed ultraleft if it make you feel better but can we also work on some practical ways forward?

    e.g. perhaps getting a united campaign on something like against deportations, against the war, against privatisation, against the attacks on abortion- a big campaign with all the main players falling over themselves to attract new layers of activists, and mass campaigns to actually win

    Like

  61. Actually Ray and my posts crossed over but I must be psychic!

    Like

  62. Patc just can’t help himself from repeating SWP smears about Salma. This time she is ‘career-driven’ and politically ‘accommodating’ apparently. Maybe he is simply ignorant of her practice or maybe he just likes spreading muck. I’ll assume it’s the former.

    If you want a career in politics going under the banner of a small left wing fringe party in a first past the post electoral system is not exactly the best way to pursue it, especially when the mainstream parties offer you safe seats:

    http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/respect-1209071.html

    As for being ‘accommodating’, well, she is certainly not accommodating to the patriarchal and reactionary in her own community, she is not accommodating in her opposition to neo-liberalism and imperialism, and she is not accommodating to New Labour just because she has been invited onto a task force. Check out the w/end edition, English and Urdu, of the Jang newspaper for their report on her appointment and with her opposition to postal voting on demand.

    Ray states ‘Salma did choose an all male list in Birmingham and that contradicts your assertion that she is consistent about putting Muslim women forward.’

    What are you going on about? What Muslim woman did she oppose? (Hint: the answer is none). The biggest reason for opposing Helen Salmon in Kings Heath had nothing to do with ‘getting more votes by using prominent male members’, it had everything to do with teaching the SWP some facts of life about what weight they really held inside Birmingham Respect following their sectarian maneuverings on the city wide committee. Not only had I negotiated that Salmon stand, we had intended to fully support her before the SWP decided to go on a bender, although we always had serious doubts about the SWP’s ability to run anything other than a bog standard Socialist Alliance campaign.

    Ray comes across as someone scrambling around for sticking plasters for arguments that leak in every corner. Give up. At least know when you have lost an argument. You are not in Birmingham and you simply don’t know what you are talking about.

    I am glad to hear though that your ultra left meanderings about Salma being on a taskforce belong to you and are you alone. Maybe there is some hope for the SWP after all.

    Like

  63. “I must be psychic!”
    And on Ger as well.

    Hey perhaps I should set myself up with a crytal ball!

    Like

  64. should be crystal of course
    quite an interesting article on Socialist Unity of all places that perhaps helps here
    http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2378

    Like

  65. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    Ray

    Do you have any idea, at all, about what is in fact happening over the issue of postal votes on demand? Do you have any idea just how much this is a last line of defence for New Labour against the left in a number of inner city areas? If you did, you’d have a very different approach to Salma’s exploiting and subverting a move by Harriet Harman’s department to shore up New Labour’s credibility.

    Oh – and please stop being so insultingly snide. Salma’s been given a “job” by the government, has she? Truly juvenile stuff.

    This is the real world, Ray, not some fanciful tea party (which you seem obsessively to claim all sorts of people have been organising behind your back). In it, we have to deal with real things, not dogmatic abstractions, clung to in the face of falsification by events.

    Like

  66. Come on Kevin we were having a snesible conversation over at SU but now it’s all back to playground jibes

    Why not concentrate on how to actually build class struggle and win new activists?

    Like

  67. I’m not really sure what being a white man has got to do with it. You’re a white man too Clive, or at least you were last time I looked, and yet you find role models absolutely great. So what does that tell us?
    Perhaps that being a white man is irrelevent in determining our respective views on the subject.
    Did I say that the issue of postal voting wasn’t important? I didn’t even mention it. I simply said that being on a government task force is pointless as these organisations are not designed to actually do anything but to provide cover for whatever crap the government want. Including of course promoting postal voting. Certainly New Labour can now justify their stance by pointing out that they have listened and consulted widely, including to the radical Respect Party who have issues with postal voting, but they will no doubt find, that after considering their position carefully, on the balance of judgement, they were right all along. Notwithstanding the presence of your erstwhile role model.

    Like

  68. COMMENT DELETED – SEE POLICY. LIAM

    Like

  69. I have a lot of time for Salma. However I do think the move to serve on a government think tank is a point for genuine debate and not all of us who have reservations are making sectarian attacks.
    What my problem is what do new labour gain from this- to put bluntly it looks to incorperate an oppositional figure. This tactic has been used time and time again.
    Now it is interesting that Salma’s big issue on the governments task force is postal voting.. I have no doubt that this is an issue. But isn’t the issue of racism a key reason for non involvement of asian women in politics and poverty etc These seem to me to be the key issues. New Labour can live with recommendations regarding postal voting. Also to lay the blame for lack of involvement at men in the community as the key reason can be used for reactionary reason.

    Like

  70. Sorry Bill but this issue is not why you or me or Uncle Tom Cobblywhy, find what Salma has done in Birmingham to be an inspiration but why thousands of young muslim women do.

    Your comment “And personally I find all the “inspiration” “role model” stuff pretty off putting, to put it mildly, its way to cult of the personality for my taste. ” was what I was commenting on.

    You see you can throw around ‘phrases’ like ‘cult of the personality’ and it sounds oh so radical but much more radical is someone like Salma who has had to overcome real barriers to her involvement in the political life of Birmingham. The very barriers that you or me as ‘white men’ would not have to overcome.

    It’s that simple. It’s called oppression. That is why she is inspiring to many young women – especially from the Muslim community.

    Sadly the fact that you don’t seem to realise this suggests not your radicallism but your isolation.

    As for being an ‘erstwhile’ role model I suspect that by the time this taskforce ends Salma will still be an inspiration. But since she never was to you it doesn’t really matter does it.

    On Jen’s point

    “Also to lay the blame for lack of involvement at men in the community as the key reason can be used for reactionary reason”

    Buy Salma is not laying the blame on ‘men’ but at ‘some men’ who are ahppy to farm out the postal votes of their families – and on the local politicians – mostly but not always men – who are prepared to go around collecting these postal votes. Mostly these are Labour politicians and Salma is not mincing her words on this issue. She is not out to gain favour but to expose a real democratic outrage.

    Surely we all need to give her support in that – and to shout all the louder if/when New Labour choses to ignore any positive recommendations.

    Like

  71. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    Jen

    Over postal voting, it’s in fact the opposite. New Labour can live with generalised sociological points about racism and poverty – which are, naturally, underlying reasons for the relative lack of involvement of Asian women in politics – not to mention women’s oppression.

    What they do not want is one of the most prominent Muslim women in Britain telling the Rowntree Trust, hundreds of people at seminars called by Harriet Harman, the national media, the Asian media… everyone who will listen that this governemnt is complicit in removing the right to secret ballot, enshrined since 1872, from large numbers of Asian women and young people.

    The mechanism is the postal vote on demand. There were 2,600 postal votes in Salma’s ward in Birmingham at the last election. They were overwhelmingly farmed by Labour.

    So this isn’t a propaganda exercise. It’s part of a major campaign by Respect to abolish the postal vote on demand. This might not make sense to sections of the left, I’ll grant that. And you, naturally, are perfectly entitled to prioritise other matters. But for those of us who fight elections, win seats (and narrowly lose them) in inner cities it is a vital political issue. Our success over the postal vote will have a major impact on the abilityh of Respect, and any other credible left force, breaking through further in a number of areas.

    Again, it pays to engage with the concrete reality rather than fall back on lazy, staple responses. You need to know at the very least, how this task force works, who’s on it, what it does, what Salma has achieved so far, how it is connected to the national strategy of Respect to understand what’s going on.

    Like

  72. “Come on Kevin we were having a snesible conversation over at SU but now it’s all back to playground jibes

    Why not concentrate on how to actually build class struggle and win new activists?”

    Jason – because ‘to actually build class struggle and win new activists’ you need to have a truthful analysis and a bit of honesty about the past.

    You can’t have it both ways Jason – you want people to have ‘debate’ and to ‘unite in struggles’ but when someone responds forcefully to a series of lies and distortions you get all upset.

    I suggest you read Kevin’s post again. It’s not rooted in the ‘playground’ as you suggest but in the real world – where postal voting has become a large scale theft of people’s democratic rights.

    Ending such a democratic outrage is surely one of those ‘community campaigns’ you keep refering to.

    Like

  73. clive
    I take the point that Salma is not saying all men but some men.
    However do u not think there is a long history of think tanks..task forces run by government which seek to newter radical forces?
    The question I have is if Salma going on this governement body is such a radical thing to do then why appoint her? New Labour are not stupid (Well not always!) so whats in it for them?
    I wish her the best on this body but I guess we will just have to wait and see.
    I do however Clive, not in your contribution, worry that any criticism of Salma or Galloway is treated as a great crime. Particularly by Kevin Ovenden on this and the SUN site. People have tried to raise the question of why there was no selection meeting for RR members in London and this does not recieve a reply but just abuse. I think members of RR should be allowed to ask and gain a serious reply to what appears to be a bit of a democratic defecit in our own organisation.

    Like

  74. “However do u not think there is a long history of think tanks..task forces run by government which seek to newter radical forces?”

    I think it’s crucial to recognise this, crucial to discuss it and crucial to do everything you can to mitigate against it. I’m totally confident that the Birmingham people (and beyond) did the first two and will do their best to do the third.

    “why there was no selection meeting for RR members in London and this does not recieve a reply but just abuse”

    You’re bright enough to know that most of the people who ask questions like that aren’t actually interested in the answer; they’re not asking “how can we improve democracy in the movement”, they’re looking for sticks to beat Galloway and Respect with. They have spent 8 months now lying about people like me, Kevin Ovenden, George Galloway, Salma etc., and deserve all the ridicule they get.

    You’ve seen very different treatment when people ask such questions with a genuine interest in building the left; the question of how and why the selection process worked as it did for our GLA slate has been openly discussed on here and at SU – do a search and you’ll see that this has been thoroughly discussed by me and others.

    What you won’t see is any discussion of why, for example, the Left List never had a democratic decision-making process about any of its recent actions (things all get remitted to committees – no speeches from candidates, no selection meetings in local areas, local members not even being given notice that a candidate might stand in an election, Martin Smith declaring in an SWP publication that they would be standing in Preston but local members not even being aware that a decision had been made).

    But you won’t find anyone from that side discussing such issues – if you want to see abuse, just see what happens when anyone tries to criticise the way the SWP has operated since Galloway wrote his original letter last August.

    There has yet to be any honest discussion of the other side of this argument. SWP supporters did their level best to make the blogs full of poison and abuse; they created a swamp and everyone was dragged into it.

    All you have to do is go back to the start of it and see the trolls at work, diverting and disrupting any attempt to seriously discuss things.

    “Ray”, in this thread, has been one of the worst offenders. Posting under a different name on SU, he spread so much shit, lied so much and trolled all the time, while he now pretends to want to “move on” while still continually deliberately misrepresenting what his opponents say, and continuing to spread misinformation about things he’s been corrected on.

    There’s a method at work here. Establish that “we” abuse “people who ask questions”, when the entire atmosphere of abuse and ridicule was created by the very people who now claim that they just want unity.

    That’s what you saw at the Renewal conference last November – the SWP came in force, armed with leaflets that called for both sides to unify – while in every other arena, they did their best to make sure that could never happen.

    But people are blinded by the method. So, you (for example) think that all you see is abuse, when actually people like Kevin, Liam, Clive, Ger and others have done so much to give political explanations about what happened but always, always, always end up with idiotic comments from people who are really not interested in debating but in ensuring debate cannot happen. It’s not surprising that people end up getting dismissed when their agenda is that transparent.

    Like

  75. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    Jen

    Please reread what I’ve written about the postal vote and nature of this task force. Nowhere is it said or implied that criticising Salma is a great crime.

    I don’t even say it’s a great crime to write sweeping generalisations without bothering to find out the detail of the issue you’re talking about. I don’t think that’s a crime. I do think it’s one of the pathologies of a left which is isolated from the events it is commenting on.

    All I’m asking people to do is to engage with reality and to have something other than a pavlovian reaction when they see the words government task force. Or are Ger, Salma, the national council of Respect and others all to accept that those who don know very litle about the issue of postal voting nevertheless have a god’s eye view of how we should proceed over the issue?

    Just imagine it wasn’t Salma or Ger or me or Respect you were talking about. Imagine it was someone else – say the People’s Voice activists in Blaenau Gwent or the Barrow in Furness people, who’ve both achieved remarkable results in the last elections. Say it was people leading a community or workplace campaign in your area. You might well have something to contribute to the process. But do you really think that the starting point should be dispensing abstract formulae rather than engaging, listening and finding out what the real course of events was and then guaging how your experience might enrich the process?

    Like

  76. Of course Clive. If you can point to anywhere I criticised Salma’s campaign on postal voting please elaborate. I accept there is a debate about how to have that mass campaign and whether sitting on a taskforce is part of it but if you read my posts carefully you will see I was saying it could be (even having Ger say he agrees with me)

    The only points I objected to was the tone of the debate:
    from Ray first (something you don’t note)
    ” I’m sure you’ll be spinning yarns on SU about what Rees and German said when you had them round for tea.”
    and then Kevin saying
    “Oh – and please stop being so insultingly snide. Salma’s been given a “job” by the government, has she? Truly juvenile stuff.
    This is the real world, Ray, not some fanciful tea party (which you seem obsessively to claim all sorts of people have been organising behind your back).”
    I’m all for debate. I’m just making the point that I’ve heard many times from people involved in community campaigns (and you know I’ve been involved- you’ve been at some of the meetings!) that the left seem to privilege arguing amongst themselves. There’s nothing wrong with discussion at all- but it would help to not have it peppered with references to people being juvenile or making stuff up.
    On the issue- postal votes may well be a scandal and we should absolutely be for specific demands that put pressure on the government. Whether to be on an advisory panel is a tactical question.
    We should also be for direct action on a whole range of other issues and for discussing these as a movement bringing in new layers of activists.
    For this we need a movement, something we are trying to create.

    Like

  77. Kevin Ovenden Avatar
    Kevin Ovenden

    Jason

    I’m afraid rewriting someone deciding to intervene on a government task force as them being given a job by the government is, frankly, dishonest and a juvenile level of debate (please read what I wrote, the stuff was juvenile not the person). And you do yourself no favours by scalpelling out the substantive points I was making.

    The issue of postal votes, for Respect, is not about making demands on the government, or making propaganda. It is about us as an organisation seriously attempting to win a change in the voting system so that the postal vote on demand is abolished.

    Part of the problem with this dialogue is, I think, that the issue of postal voting does not have the same salience for you or for Jen. That’s fine. You have other things to focus on.

    I think it would be better for you to acknowledge that rather than adopting the standpoint of some metacampaigning activity from which to scold the rest of us who are pursuing particular courses of action and, as a consequence, the political disputes that arise from them.

    Like

  78. The question I have is if Salma going on this governement body is such a radical thing to do then why appoint her? New Labour are not stupid (Well not always!) so whats in it for them?

    I cannot hope to answer that question. Why did Gordon Brown abolish the 10p tax rate? Why didn’t Peter Hain report his donations? Why did Jack Straw invite Condoleewza Rice to visist Blackburn? Sometimes people do stupid things because at the time they think they are being clever.

    Perhaps having failed to get Salma to take a safe Labour seat they thought that Baroness Udin might seduce her with the touch of her ermine gown. Who knows? I suspect they didn’t ask her before her appointment: “Excuse me but are you going to use this position to expose the involvement of our party in the systematic theft of votes from women and young people?” Perhaps they will wish they had.

    Now with the support of those in the movement for Salma’s arguements about postal voting, rather than the more common ‘left’ response of ‘denounce first, ask questions later’ I’m sure that New Labour may begin very soon to regret her appointment.

    “People have tried to raise the question of why there was no selection meeting for RR members in London and this does not recieve a reply”

    Let’s sort this out once and for all. There was no selection meeting because of the circumstances created by the split in Respect. The deomcratic structures of Respect had been fatally undermined by the decision of the SWP to go ahead with an unconstitutional conference. In other words a conference that had failled to adhere to the very limited safeguards outlined in the organisation’s constitution.

    So we were in a new situtation – with effectively two organisations but both claiming to be the ‘real’ Respect. In those exceptional circumstances the National Council asked Galloway to put together a list for the GLA elections. He did that and the rest is history.

    Now – will this happen again? I cannot conceive of any situation in which it will. In my opinion Respect will need to re-constitute itself at it’s next conference and adopt a much less laisez-faire constitution – the constitution of a party rather than a coalition.

    With the split becoming history we have a chance to make Respect more democratic and more accountable. I’m certain that will happen.

    Like

  79. Of course Clive. If you can point to anywhere I criticised Salma’s campaign on postal voting please elaborate.

    Since I never claimed you had it would be very hard for me to do so.

    “There’s nothing wrong with discussion at all- but it would help to not have it peppered with references to people being juvenile or making stuff up.”

    The trouble is, Jason, that you seem to be unable to accept that some people ARE making things up.

    “On the issue- postal votes may well be a scandal and we should absolutely be for specific demands that put pressure on the government. Whether to be on an advisory panel is a tactical question.”

    In my opinion it definitely IS a scandal. And indeed Salma has adopted the tactic of being on the advisory panel. Let’s all hope she makes a stronge case and everyone backs her in doing this.

    “We should also be for direct action on a whole range of other issues and for discussing these as a movement bringing in new layers of activists.”

    Since as far as I’m aware nobody on this site has suggested we shouldn’t be doing this – can we accept that we all agree on this issue. Perhaps a better discussion would be about how you bring in that new layer of activists.

    Like

  80. tonyc
    I have not been in the swp, wrp, slp or any other p for that matter. The only political organisation I have joined is respect and then rr. So in repsonse to my enquiry about no selection meeting for the london elections I fail to see any relevance with you giving me the crimes of the SWP. I am not disputing what u say but u do not offer a reason why members such as myself in London were not allowed to discuss the selection of candidates in the elections, indeed were not given the means to vote for their elections. It may well have been that I would have endorsed the list.. indeed I would have. But what if other members wished to put themselves forward. Isn’t it a democratic process whereby members decide the candidates or did I miss something? So I would appreicate an explanation.. as a member is it too much to ask?

    Like

  81. “In those exceptional circumstances the National Council asked Galloway to put together a list for the GLA elections”

    dear clive
    I find this not acceptable behaviour. The national executive is not elected by the membership and this asks a member to single handedly select candidates he chooses. this has no process of reatification by the members. this may be a partial explanation of why so few RR members were involved in th election campaign which in my direct experience existed on Galloways bus and little else. The it seems to blame for no selection meeting being held is the SWP. Now I have never been a member of the SWP but I think its time this bogey man type of explanantion should stop. There seems to me as a london member of RR that there is no reason at all that members of RR could have been invited to a selection meeting. It is irrelevant about the SWP and I find this undemocratic way of conducting ourselves not acceptable in the wider labour movement.

    Like

  82. I’m sorry you find it unacceptable. It was the best we could arrive at in the short space of time. The NC was elected by the last legitimate conference and represented one side post-split. It was not ideal. It was stop-gap measure. Nobody – least of all GG – thought it was. But sometimes exceptional circumstances call for things we would not normally want.

    Now we can go over old ground or we can look to the future to ensure that such exceptional circumstances don’t happen again. That means building a bigger Respect with more firmly based democratic structures. I’m sure we can both get on with that task.

    Like

  83. dear clive
    did you in manchester not have a selection meeting, likewise in birmingham?

    Like

  84. ‘jen’, would you care to say a bit more about who you are? You’re debating with people who either use their full names or whose full names are easy to find out, so I think it’d be civil to reciprocate.

    Like

  85. I think that Clive has answered the puzzle of the shambolic, undesirable selection process satisfactorily. A weakened organisation emerging from a split had to cobble something together. It was as simple as that. It was not a precedent and is not likely to be repeated.

    I’m not quite as cynical as Tony but it does seem odd that this sort of now fairly irrelevant historical detail is the subject of such interest. As the query is resolved I’ll delete any further attempts to revive it.

    Like

  86. Clive I was at the conference and I am optimisitc about the future for RR and the left in general. I raise these issues as it feels there is a bit of a selected few who make the decisions. Then when members ask questions it appears to be viewed as an inconvenince. RR if it is to become an attractive proposition for those lookign to the left has to be seen and act in an open and transparent way. My last comment on this issue is that letting Galloway on his own choose a slate is not democratic.

    Like

  87. Jen – do you know that someone called Alan is posting from your IP address too? His big interest was the abortion discussion. Isn’t that odd?

    Like

  88. “Phil” I am “Jen”
    This is exactly what happens when one of the members asks about the process inside their organisation we get “Phil” demanding to know who I am… because we all know “Phil” don’t we!!
    I won’t bother trying to raise issues about respect and how to make it abetter organisation. Suffice to say this hasn’t allayed my concerns.. there appears to be a select few who think RR is their private property and the rest should just shut up. I will leave u to it!

    Like

  89. yes liam.. i live with other people.. isn’t that odd!! I mean to actually share a computer with another bunch of lefties well what a terrible crime… Liam this is pathetic.

    Like

  90. Alan.. suggested I post my concerns on this site and i am afriad he was right when he stated what the reaction would be.

    Like

  91. Jen – it is a simple fact that there has been a systematic wrecking intervention on this site by people who have used a number of identities and have refused to disclose either where they are active or what their politics are. Some of them are political fulltimers. They are without exception very hostile to Respect Renewal and keep dragging the discussion back to petty squabbles about detail rather than politics.

    By and large the pro RR contributors have been easy to identify. You can see why it is easy to jump to conclusions.

    Like

  92. “Perhaps a better discussion would be about how you bring in that new layer of activists”

    I’ll agree to agree with you! 🙂

    On a not entirely unrelated matter – ie. one way among many on how to draw in activists and anyway even if th elink is flimsy it’s worth doing anyway
    http://permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2144

    Like

  93. Jen and Reader (whose comment I’ve deleted) NOT ONE critical comment has been deleted by anyone, from whatever political viewpoint, who has stuck to the comments policy. Gutless, identity-concealing, dissembling trolls have been and will be chopped. Harsh but fair.

    This apolitical bluster about other people’s motives, intentions and tone is a very transparent method. Feel free to practise it elsewhere.

    Like

  94. we get “Phil” demanding to know who I am… because we all know “Phil” don’t we!!

    Establishing my identity from my blog comments is quite staggeringly easy, as you’ll know if you’ve tried. Establishing yours is impossible.

    Like

  95. This thread has turned into an attack on anyone who questions the actions of the leading members of Renewal. There appears to be no accountablity to the membership of Renewal. Galloway does what he wants and so does Salma. And if anyone questions this they are rounded on by other leading Renewal members with insults and patronising attitudes. This isn’t what debate is about.

    Like

  96. No Ray it hasn’t. You stick to the comments policy and are given unlimited opportunity to argue your case. It’s the same with supporters of the AWL and PR. Anyone who does the same receives the same treatment. It’s the faux naif types who get given the rough end of the stick and there two very simple ways to avoid it:

    1 Don’t comment
    2 Use an attributable e mail address and be honest about your politics and where you are.

    Why should that be a problem for anyone?

    Like

  97. Actually cobblers Clive.
    People can of course choose who they want to be a role model, if indeed there’s such a thing. Angel Davis might be one.
    What I find objectionable is people who espouse the fact that they are role models, which lets face it is a category invented for Cliff Richard style pop stars and bourgeois politicians. It shows a certain problem of ego, if you want me to put it bluntly.
    What sort of message does Salma Yaqoob send out to the young people of wherever by participating in an oh so polite way in various government think tanks?
    She sends out the message that this is the way to change things. But its not.
    You then go on to claim that because I object to Salma Yaqoob, yapping with the toffs and assorted hangers on at the “house”, that I must disagree with legitimate issues around the democracy of postal voting.
    This is even sillier.
    In fact I could just as easily say, that you must have no problems with issues around postal voting, because these bogus consultation exercises are exactly established to justify whatever cobblers rubbish Nu Labour support.
    Ironically by opposing postal voting in a process designed to defend it, Yaqoob has achieved the exact opposite of what she set out to do.
    Paradoxical huh?

    Like

  98. I do agree with Liam on the comments policy and indeed the way some people are contravening it.

    However, there has been a little bit of bad temper whenever any criticisms are made- obviously not only from RR people. Though as Cive said earlier we need to concentrate on attracitng new activists not just to rival Respects or other organisations- though we’re all entitled to do that- but to the movement.

    How to has not really been answered yet and as I’ve got to rush out to collect my partner I’ll leave that to you all as your homework- due in tomorrow morning!

    Like

  99. by opposing postal voting in a process designed to defend it, Yaqoob has achieved the exact opposite of what she set out to do

    What happened to judging them by their fruits? By all means oppose participation in any state-sponsored venture on principle, but you can’t oppose it on the basis of its results when there hasn’t been time for any.

    Like

  100. Bill

    Could you just remind us what positive changes Workes power have acheived in society over the last nearlt thirty years, before you lecture others on what can be achieved?

    Like

  101. Andy

    I’m afraid you haven’t understood the homework. See me, please.

    PS At least Workers Power gave birth to the charming people of Permanent Revolution though admittedly we are only slightly more influential than the Andy Newman party

    Like

  102. I was going to respond to Andy in kind by stating that at least Workers Power hasn’t joined a bogus government think tank but then I thought there’s no point in each of us reiterating the same criticisms over and over again.

    Perhaps we need some more sufi soothing from johng. When in doubt have a poetry slam.

    Like

  103. Andy – no one on the left has got too much to write home about in that department.

    PR have managed to hold together a group of critically minded, undogmatic, marxist activists with well developed bullshit detectors in a difficult period. It’s an achievement of sorts and I wish that much of the rest of the far left was half as sensible.

    Like

  104. Fair point – I’m not in Workers Power so I don’t know.

    Like

  105. Sorry Bill but if you can call my comments cobblers then I’m afraid yours count and cobblers squared.

    “What I find objectionable is people who espouse the fact that they are role models, which lets face it is a category invented for Cliff Richard style pop stars and bourgeois politicians. It shows a certain problem of ego, if you want me to put it bluntly.”

    Wonderful but the trouble is you’ve now moved from your original point and are now implying that Salma has set herself up a ‘role model’ as if it’s all down to her ego.

    You really should know better. Your point about Angela Davies is pertinent – it wasn’t just what she said that made her inspirational to millions but who she was, her own history and identity married with her political action and words.

    Now I’m not claiming that Salma is Angela Davies but I think it might just be legitimate for you to admit that she is an inspirational figure for many young muslim women – which is the only real point of my rather tortutous postings with you.

    What would be really nice would be for you to actually engage with what I wrote rather than changing the goal posts to knock over straw men.

    For example you write “You then go on to claim that because I object to Salma Yaqoob, yapping with the toffs and assorted hangers on at the “house”, that I must disagree with legitimate issues around the democracy of postal voting.
    This is even sillier.”

    Whereas my only comment about your position on postal voting is – “Now you may feel that this is not very important, I don’t know, ”

    Beacuse you haven’t actually commented on the actual issue of postal voting – just on your opposition to Salma joining the taskforce. So I actually don’t know what you think about postal voting.

    I do know that you don’t like role models, you don’t find certain people ‘inspirational’ because you don’t like any ‘cult of the personality’

    Liam claims that the strength of PR is that you “have managed to hold together a group of critically minded, undogmatic, marxist activists with well developed bullshit detectors in a difficult period.” It would be nice if on occassion you could detect the bullshit in your own positions.

    Much though there’s a certain frisson to be at the recieving end of the Jason and Bill ‘soft cop/hard cop’ routine in the end it might be nice for you to recognise that if we are to build these wonderful community campaigns, trade unions actions or whatever, it might just help if others on the left weren’t immediately condemned for their failures and potential betrayals – before any such betrayals have taken place.

    The pompous arrogance of the ‘we know best’ British Left is something I thought we all, including PR, recognised that we needed to leave behind.

    Now that’s my last post on this subject. Ciao.

    Like

  106. Actually, just cos those even more cynical than me will abuse the use of google, I need to correct Clive, and I hope Liam will indulge me:

    George wasn’t asked to put together a slate for the GLA.

    George’s role was to start exploring putting together a broad slate – he had no decision-making powers; it was just “look, start talking to people who you are close to in the movement”.

    Clive is being a bit shorthand-y in his description, and under different circumstances I think everyone would understand what he meant.

    George started things off, the other bodies of Respect were tasked with overseeing it, reporting back to the NC and being as open and transparent as possible in what were far from ideal circumstances.

    I think our comrades in the SWP will have some sympathy with this sort of situation. After all, the change of direction in the Left List announced by John Rees the day after the election must have come about after a Left List National Council meeting… mustn’t it?

    Finally, “Jen”, what’s interesting is that in no way did I question your credibility. I simply illustrated that the behaviour of others has led to cynicism about their motives, and therefore they don’t deserve any time spent on them. I thought I was perfectly nice to you.

    If you are a Respect member as you claim, and have a computer, I’m sure you are on our mailing list, and will have received the emails where we fully explained why certain decisions were being taken in the way they were.

    You have also always had the ability to get in touch with the office, who can put you in touch with local organisers, so if you or anyone else had any queries, you could’ve come to meetings to discuss them.

    I just noticed that you say you were at the Renewal conference. If you get in touch with the office – office@respectrenewal.org – I’ll make sure someone looks into why you clearly haven’t been receiving our emails or other communications; people who came to the conference – except the SWP CC members who scribbled their names illegibly and used their girlfriends’ email address to try to hide who they were – have all been contacted a number of times in a number of ways, by phone, letter and email.

    Blogs are excellent tools in certain types of debate; if you have actual procedural queries about Respect, as I told the “person” who asked exactly the same questions in another thread but from your computer, you are much better off asking people directly because you have no idea if you’re talking to an imposter or not and therefore cannot guarantee that you’re getting a genuine answer.

    Apologies again to Liam.

    Like

  107. Bill and I may be in the same organisation and in fact we’re good friends but I can assure you we’re not co-ordinating our response in a soft cop/bad cop way- amusing though such an image may be.

    Actually we’re allowed to have different opinions- strange I know!

    “it might just help if others on the left weren’t immediately condemned for their failures and potential betrayals – before any such betrayals have taken place.”

    Sure. It would be good and indeed I think we do need to get beyond this.

    I did post this on the convention of the left- don’t know if anyone agrees with it but I think it may be a start.

    Over the last ten-fifteen years there have been various attempts at electoral left alliances but whatever people’s views none of them have been spectacularly successful (so for example a Respect Renewal supporter may think RR is the way forward but even the most enthusiastic will admit it is far from where they want it to be); we all realise that the Browns, Blairs and Bushes of this world are continuing massive attacks on working class communities both here and abroad and perhaps even threatening the very survival of humanity and the planet itself.

    None of us have all the solutions but many of us are involved in campaigns -some of which have been successful, some not- of grassroots struggling against deportations, privatisation, school closures, strikes. Some have attracted several hundred; some struggle to get more than a handful of activists. Many make a difference and some specific points have won. But the campaigns are largely defensive- isolated when what we need is a general fightback.
    Now there are a number of groups- all small, mostly very small and marginal to the experience of almost all working class communities and campaigns. Some of those groups think they’ve got all the answers- others may be are more willing to get stuck in. Whichever what we should do is pool our resources- actually the convention is mainly aimed at those not on the organised lef, those in the communities and campaigns, though of course

    If we get together to plan united action, not predicated on agreeing on program or a new party, but having a meeting to network, connect and communicate between different campaigns then may be we can begin to learn something from each other and take united action- create joint campaigns for example or create a network for national strike action or other action. We can begin to win on small things and begin attracting new activists attracted by campaigns that actually do something.

    Of course within this there will be and should be discussions about the ways forward- can we reclaim the Labour party? Do we need a new party of the working class? Do we need Marxism or something different? Such discussions may bore most people- I’m not really convinced getting a load of leftists in a room to parade set positions will be useful let alone interesting. But some people want to discuss this- so they can. Some don’t- so don’t go to that session.

    However, the idea of networking and working together I think is appealing.

    Some people also argue and that we need a new way of doing politics- learning, listening, an ideological realignment to work out where we went wrong and how we can rebuild the working class. I agree. But it should come out of the joint networking and campaigns, working together. I think that’s what the Convention will be good for.

    Finally on publicity. If it looks like it has legs then we need to list the various sponsoring organisations- which will include many that most of us will almost by definition not agree with. However, the convention will certainly not be dominated by top table talkers at all. It’s about getting the grassroots campaigners to take over.

    It’s meant to a more open process, of the left saying look we haven’t got all the answers. We have some opinions, we have some experience, but we’re working from a postion of weakness not strength. We need a new process- let’s at least start by working together in practical campaigns and seeing what we can do.

    Like

  108. I hear from SUN that RR leading member J Hicks is going to stand for the general sec of unite if his court action against simpson is succesful. This appears to be a big surprise to the rest of the left within unite. It doesn’t appear to be the case thhat rr are looking to build a broad left movement after all.
    By the way…………what is liam’s or ovenden’s opinion of Galloway’s latest sexist rant in his weekly column. What ever the differences between us all on the left we should oppose such nonsense.

    Like

  109. Apologies Tony. I stand corrected for my abbreviation of the process.

    And Jason – the hard cop/soft cop stuff really was just an amusing image. The thought that you and Bill are in cahoots never crossed my mind.

    And t.harris – please have you got something useful to say?

    Like

  110. “Apologies Tony. I stand corrected for my abbreviation of the process.”

    It’s just a shame that it even needed saying. I can almost feel someone writing “even National Council member Clive Searle admitted that the entire GLA slate was decided by George Galloway”…

    Like

  111. “What ever the differences between us all on the left we should oppose such nonsense.”

    Most of the left is now united in treating Galloway as the enemy; you probably have lots of friends (on the left and the right) to celebrate your opposition to such “nonsense” with.

    Like

  112. Well I’m glad there’s a certain frisson Clive, whatever makes you happy! You say that;

    “it might just help if others on the left weren’t immediately condemned for their failures and potential betrayals – before any such betrayals have taken place.”

    I hope this doesn’t apply to me as I haven’t condemned anybody. And its not the first time that i’ve been called a soft cop – to Jason’s hard cop! (Jason knows what I mean) ;-p

    Like

  113. I have just looked at George Galloway’s article. It is shocking that a socilaist MP can write this sexist stuff. For those on this site to think its ok is the final straw. What hope is there fro women to be attrracted to RR when this neanderthal macho rubbish is being written in a weekly column. I think by and large Galloways radio show when I listen to it is good but why then this stuff?
    It seems to me to be odd to rightly take concern about the lack of role asian and black women play in politics but the for TONYC to effectively say this sexism is ok because its Galloway ranks very low. Perhaps Salma could raise that on the think tank she has joined..
    It really is time for Clive, Andy, Ovenden, Hoveman to for once in their lives say they oppose this sexism within our organisation. Oh and Liam could have a stab as well.

    Like

  114. jen: I suggest you raise it in person with the people you mention and in the organisation you say you are a member of. For a supposed member of Respect, you don’t seem to have much respect for anyone else in the organisation – including Salma and Liam.

    Like

  115. Nas
    Do u think Galloways article is ok for RR MP?

    Like

  116. Curiously familiar writing style, ‘jen’ – all that lower case, all the missing punctuation, and ‘u’ instead of ‘you’. What did you say your name was again?

    Like

  117. What’s amazing is that there are at least two people on this thread asking us to denounce Galloway for an article to which they provide no link or quote. In the past people used to try to get GG on the detail of his writing – now they just expect everyone to jump up and denounce him on demand.

    Like

  118. It’s

    Like

  119. It’s an article discussing a film based on the the TV show Sex and the City. For those of you who haven’t watched it it is about four women living in New York who, among other things discuss sex, men, cake, sex, shoes, art, sex, men, marriage, fashion, restaurants, nightclubs, cocktails and sex,…. you get the picture.

    Now you could write some dull boring ‘marxist’ treatise about this show but quite frankly who would want to read it. Apparently journalists have ask GG which of the four stars is his favourite. I can believe this – my partner (she describes herself as my girlfriend but I’m sure some of you wouldn’t approve of that) has also asked me the same question. Thankfully you’ll never get to read my response in print but you have got GGs.

    Sexist – I don’t think so. You may think it GGs comments despicable but hey you probably don’t watch the show and won’t be going to see the film. Never mind. just add it to you list of things about Galloway you can’t stand. It think this is #1,327 but I might have missed a few.

    Like

  120. Actually while I wouldn’t make too much of the argument, the Sex in the City movie is almost unique in being about the lives and ambitions of four women all over 40 years old; which is a triumph over the Hollywood expectation that only young women are box office.

    Also it is a triumph for Sarah Jessica Parker’s personality and acting ability that she is now seen as a glamorous and attractive woman, given that she started her career in Square Pegs, where she was in danger of being type-cast as a nerdy and unattractive gauche teenager.

    Very few actresses have ever beaten the sexist casting system so effectively, and she should be celebrated for it.

    Like

  121. “…ankles behind her ears.”

    Jesus H Christ, Clive, will you defend everything Galloway does? We’re trying to get more women to engage in left politics and he’s writing about who he’d like to fuck in Sex and the City. I think he’s got so lost in his own celebrity that he’s drawn into the most purile and sexist journalistic nonsense. What about a comment about how Sex In The City portrays women using many of the sexist cliches that we’ve fought against for decades?

    Like

  122. Jesus H Christ, Ray – come live in the real world.

    “What about a comment about how Sex In The City portrays women using many of the sexist cliches that we’ve fought against for decades?”

    How would you know Ray? – do you watch it, looking out for the numerous cases of sexist cliche so that you can denounce it at your next branch meeting …. or is it a secret guilty pleasure?

    Like

  123. “Very few actresses have ever beaten the sexist casting system so effectively, and she should be celebrated for it.”

    Except that she’s done it by buying into Hollywood’s sexist cliches about women that permeates Sex in the City. Meanwhile Hollywood films that show 40+ women who aren’t glamourous or wear Jimmy Choo’s never get to see the light of day. A great step forward for the portrayal of women in films then. It’s like argueing that Bridget Jones Diary was a landmark film for single women who wear large underwear.

    Like

  124. Clive, that’s a hopeless response. Why not address the issue I raised or don’t you have an answer?

    Like

  125. Sorry Ray, I’ve just remembered that I’d said before that I’m not going to debate with you since you are not remotely interested in my answers. Sorry to disappoint. Ciao.

    Like

  126. “Jen”, how about you send an article about sexism to office@respectcoalition.org, along with your membership details, and we’ll consider putting it on our website.

    We’ll need that pesky membership number though, ok?

    Liam, might be worth checking whether “John” above is posting from the same IP as “jen” and “alan”.

    If so, you’ll know who it is.

    Like

  127. Grow up Tony.
    Theres more than one person who thinks like this.
    And only a few like you,who even though they couldn’t bear to defend the “sex criminal” stuff,put up with it.

    Like

  128. So Ray

    Progressive organisations should only include people who refuse to enjoy anything cultural that is influenced by the prevailing sexism of our society.

    Mmm. I can see that would be a real mass party.

    Like

  129. Fair point. But progressive organisations should only include people who are progressive.
    Galloway isn’t, particularly on women’s rights, that’s why he opposes abortion rights etc.etc.etc.

    Like

  130. John – Ho Ho Ho. Such a wit. It must be a real bundle of laughs huddled round that computer of yours thinking up these pearls of wisdom.

    Like

  131. OK, so now we know who John is; I assume Liam will have worked it out by now as well.

    Like

  132. Galloway’s piece does come across as a bit sleazy. There’s nothing wrong writing about popular culture/ TV shows/ films or even saying who you think is sexy but the problem is he’s got a fairly chequered history on women’s rights and it should be fairly obvious that his kind of comments come across as a bit too close to lecherous.

    However, I think that the more political questions are on abortion, the debate about Mehdi Kazemi.

    I take your point Clive that we do need to discuss political issues. I suppose my only point earlier in regard to this was that when there were bad tempered exchanges it kind of brings left discourse into disrepute. But here your tone has been far more reasonable even if I think an acknowledgement that Galloway does have political limitations wouldn’t go amiss. But that’s up to you.

    Always a pleasure to discuss things with you
    Jason

    Like

  133. Jason., the trouble is that there are many,many people who come onto sites like this whose sole aim is to get us to condemn, criticise or denounce something that George has said, written or possibly thought. They are not really interested in a real discussion – witness the comment for ‘John’.

    I have disagreements with GG – over a number of issues – just as I do with you. But these are real debates which I’m happy to have. But I’m not prepared to enter into discussion with people whose agenda is transparent and so dishonest.

    As for his piece on Sex and the City – you may find it sleazy. Fair enough – you’re welcome to that opinion. The reality is that in the real world people do discuss sex – one of the reasons for SATC is so popular with many women (every cinema seat in Manchester is booked tonight for the opening) is that it is a least a little more honest about sex than most run of the mill stuff. That it is dressed up with all the glitz and glamour of New York doesn’t change that – it just sparkles more.

    My partner/girlfriend is out tonight with ten other mates for cocktails and then the movie. And for what it’s worth she was pleasantly surprised that GG picked Carrie as his favourite. Apparently that makes him different from most blokes.

    Like

  134. Clive, I’m not interested in what you think people’s motives are behind criticisms of Galloway. That’s a distraction to debating the issue.

    While I have no problem relating to people who want to watch sexist nonsense like SITC I do think there is a political arguement to be had over whether it’s portrayal of women is in any way progressive. And I don’t think it’s ok for a socialist MP to make sleazy remarks about women. Whatever the context.

    SITC portrayal of women and sex follows the ladette caricature that independence for women means beating the lads at their own game in the bar, bedroom and workplace. The women in SITC are required to fixate on accumulating possessions to elevate their prestige and to enhance their appearance to please men (and other women.)

    SITC and programs like Ugly Betty have been developed in an era where women are being encouraged to drop any form of collective liberation and concentrate on the neo-liberal myth of individual freedom in capitalism. The fact that it’s so popular and is held up as an example of womens sexual liberation just highlights how far the womens movement has been replaced with buying into the system. It’s like claiming that Hollyoaks is speaking out about the condition of teens in society.

    As for building a broad left party with people who watch SITC. I certainly hope we won’t be patronising them by reducing the level of politics to a discussion about whether Carrie should buy those Jimmy Choo’s or use the money to fight the BNP.

    Like

  135. On the important issue of Sex In The City I agree with you entirely, Clive. On Galloway’s review I’m not as against it as some- I’m not even sure he’s wrong at all to say what he did it just- on a stylistic rather thanpoint- came across as a bit sleazy. I reserve my political criticism for far more important matters like his stance and voting record on abortion.

    Actually I’m not a big viewer of the program but I agree that it’s absurd to criticise people for liking it.

    On media representation issues I think, Ray, your points are too one dimensional. I don’t know SITC very well but programs like Ugly Betty I do watch- it’s passable and as far as it goes tries to at least partially challenge some fo the grosser stereotypes around female beauty- it doesn’t deal with issues in a strong political collective fashion (though it did deal with politics on immigration, Latin issues, sexism etc)- to criticise it because it doesn’t advocate the correct communist politics really misses the point I think.

    And people are not just passive consumers of drama but can make their own both individual and collective readings. Loads of people watch SITC, Ugly Betty, Desperate Housewives and other dramas. We shouldn’t be political killjoys on this- bring on more of it I say.

    Like

  136. I meant to write ‘stylistic rather than political’ by the way.

    Like

  137. I’m glad you agree Jason but just to make it clear for the ‘sniffer dogs of authentic Trotskysim’ out there waiting to pounce on your every slip – it’s actually Sex AND the City – SATC.

    Like

  138. Sex In the City – SITC – are just a bunch of splitters!

    Like

  139. We should form a faction!

    Like

  140. Ovenden: there is some recognition in the SWP that his [galloway’s] speeches, articles and interventions have been decidedly left wing since the split

    articles like this:

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/columnists/lifestyle-columnists/george-galloway/2008/05/26/city-slickers-86908-20429765/

    describing women as ‘great marriage material’.

    and presumably his interventions include refusing to defend a woman’s right to choose, proving that he was a liar when he claimed he would.

    i’ve said it before, i’ll say it again, thank christ i don’t have to defend this shit anymore.

    Like

  141. When did you say it before, Festive? I thought it was someone else. In any case, you’ve got other things to defend – the Left List and Lindsey’s 17,000 votes. Do people you work with or rub shoulders with in your unon care about working class political representation or are they talking about the proper response to SATC?

    Like

  142. “Do people you work with or rub shoulders with in your unon care about working class political representation or are they talking about the proper response to SATC?”

    What? Um, where I work if anybody ever talked about “working class political representation” I’d fall off my seat. People talk about the movies they saw, the latest gossip, the big items in the news – probably in that order. I hate to tell you this but culture is important. It is through culture – tv, film, music – that the vast majority of people engage with the big ideas about the world. There’s a reason why the first thing that the Pentagon heads did after 9/11 wasn’t invade Afghanistan, they met with the heads of the studios in Hollywood to hammer out a strategy to get the American people ready for war. And, face it, if culture wasn’t important Galloway wouldn’t be writing about it in his column would he?
    Now, what Galloway wrote shouldn’t get the guy kicked out of the movement, any more than Stokely Carmichael should have been kicked out of the Civil Rights movement for saying the position of women in the movement ought to be “prone” (ie. on their backs) – which was much worse than anything Galloway has uttered/written. People, including leaders in the movement, are the product of their time and background, etc. But when the guy writes the kind of sexist stupid shit in this article, somebody ought to have words with him to point out that it is sexist stupid shit (“ankles behind her ears”?, “marriage material”?). You can say a lot more useful – and, yes, entertaining – things about Sex and the City than who you’d like to bang.
    What’s more disturbing to me is not that Galloway, who has a history of being less than brilliant on women’s oppression, would write this garbage – it is that men who claim to be revolutionary socialists would justify it with cheap anti-intellectual nonsense that sounds like the usual anti-political correctness garbage that comes from the right wing. “Oh, you feminists just can’t take a joke.”
    Coming right after Galloway missed a key parliamentary vote on women’s rights – ie. abortion – you’re not exactly endearing RR to the women’s movement. Or even, frankly, to women who have to fight in their workplace to have Page 3 pin-up girls taken down in the common areas.

    Like

  143. Dave – there isn’t a non-Stalinist version of democratic centralism that would oblige anyone to defend the sexist tosh in the film review. It’s embarassing and it would be better if it had never been written and presumably someone will point this out to GG to whom he might actually listen.

    The front page of today’s Guardian has a huge picture of Sharon Stone and the horrifying news that she has lost her contract with Dior. There is a full page article inside setting out the full horror of her suffering. I cried for an hour.

    At the bottom of the front page there is a thumbnail photo and a paragraph about the price of food causing millions to go hungry.

    Roughly the same sense of priorities is running through this discussion.

    Like

  144. Liam
    I am glad you say its sexist tosh.. I agree now we can move on. Its those trying to defend it are the ones which do socialists no credit.

    Like

  145. Speaking of splitters, the correct phrase is of course the ‘sniffer dogs of orthodox Trotskyism’.

    Like

  146. I’m not sure anyone was defending Galloway but the idea that it is OK to watch programs like Sex and the City and Ugly Betty.

    As for GG’s piece I must confess I haven’t had time to read it properly but surely his stance on abortion is far more shocking?

    Like

  147. Jason – I think that part of the point is that they might not be unrelated.

    Like

  148. I think the issue is certainly not what people generally watch but Galloways sexist review. Why socialists want to defend such old fashioned pre 1968 bull is incrediable. I agree with Liam it is not acceptable and this should be raised within RR by those with influence such as Kevin Ovenden, Rob Hoveman and dare I say Thornett. Perhaps Salma could have a word. Seriously it doesn’t do the left any favours to try and engage with women including those from asian and black communities as Salma herself argues they are marginalised enough. Time for those opposed to sexism need to stand up and be counted.

    Like

  149. There’s nothing wrong with watching programs on TV. We’re not the Stalinist police fighting for working class culture. But when socialists characterise SATV as progressing womens liberation when it patently does not then we have a debate. I agree with Redbedhead that the criticisms about Galloway’s article were being dismissed as too politically correct. This is quite worrying when a leading socialist has made laddish comments about women.

    I’ve watched Ugly Betty which has more gay cliches than Are You Being Served. If this is what you meant about challenging some of the grosser stereotypes, Jason, then we’ll have to disagree. I think that all culture, including TV, is ideological and Galloway missed a chance to debate this.

    Like

  150. Jason: “I’m not sure anyone was defending Galloway ”

    I was defending galloway.

    Like

  151. redbedhead yeah you might be right. Ray on gay cliche in Ugly Betty may be you’ve got a point. My more general point though was that shows are contradictory and audiences don’t just passively consume them.

    Andy- well I’ll agree to disagree with you then.

    Like

  152. During my eclectic perusal of blogdom I came across this on Harry’s Place (forgive me!) I think it sums up SATC better than I’ve done.

    “The thing about “Sex and the City” is that it isn’t really about sex or the city. It’s really about shopping. The four central characters spend their time worrying about whether they have the right clothes, or the right apartments, or are getting invited to the right fashion events. They treat their personal relationships in exactly the same way, obsessing about whether they are having the right kind of sex and boasting to each other about how fashionable their sexual encounters are. The whole show is a paean to mindless status-obsessed consumerism.

    So there is nothing in any way modern or liberating about “Sex in the City”. It is the glorification of vapid fashion slaves who treat even the most intimate aspects of their lives as an exercise in competitive conspicuous consumption.”

    Like

  153. COMMENT DELETED – ALICE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A PERSONAL ROW WITH ANDY PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO ON YOUR SITE OR HIS.

    Like

  154. Ray on culute though I think you are too reductive. I don’t even watch Sex and the City but even if that’s a fair reding of it and it may be then people are quite capable of reading texts and enjoying films in different ways that subvert the more obvious meanings.

    I have vivid memories of watching the truly awful film Black Hawk Down with some people cheering on the Somalis fighting US imperialism – even though they were all protrayed as corrupt bastards and certainly the warlords are. But apparently it got standing ovations in Mogadishu when shown in cinemas on pirate DVDs. Which perhaps goes to show how much the US government and its troops is hated.

    None of this makes it any better a film but it does show that readings of media texts are active rather than passive. So even if the characters in SATC are protrayed as mindless the viewers certainly are not!

    I don’t think we should have a party line on these things though should certainly encourage open and reflective discussion about popular culture and not be dismissive about people who enjoy them- partly because I do! I’m a bit of a sucker for 24 as well- though I suspect you’d dismiss that and before anyone says that’s such a boy’s show I know quite a few women similarly addicted to it.

    Anyway probably a bit of a diversion from the main strand of the argument and perhaps we ought to be discussing how to show solidarity with the movement to stop the fascists in Italy… or even here… or a 1001 other things

    Like

  155. on ‘culture’ that should have read!

    Like

  156. I find it curious that there is rather more concern about Galloway’s comments about SATC than his threat to sue ITV.

    The article in the Record, though rather silly and badly written, is essentially harmless. George has never pretended to be politically correct, so why his former SWP fan club choose only to attack him since the split is hypocritical, to say the least.

    His threat against ITV is an attempt to encroach on civil liberties. It might set a very dangerous precedent if he won. Nasty caracature of him it might well be and I can understand his sensitivity, but ,like it or not , it comes with the territory.

    Like

  157. Well of course no one could defend that- which is perhaps why it hasn’;t excited any debate or comment

    Like

  158. Why shouldn’t someone sue when they feel they have been defamed? I don’t understand this defence of ITV.

    Like

  159. Jason, I’m not claiming that SATC is any worse than other TV shows about women but unlike other shows it’s presented as an example of liberated older woman. 24 has no pretentions to be anything other than an action thriller. The ideological message that SATC promotes is useful to discuss because it’s a reflection of the state of womens liberation in society.

    Here’s an interesting review of, “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women And The Rise Of Raunch Culture”, that addresses the issue of how womens liberation is currently viewed by many women and men.

    http://www.bookmarks.uk.com/cgi/store/bookmark.cgi?review=new&isbn=9781416526384&cart_id=2888695.21711

    On a more partisan note Lindsey Germans new book, “Material Girls: women, men and work”, addresses similar concerns about the state of women liberation.

    Being a Cultural Studies drop out I find the relationship between culture and other issues interesting. I don’t think that’s reductive.

    Like

  160. Apologies, the link doesn’t work for some reason but I think the Guardian review of “Female Chauvinist Pigs…” by Gaby Wood makes interesting reading.

    http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1681421,00.html

    The book is even better.

    Like

  161. actually, i didn’t attack galloway, though his article is shameful, i attacked kevin ovenden for the lie that galloway’s articles have become more clearly of the left since he split from respect.

    Like

  162. “Speaking of splitters, the correct phrase is of course the ’sniffer dogs of orthodox Trotskyism’.”

    Indeed you are absolutely correct, chjh, but the truth is I’m not sure who claims to be an orthodox Trotskyist these days. So on the off-chance that Jason thought he upholding Trotskyist othodoxy I amended slightly to avoid causing offence. But thankfully one sniffer dog of a not so orthodox trotskyism spotted it.

    As for ITV I say sue the lot – if only for cutting the second episode of Pushing Daisies so they coud fit in the rest of the series before the football started.

    Like

  163. “Being a Cultural Studies drop out I find the relationship between culture and other issues interesting. I don’t think that’s reductive.”

    That indeed is NOT reductive but at times I think your view is too one dimensional. While we’re on links here’s a review of Lyndsey’s book
    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1962

    Like

  164. The campaign to end the postal vote is picking up media coverage:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7428438.stm

    For those in the West Midlands, Salma is on the BBC’s Politics Show this Sunday, 1pm speaking about it.

    Like

Leave a reply to Johnny Rook Cancel reply

Trending