Nick Wrack, National Secretary of Respect, spoke in a personal capacity at the Socialist Resistance dayschool on broad parties. The positioning of the George Bush poster was an unfortunate mistake from which our media team will learn.
Respect's National Secretary on the challenges ahead
Nick Wrack, National Secretary of Respect, spoke in a personal capacity at the Socialist Resistance dayschool on broad parties. The positioning of the George Bush poster was an unfortunate mistake from which our media team will learn.
1–2 minutes
160 responses to “Respect's National Secretary on the challenges ahead”
-
Thanls Liam for putting up these videos, of courses there is no subsistute for being at the meeting itself but being able to hear Nick’s argument while doing the washing up is brilliant.
LikeLike
-
Another great resorce for hearing socilaist argument while doing the washing up is: http://www.resistancemp3.org.uk/
Yes it’s mostly SWP stuff (mostly Marxism event recordings) but there are some very interesting contributions in there.
LikeLike
-
-
I see that Solidarity is standing against the SSP in the Glasgow East by-election. Correct me if I’m wrong but Galloway is a mate of Tommy Sheridan’s and the SWP is also backing him so that both sides of RESPECT are on the wrong side in Scotland.
Such sectarian posturing in a seat where the Labour Party is in meltdown and a united left candidate could make a good showing, deserves the vote both sides will receive. It is a depressing portent of the situation in England for the Euro elections next year and the General Election whenever it comes.
LikeLike
-
Padraic:
1) There is only “one side” of Respect (now).
2) Respect doesn’t organise in Scotland.
3) Galloway doesn’t determine the policy of Respect, even if it needed one on this issue.On the failure to get a united left candidate: in principle of course, I agree with you, but to be realistic, it was never really on, given the relationship between these two organisations.
The Eru elections would be more problematic if Respect and LA both organise national campaigns, stand in many constituencies, but that is by no means certain. The SP are another factor, as well.
LikeLike
-
Phil,
I know RESPECT doesn’t organise in Scotland. My point was that , for a while, the SSP was a model for how the left could collaborate, even form a left party. Of course the split was not just down to Sheridan – the underlying divide seems to be a more pro-unionist emphasis coming from him and Galloway compared to more of a bending to the SNP on the other side.
My question is: are the differences between the now separate parts really so big that they stand against each other in elections? If they are, then I haven’t seen this argued out. If they are not , then what is happening in Scotland is likely to be repeated in England and Wales.
True, the relationship between the SSP and Solidarity in Scotland is more poisonous but you are right when you say that if RESPECT and LL (?) stand against each other, that will be “problematic”. We’ll be a joke. Worse, the electoral field will be left open to a populist , neo- fascist politics from the right.
LikeLike
-
When you left the ISG, it seemed you had chosen to follow the LL – is this still the case? If so, what do you think of this choice now?
With the General election, it seems a possible competition for the same seats may happen with the LL standing in Tower Hamlets/Newham. Do you now urge LL comrades to leave this area alone?
LikeLike
-
Padraic:
1) It’s the “Left Alternative” now:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/
As you can see, the symbol is a broken red star. (I presume this is new: maybe Respect had it before the split?)
2) I said it would be problematic if they stood nationally. I’m not sure either is strong enough to do that, or whether they want to.You are correct about the far right. I also predict a large vote for the Greens in the Euro elections. It’s because the Euro parliament is not perceived to have much power, the turnout from supporters of the mainstream parties will be lower, so there is more potential for protest votes. In 1989, the Greens got 15%, over 2m votes.
LikeLike
-
There would be some value in Respect and SP running a joint campaign in the 2009 Euro elections in London and West Midlands region. Both organisations have councillors who are likely to stand as serious parliamentary candidates in the 2010 election in the two regions and who could be used as a focus around those constituencies. There will be no local elections in either constituency in 2009.
It would need minimal agreement, though it would need an electoral title but basically both organisations could use the opportunity to campaign fairly independently in their respective areas of strength.
It would however lead to a head on conflict with the Green Party in London over there Euro seat, but as Respect is far more likely to win a parliamentary seat than any other minor party, I see little alternative to that unless the Greens \are willing to come up with something better.
LikeLike
-
If there was a united left candidate in Glasgow East, there would be a good chance of a morale boosting saved deposit – but this just isnt going to happen. In the Glasgow list elections in 2007, Solidarity polled 4.1%, SLP 1.3% and SSP 1.2 %.
The whole split will not resolve itself until after Sheridans perjury case
LikeLike
-
Somewhat taken aback to see George Galloway use his Daily Record column to back Labour in the Glasgow East by-election;
http://tinyurl.com/6b4osp
“Glasgow East should send Margaret Curran to Westminster on July 24.”
Even more surprising because exactly a week earlier he had used the same column to deride the very same Margaret Curran;
http://tinyurl.com/5pr76s
“Margaret Curran, in trap three, who was formerly close to me, has metamorphosed from a butterfly into another New Labour caterpillar – dessicated, robotic and incapable of rallying anyone.”LikeLike
-
George,
The point I’ve made for a long time is that “blame the SWP” is not good enough to explain the split in RESPECT and there is much too much of that kind of “analysis” on this site.
There is clearly a need for an electoral alliance, which might anyway have been a better starting option for the RESPECT project and it should be fought for, even allowing for the bitterness on both sides.
LikeLike
-
After having been to Marxism there isn’t any bitterness. Respect failed, this can’t be undone, and we need to continue to find ways to work together. Electoral politics is only one part of a larger picture that includes fighting against pay cuts and defending workers who speak out over PFI and cuts in services. There is so much to get involved in right now that dwelling on who did what to who over 9 months ago won’t help socialists relate to what’s going on right now.
LikeLike
-
“Electoral politics is only one part of a larger picture ” Ray
Only one part, around 0.68% of the whole given the maginificent campaign conducted for London Mayor presumably. And on that basis the SWP have soooooooo much to teach the left, trade unions and social movements one can hardly wait their turn to other fronts. Great stuff.
Mark P
LikeLike
-
At some point you may have to put your bitterness behind you, Mark and move on.
There is a genuine discussion to be had but sarcastic comments and hared won’t get us there.
LikeLike
-
Nor will your infinite supply of self-righteousness.
A genuinely useful discussion and somebody who seriously believes its a good idea naming their political grouplet ‘permanent revolution’ is a contraction in terms.
Goodnight.
Mark P
LikeLike
-
That told you Jason!
LikeLike
-
Mark P, I’m watching Panorama right now about selling off the NHS to private companies. Can’t you see that we have enough on our plate without attacking each other?
It’s great to see Candi Udwin and other activists given the chance to speak out against privatisation on TV. Workers are concerned about this and other attacks by New Labour right now – not the split of a small left group 9 months ago. That doesn’t mean electoral politics are irrelevant it means the left has to relate to where the anger is and this will strengthen electoral campaigns. It’s the best way to undercut the influence of the BNP as we will fight for the NHS where as they won’t. It’s for the benefit of all of us if we stop PFI and cuts in services.
LikeLike
-
“Can’t you see that we have enough on our plate without attacking each other?”
Great – so let’s resolve all the outstanding issues relating to the split in Respect and then we can all move on.
Ray – can I ask you to raise this issue with the leadership of the SWP. Let us and them get round a table – agree to differ where we do, agree a non-agression pact (especially in east London) and more importantly agree to work together where we agree.
The only way this is going to happen is a serious discussion about ending the ongoing elements of dispute. Respect exists, Left Alternative exists, the SWP exists – isn’t it time we recognised that reality?
Until we decide who gets the CDs and who gets the washing machine the divorce will stay messy. Time to talk?
LikeLike
-
Ray – having spoken to a supporter of SR who was at Marxism he was firmly of the impression – based on a refusal even to establish eye contact with him by several people with whom he collaborated over some years – that there is bitterness. But that’s a side issue.
Much more importantly, and this is where I disagree strongly with Bill, Jason and you, is the fact that this is no time for the left to completely give up on electoral politics. The principal way in which working class people express a political preference is by voting. At the moment they are voting to reject all sorts of things but only a tiny proportion have an opportunity to vote in favour of anything resembling anti-capitalist politics.
As for the prospect of industrial militancy facing down the BNP you omit the possibility that faced with an election the union bureaucracies will raise a Tory scare as a pretext for sitting on their hands. Even nominally left led unions like the NUT are not taking advantage of strong support for industrial action and UNISON’s leadership is certain to throw a lifeline to New Labour. One part of building an industrial fightback is to offer a viable political expression of class struggle politics.
LikeLike
-
PCS negotiators in the DWP have been offered a little more money by management and the website suggests there will be no more action until at least September
LikeLike
-
I was at Marxism and although there was a discussion on the split in Respect at the John Rees session – strategy and tactics. It only scraped the surface and the vibe from the SWP (apols if I am wrong) was that electoral politics will be on the back burner for the SWP. Not enough space to go into it here. SWP say they will learn lessons from the Respect debacle but some in the SWP have put in some years to get Respect established. Now they do not have the name – a Left alternative that got nowhere in the GLA elections and likely to fizzle out. Lessons indeed have to be learned but do not expect these to be publicised. Respect will work with others and broaden links to give people a real chance and vote in the neo-liberal agenda being operated by New Labour.
LikeLike
-
“Much more importantly, and this is where I disagree strongly with Bill, Jason and you, is the fact that this is no time for the left to completely give up on electoral politics. ”
Actually, Liam I am not against standing candidates of struggle where such a camaign raises politics and hlps organise the struggle.
LikeLike
-
“As for the prospect of industrial militancy facing down the BNP you omit the possibility that faced with an election the union bureaucracies will raise a Tory scare as a pretext for sitting on their hands. Even nominally left led unions like the NUT are not taking advantage of strong support for industrial action and UNISON’s leadership is certain to throw a lifeline to New Labour. One part of building an industrial fightback is to offer a viable political expression of class struggle politics.”
I’d like to deal with this issue as I think it’s the most important. Unison has agreed to strikes over pay. We’ve got the local government strikes on 16 & 17 July. The PCS group executives meet this week to discuss calling out their members alongside Unison strikers. The PCS is also to ballot all its over 250,000 members in the public sector over striking against below-inflation pay offers.
The TU leadership are being forced to take a stand against Brown because they’re under pressure from below. It’s important that we make the most of this now and deal with any dampening down by the TU leadership when it arises.
Socialists are the ones who defend services not the BNP. An important strategy for pulling voters away from the BNP is showing their voters in practice that we are able to build campaigns to save post offices, social housing, NHS services and the fight on pay.I’m not claiming that the SWP is giving up electoralism. At the “Strategy and tactics” meeting John Rees made a commitment to continue with an electoral campaign.
Concerning Respect, I don’t believe this can be resolved. I think we have to cut our losses and move on. There’s little point having talks about Respect that may reignite further disputes. We may never agree about what caused the split. The SWP stands by it’s analysis as does Renewal so why prolong an inevitable end to this?
As for agreeing who should stand where, no political organisation has an automatic right to stand in any area. The left can discuss this but there’s no guarantee that an agreement will be reached.LikeLike
-
“Concerning Respect, I don’t believe this can be resolved. I think we have to cut our losses and move on. There’s little point having talks about Respect that may reignite further disputes. We may never agree about what caused the split. The SWP stands by it’s analysis as does Renewal so why prolong an inevitable end to this?
As for agreeing who should stand where, no political organisation has an automatic right to stand in any area. The left can discuss this but there’s no guarantee that an agreement will be reached.”I take it that’s a NO then?
LikeLike
-
I guess so Clive. However, if the left co-operate in campaigns and actaully in pracitce begin developing the non-agression pact you quite rightly advocate then I think in time anything is possible.
Hey who knows may be even we’ll all be together in the refounded revolutionary socialist organisation the ISG propose though I think you may be a little sceptical. But you know people change.
LikeLike
-
I think we have to cut our losses and move on.
Good. Can we have the name, then?
There’s little point having talks about Respect that may reignite further disputes.
Good. Can we have the name, then?
We may never agree about what caused the split. The SWP stands by it’s analysis as does Renewal so why prolong an inevitable end to this?
Absolutely. Let’s get it over with. Can we have the name, then?
Serious point: I think moving on is a great idea, but it has to start with talking about where we actually are. Who controls the assets of RESPECT? Is the bank account still frozen, and if not who’s got access to it? Is it still Left List policy to try and prevent the RESPECT name being used in elections? What’s SWSS policy at the national level on Student RESPECT? And so on. Ignoring all these questions isn’t moving on, it’s running away.
As for agreeing who should stand where, no political organisation has an automatic right to stand in any area. The left can discuss this but there’s no guarantee that an agreement will be reached.
I don’t exactly disagree with any of that, but the way I’d put it would be to say that, given the general weakness of the Left at the moment, it very rarely makes sense for any two left-of-Labour forces to run candidates against each other, and that with sufficient good will and forbearance on all sides this can usually be avoided.
LikeLike
-
Sorry perhaps my immediate short reply didn’t do your evasion justice.
I’ve no desire to agree with the SWP about the reasons for the split. I know we will never agree. I don’t particularly care. But surely it is in everyone’s interests to disentangle the last fibres of Respect from ‘The Left Alternative’. Do you wish to move on or not?.
The divorce has happened. The marital bed has been cold for quite some time. If you are serious about moving on then argue for a proper divorce. You’ve failed to go to court so perhaps mediation is appropriate.
If you just want to fudge the issue – under some vague pretence of not igniting further disputes – then you lay yourself open to the charge of prolonging the agony – for othere motives – rather than bringing forward what you belive to be ‘an inevitable end to this.’
Truth is I’m not that fussed about a non-agression pact. Your electoral purchase has proved to be little more than zero – 0.68% to be precise – but please stop pretending to be Respect – you are fooling no one but yourselves.
LikeLike
-
Yeah OK was a tad optmistic before but it keeps me going and it’s cheaper than drugs and people do change- sometimes!
Good night one and all.LikeLike
-
“Hey who knows may be even we’ll all be together in the refounded revolutionary socialist organisation the ISG propose though I think you may be a little sceptical. But you know people change.”
Sceptical? Jason, please. Let’s keep things within the realms of the possible.
I’m sceptical about the possiblity of of alchemy.
I’m sceptical about the possibility of crossing a sheep with a koala.
I’m sceptical about Britain producing a 5-times Wimbledon champion.
I’m sceptical about people who claim that Strawberry flavour Angel Delight is better the Butterscotch.My opinion of the myself and the SWP being in the same ‘revolutionary’ organisation doesn’t even come close to ‘sceptical.’
LikeLike
-
Who knows what will happen in the future but the left has got better things to worry about than the split in Respect. The electoral commision has made it’s decision so consider that a decree nisi for now. Who knows what may happen in the future.
The SWP is very much open to building an alliance with others on the left. That’s why we’re involved in the Convention of the Left. There’s no chance of the SWP forming a revolutionary party with other revolutionary organisations. We have one of our own and we don’t intend to liquidate ourselves into any other. Forming a left alliance with reformists is important. We can’t be sectarian and demand only revolutionaries in an alliance nor will we liquidate ourselves when we do form an alliance with reformists.
We’ve returned to the split again. All the broad issues I discussed at Marxism seem to be reduced to the very narrow outlook of the split.
LikeLike
-
By all accounts Callinicos and Rees have pronounced the new line: electoral intervention in England is off the agenda, on the backburner.
Where that leaves the SWP comrades who were genuinely committed to Respect, I don’t know. Where it leads those who believed the guff about the Lift List/Alternative, is equally a mystery.
The shift to industry is, I’m afraid, laughable and utterly cynical. We’ve had the anti-fascist turn, which delivered a gold-plated, grade-A fiasco at London Bridge, and in it’s wake is yet another turn to industry.
Somehow, I don’t see the 5am sales at sorting offices happening.
Phil: Over the name, we have the name. The Left Alternative have moved on. The website will flicker for a while. Elaine Graham-Liegh will be like a dog in the manger refusing to give up her post as Treasurer for a bit.
But it will all move on. It would be great if some of the talented people in the SWP who know that this is now a bad joke came over to building Respect and trying to make a further political breakthrough over the next two years. If not, so be it.
The net result of the SWP’s work in this field over the last four years is a councillor in Bolsover (what has happened to him?), a big green balloon with a legend that has been interred, and the self-imposed obligation of having a float on Gay Pride every year.
Ray’s enfeebled tone says it all, though. A retreat into the verities, and a scarcely veiled disorientation on realising that he’s been taken for a ride and that those of us who said the SWP leadership would just shift to another pasture, were 100 percent correct.
LikeLike
-
Nas, you’re dragging Renewal further down the sectarian path. Give it up comrade.
LikeLike
-
The SWP has declared the Respect project a failure. They are the left and nothing happens without them. Therefore the Respect project is no more. This was clearly the sectarian consolation prize that the SWP leadership were hoping for out of the wreckage of the Left List.
However, sadly for them, they are wrong. Only a fool would claim that Respect had not been damaged by the SWP’s attempt to destroy it, but New Labour does not believe it is dead and buried in Tower Hamlets or in that part of Birmingham where Salma Yaqoob will be the parliamentary candidate, and if they don’t believe it why should we?
What has happened is that the SWP has humiliated itself over the past nine months over Respect and the Left List. Now, despite the fact that the SWP leadership tell us that there is still the need for a broad left electoral alternative, no reformist worth their salt will touch the SWP with a barge pole following the role it has played in destroying the Socialist Alliance and then trying to destroy Respect.
Therefore a sounder conclusion would be that the SWP is not the left, that not everything that moves on the left only moves because of the SWP and that there is a reasonable chance that Respect will survive and prosper without the SWP.
LikeLike
-
Jason – if you are not sure why I am scepitcal about being in the same organisation with the SWP may I refer you to the post above from ll, formerly known as jj. It’s the politics of the playground – and this person is apparently a leading member. God help us all.
How he knows what Kevin Ovenden says in private I’m not sure – but his powers of mind-reading are surely better than his appropitate use of punctuation.
LikeLike
-
YAWN – I understand that both sides may have good intentions in running through this merry-go-round argument again but please this is dull dull dull.
LikeLike
-
ll and Nas are both pretty tedious.
Lets hope all sides can work together outside the car crash of Respect which I’m sure will eventually work itself out.LikeLike
-
rob: the split in Respect has worked itself out. The SWP have folded their electoral intervention. Respect, despite the damaging split, is looking forward to holding a conference in the autumn and outlining its strategy for the next two years. People should not confuse working things out and moving on, though, with whitewashing the past.
LikeLike
-
Clive’s actually very nice in real life but obviously a little scarred by recent events.
Anyways it wasn’t long ago we were all in the Socialist Alliance and it wasn’t so bad.
However, the important point is that Clive, Ray and others are committed to working together in joint united front campaigns.
LikeLike
-
Thanks for your concern Jason but I’m far from scarred. I’m just a little bit more realistic than you – and can actually see the political venom from the likes of ll/jj which you seem to be willfully ignoring.
I’m not sure whether I can work with Ray – as I have no idea who he actually is. However, if he is like some – though not all – members of the SWP in Manchester who, for some reason, won’t look at me in the eye, talk to me or even reply to my emails then perhaps your enthusiasm maybe a little misplaced.
LikeLike
-
I can of course understand your sense of hurt but was actually commenting that YOU have shown more than willng to work alongside others including SWP in united fronts I’m not defending ll/jj btw- best to ignore his/her posts not that I can find any anyway.
PS Butterscotch Angel Delight wins every time!
LikeLike
-
ll/jj won’t be troubling us again but he is free to share her / his insights with the world anywhere else s/he chooses.
LikeLike
-
Jason,
Your defence of the cut and run party is more disgusting than the cut and run party’s own defence of its self.
LikeLike
-
David – the use of words like “disgusting” is unhelpful and sounds aggressive and I’d much prefer if people avoided that sort of hyperbole.
The SWP is a large far left organisation that is going to be around in something like its present form for quite a while yet. It’s entirely reasonable to argue that we will have to collaborate on a range of issues in the future. One useful step down that road would be an end to the playground behaviour that Clive describes and I too have experienced.
LikeLike
-
Liam,
Mui apologia. I do however feel that the SWP have definitively abandoned the Musliim working class to its own fate to confront the fash on its own. Jason’s `diplomacy’ is offensive in the teeth of the facts.
LikeLike
-
-
David: “what a way with words you have”
LikeLike
-
David, I have offered no defence of the SWP’s actions in Respect. I have some political differences with the SWP and their way of operating. This includes some common ground with some in Respect (Renewal) i.e. that the SWP have all too often used campaigns and electoral struggles as party fronts, have not always sufficiently engaged in building the campaigns and finding out what working class people want, to sink deep roots in the class and rebuild the movement.
Indeed I think many in Respect have not sufficiently broken with such methods but many are in the porcess of doing so. My point though is that to begin sinking roots in the working class and playing a role in its revival you have to move on from an at times obsessive concentration on the bitterness of th epast. Learn the lessons yes and continue a political debate but without the contortions of hatred. And in my opinion there may be some members of the SWP who may also be open to learning the lessons though it will be harder as they’ll have to fight th eparty machine.
LikeLike
-
This dog in the manger stuff.How can Elaine Graham Leigh prevent RR from standing as Respect?Didn’t they already stand as Respect in the local elections and the London elections? Am I missing something?
By the way as an SWP member I’m perfectly happy to work with RR members where we have common cause and just shunning and ignoring people is indeed silly and not something I’d do.
LikeLike
-
rob: Graham-Leigh can’t prevent Respect candidates standing. All she can do is to refuse to give up the registered position of treasurer. She might carry on doing that for some time, but if she refuses to file proper accounts, perhaps hoping that it would undermine Respect, she would be putting herself in the frame. She’s openly a member of the SWP now, so it’s not like she’s partyless.
It would be good if you conveyed your sensible approach to others in the SWP.
LikeLike
-
But will RR members be willing to work with SWP members?
I’m probably being naiive.There’s obviously too much bitterness on both sides.LikeLike
-
I’m not even a member (yet), but I think the answer is ‘it depends’. RESPECT members certainly won’t weaken a worthwhile & necessary mobilisation solely because it includes or is led by SWP members. (It was put about a while back that RESPECT members wouldn’t be defending Karen Reissmann – an insult and a lie.) What has changed is that RESPECT members won’t always take the same view as the SWP as to which mobilisations *are* worthwhile and necessary.
LikeLike
-
“It was put about a while back that RESPECT members wouldn’t be defending Karen Reissmann – an insult and a lie”
And I take it your implying this rumour was put around by the SWP .Even though it was probably just some bollocks that popped up in the internet.
It’s this sort of crap flying around that leads to the bitterness and acrimony that’s going to be around for years that the left well do without.LikeLike
-
I take it your implying this rumour was put around by the SWP
You take it wrong – I never said or intended to imply any such thing. What I do think is that this rumour was put about by someone feeling antagonistic towards RESPECT – as you said yourself, there’s bitterness on both sides. And I think it’s a bit rich to laugh off anti-RESPECT jibes like this as ‘just some bollocks that popped up in the internet’, then say that the people objecting to it are showing bitterness and acrimony.
LikeLike
-
Who’s laughing?
I didn’t say I found that stuff funny,rather very unhelpful.LikeLike
-
Rob – “will RR members be willing to work with SWP members? I’m probably being naive.There’s obviously too much bitterness on both sides.”
As an RR member who lives with an SWP member I can inform you that bitterness is not universal.
On a general level though, you correct that there is a level of distrust, given the way each side has presented the other as acting this is unsurprising.
Can people get over this? My experience has been that Respect members are more willing to work with SWP then SWP are willing to work with Respect. But as time moves on and each side carves out their respective spaces I’m sure things’ll get easier.
LikeLike
-
Joseph
Well considering that the ‘alternative’ is some form of continuing feud fit only for inmates of the loony bin;
(it would give real meaning to the term ‘loony left’ )
then the only real course for the left is to put this whole charade behind them, and as the late great Duncan Hallas said, ‘always the united front.’
That’s not an exact quote, but something like he said at the end of an article in ISJ on relating to the then (Bennite) Labour Left in 1981.
It would be well worth all of us ( re )reading it learning from it and putting it into practice.
If only I could lay my hands on it !LikeLike
-
For organisations on the left to work together they have to have to agree on a set of principles. This is especially important when working together on an electoral basis.
It seems very unlikely that the SWP or any organisation on the left who wants to organise a left alternative to New Labour will be able to work with Galloway as he is supporting New Labour in Glasgow.
I’m not really interested in having a debate about whether this is tactically correct or not. My point is that unity on electoral campaigns can only work if we agree on the politics. At the moment Renewal and the SWP are going in two different political directions.
LikeLike
-
So ray
The SWP will not be backing labour in the majority of constitunecies where there is no credible left of labour candidate in the next general election?
A historic reversal of the position of the SWP, surely?
LikeLike
-
I’m not interested in debating about Galloway’s support for New Labour where socialists are standing. It’s pointless. The fact that we have completely different politics on this issue demonstrates the point I made in my last post.
LikeLike
-
Ray
Have you checked into the facts of Jane Loftus and the SW in the last Royal Mail strike yet?
LikeLike
-
Have you stopped lying about the SWP’s role in the CWU yet? Stop trying to divert the discussion, Andy.
LikeLike
-
Denise – the regroupment steering committee met this evening and I will post something before the weekend on this.
Ray – a more pertinent question is that in the few months comrades in the SWP were told that they were being witch hunted, there was a left / right split, Lindsey German had a real chance of getting elected, the fascists were on top of the hill and that we are now about to ride a wave of industrial action – why has there been no attempt to draw a balance sheet of any of these perspectives? Every week another rabbit is pulled from the hat.
The problem of building a class struggle organisation to the left of Labour has not gone away and some of us are still grappling with it.
LikeLike
-
ray
What “lies” have i told?
I am giving you a straightforward factual account based upon conversations I had with the leading grassroots militants involved with the dispute.
It is a very serious degeneration into religious cult like behaviour for you to actually deny the facts, and claim they were different from what they were.
None of the following facts are actualy in dispute are they?
i) SWP member and Ppresident of the CWU, Jane Loftus, did not campaign for a No vote in the ballot.
ii) She did not register her dissent from the majority exec position to recommend acceptance, which she had to do under rule, if she wished to campaign against.
iii) Post worker was not distributed during the dispute (I never saw an issue on the web, and none of the militants i spoke to saw a print copy)
iv) The SWP had no internal discussion about the fact that an SWP member who was and is president of the Union failed to campaign for a no vote in the ballot.
In addition we can surmise that Jane’s reasoning was that she agreed with Dave Ward and Billy hayes that it was more importnat to keep the position of President in the hands of the left, rather than relinquish the position to campaign for a NO vote.
But that is not a traditioonal SWP position, and Ii would have expected there to be some discussion in the SWP about it.
This is very much pertinent to the discussion, becasue you claim that “revolutionaries” have better judgement than “reformists”.
But in the CWU dispute, the only member of the posteal exec to campaign for a NO vote was the “reformist”, Dave warren.
The “revolutionary” Jane Loftus did not campaign for a no vote.
I think it is disgraceful for you to avoid any political discussion of that by claiming that known and undisputed facts are “a lie”
LikeLike
-
Andy, you accuse me of stating things that I haven’t said but that doesn’t surprise me considering that you’ve accused the SWP of providing left cover for Hayes and insinuated that our comrades tried to wreck the strike. You obviously have no idea about what goes on in the CWU otherwise you wouldn’t make such dishonest and sectarian accusations. I’m not interested in discussing your slurs.
But don’t let that stop you continuing your petty little SWP witchhunt and demonstrating how out of touch you are with industrial activity. Just save it for someone who’s willing to indulge your obsession.Liam, you may believe the Renewal line about the SWP but I think it’s a convenient excuse for not addressing the politics of the organisation that SR has liquidated itself into. You’re still grappling with the ghost of an alliance that died 9 months ago. If the left is going to grow we need to look beyond this to the potential we have of organising in the present. I hope Renewal can freely engage in the wider struggle rather than lose its way in recrimination and introspection.
LikeLike
-
There is no Respect “line” on this. Respect has not discussed it. All these zig zags are obvious for anyone with eyes to see. Check the back issues of SW.
LikeLike
-
Ray
the questionof the CWU strike is a very important one.
Given that there has been no discussion in the SWP about what happened.
You say I have no idea waht happned in the CWU- but I have had extensive discussions with very well known grassroots militants in the union, and I leave it to others to judge whether my account seems more or less credible than yours,
Now, I have never said that the SWP tried to wreck the strike. I have made some very specific points about the role that Jane Loftus played in the strike.
I certainly didn’t imply that the SWP deliberately tried to derail the strike – but they certainly made naive errors in their assessment of what the strike was about and how it coould be won. (SW argued it was about pay, when for most posties it was equaly if not more so about changes in work practices, and SW naivley exaggerated the prospect of a generalised pay dispute, that was a huge mistake, as it ignored the mechanics and timescales of the decision making processes in the unions concerned)
I woould put it no stronger than Jane made a mistake, and that generally the SWP had no sense of direction with the strike. But given its importance you should have discussed what went wrong.
What i accussed you of is bending your politics to accomodate inconvenient facts. Now I may have innocently misinterpreted what you said, so why don’t you try again to engage woth this important argument.
Can you explain why the R&F paper, Postworker, when it came to the earlier ballot on “shaping the future”, which was about the principle of whether the union accepted profitablity, you gave two paostal exec members space to write advocating acceptance, and there was no article by Jane Loftus arguing for NO, so the no argument had to be carried by relativley unknown lay activists .
Can you explain why in the recent dispute, the SWP worked so hard to arge that the key to winning was joint action with the PCS, even though that would require the initiative and copoeratioon of Billy Hayes and Dave Ward who opposed that strategy? The SWP never acknowledged that Hayes and Ward oppposed the strategy of joint action with the PCS, and the SWP never argued how such oppositin could be overcome. (An example of giving left cover to Hayes, by the way, by implying he backed a more left strategy than he did (It was a bt of an “All Powee to the General Council of the TUC” the demand)
Now you can run but you can’t hide from this one ray.
It is relevent becasue you ahve said revoutionaries always have better judgement, and also becasue you claim the SWP is democratic.
So can you defned the judgement of the SWP in the CWU dispute, and can you explain why there has been no democraitc discussion about what happned within the SWP?
Sayin I am “lying” or a “sectarian” doesn’y get you out of it, it just proves my point that you would rather not acknowledgr facts that challenge your Moonnie cult like faith in the SWP leadership.
LikeLike
-
Ray
can you explain why Postworker has no editorial board that includes non SWP CWU members?
Can you expain why at the Genoa European Social Forum, martin Smith arfued that he was the sole editor of Postworker, “becasue CWU members have faith in him”
can you square this with the descriptions of the IS/ SWP politics of Rank and fIle organisation in the unions from as expaounded by- for example – Steve Jeffries or Duncan hallas?
LikeLike
-
The Duncan Hallas article I referred to earlier was called “Revolutionaries and the Labour Party” ref ISJ 16 article 1, Well worth a read if you can get hold of it.
The paraphrased ref to ‘always the united front’ comes in at about the concluding last para as I recall.LikeLike
-
“There is no Respect “line” on this.”
Yes there is but you don’t want to acknowledge it.
“Respect has not discussed it.”
Unfortunately that’s true.
“All these zig zags are obvious for anyone with eyes to see.”
All these criticisms have manifested themselves since the split so I find the “obviousness” of them rather hard to believe.
“Check the back issues of SW.”
I always read SW and I’ve taken to reading SU, this blog and some of the other left publications including SR. My conclusion is that if it’s inconsistances you’re after then look to your own publications and the twists and turns of your own leading members in Renewal.
Right now your leading member is calling for a vote for New Labour in Glasgow. Yet there has been no criticism from SR. I think there’s enough going on in your own organisation for you to worry about so thanks for your concern but we’re doing just fine in the SWP.
On the other hand, if you want to discuss how Renewal and the rest of the left can organise together to fight attacks on workers etc. and build their own organisations as well as the left as a whole then that would be much more productive.
LikeLike
-
“the questionof the CWU strike is a very important one.”
So stop lying about the SWP and start engaging with workers in the CWU. It might actually give you some insight into what’s happening on the industrial front.
LikeLike
-
Ray – If you’re going to fill the comments boxes with tripe every time Respect members express differing views, you might as well put the ritual denunciation into Auto Text and save yourself time in typing it (along with saving us time by not reading it).
We are trying to set up an organisation of the left which is *not* run like the SWP and where there is *not* a line that we all have to adhere to – get used to it.
LikeLike
-
“Ray – If you’re going to fill the comments boxes with tripe every time Respect members express differing views, you might as well put the ritual denunciation into Auto Text and save yourself time in typing it (along with saving us time by not reading it).”
The irony of your comment is breathtaking.
“We are trying to set up an organisation of the left which is *not* run like the SWP and where there is *not* a line that we all have to adhere to – get used to it.”
Yes it is very different. For a start you have no internal democracy and your leader can call for a vote for New Labour that goes against everything we spent years building in Respect. Perhaps in Renewal anything goes but that isn’t new nor is it democratic.
LikeLike
-
“There is no Respect “line” on this.”
Yes there is but you don’t want to acknowledge it.
“Respect has not discussed it.”
Unfortunately that’s true.
It’s really hard to see these comments as anything other than you calling Liam a liar. Do you think you could offer your thoughts in a slightly more comradely form?
LikeLike
-
How did the old Respect deal with dissent, Ray?
Here’s an example: A number of people didn’t want Lindsey to stand against Livingstone. It was agreed that if a serious contender emerged, Respect would reconsider standing.
Well, there was not one meeting where this happened. It was not raised at the National Council. The national officers’ meeting never discussed it, and it never came up in the branches. The issue was never discussed again. In fact, the whole thing was buried without a vote.
Tell me more about this “democracy” of which you speak, Ray.
LikeLike
-
“It’s really hard to see these comments as anything other than you calling Liam a liar. Do you think you could offer your thoughts in a slightly more comradely form?”
But it’s ok for Liam to disagree with me and call me on my interpretation. Why does your concern for Liam seem like a tactic to stir things up?
Tonyc, German was selected democratically, as in Respect members voting for her to stand, so there’s no point trying to divert attention from the lack of democratic structure in your own organisation. Perhaps at your proposed conference in October this will finally be sorted out.
While we continue to work with people in Renewal there is a difference in political strategy that can’t be breached while Renewal is calling for a vote for New Labour against socialist candidates.
LikeLike
-
Ray – yes, I do think expressing disagreement is OK in a way that calling someone a liar isn’t. I don’t think this is a controversial view, frankly.
I’m not concerned for Liam (he can look after himself), I’m concerned that you don’t drag the level of debate down. Calling someone a liar to their face doesn’t qualify as civilised debate, and doing it on a blog isn’t any better.
LikeLike
-
Ray
You have said that I am lying about what happened in the CWU dispute and the SWP’s role in it.Unlike you – who hides behind a psedonym – I am an identifiable real person with a position in the trade union movment and a reputation to defend.
In the traditions of the labour movement if you are going to accuse me of lying can you please specify what i said that you allege is untrue, and can you provice your alternative version of events please.
You accuse me of not engaging with CWU members, but I work quite cloisely with leading militants in the CWU in the NSSN, and on the editorial board of the Trade Union magazone Solidarity. i am prettty sure of my facts on this.
If you cannot substantiate your claim that I am lying, would care to retract it please.
It is interesting that you don’t seem to care how much damage you blog antcs (along with others like jj and dave Festive) are doing to the SWP’s repuation among trade union militants.
LikeLike
-
Ray you say to me: “So stop lying about the SWP and start engaging with workers in the CWU. It might actually give you some insight into what’s happening on the industrial front.”
My information comes from face to face converstations and email discussions with the key grassroots militants who were campaigning for a No vote against accepting the deal that ended the last strike.
Where does your information come from?
LikeLike
-
The next person who uses words like “liar”, “lying” when referring to a known contributor will join charmers like “jj”, “Tim” and co on this site’s banned list.
LikeLike
-
Andy stated the SWP was: “…arguing it was all about pay when most militants understood it was about deregulation and working conditions…”
SW 07/11/07: “A debate is raging among postal workers about a deal brokered between their CWU union and Royal Mail to end the dispute over pay, pensions and conditions.”
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13444
SW 10/11/07: “There is a growing realisation that the deal ties the union’s leadership into accepting a future attack on pension rights – including the raising of the retirement age to 65. This is despite an insistance from deputy general secretary Dave Ward that the issue had been “decoupled” from the agreement.”
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13494
He claimed the SWP was: “…arguing naively for the dispute to be linked with the PCS by coordinated action from the tops of the unions even though the time scales of the disputes hardly overlaped…”
SW report from a postal worker: “Since we announced the strike result in the CWU postal workers’ union, I have had lots of invitations to speak at meetings in other public sector unions to explain our dispute and build solidarity…On Tuesday I went to a packed lunchtime meeting of PCS civil service worker’s union members who work for the department of the environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) in central London. There must have been over a hundred people there.
I spoke alongside PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka.
We both talked about the need for united action and the potential political impact of unions taking action together…We got a really good response. Some PCS members had already taken the petition supporting postal workers round their workplace.”http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12143
SW 23/06/07: “Striking postal workers in Heanor, Derbyshire, were joined by workers from the PCS civil service workers’ union on Tuesday of this week.
The CWU union members are striking for seven days against the closure of their office and the transfer of staff.
Paul Williams, from the PCS national executive and a Nottingham civil service worker, said, “Four PCS members went from Nottingham as we are facing the same attacks over pay and office closures as postal workers.
“We were welcomed by the strikers and we talked about how it would be good if the unions struck on the same day over pay.””http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12137
Andy accused the SWP of, “…generally giving left cover to Billy Hayes.”
This means that we betrayed the strike by excusing Hayes capitulation to management. I don’t think I need to point out how despicable that accusation is considering the amount of effort our comrades put into the strike and the “no” campaign.
Andy goes on to insult me with, “What I find disturbing here is the Moonie like cult mindset from Ray, in how he respnds to criticism.”
I accept that people may have different interpretations about events but when Andy uses insults and makes unsubstantiated accusations about the SWP and provides no evidence for them then I think I have the right to call him a liar. He is using a tactic that is meant to dissemble, shut down debate and throw the thread off topic.
Duncan Hallas has been used by critics of the SWP as if he represented a different tradition but he wrote:“There is a fundamental issue involved. We know that the revolutionary party can only be built by involvement in workers’ struggles. In these terms the IMG is irrelevant in most cases. They believe that the way forward is argument – polemic is the word they use – about policies between people who regard themselves as revolutionaries. We left that kind of thing behind years ago.”
It’s a shame I’m probably now banned but I don’t see the point any longer in attempting to debate when certain people invariably refer everything back to the fued. I’ve had some interesting discussions here and my thanks to Liam for letting me have my say. I wish you all well and I don’t doubt that we will continue to work together against our common enemy, the ruling class.
LikeLike
-
Ray: this is extraordinary. All those links and you have not managed to refute a single one of the points you purport to. Socialist Worker talking about a growing realisation about the strings in the deal does not contradict Andy’s claim that the SWP talked of this primarily as a pay dispute up to and during it.
Pointing out that PCS members supported CWU members during the strike does not contradict the point that coordinated action between the two unions was in the gift of the two leaderships and that was not going to happen for the reasons Andy gives, among others.
And a quote about the IMG is not an answer to the reasoned critique that your party was not sufficiently critical of the trade union leadership during this dispute.
(I must say, it also comes as a bit rich from the SWP which has been happy to argue with – polemicise with – the LCR about what is wrong with its anti-capitalist party project and why it should have made more compromises to attract forces to its right.)
Lastly, the self-pity: “it’s a shame I’m probably now banned”. And the SWP is the self styled revolutionary party in Britain? It is not a witchhunt when other socialists argue with you. It’s not sectarian when other socialists criticise the SWP. You do plenty of criticising of the Labour left. That’s not sectarian, is it?
LikeLike
-
Ray.
The position of the SWP throughout the dispute was that a united fight over pay between the PCS and CWU was not only desirable but possible.
As we know, Serwotka did approach the CWU to discuss this, but Billy Hayes was not interested in meeting the PCS.
Nothing about Billy Hayes politics would lead anyone to think he would be interested in leading a generalised pay revolt against a stumbling labour government.
By continuing to argue that united action organised through the offical union structues was a possibility, the SWP were systematically representing hayes’s politics to be more left wing than he is.
In fact the SWP led militants up the garden path – in the one union with industrial clout where they retain infuence – becasue if united acion was going to be achieved then it would have to be built without the support of the CWU official structures – and in fact in opposition to most of the branches.
I don’t think the SWp could acheive that.
Another very important question is what happened to the SWP’s organistaion in the post. If we loook back to say 2002/2003, there was a bit of boosterism, but Postworker was a genuinely influential publication. During last years strike – it was no-where to be seen.
Nor did Postworker put itself at the centre of organising for a NO vote.
But you have quoted a number of articles from SW.
Can you show me an article by Jane Loftus during the ballot period calling for a NO vote? Why not?
Was there a discussion about that in the SWP? The SWP president of the union didn’t campaign for a NO vote for a disastrous deal.
Why can’t you face the facts?
LikeLike
-
Ray
Look at the article you quote:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13444
3 November 2007 | issue 2075
by Yuri Prasad
I quote “It is crucial, therefore, that CWU activists who are against accepting it publicise their case as widely as possible.”
Quite right.
So why didn’t the SWP President of the union speak once publicly against accepting the deal?
Why did she in fact debar herself under rule from campaigning against the deal, by not registering her dissent from the Postal Exec decision too recommend acceptance.
If the SWP disagreed with her, why did they put her on the platform at their alleged “Respect” conference in November?
Why has the SWP had not even a private debate over this?
Why was Jane Loftus’s contribution to the SWP’s pre-conference internal bulletins – that skated over her own role in the dispute but which asked for more guidance from the Party – not replied to by the Industrial organiser?
LikeLike
-
Meanwhile back in the real word the most prominent member of RR, George Galloway , argues in the Daily Record for support for the New Labour candidate in Glasgow East and the silence from the revolutionaries in RR is deafening. What happenened to their support for the SSP or George’s support for Solidarity, both have candidates in the election.
Of course Steph can take solace from her position “We are trying to set up an organisation of the left which is *not* run like the SWP and where there is *not* a line that we all have to adhere to – get used to it.”
Whilst elswhere on the thread about revolutionary regroupment we find a different SR supporter arguing “As for “what if , say , the new group while working in the anti-war movement takes a different line from RR? How would that affect relations with Galloway and the others in RR?”
I don’t really see the new group working in the anti-war or other movements other than as part of Respect and carrying the Respect line.”Whilst I supposed it ok to have different lines on whether you should have lines I am not sure this is as democratic as it sounds. What is the point of having discussions about issues if there is no committment to following majority positions.
What kind of organisation is RR if its leading spokeperson is free to take any view he likes without any accountability.
I think Ray’s basic point is take the beam out of your own eye rather than worrying about the motes or beams in others eyes.
LikeLike
-
‘the digger’ – I’m sorry you are still confused about whether Respect has a ‘line’. We have some policies, which are published on the website. The policies are a kind of ‘minimum programme’ that we can all agree on.
Outside of those areas of agreement, we don’t have a ‘line’ – for example on Scottish nationalism or whether people should vote Labour, Green or whoever, when Respect is not standing. Hope that’s cleared up now.
LikeLike
-
And notwithstanding GGs accountability within RR – he’s not in the least accountable – he is nonetheless correct to call for a vote for Labour in that bye election, neither the SSP or Solidarity are any way forward for the working class, as has been vividly demonstrated over the last few years.
LikeLike
-
billj: you get the prize – “I agree with Galloway, but I can’t bring myself to explore that possibility so instead I’ll preface it with drivel about accountablility. It’s this vision of so called accountability that has led to the tendency of every far left organisation in Britain to go through one split after another. For accountability read “agreeing with me”.
LikeLike
-
Ah got ya. If only Galloway was left alone to enjoy his enormous salary and spout off whatever happened to appear in his head then everything else would be fine. Silly me.
LikeLike
-
Digger says: “What kind of organisation is RR if its leading spokeperson is free to take any view he likes without any accountability.”
But – what sort of organisation is the SWP, when the president of a union, who is an SWP member doesn’t campiagn for rejection of a disastrous sell out of a national strike, and there is no accountability?
Amd SWP members even deny that this happened!
LikeLike
-
Well true. But that doesn’t answer the question.
LikeLike
-
which question?
LikeLike
-
How about: it’s an organisation that has an MP who speaks his mind and other members who do the same. It doesn’t get uptight about things like Glasgow East. Instead, it focuses its resources on where it in fact has an imprint. It’s that kind of organisation. It’s not a far left boilerplate.
LikeLike
-
To prove Nas’ point – time permitting – tomorrow’s post is provisionally entitled “stuff what’s wrong with Respect” in which I’ll take issue with some of Yvonne Ridley’s silly assertions in last weekend’s Observer and GG’s support for a Brownite. We disagree and we say so to each other and in public. So what?
LikeLike
-
Indeed, it is not that unusual either. I don’t think you will find that Jean lambert, Caroline Lucas, Jenny Jones, et al are held accountable to the Green Party for everything they say or write either.
There was a public disagreement in plaid Cymru recently when one of their assembly members (A muslim as it happens, Mohamad Asghar) invited the Israeli Ambassador to the Welsh Assembly, and other Plaid representatives strongly disapproved.
Do the comrades think that John McDonnell should be held accountable so that he only articulates official Labour party policy?
Indeed, some Labour Representaion Committee MPs have recently voted for 42 day detention without charge, and for restrictions in abortion rights. Why no scandal about their acuntability.
Cut the crap – you don’t like Galloway, and that is what this is all about really.
LikeLike
-
OMG FREUDIAN TYPO
LikeLike
-
Don’t get on to accountability of Labour left MPs, Andy, it’ll end up in all sorts of difficulties. The more I think about it, this accountability claim turns out mostly to be nothing more than a rhetorical device to cover up the impotence of the far left. They claim that various people should be accountable to them (which always means agreeing with them) even thought they are, in fact, a very small minority of those who put the person they want to hold accountable into a position where they would need not an abstract and baseless lecture, but some discussion about how to proceed. At the risk of Ray popping back, this is the story of how the Tower Hamlets councillors were hung out to dry.
LikeLike
-
Naz – in my experience most people who get a representative elected are just as interested in the accountability of that representative as ‘the far left’. They feel as betrayed as ‘the far left’ when their new representative doesnt do what they said they would do before they were elected. Also a big problem for Respect has been seen by outsiders as the accountability of Galloway. Many Trade Unionists who would not regard themselves as being part of the ‘far left’ have been turned off Respect because they saw Galloway as a loose cannon, however remarkable his other qualities may be.
As I have stated before a leading Respect /LLmember(now New labour) was elected a Union Regional Learning officer. At that time the union demanded Regional Officers give a regional report every month about their activities. Unfortunately he didnt turn up much and when he did he was unable to demonstrate that he had done much. He was rightly criticised, his position became untenable and he resigned. Also at a Branch level, he held a Branch Chair position. Again he was expected to turn up to monthly meetings and give reports. As a reslt, many Branch representatives became dissatisfied wth his activities during his tenure in office and someone decided to stand against him. The charismatic Respect/LL/New labour figure wanted to stand again for his position but was unhappy he would have to be elected by secret ballot (all the members in the Branch). He decided not to stand. In the union he doesnt hold a Branch Chair position or a Regional Officer position, because he was held accountable. I dont think he has any future in Union politics, but he is still a New Labour Councillor.
LikeLike
-
“Cut the crap – you don’t like Galloway.”
I see.
The question is Andy Newman criticises the SWP for the accountability of their officials, citing the notorious example of the post strike, and I pretty much agree with everything he says.
But what about the accountability of officials in Respect?
Galloway is not some random person spouting off some random thoughts. He is the MP for the organisation. So when, for example, he decides to abstain on abortion rights, or makes some more sexist comments, and this passes without comment in any of the official publications of Respect or in any of its internal organisations (as far as the public are allowed to know anyway), this is simply a repeat of the situation that Andy Newman criticises the SWP for.
Consistency please.LikeLike
-
surely the decision whether to resign a union position in order to campaign against decisions which the union is taking (its why so much is made of ‘personal capacity’ etc) is a tactical one. A judgement has to be made on a case by case basis. I happen to be satisfied, on the basis of a long discussion with a comrade about 6 months ago, that in this case it was the correct decision. I’ve seen Branch officials have to shut up in certain situations in my own experiance, and you know why and you step into the breech. Your still glad they’re there because they don’t always have to shut up. But its not a strategic position that you ALWAYS resign in such a situation. Heaven forfend, but I find myself close to accusing Andy N of ‘leftism’. The criticism doesn’t come from the particular case (its perfectly possible to make the case that this was the wrong tactical decision) but from the way Andy seems to turn it into a question of strategy rather then tactics.
LikeLike
-
Johng – while this may be ‘tactical’ in the general sense, the position of President of a union gives it a strategic significance.
Given that this is the highest place office holder in any trade union amongst the membership of the SWP, one would expect such a decision to be taken by the CC following a period of discussion with the comrades in the union and the wider membership.
The decision should then be made in public and defendable by members.
That you say you had one private discussion with one comrade suggests this did not take place.
LikeLike
-
Also comrades may remember the vote of two SWP NEC members in PCS for a two tier pension scheme. On this occassion they were criticised afterwards by their comrades – leading one to be outside the organisation.
LikeLike
-
I would expect the CC to be involved. I would not expect a discussion with the wider membership of the Party at the time (and indeed would regard this as counterproductive given the concrete discussion we are having). I wouldn’t draw any conclusions about the fact that I had a conversation with an individual comrade. The example George T gives is an indictation of why this is a ‘tactical’ and not a ‘strategic’ discussion. It depends on the circumstances.
LikeLike
-
“surely the decision whether to resign a union position in order to campaign against decisions which the union is taking (its why so much is made of ‘personal capacity’ etc) is a tactical one.”
It seems to me that an organisation that demands that people resign paid positions with a key ally in an electoral operation while proclaiming that it is doing everything it can to avoid a split may have a few things wrong with its tactical thinking if it believes it’s wrong for the president of the CWU to openly campaign against the introduction of neo-liberalism in the post.
LikeLike
-
Nobody has said anything about it being ‘wrong for the president of the CWU to campaign openly against neo-liberalism’ in the post. The issue was whether the union representative should resign from her position to campaign against an offer currently being voted on, which is not the same thing at all. I have been in union meetings personally were an SWP member was not in a position to advise one way or another on a vote because of the constitution. Whether if your in such a position you should resign in order to be able to speak out is surely a tactical question.
I’d also suggest that these matters are considerably more weighty and important then the question of the paid employment of a few SWP members working for George Galloway (they were in any case offered alternatives and it had always been my understanding that it was political differences that motivated their decision. I can remember defending Kevin and Rob on this very blog by suggesting that it was outrageous to suggest that they would have taken these decisions purely on the basis of wanting to hang on to their jobs. I continue to believe this to be the case).
LikeLike
-
So presumably johng it was also a tactical question for the SWP as to whether Rob and Kevin should have been asked to resign their posts working for Galloway, and therefore not a reason for expelling them when they asked for further discussions?
I cannot see how you can argue one view about the ‘tactical’ nature of the SWP’s view on Janice Godrich, who is in the public eye as and holding the most senior lay member leadership position in a major union with 100s of 000s of members, and a totally different view in relation to Rob and Kev, who (no offence intended) were much more in the background of a small political party with a few thousand members?
LikeLike
-
Steph, thanks but I wasn’t confused about what you said but have become more so.
You said “We are trying to set up an organisation of the left which is *not* run like the SWP and where there is *not* a line that we all have to adhere to – get used to it.”.
Now you appear to have modified this to RR haveing a line on some issues but not others ” The policies are a kind of ‘minimum programme’ that we can all agree on. Outside of those areas of agreement, we don’t have a ‘line’ “.
Of course your entitled to a libertarian/anarchist point of view I actually believe it is more democratic to discuss issues and then agree your position.
The fact that all those in RR who would disagree with supporting New Labour in Glasgow East when there are at least two alternative socialist candidates standing are silent, or suggest this is a virtue because it shows the new style of libetarian polictics which are the way forward for the left.
Supporting New Labour when there are alternatives is astep backwards not forwards.
LikeLike
-
” The fact that all those in RR who would disagree with supporting New Labour in Glasgow East when there are at least two alternative socialist candidates standing are silent” – The Digger
Er no. I am quite happy to make it clear that if I lived in Glasgow East I would not only be voting SNP but campaigning for them. I’m a member of Respect, our MP is publicly supporting the Labour Candidate. He disagrees with me, and vice versa. I, like others in Respect who would support the SNP, Solidartity or SSP can live with that. There is no huge row, no resignations, no expulsions. And none of us who disagree with George on this, as far as I’m aware, would allow this to affect us in any way supporting his vital campaign to win Polar from the odious new Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick.
Messy? Yes a tad. But as Respect isn’t standing in Glasgow East and doesn’t organise in Scotland its hardly a central issue. And I’d much rather have an open argument and be a tad messy than a control culture based on party loyalty being enforced at the expense of learning from our disagreements. If I preferred the former I would have joined a leninist party, which thankfully Respect shows absolutely no signs of becoming.
Mark P
LikeLike
-
well yes it was a tactical question, but i really don’t see what alternative there was prinkipo. your right that the two incidents are not really comparable (again no offence intended) although neither of them had anything to do with the question of paying jobs. It was becoming clear that was a faction fight looming. Kevin and Rob’s position in this was increasingly untenable. I don’t envy the situation they found themselves in as it happens, and wonder whether any comrade should ever find themselves in a position like that again, but by that stage, for perfectly understandable reasons, all trust had broken down.
You can have fierce arguments about precisely what went wrong, why it went wrong, whether or not we operated in the right way, before, during or after, but the truth is, that if in the middle of something like this, if your actually working for the other side, its very hard for everyone to take anything you say at face value (even if what your saying really is purely motivated by what you think the SWP should be doing). Stopping working for them is one way of clarifying the situation.
For political reason both Kevin and Rob thought the party’s position was so mistaken that they would refuse to abide by party discipline. This is a perfectly honourable course, but at the same time, if you follow that course, you know that you will be expelled. It reminds me of Gandhi’s position on civil disobediance. If you consiously decide to make your point by refusing to abide by the law, its a bit silly to complain if you face the penalities associated with doing so. I don’t imagine it came as a huge shock that when they refused to leave these jobs after being told to do so that they were expelled. Its hard to imagine what else could have happened.
Whilst I have all sorts of angry moments thinking about this or that decision (as I’m sure almost everyone does), the actual expulsions seem simply a fait accompli. Whilst I understand at a personal level how upsetting it is, it doesn’t seem to me that this was politically key or indeed that momentous. Much as it was upsetting to lose two particularly gifted and dedicated individuals. Ultimately its the political differences that matter.
I would contrast the (occassional, and it should be said, its not something I’ve heard from Kevin or Rob) atmosphere which some people try and create around this question with these incidents when they happen in the trade union movement. An example has been picked when it didn’t happen, but its a not infrequent occurence, and there is not nearly the kind of rancour associated with it. I can understand Kevin and Rob being annoyed and disapointed because they think the Party got it wrong. I can’t really understand them being annoyed about being expelled given the circumstances.
Given how wrong they thought the party was its not an organisation they would have wanted to remain in, and much that has been said subsequently seems to confirm that.
LikeLike
-
The only problem that I have with Mark P’s above contribution is that there is a marked difference in his approach to what he views as George Galloway’s mistaken views on the national question and what he regards as the SWPs mistaken views on the same.
LikeLike
-
Johng – if there is a faction fight looming that indicates that there are significant political differences. From the outside it looks like the SWP’s leadership choose to avoid a meaningful internal discussion of the politics by expelling those (Kevin, Rob and Nick) who would have been in a position to articulate a pro-Respect position and provide leadership for the comrades who agreed with them inside the SWP.
A comrade who is a nurse has said that if he were to be accused of killing a patient it would take longer for the NHS’ procedures to get rid of him than it did to push through these expulsions in the pre-conference period.
From the point of view of developing an independently minded cadre organisation that is not a good precedent particularly when we remember the amount of hard work, committment and political capital that SWP comrades had invested in the project. It’s entirely valid to draw a negative balance sheet of the whole experience but the discussion should have been had without the premptive strike against the leading dissidents.
LikeLike
-
I don’t think thats right Liam. In such circumstances I don’t think its at all surprising that these things occured quickly. if you take into account the ‘breakdown of trust’ described (before anyone starts i’m making no allegation about whether or not such a breakdown of trust was justified or not). in terms of the development of an independent cadre, without sounding too abrasive, frankly thats our business isn’t it Liam?
(good god what i have now called down on my head?).
LikeLike
-
just to clarify, i shouldn’t have used the term ‘faction fight’ (which refers to an inner party argument). I mean the argument that was developing between the SWP and a prominant figure in Respect, and the ambivulent political position both Kevin and Rob, directly employed by him, faced as a consequence. The merits of internal faction fights in building an independent cadre is something our respective traditions have always disagreed about, but I think in a case like this, that kind of a discussion is irrelevent anyway.
LikeLike
-
“The only problem that I have with Mark P’s above contribution is that there is a marked difference in his approach to what he views as George Galloway’s mistaken views on the national question and what he regards as the SWPs mistaken views on the same.’ – John G
Not sure what your problem is. My views on breaking up Britain have been articulated over the years in books, articles, broadcasts, public campaigning. I have learnt to cope with currently being in a minority on this in Respect because it has the kind of political culture to value differences. Moreover right now Englishness and England after Britain is not a key strategic debate or campaigning priority for the organisation. If it was those differences would be of much greater significance and I would trust there would be a full and open debate on it. The fact that George Galloway is entirely opposed to the break up of Britain doesn’t particularly affect the need to campaign for him against the odious Jim Fitzpatrick in Poplar.
The SWp’s position on Englishness and England after Britain on the other hand reflects an entire approach – I wouldn’t dignify it with the intellectual status of an analysis – which is a reductionist version of Marxism, one-dimensional in its understanding of culture and entirely reflects the national-popular generally, and in England in particular, having any progressive potential whatsoever .
Mark P
LikeLike
-
So for some inexplicable reason George’s wrong views (the elected MP of the organisation you are a member of) is irrelevent in the wider scheme of things whilst the SWPs views (much closer to your own, in the sense that we have no interest in the preservation of the union) are both beneath intellectual discussion (rather astonishing in the light of, for example, Neil Davidson’s three books on the subject, widely regarded even by opponents as intellectually rich and historically innovative, inside and outside of the academic mileu) and the kind of thing which holds the movement back because ‘reductionist’ and rejects (reflects?) the ‘national popular’.
Hmmm. Its not a publishing dispute is it?
LikeLike
-
This is all hooey from John G.
jane Loftus would not have had to resign from the Postal Exec, only from the post of president, which in the scheme of things was not as important as organising a big no vote – that may even have won given the publicity jane could have given the campaign by resigning as president.
The grassroots militants in the post wanted jane to do that.
If the tactical advantage of staying in post as presiedent was so decisive, can john G share his wisdom of what the advantage gained actually was?
LikeLike
-
You “wouldn’t dignify it with the intellectual status of analysis”, would you Mark P?
Well that’s that settled then.LikeLike
-
bill j: that’s often your pay off line – “well that’s it then”. Try engaging with Mark P. From your universe he might seem like some horrible renegade. But if you are going to get anywhere you’re going to have to engage with people who are clearly on the left, let alone getting on to engaging with the 99 percent of the rest of society.
LikeLike
-
and, bill j, what exactly is the SWP’s analysis of the debates around Englishness and and English parliament? I don’t think it’s got beyond Martin Smith recounting how 15 years ago BNP supporters in Tower Hamlets flew the St George’s flag. I wouldn’t dignify that with the status of an intellectual analysis.
LikeLike
-
johng: your party doesn’t allow faction fights. It just expels people at exactly the moment they are entitled to have an internal party discussion.
LikeLike
-
I don’t know what the SWPs analysis is. I’m not in the SWP. And of course I could try to engage with Mark P but I don’t feel worthy.
LikeLike
-
I’ve only just been alerted to the discussion about last year’s postal strike, so sorry for coming to it so late.
In response to Andy, Ray continually insists he (Andy) does not know what is going on in the post, so maybe as a postal worker I can throw in my two pennyworth.Some comrades have said it is a tactical question whether you resign a union position to fight a particular decision.
If we assume they are right, then let’s assess what was at stake in the settlement of the postal dispute. The strike was against “flexible working” – aka working harder – the loss of our pension scheme and for a pay rise at least level with inflation. What the settlement meant was flexible working, the agreement to the loss of our pension scheme (dressed up by the bureaucracy as agreeing to – sham – consultation), and a below inflation pay rise.
The strike – and settlement – were crucial to the future of our working conditions. If the settlement had not been accepted, we would not be in the position where we are probably gearing up for a strike over the same issues (and more) later this year.
I would maintain that tactical or otherwise, Jane Loftus should have campaigned against such a settlement.
The campaign for a “no” vote was initiated by militants outside the SWP and postworker, though, to their credit, the SWP were quickly onside, and could have done with the weight of the union president behind it. That might even have made the difference between winning and losing. Instead, her only reference was to there “being a debate” in the union about the settlement.
The SWP and many of its militants did campaign vigorously for a no vote, but postworker did not.
It did appear once during the dispute (although I didn’t see it until afterwards), but postworker did not take a line against the deal. In fact it has a record of saying “on the one hand this, on then other that”. Its issue on pensions has a front page article arguing we have to accept that the final salary scheme has to go!
There are non-SWPers on the postworker EB, they are supporters of the bureaucracy.
Those of us arguing for postworker to take a clearer line have been told by Charlie Kimber that it is not a rank and file, oppositional paper, but one which allows postal workers to hear all sides of the debate (as if the bureaucracy are not capable of putting out their own propaganda).
Socialist Worker itself has generally taken a clearer line, but I can’t help quoting the line in this week’s SW in the article about the victimisation of CWU reps, where it says “The CWU nationally should make it clear to Royal mail that if this campaign of victimisation against the union does not cease, then the union will cease cooperation on questions of modernisation and efficiency..” We should be calling on the union to cease such cooperation regardless of they are victimising people or not!LikeLike
-
Interesting post Pete thanks. food for thought.
LikeLike
-
Going back to Mark P’s contributions. I’d have to agree that Respect’s ability to cope with differing perspectives is more than welcome. For instance, i would completely disagree with him on voting SNP in the by-election. If the Labour government is to fall to the Tories in the next General Election let it be entirely the fault of the NL clique and their crappy candidates. If the left can be in any way blamed then they will find it difficult to enjoy serious participation and influence in the inevitable post-mortem that will follow NL’s defeat.
I would expect Respect to be calling for a vote for labour candidates in constituencies where Respect itself is not standing in the next Gen Elec with a few possible exceptions(perhaps sitting Plaid MPs, somewhere where a left green candidate has a chance and a few independent socialist MPs). If Labour win the next election it will be because of the efforts of the left and if they lose entirely the fault of NL. Galloway has got it right on the by-election and I hope Respect carries through this perspective to the General Election but I hope just as much that those who do not share exactly that perspective are not either expelled or feel they have to leave. The discussion is as important as its outcome.
LikeLike
-
“Those of us arguing for postworker to take a clearer line have been told by Charlie Kimber that it is not a rank and file, oppositional paper, but one which allows postal workers to hear all sides of the debate (as if the bureaucracy are not capable of putting out their own propaganda).”
This is interesting to me. As an EB member of “Across The Tracks”, the rail workers’ equivalent of Post Worker, we were told, and we made it out business to do this cos we believed in it, that it was an independent rank and file organising tool, one that would support the leadership when it did what the rank and file wanted, but one that would campaign hard against the bureaucracy if it didn’t.
The idea was that ATT would sell enough copies to have a real voice, so that the leadership would listen to it. And for a while, it did – selling over 1000 copies on the tube, it forced the union leadership to rethink a dispute and to deal with issues in ways that the membership wanted.
That’s an excellent strategy – support the leadership but be a strong enough player that you can hold the leadership’s feet to the fire.
Never once was Across The Tracks a platform for all sides of the debate – sure, when it came to internal union elections, because EB members took different positions, equal space was given to candidates. But when it came to disputes, the paper was solid.
When did all this change?
(On the tube, the SWP has made sure that Across The Tracks doesn’t come out anymore – it was always laid out and printed via the SWP, and since we agreed several times in January to get an issue out, they’ve just stalled and stalled and stalled; mainly cos now, the majority of the EB has left the SWP. They’ve killed it off – they didn’t even respond to emails asking for copies of the graphic mastheads etc. so we could produce it ourselves, and wouldn’t pass over finished articles so that those outside the SWP could edit them and sort the whole thing out ourselves when the SWP member responsible became “too busy” to do it.)
LikeLike
-
Tonyc’s post is very interesting (I wasn’t aware of the problem of publishing ATT which seems terrible), but a nuance is that I think there is a clear difference between the relationship one would want to strike with the leadership of the RMT and with that of the CWU. The former have gone a lot further in breaking with New Labour than the latter.
LikeLike
-
Fascinating Tony, I didn’t know any of that. I think the only possible explanation of the difference on the post and tube is that someone, somewhere has decided different strategies are appropriate in different unions. But why and which I can only guess. Prinkipo’s attempt to explain doesn’t work, because if you think that the RMT leadership is to the `left’ of the CWU’s it would make more sense to be harder, not softer, on the CWU leadership. Maybe its to do with who the SWP thinks it can have an alliance with in the different unions.
Your later point, Tony, unfortunately shows that for the SWP the thing of prime importance is the party, not the movement or the interests of the class.LikeLike
-
Sorry Pete – I should have made myself clearer. I wasn’t trying to justify the SWP’s ‘softer’ stance in the CWU, quite the opposite is my view, the SWP were wrong in not standing down Loftus in order to fight the deal in public. There’s no point having class struggle union leaders who cannot or will not fight.
I was just making a general point that left formations in unions have to respond to the real dynamics within the union and the balance of forces appears to be different in the RMT compared to the CWU. A tactic towards the leadership in one cannot automatically be repeated in the other.
LikeLike
-
The shelving of “Across the Tracks” described by Tony is of course completely par for the course.
It is worth recalling that in the most critical period where the IS’s industrial strategy was put to the test – 1974 to 1976, the R&F papers did not appear for a full eighteenth months because Jim Higgins’s Worker league had a big representtaion on some editorial boards.
It is also not hard to see the difference between the CWU and RMT. Billy hayes is a key ally of the SWP in Unite Against facsism, is prepared to speak at the marxism festival, and place may Day greetings in Socialist Worker. All of which boost the prestige of those (WORD DELETED – LIAM) running the SWP.
Bro. Crow is less impressed with the SWP, apt to speak his mind, and does nothing to boost the self-importance of the SWP leadership.
The attitude from Charlie Kimber (PHRASE DELETED – LIAM) is a huge reversal of the IS/SWP attitude to the bureaucracy, as is having the bureuscracy represented on the EB of their Postworker paper.
You would have though this would be subject to a major theoretical debate in the SWP, when something so fundamental changes.
BTW, JOhnG says “ery interesting” to Pete firmin, after Pete essentially endorses my account of what happp=ened.
Yet earlier in the discussion, John G was (PHRASE DELETED) talking of the private discussions that had justified to him the tactical nous of why keeping the post of president was so important, and ray of course thinks that it is all lies.
LikeLike
-
nice fraternal approach there andy.
LikeLike
-
I’d agree with Johng – these are quite serious allegations, and lots of swp membesr would have a problem with such sectarianism if true, but comments like:
‘Charlie Kimber (a man with no qualifciations or expereicne to be industrial organiser of a serious socialist organisation BTW’
make us think it’s just the sound of axes being ground, and reflective of chips on shoulders.How much industrial experience did Marx, Engels, Lenin or Rosa Luxemburg have?
LikeLike
-
Well thats the difference. There was a post here which was a concrete discussion of something that happened, arguing that the swp’s response had been mistaken. on the other hand there is a rant about ‘twits’ accusations of ‘arrogance’ deliberate misrepresentations of what was said, and a demonology stretching back to the 1970s. The one is a serious intervention which i’m not in a position to respond to at the moment but is obviously something socialists should discuss, the other is just….well….blogarama.
LikeLike
-
Let’s not get sidetracked into the style people are using, johng. Why not engage with the arguments.
LikeLike
-
I’ve removed the personal stuff from Andy’s comment. He knows the rules.
LikeLike
-
Sorry Liam
But pointing out that the industrail organiser of a revoutionary socialist organistion has no personal expereiince as a workplace militant is not a personal but a political criticism.
Also by deleting trhe very mild expression of exasperation that I used to describe the SWP leadership, you have left the implication that it was much stronger than it was.
LikeLike
-
and sience when is it abusive to describe someone as “self-importnat”
LikeLike
-
I have to say that no editing was engaged in when ray called me a liar.
Ray wrote about me: “Have you stopped lying about the SWP’s role in the CWU yet?”
Now it turns out that my account is backed up in full by Pete Firmin.
JOhn G repeats the slur by saying that I have indulged in (using his words)”deliberate misrepresentations of what was said”
The relevance of the 1970s is pretty obviously a political one – because it is related to the type of behaviours that parties like the WRP and SWP engage in when they think the institutional interests of the party outweigh the interests of building the movement.
Nor is it irrelevent that John responded earlier by saying that he had a private converstaion within the SWP that assured him everything was OK and above board, but he couldn’t share the details with us – but hopes we would be reassured.
It strikes me that this is also related to a political method of assuming the decisions of “the party” must be defended at all costs.
There has been an obvious and serious shift in th SWP’s industrial perspectives related in particular to the CWU offical bureaucracy that is theoretically incompatible with the arguments used by Duncan Hallas, Steve Jeffries and others. This seemingly started with Martin Smith’s period as Iindustrial organiser, but to be fair, martin does have some coal face experience as an militant, and I am sure would have been a very impressive shop steward in the workplace.
We should also mention the example of the FBU rank and file paper, Red Watch, that was run as a wholely owned subsidiary of the SWP, and was actually counterposed by the SWP to the Grassroots FBU organisation that grew out of the strike and which saw Matt Wrack elected.
And making Charlie Kimber the industrial organiser was in itself symptomatic of a political shift. Compare and contrast Charlie’s expereince with SP industrial organiser, Bill Mullins, for example.
LikeLike
-
“I have to say that no editing was engaged in when ray called me a liar.”
Sorry to divert, but I have to support the thrust of Andy’s complaint here .
Liam, I think there’s a real lack of consistency in the smears and sneers that some people are allowed to indulge in, and the stuff that you delete from other people. People like Ray and been allowed to say pretty outrageous things, that are still there, in the comments boxes throughout the site.
I’m in favour of comment moderation. But it has to be consistent moderation. Just because someone speaks politely doesn’t mean that what they say is acceptable. Ray has become a master of smearing people politely – whether someone uses aggressive words in return shouldn’t be the measure of whether their comments stay up or not.
Yes, of course, your house your rules – but some of the things I’ve seen that have then later been deleted really were minor compared to the stuff that gets left up. It’s worth thinking through how to make a comments policy as objective as possible.
I’ve been on web forums where they have adopted a “be civil” policy, without taking into account context. So you end up with most disgraceful stuff being allowed through, cos it is couched in polite language, whereas if someone says “fuck off” in return they’ve been banned. And, as Andy says, if you do that, you make the person look much worse than their original comments might’ve deserved.
LikeLike
-
Re Martin Smith: I always thought that his greatest strength was his enthusiasm and ability to analyse what was happening in the trade union movement.
Sadly, his violent behaviour, his lies about me, his lies about events that me and other tube workers knew to be different, his claim that Bob Crow is “unscrupulous” and his “shut your mouth”, said publically to one female SWP member, along with his jabbing finger verbal assault on another in West London, have made me reconsider.
However, people like me have always required only one thing in order to listen to people: We need to know if they’ve delivered.
Martin Smith comes with a reputation of being a hard bastard union militant. That was enough to get me respecting what he said. It did matter, when sitting with tube workers discussing what to do about a dispute, that the guy who is guiding you has the experience to know the risks.
Now, remember, Martin Smith wasn’t replaced by Charlie Kimber.
My memory might be slightly wonky, but it went something like this: There was no IO for a while once Martin was made national secretary. Then Moira Nolan was made IO – and it wasn’t a happy experience for her (indeed, she’s one of the few people to be appointed to the CC and to leave it very quickly; I think most people in the party know that she was unhappy with the way things were done in the party).
After she left, there was again no IO. My recollection is that the job was sort of “shared” between the people who worked in the industrial department.
There was no one person who tube workers would go to – in fact, we tended to go to Martin still, but what was clear at the time was that the party had de-prioritised industrial work. We didn’t meet regularly, there was little contact from the centre, there were no attempts to get us engaged in political work.
I don’t remember when Charlie became industrial organiser. But actually, I always liked Charlie (and still like him, despite his total support for the rest of the CC). I didn’t and don’t know Charlie’s background.
I liked his company, and he seemed to me to be interested in industrial work.
But I think, actually, the SWP just didn’t have anyone working for it who had the kind of experience necessary to be a strategic IO.
I dunno whether Charlie was the right person or not. I only really had a few dealings with him, and liked him. But then, as an industrial militant, what i tend to need is just someone with the bigger picture and enough contacts in the rest of the movement to be able to guide me effectively.
What the politics were of the decision not to have an IO, then to split it etc., I don’t know. I didn’t care – maybe it was a signal, maybe it’s just that the SWP is smaller than we all thought, and didn’t have the right people to do the right jobs.
LikeLike
-
That is interesting Tony about the Industrial Organiser position.
I stand corrected on the detail, but I rather think it reinforces my point that in the past the Industrial organiser was a key post in the SWP, nowadays it isn’t. this is inevitably a reflection of how much priority the SWP places on industrial work – which itself reflects the degree to which the SWP theorises the industrial struggle as being important to the transition to socialism.
i would also point out I agree that Charlie Kimber is a good and sensible comrade, but to the best of my knoweldge he has never been an industrial militant or expereinced trade union activist.
LikeLike
-
Tony:
“And, as Andy says, if you do that, you make the person look much worse than their original comments might’ve deserved.”
The best example of which was the film “Women in Live” where Oliver Read and Alan Bates strip off and have a naked (but completely non-sexual) wrestling match.
The censored version showed them stripping off, and then cut to them lying on their backs naked and sweating, with no explanation.
The suggestion was much stronger than the original content.
LikeLike
-
And Tony: “Ray has become a master of smearing people politely”
Sadly my expertise and personality defect is in making fraternal and constructuve criticism abusively.
LikeLike
-
Charlie Kimber was apparently at one time a Cymdeithas (welsh language) activist defacing English road signs and replacing them with Welsh in his younger days, I have heard tell.
LikeLike
-
Tony / Andy – the moderating is a bit haphazard that’s true. It will become more consistent when I am able to employ a staff member to do it for me. This week I’ve got an editorial board meeting, two concerts, two social events as well as a job, eating and sleeping. Real life gets in the way. I’m sorry but like you I have got other things to do and am not able to sift through every comment as thoroughly as I should. If there is anything abusive which I’ve missed let me know and I’ll remove it.
The warning that I would ban anyone else who called another person a liar was for Ray. It seems to have worked. I also try and contact people whose comments are held for moderation to find out if they are genuine or just stirring. “Jill St. Custard” failed that test.
As someone who was never part of the family I’m not convinced that the scrutiny of the SWP’s personnel practices is too useful in this discussion and I think it’s time to move away from it.
LikeLike
-
COMMENT DELETED – IF PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE A ROW WITH EACH OTHER DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE -LIAM
LikeLike
-
“Tony / Andy – the moderating is a bit haphazard that’s true. It will become more consistent when I am able to employ a staff member to do it for me.”
Liam, don’t say you have sacked your two acting editors? Sounds like unfair dismissal of the feline kind to me. Pah! They only needed a bit longer to get those retractable claws going.
LikeLike
-
Of course I meant WHY not WHAT
LikeLike
-
I would just say that I reserve the right to reject the epithet ‘pompous’ and suggest that this interpretation of what I said is a ‘misrepresentation’. He says pompously.
LikeLike
-
Just to make it clear, I find Charlie Kimber personally amicable, and I made no comment about his abilities as SWP Industrial Organiser (and wouldn’t feel qualified to do so). Nor do I know, or particularly care, about whether he has an industrial background or not. My reference to him was solely in quoting him on the policy of postworker, which is borne out by its practice. I do not believe that policy is solely decided by Charlie, but, for whatever reason, is SWP policy.
Prinkipo writes “I was just making a general point that left formations in unions have to respond to the real dynamics within the union and the balance of forces appears to be different in the RMT compared to the CWU. A tactic towards the leadership in one cannot automatically be repeated in the other.” Yes, up to a point. There are obviously tactical issues to take into consideration in different unions and industries, and it would be madness to proceed as if that wasn’t the case. However, surely the basic policy of building rank and file organisation (or whatever you care to call it) and opposing agreements which worsen members conditions should be a given everywhere. To have a “on the one hand this, on the other that” attitude is an abdication of that policy,
And while we fight to get militants elected to positions in our unions, we have to criticise them if they then put holding on to those positions above defending the basic interests of the members. And that is what has happened in Jane Loftus’ case.
Surely we should have an attitude of working with the “leadership” where we agree with them (though organising independently of them), and opposing them when necessary. It is good if we can work with the likes of Billy Hayes against the war and in UAF, but we are going down a very dangerous road if we allow that to restrict our criticism when they sell their members short. And that seems to be the SWP’s policy in the CWU.LikeLike
-
I’m not sure that this was the motivation but it certainly would be a danger, as well as a mistake, and you can also see some of the pressures that might lead to this: especially in the context of what was then a major argument about trying to build bridges to forces that might break from Labour (its still an argument of course). However I’m not sure its a mistake in all circumstances to attempt to build relationships with sections of the bureacracy, if this is possible. What is a mistake is to follow the kind of path traditionally followed by the CPs and subordinate industrial action to such a strategy. This is what your suggesting happened, and its certainly something I now want to know more about, as criticism is important, especially when it isn’t lost in the kind of personalised invective Liam rightly draws a line under.
LikeLike
-
Well pardon me for being a bit exasperated about that JOhn, seeing as the facts of this case have been in front of you for months, including a defence of Jane Loftus’s position on SU blog from CWU official, and Socialist Action supporter, Steve Bell.
The question is not what jane did, that is after all no more than a judgement call in a difficulat situation, but the fact that no SWP member has acknowleged it, nor had the SWP seen any debate about what is a clear strategic change in industrial strategy, combined with a fair level of abuse at me from SWP members for bring the issue up.
LikeLike
-
Well one difficulty Andy is that its hard to know from what standpoint your criticising. There are those who take a strict rank and filist approach to these matters and who see any deviation from this as a departure from the best practice of the IS tradition. Often such people see the shutting down of rank and file organisations in the 1980s as a breach of principle and don’t accept the argument that the material basis for the existence of these organisations had disapeared during this period.
On the other hand there are people who think that the SWPs principles are rotten and sectarian anyway (ultraleft etc), and bitterly complain about the far left in unions as a trojan horse for ‘political’ and alien projects. Hence the traditional hostility to caucusing and such like.
Then there are principled differences between the different models of organising in terms of arguments about the role of broadlefts. I’d have guessed you were a CP broadleft sort of person these days Andy, in which case it would be hard to work out why you would be critical.
Even dividing things up like this points to the imprecision of these old divisions in new circumstances though, and these new waters contain much the same problems that the SWP has had to confront in a variety of circumstances. That is that the vacuum is much larger then we are able to fill, but at the same time we have a responsibility to try to.
So there are novelties in the situation but not the ones you are trying to paint with reference to ‘rank and filism’ etc.
I think this rests on a misunderstanding of the SWPs politics on the industrial front and indeed the related political one. As long ago as 1982 Callinicos pointed out that its not always appropriate to have formal rank and file organisations, and even when it comes to rank and file organisations there can be differences of emphasis in terms of the politics of the operation. This is similar to the misunderstanding that emerged about the relationship of the SWP to electoralism.
For some people the fact that we did’nt do electoral work or stand for full time positions in the trade union movement represented a principled stance of some kind. This view is strongest amongst those who either did regard such a position as a principle or amongst those most hostile to what they saw as the ultraleftism of the position.
It was never the case that we had a principled position of abstention in either case. Electorally with most of the left flooding into the Labour Party there was little sense or possibility of an electoral intervention, and with the the politics in the trade union movement shifting to the right, the increasing bureacratisation of even minor positions, and the increasingly beleaguered and isolated position of the left, it just didn’t make sense tactically.
With a change on both fronts (the political space unfortunately opening up faster then the class struggle space, always a problem) its wholly unsurprising that there have been attempts to move foward on these other fronts (its clear over the last decade that there have been considerable shifts in this respect and its hardly a surprise to anyone). Might mistakes have been made? Sure they might.
In all honesty I’m not sure in this case, but the general context in which these decisions were made is political and not the kind of personalised nonsense which unfortunately, distorts your contributions to these discussions, and which would lead most to disregard what you say (on these topics). Pete’s points, whilst in the course of discussion, I may come to disagree with him, were robust but fair (and he also made points which I could not answer without more information, and I learnt something from it, more then that you can’t wish for on a blog) and thats the normal way discussions should proceed on the left.
Not these endless attempts to discredit individuals and organisations. For if these things were really true what would be the point of activists even talking to each other.
LikeLike
-
John
This is not “personalised nonsense”.
The question was directly raised becasue Ray made the claim that “revolutionaries” make better judgements than “reformists”.
The rellevence of the CWU dispute was my questioning how the judgement of “revolutionary” Jane Loftus was superior to the judgement of “refrormist” Dave Warren.
The thngs then became personal when Ray accused me of being a liar, because I put foreard facts that you now concede are substantually correct.
If comrades accuse each other of lying, then that inevitably is going to personalise the debate.
What is more, I have also said that while I think Jane Loftus made a wrong judegment, it was no more than that.
The question for me is not whether the SWP’s industrial tactics are right or wrong, but why there has been no meaningful debate over the party’s industrial strategy for several years.
You are correct, I have little agreement with the SWP’s politics, so it is really none of my business what you do internally – except where what you do has an impact in the wider left and in the unions.
So how can other militants in the unions trust working with the SWP, when the R&F newspapers that the SWP put out are controlled totally by the SWP’s national office, and there is no transparency about what their purpose is, or what the SWP’s industrial policy is.
There has been no public (or private?) reassessment from the SWP about why they now support the NSSN, but previoulsy argued it was an Sp front. So how can we trust them when they are suddenly involved in the NSSN?
LikeLike
-
well these questions of trust are of course up to you. but i’d suggest that the whole tone of this is not conducive to the kind of atmosphere militants need to debate the way foward at the moment.
LikeLike
-
johng: there’s another thing worth you and others thinking through – why was there such a big acceptance of the post office deal? It suggests that there wasn’t such a basis for rejection. Isn’t the underlying problem that Jane Loftus and the executive member who did campaign against the deal, and Billy Hayes for that matter, were all having to make judgements not arising from some insurgent rank and file feeling, but instead with a weakened union facing a major reorganisation of the industry.
LikeLike
-
yeah all these things are true Nas. The question for socialists is the best way to resist these things however, not simply to accept them. Politics is about trying to make a difference. Most of the disagreements here are about how best to do that, and they’re discussions between people who do disagree with these things. Otherwise one might as well join the Labour Party.
LikeLike
-
Jill – I wrote to verify the e mail address provided some days ago. It bounced right back. Running this site has made me a bit cynical but I’m open to correction.
LikeLike
-
johng,
LikeLike
-
Sorry, not sure how that last bit got though…
johng,
I wasn’t saying it is wrong to attempt to build bridges with the bureaucracy. I was saying that industrial strategy – e.g. attitude to a particular dispute – should not be subordinated to this. Buiding bridges should not be at the expense of saying what is.Nas,
you write “there’s another thing worth you and others thinking through – why was there such a big acceptance of the post office deal? It suggests that there wasn’t such a basis for rejection. Isn’t the underlying problem that Jane Loftus and the executive member who did campaign against the deal, and Billy Hayes for that matter, were all having to make judgements not arising from some insurgent rank and file feeling, but instead with a weakened union facing a major reorganisation of the industry.”Actually, I don’t consider 64% -36% such a “big acceptance”, especially when you take into account that only one member of the executive boted against, that the “no” campaign started from scratch with just 2 people, and a whole important section of the union which previously would have opposed such a deal – the London District Committee – has gone over to the side of the buraucracy. All things considered, a good result for the no campaign.
Agreed, there was no insurgent rank and file – on a national level. Partly because the strikes were carefully orchestrated by the national leadership. But there were local and regional outbreaks of minor insurgency – unofficial strikes breaking out beyond the official ones, mainly in defence of people attacked for refusing to cross picket lines (a result of the `rolling strikes’, when people were told by the union to cross their own picket lines) such as, but not only, in Liverpool. The bureaucracy’s approach was to let them wear themselves out while ensuring they did not spread. In fact, I would argue the dispute was suspended part way through (the court action) because the bureaucracy was scared that they would spread.
Indeed we were – and still are – facing major reorganisation. It certainly hasn’t gone away with the outcome of last year’s dispute. Rather it has come back to bite us – unfinished business. if we are a weakened union it is because we have a leadership which refuses to face up to the scale of the fight we need to have.
LikeLike
-
I agree with Pete that a 64% to 36% is no big acceptance. Usually with such voting forms comes a big handout why you should vote for what the executive is recommending.
Its interesting that the SWP and SP have fallen out big time in PCS – see the SP website. For a long time, the SWP has balked at building a rank file organisation in PCS and preferred cuddling up to the SP/Left Unity leadership for a few seats on PCS GEC/NEC bodies. Will the SWP now break with their LU/SP ‘mates’ and ally with the Indepenent Left against the leadership’s rotten deals on pay, pensions etc?
LikeLike
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to Harpymarx Cancel reply