Respect/Left List statement on Tower Hamlets councillors' defection – Liam redux

Liam redux

British politics, Political Organisations

Respect/Left List statement on Tower Hamlets councillors' defection

Respect/Left List statement on Tower Hamlets councillors’ defection 26/06/2008 It with great regret that we have learnt that Tower Hamlets councillors Oliur Rahman, Rania Khan and Lutfa Begum have left Respect. Press reports suggest they have joined or are going to join New Labour. Respect Renewal councillor Shahid Ali is also joining New Labour. The…

June 26, 2008

1–2 minutes

Respect/Left List statement on Tower Hamlets councillors’ defection

26/06/2008

It with great regret that we have learnt that Tower Hamlets councillors Oliur Rahman, Rania Khan and Lutfa Begum have left Respect. Press reports suggest they have joined or are going to join New Labour. Respect Renewal councillor Shahid Ali is also joining New Labour.

The Respect councillors were elected on a platform of opposing the occupation of Iraq, the government’s privatisation policies, the transfer of housing stock, the introduction of ID cards and the retention of the Tory anti-union laws.

It is regrettable that they have now turned their backs on the people who elected them.. The councillors’ desire to retain their seats should not have been put before the interests of the people who originally voted for them.

The recent split in Respect has created conditions in which New Labour can seek to regain the initiative in Tower Hamlets but Respect/Left List supporters will continue to oppose New Labour and the other establishment parties. We know that many in the working class movement look on the decline of the Labour government with mounting concern and desparately want a real left alternative.

We will continue with our efforts to help create an alternative left party that working people can look to for a defence of their living standards and their trade unions. A party that struggles against war and the racism it breeds.

103 responses to “Respect/Left List statement on Tower Hamlets councillors' defection”

Padraic

June 26, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Can’t say I’m surprised at this piece of opporttunism. And neither side of the RESPECT split can draw any consolation from it. so we will hopefully have less sectarian posturing on this site.

What is surprising is that they should join New Labour just at the point at which it is becoming clear that the War, Privatisation and Finance Party is going to get a hammering at the next election.

Even so, the Left is at its weakest in 50 years and we need to address that soberly.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 26, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Padraic – it’s not as simple as opportunism, hypocrisy or evil intentions which are easy explanations to fall back on.

One of the defectors was drawn to socialist politics as an anti-imperialist, class struggle young militant. He’s ended up in the neo-liberal war party despite having spent years in the company of people who should have been offering him a political foundation. There was something wrong in the method too. There was an element of trophy hunting in preference to political development of people and the organisation. That method is more to blame than these individuals.

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

June 26, 2008 at 10:27 pm

What’s more to blame is that nobody wants to ride sinking ships to the bottom of the sea. The four councilors, I’m sure, want to be effective as local politicians. They see two sides of a small, damaged party, one of which had a derisory showing in the London elections, the other of which didn’t move forward, with the overall vote falling – and they must think that it is no place to achieve their goals.

And Oli may have spent years in the company of the SWP but as old Karl was wont to say “social being determines consciousness”. He was shaped and pushed by the pressures of his milieu. He wouldn’t be the first. Without a powerful movement or a strong united organization to hold him – or the others – disintegration set in.

However, I’m certain, as on SUN, there will soon be block of bickering leftists, ready to descend and point fingers and make pronouncements. People never fight so much as when things fall apart.

It’s just a shame that on neither side is there a leader who can be the bigger person and see the folly of this division and lead a way out of it. People will demand mea culpas that will never come and can satisfy themselves that they are right as the whole shithouse goes up in flames.

LikeLike

Reply
Larry R

June 26, 2008 at 10:53 pm

Now I’m even more confused. This latest LL-SWP statement says:

“We will continue with our efforts to help create an alternative left party that working people can look to for a defence of their living standards and their trade unions. A party that struggles against war and the racism it breeds.”

This sounds like a ‘broad new left party’ formulation (along the lines of the original SSP, advocated by Murray Smith, SR and elements of the Fourth International) a model that I thought the SWP CC had rejected. I thought the SWP instead favoured a more minimalist model of an electoral ‘united front of a special kind’, .i.e. one where the SWP remained as the prime organisation to recruit people to in the day to day grassroots struggles.

I thought this was one of the major theoretical differences between the SWP and the forces around RR?

Actually, I don’t think the SWP was ever clear on which model it advocated, with Callinicos sometimes writing about far ‘left regroupment’, a different project to Rees articulation of about a ‘United Front of a Special Kind’.
Party members generally advocated a number of contradictory positions at different times. This lack of clarity has not helped the SWP navigate the turbulence Respect encountered.

Also interesting to see the SWP now lamenting the split in Respect for boosting New Labour – the very split the SWP CC’s tactics were at the time designed to drive open wider, with their talk of a ‘left against right battle’, etc.

But now it all seems academic. Slipping through our fingers is the best chance of a left of labour electorally relevant mass party we have had for decades. Just when Labour enters its worst ever period of crisis and meltdown….

The SWP are not wholly to blame. The political phenomenon in Tower Hamlets, of cross class Bengali petty bourgeois / working class popular radicalism was always unstable. Maybe if the pay revolt had followed quicker on the heels of the great 2003 anti-war revolt, then it would have been easier to strengthen the socialist direction of respect. The project was always a hostage to fortune – but the SWP’s lack of clarity on this issue, combined with its accumulated authoritarian political culture inherited from surviving ‘the downturn’ did not help.

And without a ‘spontaneous’ convergence of anti-war and working class battles transforming Respect in a leftward and class based direction, the SWP would have had to liquidate itself more into building Respect. Thus there were limits beyond which the SWP could not go, rightly or wrongly. This made it the wrong tool around which to rally a long term broad left working class regroupment, which perhaps needs to be built around a basic anti neo-liberal ‘minimum programme’?

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 26, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Redbedhead

Winning 27,000 votes and coming third across an area comprising six parliamentary seats in East London is not derisory. The BNP did worse in that area. Was their vote derisory?

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 27, 2008 at 12:53 am

surely the most obvious conclusion is to acknowledge that these groupings are lash-ups, and as such politically unstable?

have any of the councillors given their real reasons for leaving?

was it political, organisational or a clash of egos?

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

June 27, 2008 at 2:32 am

Kevin – Derisory was in relation to the LL’s vote in East London, actually.
RR’s vote, however, was pretty mixed – more votes in East London but less in the city overall, even with Galloway on the top of the list and some backing from Livingstone.

LikeLike

Reply
redbedhead

June 27, 2008 at 2:37 am

modernity – a “lash-up” isn’t much of a theoretical category but obviously there were social forces with different politics coming together. That’s the nature of a broad political formation. Is this unstable? Well, the Labour Party is a broad political formation and has been around for a while. The question is obviously more complicated than the question of uniting multiple political tendencies and has a lot to do with the social weight of the participants, the level of struggle, the general political direction that the different players/blocs/forces are heading in. I think that if a significant (as in thousands) chunk of trade unionists or union branches had joined Respect or if the level of anti-war or other social struggles had remained at a higher level the frictions that led to the split wouldn’t have emerged – at least not in the way that they did.

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

June 27, 2008 at 6:01 am

To quote a story in the Guardian of May 25th:-

“Gordon Brown would be forced to appoint a deputy who could be swiftly groomed as his successor under humiliating last-ditch plans being discussed by ministers to patch up his failing administration.
Senior figures are holding emergency talks on ways to stop what one called the ‘haemorrhaging’ of power from New Labour amid signs that Brown is losing control of his party. Rumours swept Westminster yesterday that one senior cabinet minister has begun raising money for a potential leadership bid, while up to 40 backbench MPs are said to be ready to back a challenge.”

Given the continued run of dismal performances by Labour in the elections, the threat of a serious economic slump by September
(not to mention the North pole being ice free!) — Something’s gotta to give in the LP soon.

The problem with these ex-Respect bozos is they have no perspective or programme for intervening in that situation.
They have been nobbled by the promise of council positions etc….

But for a socialist to be in the LP is no more unprincipled than say, Buddy Holly joining Santana.
(Though it might require some Blind Faith)

Well all right…

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 27, 2008 at 6:43 am

Larry R’s point is a significant one and, time permitting, I’ll return to it later today. As the major organisational player one would have expected the SWP to have theorised an approach to this project that was widely understand by its membership. My impression, and it was one that I acquired in the Socialist Alliance and never lost, was that there was a certain amount of improvisation theoretically.

Whether it’s right or wrong is another matter but SR has been advocating a clear position on these new left of social democracy formations since the paper was established. That clarity hasn’t made recent events any easier but it has made them more comprehensible.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 7:44 am

“thought this was one of the major theoretical differences between the SWP and the forces around RR?”

I wasn’t aware of any ‘theoretical differences’ outside the position developed by Liam’s comrades, which its true they held ‘consistantly’. The split itself had nothing whatsoever to do with this, although some of the rhetoric and historical revisionism subsequently, I won’t say from renewal, but on the blogs, did.

Much of this rhetoric has involved the suggestion that within electoral formations there should not be organised left wing groupings putting their interests before the interests of the collective. How one is to interpret this, or perhaps who is to interpret this, being somewhat moot points, outside of a shared detestation for the SWP.

The accusations that the swp are only interested in selling papers and recruitment have been standard arguments since the 1960s which most of us are long familiar with and can hardly be expected to suddenly believe are true.

The great difficulty with the blogging formulations on this question, is that it begins with the idea that Trotskyists and Leninists are the main barrier to the achievement of new electoral formations, when, they have been in most cases the initiaters of them. Its unclear whether driving out the most sizeable of them will do anything except make such electoral iniatives collapse, leaving no one else to restart them then the evil leninists. watch this space I guess.

LikeLike

Reply
Adamski

June 27, 2008 at 8:12 am

So where’s the Respect Renewal statement or analysis on the deputy-leader of your group in Tower Hamlets defecting to New Labour?

Or is that hush, hush?

Is there going to be a statement?

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 8:22 am

I’d noticed that.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

June 27, 2008 at 9:13 am

“But for a socialist to be in the LP is no more unprincipled than say, Buddy Holly joining Santana.
(Though it might require some Blind Faith)”

That’s a pretty obscure musical reference. 1960s ‘super-group’ Blind Faith, led by Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood previously of Cream and Traffic, covered Buddy Holly’s “Well All Right” on their only album (don’t mention the cover) and it was then in turn covered by Carlos Santana in 1978.

Of course had he lived Holly would have been into all kinds of progressive musical explorations and collaborations … so I think any comparison with issues to do with SWP/Left List is pretty thin.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

June 27, 2008 at 9:15 am

Adamski – I think the all powerful and all knowing secret central committee of Respect Renewal are awaiting guidance on your verdict on the future of Left List after the loss of its leader before they rush into print.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

June 27, 2008 at 9:16 am

Or then again they could be waiting until they’ve had a meeting and allowed a democratic discussion rather than make a two am statement of the tops of one of their heads.

Left List National Council meets on Saturday – who’ll be in the chair?

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 27, 2008 at 9:18 am

“Much of this rhetoric has involved the suggestion that within electoral formations there should not be organised left wing groupings putting their interests before the interests of the collective.”

There you go again, John, deliberately distorting what people have said.

It’s fairly simple. If you genuinely want to build a broad electoral formation, nothing stops you putting your own interests first, but not at the expense of the electoral formation, especially if you hold most of the leading positions within it.

With more than half the national leadership of Respect being SWP, it meant that Respect’s priorities were the SWP’s priorities, which is why when people like me wanted to do Respect stuff on the tube, we were told no, you do party stuff.

You have never stopped distorting what people have argued here, John,

“outside of a shared detestation for the SWP. “

And again, you do this nasty victimhood thing. If there is detestation of the SWP, it might be fruitful to question why. But no, you simply sneer and move on.

Actually, in east London the actions of the SWP have caused so much damage, it’s hard to know how the rest of the left can recover. You might want to reflect why, even if people are wrong, so many people who’ve worked so closely with the SWP feel it. Why does Steph now have such a massively different view of the SWP to the one she had, as a non-member, only a year ago? Best not to stop and reflect. Best to just sneer about “detestation”.

Deal with detestation and the causes of detestation, John.

“The accusations that the swp are only interested in selling papers and recruitment”

Such arguments are shorthand, John, and you know it. I don’t use the argument generally, but if it’s used, it’s shorthand for “they put the logistical interests of the party before the interests of the movement and of the class”. Again, you can do what so many of your comrades have done and simply sneer at the arguments, or you can ask if maybe they have a deeper meaning.

For me, the SWP’s priority isn’t revolutionary socialism anymore. It’s the preservation of the SWP, which wasn’t and isn’t under attack, but is under threat from its own leadership, which is never accountable to its members – when I turn up to a meeting of union members, it’s to be answerable to them. When a CC member turns up to a meeting of SWP members, it’s to tell them the party line.

“it begins with the idea that Trotskyists and Leninists are the main barrier to the achievement of new electoral formations, when, they have been in most cases the initiaters of them.”

Now you’re just lying, John. The argument is that the method and practice of the SWP has become a barrier to the building of an electoral formation.

That’s nothing to do with Trot or Not, it’s to do with a method of working that can’t be called “socialist”, “Leninist” or “Trotskyite”. It’s a lying, deceitful, anti-democratic, wrecking method of operation, used to great effect in demoralising the best of the new militants in east London, including the two who joined the SWP and were paraded as the “left” of the split (“people should listen to the two councillors”, said Chris Nineham of Lutfa Begum, who had just said no Muslim will vote for Galloway, and Ahmed Hussain, who had just said Galloway was “like a dog that’s gone mad” and who then went on to join the Tories).

You always choose to believe that our arguments are simple childish ones, like “trots are bad” or “you just want to sell papers”.

Yet you have no involvement in the movement at all. You never had anything to do with building Respect, you don’t take part now. It’s not meant as an insult – but before spending so much time telling us what we think and believe, you might want to reflect on the fact that the only information you’ve ever had has been second hand and almost all of it online, while people like me actually have seen what the SWP has done locally (good and bad).

I’ve seen it, you haven’t, yet you feel confident to state that our arguments are as simple as “we detest the SWP”.

Well, I do to some measure – I detest the lies and deceit, the physical assaults on our members, the way people were forced out of the party, and the fact that people like you, who spend so much time on the blogs defending every dot and comma, spend precisely zero time doing anything practical to make the SWP a better organisation which, even if you disagree with my arguments, is surely the duty of every member, every day?

LikeLike

Reply
steph

June 27, 2008 at 9:26 am

Johng: “The great difficulty with the blogging formulations on this question, is that it begins with the idea that Trotskyists and Leninists are the main barrier to the achievement of new electoral formations, when, they have been in most cases the initiaters of them.”

The great difficulty with arguing with johng is that he constantly puts the ideal above the real. Criticism of the SWP doesn’t begin with the idea that trots are the main barrier (in many cases, such as my own, the critics started with the belief that the SWP were wonderful for having initiated the new electoral formation that was Respect) – the criticism is the result of experience.

It’s a similar thing with how the LL defectors are supposedly ‘objectively’ to the left of the SWP expellees – even if their behaviour in the real world says that they’re Tories or New Labour (shown by them actually joining the Tories or New Labour), that reality doesn’t matter, the *idea* put forward by the party, and specifically the idea of johng, over-rules reality.

Johng and others are unable to take on board that many critics appreciate that the SWP were and are initiators, innovators, usually excellent and committed activists – but that doesn’t make them holy and their ideas sacrosanct.

We don’t *all* start from the idea johng, many of us have come to our conclusions from the experience of working with the SWP in organisations such as Respect. You may disagree with our conclusions, but long as you continue to pretend that they were a priori decisions instead of conclusions, you keep making it harder for people to respect the SWP’s arguments.

LikeLike

Reply
bill j

June 27, 2008 at 9:52 am

Totally agree Steph. The split in Respect wasn’t between a Left and Right wing, but over an organisational question – the ability of the SWP to control the “united front of a special kind”, i.e. the special sort of united front that is controlled by the SWP.
In other words not a united front at all.
That there was not principaled, and in fact not much political disagreement at all is proven by the Left List, which consisted of a few reforms, no mention of socialism and was wholly controlled by the SWP.
Its success is the vindication of those methods.
But unfortunately, Respect Renewal don’t exactly come out of the affair shining either. The fact that the deputy leader of their group can cross to New Labour as simply as changing his shirt (or not) reveals the paper thin radicalism of its elected tops.
The whole broad party – i.e. non socialist, non working class, most definitely non-revolutionary, party has failed.
So what’s my alternative?
Certainly we need a broader organisation that the variety of left sects that have characterised the British left over the last few decades. Instead I’m suggesting we should build a socialist movement – i.e. work togetherwhere we can, but not under the disicipline of an artificial “majority”, not adopt a watered down and therefore inadequate programme, which only limits us. Allow every tendency who wants to participate to do so on whatever grounds they want.
And then after a period of building trust and demonstrating how co-operation can work, then maybe look at a party platform.
I know that in the short run that rules out the collective standing in elections. No bad thing in my view.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 10:46 am

swp members have experiances as well steph. believe it or not.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 27, 2008 at 11:19 am

johng: instead of a self-pitying response, why not engage with Steph’s highly compelling argument. She’s someone who was a firm ally of the SWP’s. Incidentally, other allies seem to be bailing out in a different direction. Kumar Murschid, the acceptable wealthy restauranteur as opposed to the one demonised by the SWP, has left what’s left of the Left List. He was held up as a model Bangladeshi socialist. Gone. No explanation. No acknowledgement from the SWP. Just, let’s move on.

The problem with this let’s move on line is that there is a large body of activists in east London who were pilloried by people like Murschid and those who held him up as a trophy. They are entitled to answers. They are entitled to them from the SWP members in East London and nationally who spooled out this yarn and now want to pretend it never happened. If you want to reestablish a working relationship in, for example, the battle against the BNP in East London, then it would be wise for the SWP to face up to this recent past, or there will be more distrust than there need be.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 27, 2008 at 11:32 am

It is entirely possible for a Marxist current to retain its own structure, press and political events inside a broader formation. The new edition of SR magazine is just out and we are having a major event on this theme tomorrow. The experience of Sinistra Critica in Italy is a major recent proof of why it is necessary to do so. These emerging political parties are unstable and none of them is a finished product.

The question is what do the Marxists do in these organisations? In the Labour Party that was an easy question to answer. My current wanted to split it and emerge with a substantial class struggle wing. That plan didn’t quite work out.

Even then it was never an issue of recruiting small numbers of individuals, though it was always a bonus when this happened and any organisation needs to recruit. It was much more important to win political arguments and build up the class struggle forces inside Labour.

With an organisation like Respect the emphasis has to be different. We view it as one key element in a future larger anti-capitalist, class struggle party. It has a real base and some elected representatives. These are important in terms of credibility and, as more astute observers may have noticed, do bring pressures of their own. But does the Marxist current have to insist that they and the rest of the membership bow to its superior insight at every occasion? We would answer that question negatively. The Marxists, if they wish to engage with emerging new forces and develop a new organisation be willing to remain in a minority and win arguments politically rather than by virtue of superior knowledge of procedure and organising capacity.

As for not standing in elections – it would make life less messy but we can see who gains when there is no political response at the electoral level to Labour’s neo-liberalism.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 12:13 pm

“But does the Marxist current have to insist that they and the rest of the membership bow to its superior insight at every occasion? We would answer that question negatively”

So would I as it happens. Who suggests otherwise? Similarly I don’t understand Nas’s point about ‘self pity’ (this has I think been one of the slogans of the split). The difficulty for me with Steph’s argument is it simply reproduces the stereotypes of a dogmatic set of people innured to reality versus a group of people honest enough to allow their politics to be shaped by experiance. I don’t accept the contrast. If I did I’d be on the other side of the argument.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Although I should say I broadly agree with Steph’s argument about ‘broad platforms’. I strongly suspect though that the emergence of such a thing (with or without either faction of the old respect) is unlikely to be based around a simple one member one vote formulation. I suspect something like the early LRC is likely to be the form. To me the central problem with Respect was that there were not enough prominant figures and organisations with real social weight, which, combined with the greater success that such a situation would have meant, would probably have prevented the fracas from escalating to the degree it did. On the issue of ‘explanations’ I think both sides have some explaining to do, but not really about the current defections. As the project fell apart it was just bound to happen. One can regret it, one can talk about how damaging it is etc, but little else. Both sides in the split believed that their strategy would avert this. We’ll never know really because given that we couldn’t agree, neither strategy was really tested with the kind of united forces we once had at our disposal.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 27, 2008 at 12:28 pm

johng: saying you don’t accept something is not the same as making an argument. You don’t speak with a particular authority. There’s no reason why johng responding to a coherent argument from steph should have any credibility when he says, I don’t accept it.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm

JohnG wrote:

“Similarly I don’t understand Nas’s point about ’self pity’”

wasn’t it obvious?

instead of engaging with Steph’s thoughtful and detailed criticism you simply respond with a flippant comment of “swp members have experiances as well steph. believe it or not.” which doesn’t answer Steph’s arguments

so why not try and engage with Steph’s points, seriously

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

June 27, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Johng – you seem to be heading towards a conclusion that for the SWP the Respect ‘project’ is now over (talk about ‘fell apart’, “not enough prominant figures and organisations with real social weight”).

The statement from Left List (presumably formulated by the SWP leadership since there is no-one else for them to consult with) seems to indicate the opposite – business as usual, their version of Respect carries on with nothing changed.

Which way is it to be?

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Which way its going to be isn’t determined is it? My feeling is that there is space for an electoral alternative, but in the immediate future its looking a bit grim on that front. I suspect that, much as with renewal, where we do have a bit of a base we will attempt to consolidate it, but that in the immediate future its clear that we don’t have the same kind of forces we once had at our disposal and its neccessary to have a bit of realism about this. I think the left collectively can move fowards but its going to be tricky and we’re starting from a position far behind what it ought to be. I think this is true of everyone incidently.

Nas I didn’t think I refuted Steph, I just pointed out that I was unlikely to be convinced by an argument which treated as indubitable things which no one who doesn’t agree with her side of the argument accepts.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 27, 2008 at 2:18 pm

So please engage with steph. Do you realise, johng, that particularly when it comes to you dismissing an argument from a woman, there’s something very distasteful about a lecturer/department head manner of brushing people off as unconvincing rather than dealing with their arguments.

LikeLike

Reply
andyinswindon

June 27, 2008 at 2:44 pm

JOhn: “I suspect that, much as with renewal, where we do have a bit of a base we will attempt to consolidate it,”

You mean you will go on lying that you are still associated with galloway?

LikeLike

Reply
Adamski

June 27, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I couldn’t find the link to the statement on the Respect Renewal defection to New Labour

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 27, 2008 at 3:12 pm

I think the dogmatic approach of Renewal in attempting to blame the SWP CC for the split is unravelling before it with the departure of its deputy leader. The claim that the split was organisational rather than political doesn’t quite explain why Renewals own deputy leader defected. Especially considering his statement to the press.

Renewalists appear to be taken aback by the defection of one of their leading councilors and unlike the LL weren’t prepared for it. I suspect that’s why there hasn’t been an official statement. And the bitter condemnation of the SWP on here and at SU since the defections is a mixture of despair and fear. Despair that the left has moved on and doesn’t care about the split and fear of the consequences that perpetuating this fued is having on their organisation.

All these attacks on the SWP may make the Renewalists feel better by releasing their bile but it won’t help develop a unified left.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

June 27, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Adamski, you are a member of Left List. Who do you think authorised the statement on behalf of you? And are you not amazed that it did not mention that Oliur Rahman is not just a councillor, but is actually the Chair, Leader and Nominating Officer of Left List (all rolled into one)? Makes you think doesn’t it?

I assume the absence of a Renewal statement might well be because there is a tendency when talking about the views of the organisation to think and consult first, rather than getting the SWP CC members to sound off about their first thoughts as seems to be the case with LL.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 3:25 pm

department head? lecturer? sniggers. of course in a just world this would be true. As it happens I’m a temporary teaching assistant existing on less then the minimum wage and more viciously exploited then I was when I worked in blockbusters. The constant references to my ‘academic status’ derive from HP who’ve had it in for me ever since I had the temerity to stand up to Islamophobia when a student was being hounded simply for taking part in an intellectual debate. You can google the article under ‘what is soas for’ if you like. I don’t think I’m in line to get made a head of department. The attempt to accuse me of sexism above though added another notch to the HP style viciousness. Well done Nas you’ve outdone yourself here. Don’t worry though I’m well used to it.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 3:29 pm

story and related links here.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/na/nasser_amin.htm

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

June 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Johng – so that’s well and truly on the fence then? A ‘definitely maybe’ or should that be a ‘maybe definitely’?

But at least the statement is clear – “we will continue …” reminds me of a famous quote:

“No more delays, comrades!” … “There is work to be done. This very morning we begin rebuilding … and we will build all through the winter, rain or shine. We will teach this miserable traitor that he cannot undo our work so easily. Remember, comrades, there must be no alteration in our plans: they shall be carried out to the day. Forward, comrades! ”

and of course

“Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. … he would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 3:47 pm

well in that sense its rather like the more sensible comments from RR people isn’t it?

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm

The references are not to your employment status, johng. I did not accuse you of sexism. I asked you to reflect on the way you were not engaging with what steph said, an extremely well thought out and political comment. The references are to a style of arguing, particularly repugnant when its in response to a comment from a woman, which is haughty and condescending – like a bad lecturer or head of department or manager or, I’m sorry to say, far too many white, straight men on the British left. It proceeds from such rhetoric as, “I find that wholly unconvincing…” followed by a statement which does not engage with the other person but ignores what they have said, as if the fact that you saying they are unconvincing is all that’s needed to put them back out of earshot. (There are issues of gender and race here, johng.)

Liam, I apologise if this has gone off topic and I’m trying to get back there. But part of the problem in Respect was precisely this refusal to engage with what people were saying – particularly what brown-skinned people who were not highly educated and were not used to the cut and thrust of left wing debate were saying.

The SWP method pushed by John Rees, particularly after May 2006, was polarise, polarise, polarise. That meant abandoning any notion of a shared voyage through new territory for the left with an internal culture being carefully developed to allow difference and exchanges of views, and ulimately, heaven forbid, even members of the same sub-section of Respect changing their views or disagreeing with one another.

If you speak to people in Tower Hamlets Respect you will find nothing but praise for Liam and his willingness to argue his point of view in a way that truly explains rather than hectors. As for all these people being dragged to the right, I’d like people to point to one policy or initiative over the last nine months where Tower Hamlets Respect and its six councillors have been right wing, or to the right of the Left LIst. There aren’t any. No strikes denounced, no closures by the council not opposed, no pro-working class measure not supported. Instead, new layers of oppressed men and women taking a lead – hesitant and a bit shakey, but taking a lead. (SENTENCE DELETED)

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm

(SENTENCE DELETED – JOHN I’LL FORGIVE SENSIBLE PEOPLE THE OCCASIONAL LAPSE BUT DON’T MAKE A HABIT OF IT)

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 27, 2008 at 4:12 pm

COMMENT DELETED – WE’VE GONE AS FAR DOWN THIS AVENUE AS I’M WILLING TO PERMIT. MY HOUSE MY RULES – LIAM)

LikeLike

Reply
tonyc

June 27, 2008 at 4:28 pm

DELETED – SEE ABOVE.

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 27, 2008 at 4:28 pm

shame how the issues raised by Steph aren’t being dealt with, politically

instead her points have been treated in a very dismissive way, as if her views are not worth discussing or thinking about?

such an approach is a bit silly, as it is almost guaranteed to alienate even more people

LikeLike

Reply
prianikoff

June 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Prinkipo in Exile wrote:-

“That’s a pretty obscure musical reference.
1960s ’super-group’ Blind Faith, led by Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood previously of Cream and Traffic, covered Buddy Holly’s “Well All Right” on their only album
(don’t mention the cover) and it was then in turn covered by Carlos Santana in 1978.

Of course had he lived Holly would have been into all kinds of progressive musical explorations and collaborations …
so I think any comparison with issues to do with SWP/Left List is pretty thin.”

Err, actually it’s an entirely relevant one, since the Video that Liam linked to above is of Santana doing the same song!
The metaphor may be a bit strained, but my point was that accusing the Respect councillors of betrayal for “joining the war party” is political moralism.
Whereas since at least 1919, this has been a question of tactics.

What I’m suggesting is, that the Labour leadership’s authority is increasingly being undermined by real world events and this won’t go away any time soon.
Objective events are moving in an entirely different direction to the New Labour schemas of yesteryear.
Soon it will be be possible to argue credibly for much more radical, even socialist solutions in the LP.

A leadership contender who argued for withdrawal of British forces from Afghanistan & Iraq, abolition of student loans, taxing the rich and the energy companies, renationalisation of rail etc..
and had the backing of the unions, could stand a real chance of challenging Brown. That possibility will grow in the next 3 months.

Buddy on the other hand, could only ever engage in a Tex-Mex collaboration with Carlos Santana in a parallel universe, where he got on the coach and Waylon Jennings took the plane…..

And no, I won’t describe the naughty album cover picture with Ginger Baker’s daughter.
But I did see Blind Faith do the song live in Hyde Park as a teenager.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 4:34 pm

oddly enough I did respond to steph seriously further up. And I don’t take TonyC seriously since he tried to stigmatise me on the question of mental illness (which I found personally incredibly offensive). I think it is a serious problem on the left if people attempt to use this stuff to pursue factional vendetta’s. And yes I am accusing of TonyC and Nas of just that. Trivialising questions of oppression because they think its a good way of crushing opponents. I’ve made the accusation and its a serious accusation. No more serious though then the ones they’ve made against me.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 27, 2008 at 5:09 pm

It’s sad but not unpredictable that tonyc and Nas have resorted to personalised attacks again. Their blatant attempt at the character assasination of johng in this case means that any debate about the fallout of the defections from more reasonable posters gets side tracked into defensive posturing by both sides. Don’t bite johng. Their OTT response to you is very defensive. If you ignore them they’ll give up.

I think the policy, “I will edit or delete comments which are abusive, offensive or insulting about individuals. ” may help to return the discussion on topic.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 27, 2008 at 5:10 pm

NAS, TONY AND JOHN – PLEASE FEEL FREE TO HAVE THIS ARGUMENT BETWEEN YOURSELVES ELSEWHERE. I’M NOT RUNNING THIS SITE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE A DING DONG WITH EACH OTHER AND ANY FURTHER PERSONAL EXCHANGES ARE COMING STRAIGHT DOWN.

Stick to the politics please.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 27, 2008 at 5:12 pm

johng: this is more self-pitying. You dismissed, arrogantly, the only woman who is commenting on here with a sardonic little quip. I take sexism very seriously. It’s you who think everything revolves around, well, you.

This is about the Respect moving on. If people involved in Respect pull up people for dismissing women on comments boxes, it’s because we are determined to create an open and pluralistic and democratic culture which does not allow that behaviour to predemominate. You see, we are not going to ignore sexism or women not being taken seriously and then, as if by magic, pull all sorts of examples out the hat to be deployed in a faction fight. The word from meetings in Tower Hamlets and Newham is that women and brown-skinned people and those who don’t have a university experience to back them up are being actively promoted. Part of doing that is a zero tolerance of the the kind of hectoring style that so much of the British left has. You wouldn’t get away with this kind of behaviour in today’s Respect, johng, not without being pulled up, not without people explaining to you what was wrong with it.

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 27, 2008 at 5:22 pm

I’m surprised that some people on this board have nothing better to do thatn slag off each others factions.
Galloway knews exactly what the SWP were like before Respect.He’d always hated them and knew it would be temporary.
The SWP thought he’d provide them with publicity which was true, but also a lot of bad publicity,which the leadership knew would be the price.

Perhaps those in the trenches would be better spent on issues such as an Amnesty for all “illegals”.
It needs traction.
Not these two groups of bald men fighting over a comb.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 27, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Ray: Respect is creating a political culture that prizes participation by the most oppressed in society. We’ll fight to achieve that and a plural political culture that encourages genuine political debate and development, not imposition and control freakery. It was the latter that played such a destructive role in the old Respect. Educated white men with years of the logic chopping the British left excels at will not browbeat our social base. Instead, we want a genuine culture of collaboration. Responding robustly to defend and extend that is not character assassination. It is one of the most important lessons from the split induced by Rees.

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 5:47 pm

So Liam will you delete Nas for his outrageous personalised slanders? Or not? What a disgrace.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 27, 2008 at 5:49 pm

“The great difficulty with arguing with johng is that he constantly puts the ideal above the real.”

Constantly? You make this claim but fail to establish it with any evidence? You use this fallacious form of arguement to dismiss everything johng says. Even if johng is occassionally an idealist not even he could maintain this constantly.

“Criticism of the SWP doesn’t begin with the idea that trots are the main barrier (in many cases, such as my own, the critics started with the belief that the SWP were wonderful for having initiated the new electoral formation that was Respect) – the criticism is the result of experience.”

Steph, you are welcome to repeat the Renewal line but praising the SWP for initiating Respect doesn’t make it any more valid. Galloways comments and the comments of leading Renewal members denouncing Trotskyites were an attack on the SWP and directed at us specifically.

“It’s a similar thing with how the LL defectors are supposedly ‘objectively’ to the left of the SWP expellees – even if their behaviour in the real world says that they’re Tories or New Labour (shown by them actually joining the Tories or New Labour), that reality doesn’t matter, the *idea* put forward by the party, and specifically the idea of johng, over-rules reality.”

You fail to mention the Renewal election strategy (among other things) that was a move to the right. The defections are a result of the disintegration of Respect and say nothing about the divergent politics of Renewal and the LL.

“Johng and others are unable to take on board that many critics appreciate that the SWP were and are initiators, innovators, usually excellent and committed activists – but that doesn’t make them holy and their ideas sacrosanct.”

Whoever claimed that they were? Only you have. Again you state an opinion as fact. It’s no use throwing out a few crumbs of praise and then being surprised when we fightback against a faction of Respect that has tried to witchhunt us. It’s the classic, “as long as you’re good we’ll tolerate you”, line.

“We don’t *all* start from the idea johng, many of us have come to our conclusions from the experience of working with the SWP in organisations such as Respect. You may disagree with our conclusions, but long as you continue to pretend that they were a priori decisions instead of conclusions, you keep making it harder for people to respect the SWP’s arguments.”

I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at here but if you’re claiming that because we disagree with your opinion that just confirms your opinion then this does not follow. We have come to our conclusions from the behaviour of your faction. Whether you respect that or not is for you to wrestle with. The rest (and most significant part) of the left have no problems working with us and don’t support your feud. If this is the agenda Renewal will be bringing to The Convention of thew Left then I expect you’ll receive short shrift from the rest of the delegates.

Steph, I realise you’re not responbsible for Nas but I hope Nas isn’t going to resort to calling me a sexist for disagreeing with you. Otherwise I might have to pull the homophobe card on Nas. 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
modernityblog

June 27, 2008 at 6:11 pm

taking up the point, it’s perfectly possible for someone or something to initiate an organisation (or campaign) but not actually be capable of seeing it through to the end, that happens all the time in life, from NGOs, tenants associations, trade unions etc

the skills required to initiate something are not necessarily the same as those to ensure its continued success and development in the wider world (they might be, but then again it doesn’t follow automatically)

keeping an organisation ticking over, healthy and taking account of its disparate elements is a tricky task and not necessarily one which can be done from following some rule book or by the magical mysteries of dialectical materialism!

it takes a certain responsiveness to events, a willingness to be flexible, the idea of a longer term aim taking precedence over battling egos and the ability to admit when you’re wrong, above all it takes good interpersonal skills and remembering that other people don’t like being treated like pawns or fodder in mind games.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

June 27, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Ray: yours was an engaged response to steph. Don’t spoil it with talk about “pulling the X card”. That’s the language of the anti-PC brigade. The lack of involvement of women on left wing blogs is a serious issue. Incidentally, I see no evidence that that applies to (white) gay men and can’t see why it would. (Brackets are there because all non whites seem underrepresented.)

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm

alright liam correction accepted.

LikeLike

Reply
John Malcolm

June 27, 2008 at 6:56 pm

I was expecting wont get fooled again by the Who

LikeLike

Reply
steph

June 27, 2008 at 7:21 pm

OK, well – side-stepping the issue of whether it’s more problematic for johng to give a dismissive and patronising response to a woman than to a man (because I need a bit more time and thought on that one!) – I’d like to point out to Ray that in fact I was just responding to johng in the same pompous tone that he had just used: “The great difficulty with the blogging formulations on this question, is that it (sic) begins with the idea that Trotskyists and Leninists are the main barrier” – that sweeping (and patently wrong) statement needs no evidence apparently, yet gets no rebuke from you.

What *all” blogging ‘formulations’ begin with that idea? Not even the Amalgamated Association of Communalists and Witch-hunters could maintain this level of uniformity, ‘constantly’.

Sadly I failed to cover every issue, so Ray chides me with: “You fail to mention the Renewal election strategy (among other things) that was a move to the right. The defections are a result of the disintegration of Respect and say nothing about the divergent politics of Renewal and the LL.” Could you tell us how these divergent politics manifested themselves in the council chamber, then, Ray? Some concrete examples would be nice.

Funnily enough I wasn’t outlining the agenda to be brought to the Conference of the Left, just commenting on johng’s propensity to talk abstract guff. Still, I appreciate Ray taking the trouble to quote me.

It is a genuine point though that we don’t usually hear in the blogging world about actual experiences from those in or close to the SWP, who were involved with key events in Respect but who have drawn different lessons. Presumably this is in part at least because of the party’s tight-lipped, ‘keep it all in the family’ attitude. The fact that johng wasn’t involved means that he can only deal in generalisations based on generalisations, which can be mightily frustrating to read.

Others commenting here from the SWP side (such as Ray) aren’t identifiable as particular Respect members and don’t refer to events in a way that shows they participated in them. So it appears that only the ‘RR side’ (broadly speaking), wants to be honest and open about events, admit when they were wrong, and draw conclusions based on their experiences.

The SWP’s responses in contrast don’t seem to engage with the arguments or relate to the real world, but instead appear as pronouncements from on high. Whether or not johng and Ray see that as a misconception, I do agree with Nas that the SWP may need to change that culture in the future if they want to work constructively with others.

When Ray speaks of the ‘mixture of despair and fear’ he finds from Respect members, it doesn’t chime with my experience at all, because in fact we had a very positive and inspiring meeting in Tower Hamlets last night, where the mood was that we can now get on with overcoming the separation between the councillors and the local branch which we inherited from pre-split days. If there’s a massive disjuncture between people’s experiences and what the SWP says about them (e.g. 2,000 versus 10,000 on a demo), then its influence can only continue to wane.

LikeLike

Reply
Padraic

June 27, 2008 at 8:54 pm

” And neither side of the RESPECT split can draw any consolation from it, so we will hopefully have less sectarian posturing on this site”.

Some chance! The split in RESPECT (which I assume everyone regrets) did not simply come about because of the activities of the SWP, though the small size of the organisation and, as one contributor says, its lack of social weight, meant personalities (male egos mainly) had an undue weight.

The main reason for the split and the defection of the councillors was political, not primarily as Liam argues, the lack of proper political education by the SWP. Political in two senses: firstly, the differences between the petit-bourgeois layers who attempted to use their financial support to wield influence within RESPECT and the left (and I don’t mean just the SWP) who were attempting to build a formation to the left of Labour.

But political also in terms of the period in which we find ourselves. We must face the fact that neither the anti war movement nor campaigns against the BNP are a sufficient basis for building a new left party. And the defection of councillors from both sides of the RESPECT divide is a precise illustration of the problem: they didn’t have the confidence that comes from being part of a mass movement and were tempted by the clientist operators in the New Labour apparatus. Unfortunately , they are now likely to be treated as trophies and used against us.

And neither can we ignore the fact that Galloway went in the same direction – not to New Labour but towards Livingstone so that Respect Renewal began to appear as a kind of left wing pressure group trying to influence Labour while at the same time believing itself an alternative to Labour.

Livingstone’s (typically reformist) project was based on offering infrastructural spending to big capital in the City in return for some crumbs in terms of employment and urban renewal. Crossrail is one example. The Olympics is another. But what did he really deliver to millions of working class voters? True, as he boasted, the City preferred him to Boris but the perception that his spending plans depended mostly on higher charges rather than on extracting cash from the firms minting it in the City did for him in the end.

The really tragic thing is that RESPECT initially began to get real traction in campains against the privatisation of Council housing, in defence of the NHS and against academies in education. It could have broken out of the millieu of the anti war movement and grown to pose a serious challenge to New Labour, instead of which it imploded. This (and the similar implosion of the SSP) is a serious blow to the Left.

So we find ourselves in a situation where New Labour is emboldened to press ahead with more privatisation , attacks on civil rights and a populist Little Englandism that I don’t remember since Elizabeth Windsor’s Jubilee in 1977 and there seems to be no serious alternative.. (some of you are too young to remember that a Labour Government moving to the right was hammered at the election in 1979).

Unfortunately most of the contributors here waste their energy in petty squabbling, personal attacks and arguing about the SWP.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 27, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Steph’s description of last night’s meeting of Respect in Tower Hamlets is apposite.

There’s a very good working relationship. Because there’s been ongoing discussion about the council group and the direction Shahed Ali has been going in, there was a very measured discussion – a surprisingly large number of people had clearly already decided that Shahed Ali was more trouble than he was worth, at the same time no one thought it was good to lose a councillor.

Shahed himself has been very clear in his resignation statement why he defected: he didn’t get selected to be the PPC for Bethnal Green and Bow and then became more and more worried that he might not get reelected as a councillor.

He didn’t get selected for Labour in 2005, came over to Respect and was elected in 2006, didn’t get selected to stand for parliament in 2007 and went back to Labour in 2008.

A policy of building relations rather than creating artificial divisions between a supposed left and right over the preceding two years would have probably made a difference.

There’s far greater coherence in Respect now, and that’ll be reflected in the selection process.

As for people like johng, they’re simply irrelevant to this whole process. They will operate in other areas. But not in this one. They’d be best off sticking to areas they know something about and might be able to contribute to.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 27, 2008 at 9:25 pm

“I’d like to point out to Ray that in fact I was just responding to johng in the same pompous tone that he had just used: “The great difficulty with the blogging formulations on this question, is that it (sic) begins with the idea that Trotskyists and Leninists are the main barrier” – that sweeping (and patently wrong) statement needs no evidence apparently, yet gets no rebuke from you.”

It gets no rebuke from me because johng is correct. The whole basis of the split is political and was aimed at getting rid of the influence of the SWP in Respect.

“Could you tell us how these divergent politics manifested themselves in the council chamber, then, Ray? Some concrete examples would be nice.”

As I stated before, the main evidence is Renewals campaign for Livingstone. It put Renewal councilors on the same team as New Labour instead of backing an independent socialist candidate for mayor that all of Respect had agreed upon. The whole point of forming Respect was to stand as an alternative to New Labour and Renewal failed that remit at a crucial moment.

“Others commenting here from the SWP side (such as Ray) aren’t identifiable as particular Respect members and don’t refer to events in a way that shows they participated in them. So it appears that only the ‘RR side’ (broadly speaking), wants to be honest and open about events, admit when they were wrong, and draw conclusions based on their experiences.”

Attempting to bismirch my involvement in Respect isn’t helping your argument.

“When Ray speaks of the ‘mixture of despair and fear’ he finds from Respect members, it doesn’t chime with my experience at all, because in fact we had a very positive and inspiring meeting in Tower Hamlets last night, where the mood was that we can now get on with overcoming the separation between the councillors and the local branch which we inherited from pre-split days. If there’s a massive disjuncture between people’s experiences and what the SWP says about them (e.g. 2,000 versus 10,000 on a demo), then its influence can only continue to wane.”

I’m referring to the tone of the posts on here and SU over the past two days. The disjuncture that I’m witnessing is between the picture you paint of Renewal and the OTT behaviour of many of its leading members on these blogs.
Judging by the enthusiastic crowds on the anti-Bush and LMHR demo compared to the tiny and moribund turnout from Renewal I think your prediction about the SWP is merely wishful thinking and a reflection of your own mood.

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 27, 2008 at 10:10 pm

I’m not surprised that Mr Ovenden pours a bucket of shite over Mr Ali.
Disagree with Galloway and thats what Kevin does.
In the same way, the SWP people here would dump on Mr Miah for the same reasons.

Who was a more effective Councillor?
Who knows?
The amount of time wasted on this stuff is remarkable for people who want to change society.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 27, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Ray

Do you get Party Notes? I find it extraordinary that adduce the LMHR demonstration as evidence of the vitality of the SWP’s work.

By Monday of this week, two days after the event, it had been moved down the bill next to assistant key grip.

LikeLike

Reply
Andy Newman

June 27, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Glad to hear the TH meeting was good – it would be useful if the branch could issue a statement about Shahed Ali.

Following galloway’s meeting in Swindon, we are setting a branch up. I actually underrepresentted the cntants we made, I originally though we had 15 names from the meeting, but it was 20, and in addition to those twnty names we have two very active women comrades – one of whom went to Birmingham to canvass for Salma Iqbal, and another who made huge efforts to build the galloway meeting with the local Muslim ladies group (what they call the group themselves)

my own expereince is completely the opposite from ray’s – by supportintg Livingsone we gained a great deal of credibility as serious players with some significant people in the unions, and Labour left, as well as BME communities.

I am actually really optimistic about where we go from here in Swindon.

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 27, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Of course the LMHR demo was a flop.
Of course RR is now a fragment in TH.

Can you bloody grow up for a minute and address some issues.

LikeLike

Reply
steph

June 27, 2008 at 10:41 pm

Once again Ray you have just illustrated my point by making sweeping assertions and pronouncements but not providing any evidence or concrete examples. (For example I asked how the alleged left/right split manifested in the council chamber, and you couldn’t give an example.)

And I wasn’t ‘besmirching’ your involvement in Respect because I have no idea whether you were even a member. What exactly *was* your involvement in Respect, then?

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 27, 2008 at 10:47 pm

“The amount of time wasted on this stuff is remarkable for people who want to change society.”

You’re right. I’m not helping by focusing on the feud. It’s time to focus on what can be built.
I think I’ll take the sentiment of the LL statement and move on rather than from Renewal that’s still mired in the split.

http://www.respectrenewal.org/content/view/333/6/

LikeLike

Reply
steph

June 27, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Not answering the question then Ray?

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 27, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Ray

In all honesty, do you read the statement from Respect as still mired in a split?

Of course it mentions it: no split – no defections of one of the SWP group to the Tories, three to New Labour and the destabilisation that led Shahed Ali to go, albeit eight months after the others.

The SWP statement cites the split as a deep cause of why the defections took place.

I think you should answer Steph. I saw some comment from you citing your homosexuality as a rejoinder to someone else objecting to people ignoring women on blogs.

Well, I’m gay myself. That’s no alibi when it comes to not taking women seriously in a medium in which they are scandalously marginalised. I’m not talking about blogs in general, but left wing blogs. Why are there fewer women on left wing blogs than there are even at the average left wing meeting?

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 28, 2008 at 12:12 am

“Not answering the question then Ray?”

Read my comment above. If you want to continue trying to bait me go right ahead I’m not biting.

“I think you should answer Steph.”

I just have. Are you claiming that unless johng or I respond to Steph’s misrepresentations and methods of baiting we’re being sexist? Please don’t patronise women or me with your moralism. You’ve never spared Lindsey German nor any of the other leading women comrades in the SWP or the LL from your vicious attacks. Your attempt to use the under-representation of women on blogs to back up your feud is a pretty desperate tactic. We’ve already had Nas trying to score points with the hierarchy of oppression tactic. Do you have to stoop that low too, Kevin?

I’m biting again… :raises eyes:

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 28, 2008 at 12:47 am

I don’t think you’ve answered Steph, nor does she.

This rhetoric of self-pity is truly pitiable. The underreprentation of women on this and other left wing blogs has been raised.

Deal with it. Stop treating it as a blow to your crotch – some below the belt attack on you and your party, when it is, in fact, a glaring problem. If a bloke dismissed a woman in a meeting of Respect in the way that has happened here, then he’d be called out. Simple as.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 28, 2008 at 5:21 am

Your attempt at baiting me is very immature Kevin. You must be desperate if you feel the need to resort to accusations of sexism.

I particularly like your use of the word “bloke”. It’s a nice touch but a tad unconvincing coming from you. I reckon you’ve used it in an attempt to make me appear like one of those so-called white, heterosexual, working class males who Nas accuses of oppressing women on blogs. I can’t wait to read the next round of tokenistic nonsense you two will come up with in an attempt to suppress criticism.

As for Steph, she doesn’t need you to defend her. She’s quite capable of defending the Renewal line and baiting people without your help. I’m not going to patronise her anymore than I would you when you trot out the usual Galloway rhetoric.

LikeLike

Reply
Padraic

June 28, 2008 at 8:59 am

Could those of you who want to continue with personal attacks on each other go and do it directly by email rather than embarass yourselves and waste our time . Maybe Liam’s cats could act as conciliators.

LikeLike

Reply
margo

June 28, 2008 at 9:01 am

If I sat in a meeting and heard someone say ‘listen to her because she’s a woman’, I would be deeply offended. Not only that I would feel patronised by men who clearly have no idea of how to relate to women.
If you want to know why few women appear on these blogs take a good look at yourselves, and the language and rhetoric you use.
I don’t single anyone out in particular, but suffice to say those who play the ‘she’s a woman’ card are in my opinion the worst offenders. A lot of the stuff on blogs is immature and baiting, and frankly a turn off. the constant use of the testosterone filled language is tiresome ‘a blow to your crotch’ being a case in point.
Liam’s blog is one of the better ones and you do him no favours by transporting your SUN brand of boys own blogging over here.
Did Steph feel that she needed to be defended as a woman? Did you ask her? She seems to me to be a cogent coherent blogger who stands in her own terms.

LikeLike

Reply
Kevin Ovenden

June 28, 2008 at 9:58 am

Ray

Please. Do as Padraig suggests.

Margo

The quip about a blow to the crotch was exactly to deploy laddish, testotosterone-fuelled language in an effort at parody. My apologies if it’s so badly written it’s misinterpreted.

I don’t call on people to listen to a speaker because she’s a woman, or she’s black or a lesbian and, like you, I’ve had my fair share of arguments against tokenism. But that’s not the same as recognising when someone is being excluded.

In political meetings I and others often subtly intervene to prevent that happening.

Steph and I are frequently in the same political meetings, so I’m pretty confident that we are broadly on the same page in terms of our political practice.

LikeLike

Reply
margo

June 28, 2008 at 11:00 am

Subtly is precisely what is missing on the blogs though isn’t it?
And tokenism I agree is annoying, but so is opportunism. Careful, before you think I am accusing you of that, I am still talking in generalities here.

Throwing important issues around like women’s oppression as a debating tool is despicable – it diminishes the issue and the people who fight against it.

As far as exclusion is concerned, you haven’t won your point. I maintain that the tenor of many arguements and the language used, not to mention the bombast of ‘who are you ?…explain your contribution to the liberation of mankind before you speak to me like that…I’ve had more blogs than you’ve had hot dinners… don’t go on about K****’s bum it’s hardly the worst kind of sexism, she sells herself doesn’t she?’ comments dominate and exclude many people, especially women.
The discipline you ask of certain people on here to answer every point even if they feel they have, or even if they have responded to it a hundred times and now feel that this is one time too many, belongs to a different medium.
These blogs are supremely undemocratic, undisciplined and most of the time full of assertion without detail, and gossip.
If you want to bring a discipline to one part you must do it to the whole. IMO

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 28, 2008 at 11:17 am

What worries me here is that any arguments about equality are undermined by behaviour.
The SWP have one hell of a reputation.Just look at the make up of the CC.
On the other hand,no RR Elected MPs are likely to vote for equality legislation such as the removal of named fathers from the Embryology bill.
Unfortunately linked to this is an increased anti science ( in favour of religion) bias in RR.
To the extent that George Galloway insisted on being filmed with his Tasbih when interviewing a promininet Embryologist .
The SWP position on Nuclear Power is also a bizarre throwback.

Any movement on the left MUST embrace scientific advance, particularly on the environment,food and health.
Religion and 80s dogma must not be allowed to interfere.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 28, 2008 at 3:43 pm

“Ray

Please. Do as Padraig suggests.”

I tried awhile back but you and Nas decided to use underhanded tactics to divert the discussion. The fact that you’ve ignored my point by point responses to Steph before I gave up when she decided to bait me by questioning my contribution to Respect indicates that you are up to mischief. Sexism and other oppressions are serious issues and using them in an erroneous way to brow beat people on blogs (or anywhere else for that matter) just trivializes them.

LikeLike

Reply
Padraic

June 28, 2008 at 5:28 pm

The SWP position on Nuclear Power is also a bizarre throwback.??

Jim, can you explain this statement?

LikeLike

Reply
Jim Johnson

June 28, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t the SWP still have a policy of opposing Nuclear Power on safety and cost grounds, favouring domestic coal fired power stations?

1.Nuclear has proven to be safe.
2.Cost analysis have changed reccently, look at the French Power stations.
3.Coal is dirty.
4.Coal Mining is more dangerous.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 28, 2008 at 8:27 pm

The SWP’s position on nuclear power is common to a large section of the left and the environmental movement asa whole.
I think this link explains why the SWP and many others who are concerned about climate change are against the building of a new generation of nuclear energy plants.

http://www.pembina.org/op-ed/1356

The way forward for energy generation is through renewable sources. But even this depends on what is defined as “renewable”.
I believe the left needs to oppose nuclear energy because, among other things, it’s a licence to print money by capitalists. Workers end up paying higher prices for energy and in development costs to subsidise the nuclear industry.

This is an interesting debate that was also part of a recent thread on climate change on this blog. Perhaps we need to carry it on there or a new one could be devoted to it.

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 8:30 pm

far be it for me to defend the SWP, but there are many good scientific (and pragmatic) reasons to reject the current implementation of nuclear power:

1) it hasn’t been proven safe
2) still pollutes
3) potential for weaponry
4) and the solution to nuclear waste is to dig a hole in the ground and effectively throw the residue down, not very scientific

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 8:34 pm

not wishing to contradict our SWP comrade, Ray, but as far as I can see capitalists are not terribly keen on nuclear power either, because it takes a long time to commission a nuclear power station, a period of time to get it going and the decommissioning costs are unclear, which in capitalist terms is not a good way to put your money

there are far simpler investments than nuclear power, however there is a nuclear lobby in UK and they are one of the main driving forces behind the push for nuclear power, another specialist interest group with their own agenda

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 28, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Ray.
I know its common to much of the left.
I believe that has to change.
I don’t accept your view that Nuclear power is more of a licence to print money for capitalists than other sources, and the SWP position towards workers in the nuclear industry is?

Compared to Coal Mining Modernity,its safety over the last fifty years is remarkable.

LikeLike

Reply
margo

June 28, 2008 at 8:39 pm

‘I’ve had my fair share of arguments against tokenism. But that’s not the same as recognising when someone is being excluded.’

Oh the irony, my reply to you has been ‘excluded’
lol

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Compared to Coal Mining Modernity,its safety over the last fifty years is remarkable.”

which is a fallacious argument and you know it

I suppose running across the carriageway of the M1 is safer than playing Russian roulette, but taken on its own traversing that carriageway is not safe, but I’m sure you knew all of that,

if you like to Search google I’m sure you can find some recent problems with nuclear power in France and elsewhere, but I’ll bet you know that too 🙂

and France are relatively expert in terms of the management of nuclear power systems, so we can only wonder what would happen if and when the slapdash British management gets to work with it and their propensity to cut corners

I think it’s fair to say given the past record that any increase in the proliferation of nuclear stations in Britain would result in more accidents

need I remind you of Windscale and others?

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 28, 2008 at 8:53 pm

When was Windscale?
How long since a death in the British Nuclear sector?
We could alway use French expertise,
and I don’t have any figures for deaths in the coal industry c.w. nuclear.
I suspect far more deaths in coal.

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Jim,

clearly, you are an advocate for nuclear power for whatever reasons and to drag up the fact that coal mining is more dangerous, does not, logically speaking, detract from the potential dangers of nuclear power

one doesn’t follow from the other and it is fallacious to argue otherwise.

but as it seems that you won’t engage with the central issues or the evidence concerning nuclear power (a rather unscientific approach), there’s not much more that I can say to you

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 28, 2008 at 9:02 pm

We’ll agree on the word “potential” rather than historical.

Just two other points.
Most of the left in France has no problems with Nuclear.

Is Galloways environmental routine up for a Perrier this year?

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 9:03 pm

but a very quick search of google revealed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1199389.stm from 2001

“Electricité de France has been given until 30 September to implement preventative safety measures in steam generators at its French nuclear reactors including plugging tubes affected by an anomaly in anti-vibration measures.

France’s Nuclear Safety Authority (Autorité De Sûreté Nucléaire, ASN) has released a letter issued to the utility on 24 April calling for some steam generator tubes to be plugged to prevent the risk of their rupturing. The company must also implement enhanced measures to detect leaks between primary and secondary coolant circuits pending the completion of the plugging work.”

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-French_safety_authority_demands_steam_generator_safety_measures-2406087.html

I am sure that one of the Greens, etc who keep track of the cockups and leaks in the Nuclear business could provide a much more comprehensive list, it won’t be pretty

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 28, 2008 at 9:10 pm

47 Miners dead in US last year
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-01-mine_x.htm

incredibly low c.w. the Chinese (av 6,000 per year) Russian and South African carnage in the mines.

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 9:18 pm

when next there is a major nuclear explosion there be a little bit more than 47 dead

so making such comparisons is a false way of looking at it

it is intellectually dishonest, it is illogical and it doesn’t follow

so therefore to argue that scientifically speaking nuclear power is the way by using false and dodgy arguments is hardly sound reasoning or terribly inspiring

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 28, 2008 at 9:31 pm

How often are major nuclear explosions?

It,s similar to a fear of flying.
Its the guy driving past a school at 45mph who kills, But just imagine if planes suddenly fell from the sky,how many people would die.

50 years track record is a long one and a good one.

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 9:40 pm

again a spurious argument

simply because something hasn’t occurred recently doesn’t mean it couldn’t occur again or turn out worse

let’s think of a related example

it would be perfectly possible using your dodgy methodology to argue that nuclear weapons were more “safe” than conventional weapons, based on the fact that in the past 600 years conventional weapons have killed more people than nuclear weapons have

it’s not a very good argument and full of holes, in a similar fashion to the potential danger that a multiplicity of nuclear power stations could hold

oh, 50 years of fiddling the book, hiding the leaks and covering up

that’s even forgetting Three Mile Island

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 28, 2008 at 9:50 pm

it would be perfectly possible using your dodgy methodology to argue that nuclear weapons were more “safe” than conventional weapons, based on the fact that in the past 600 years conventional weapons have killed more people than nuclear weapons have

Not really.
Because over the last fifty years Nuclear Reactors and coal mines have operated every day.
Death rate in the latter dwarfing the former.

Logic would say close the latter before the former.
Even before we look at emissions and long term illness.

You imply secret deaths from Nuclear.
Why haven’t the French left discovered those?

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 9:52 pm

let’s not forget that 50 “record”:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3920761.stm

“A container being taken by road from Yorkshire to the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria leaked radioactive material for 130 miles, a court heard.

Leeds Crown Court was told that it was “pure good fortune” no-one was dangerously contaminated in the incident in March 2002.

AEA Technology was transporting part of scrapped cancer treatment equipment. It admitted health and safety breaches.

The company is due to be sentenced at the court on Monday. ”

“A government scientific committee found that the risk of cancer from radiation could be 10 times higher or lower than previously thought.

Opponents of the Sizewell and Sellafield nuclear sites say more research is needed on this.

The report calls for new cancer studies near the former Bradwell nuclear plant.

The leaked draft report of CERRIE – the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters – says the risk of cancer from exposure inside the human body could be much higher than the international safety limits allow. ”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3920761.stm

LikeLike

Reply
jim johnson

June 28, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Compared to how many deaths in the coal and oil industry?

I didn’t intend this to become a one track thread diversion
The point I was trying to make is that the left need to take a hard look at it positions on science , energy and food.

It strikes me the SWP energy policy is based on a 1980s model.
Galloways environmental stuff is pure comedy.
At the root of both these two positions is a knee jerk view of nuclear energy (very British)

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

June 28, 2008 at 11:09 pm

I’ll concede that I’ve had too much to drink but I don’t understand how those two bastard cats allowed this discussion to drift onto nuclear power.

They may not get the gig next weekend after all.

LikeLike

Reply
modernity

June 28, 2008 at 11:23 pm

maybe they are fat, er, cats in the pay of the Nuclear lobby?

LikeLike

Reply
Padraic

June 28, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Well , at least they are discussing genuine political differences which is a lot more interesting than much of what has gone before.

And I thought you were at Glastonbury.

LikeLike

Reply
Ray

June 29, 2008 at 12:58 am

“‘I’ve had my fair share of arguments against tokenism. But that’s not the same as recognising when someone is being excluded.’

Oh the irony, my reply to you has been ‘excluded’
lol”

I noticed it’s just shown up. I wonder what happened? Maybe there was a delay in the system. It is ironic though… 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 29, 2008 at 11:46 am

There is also the traditional connection between nuclear power, great power status, military industrial complex etc, etc.

LikeLike

Reply
Jim Johnson

June 29, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Doesn’t have to be.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf76.html

LikeLike

Reply
johng

June 29, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Doesn’t have to be no, if you abstract entirely from the British history of the nuclear industry. given the nature of the British state, its history, and its relationship to the rest of the world its something to be minded about.

LikeLike

Reply
upnorth

June 29, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Careerist parasites, all of them. They won`t even have the balls to resign there seats and have a by-election.I suppose they will now embrace all new labour ideals. Privatisation, WAR, Pay Restraint etc.

LikeLike

Reply

Leave a reply to John Malcolm Cancel reply