Changes in the party’s leadership

British politics, Political Organisations

Changes in the party’s leadership

This is from the current issue of Socialist Worker. At its annual conference last weekend the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) faced one of its biggest tests in three decades. For over a year there has been a debate inside the party that has affected every level of the organisation, including its leading body, the central…

Liam

January 13, 2009

1–2 minutes

This is from the current issue of Socialist Worker.

At its annual conference last weekend the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) faced one of its biggest tests in three decades.

For over a year there has been a debate inside the party that has affected every level of the organisation, including its leading body, the central committee.

As reported on these pages, that debate centred on events concerning the split in Respect.

Prior to the conference, the SWP central committee had voted to propose that the committee to be elected at this conference should not include John Rees, a longstanding member of it and formerly national secretary of Respect.

On the Sunday morning of conference another longstanding member, Lindsey German, stated to conference that she and Chris Nineham were resigning from the central committee and withdrawing an alternative list that included John Rees.

She explained that the three comrades wanted a leadership body which could work together in a united way, and that they were continuing as members of the SWP and would work under the direction of the party’s leading bodies.

On behalf on the central committee that was elected by the conference, Alex Callinicos expressed regret at this decision, arguing that the political differences did not justify the two comrades’ resignation.

But he was confident that the SWP would emerge strengthened by these debates. This stance, and more broadly the positions taken by the majority of the outgoing leadership, were overwhelmingly supported by conference delegates.

On a range of issues, there was full discussion with lively but comradely debate.

Over the coming weeks the SWP will continue to discuss ways of strengthening its party democracy in order to help deal with any such future difficulties and to allow members to debate issues arising from a fast changing world engulfed by economic crisis and war.

41 responses to “Changes in the party’s leadership”

Nas

January 14, 2009 at 12:17 am

Socialist Worker never reports these things remotely convincingly. It tells the members nothing – indeed far less than the 500-1,000 people who will have got all this from telephone calls at the weekend.

It’s unclear what any of this means other than there has been a fight in the SWP not seen for 30 years.

LikeLike

Reply
George T

January 14, 2009 at 12:27 am

This suggests political cowardice on behalf of Rees/german or an estimation of weakness that they could not take on the leadership. If they had political posituons different from the leadership and worth anything they should have put them to the membership – perhaps they didnt want to fight for a political position as they feel not rocking the boat at present will allow them to jump on board ship again when they have had a bit of time out of the limelight – in other words they are more concerned with positions on the SWp leadership in the long term than any poltical argument – Bureaucrats?

LikeLike

Reply
Chris S

January 14, 2009 at 12:33 am

I was surprised at the two page spread. Most space i have ever saw given over to reporting their conference.

What was disappointing and predictable was the lack of clarification on what the political differences existed between the CC Maj, CC Min and the Seymour-Davidson-Mieville faction.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

January 14, 2009 at 1:30 am

Chris S: I’m not sure about that. I remember them often giving over two pages. But what it said was utterly trite. I ask you to engage in a cruel, but revealing game. Cut and paste all the quotes from CC members and the CC and run them as a single text file. It’s extraordinarily dull, as is the conference coverage.

To be honest, I think Chris Bambery and the editorial board have shot themselves in the foot by producing something that in the minds of the active membership of the SWP will so clearly seem anodyne to the point of dishonesty.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

January 14, 2009 at 8:55 am

You can try it with the quotes from delegates too.

LikeLike

Reply
entdinglichung

January 14, 2009 at 9:32 am

the last paragraph of the SW’s article can also be read as: “Be silent, obey and be happy!”

LikeLike

Reply
jim jay

January 14, 2009 at 2:21 pm

Chris: two pages is pretty normal. You might not have noticed before because generally the reports are just a rehashing of current perspectives as there will never be an actual debate or genuine differences to report.

You don’t normally get an announcement of who was elected or anything though, but as something actually happened this time they thought they had to mention it.

I’m not surprised German et al backed down though – proposing an alternative slate is not something you can do and politically survive within the SWP.

LikeLike

Reply
swp member

January 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm

‘proposing an alternative slate is not something you can do and politically survive within the SWP.’

Has something happened to John Molyneux then? The John Molyneux who, I can reveal, did very well in the two elections he stood in?
hang on, the JM at conference must have been a terminator/cyborg imposter, constructed by the CC.. the real one is at the bottom of Portsmouth harbour.. you heard it here first!!

LikeLike

Reply
swp member

January 14, 2009 at 5:24 pm

‘It tells the members nothing – indeed far less than the 500-1,000 people who will have got all this from telephone calls at the weekend. ‘

Most members get party notes which had more details. There will also be conference report back meetings this week. SW is just the ‘public’ report.

LikeLike

Reply
jim jay

January 14, 2009 at 8:55 pm

swp member – you’re quite right.

LikeLike

Reply
the digger

January 14, 2009 at 9:01 pm

It is always interesting to read commentary on what happened at a meeting you were at by people who were not there.

In effect four conference bulletins, pre conference aggregates, post conference aggregates to report back, and detailed commissions that report on the debate.

I would suggest that any SWP member would consider that an adequate level of involvement for anyone wanting to know whate the debates were and the outcome.

Sorry if those critics of the SWP feel they have not been adequately involved in the process.

LikeLike

Reply
Nas

January 14, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Let’s see how things pan out in the weeks ahead, digger. The genie is out.

LikeLike

Reply
charliemarks

January 15, 2009 at 2:23 am

It’s good to see that differences are being resolved without recourse to splitting. God knows, the last thing we need is another discrete party organisation.

LikeLike

Reply
swp member

January 15, 2009 at 8:16 am

Cheers Jim. Not often people just concede a point and very refreshing.

LikeLike

Reply
Martin Wicks

January 15, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Surely that should be introducing party democracy!

LikeLike

Reply
Chris S

January 15, 2009 at 2:26 pm

‘SW is just the ‘public’ report.’

Is that acceptable? Why are the organs of the SWP not used to debate and discuss differences. Why is it not a platform for members and factions to hold the leadership to account? Surely any party which is looking to strengthen democracy would open up and have these debates in front of the working class.

The so called ‘democracy commission’ is simply to diffuse the democratic upsurge in the SWP. If rank and file members are not on the ball very little will change and the victorious CC Majority will go on as before.

LikeLike

Reply
rob

January 15, 2009 at 3:37 pm

I agree with everything digger says above.

A thorough going debate in the pre-conference period and at the conference. A major issue that is being addressed is the issue of accountability of the leadership.

Perhaps the question of accountability is something “Respect”could look into regarding their leadership particularly their MP.

I know it might sound like a cheap point but being lectured by some of the people in “Respect” over openess and democracy in the swp is a bit rich.

Is the ISG(part of”respect”) going to broadcast all it’s internal debates and pre-conference discussions all over the internet(Of course I’m not talking about the public meetings and dayschools that Liam covers)?

I was a member of the ISG’s forerunner in the 80s. It was an extremely factionalised organisation with a feverish internal atmosphere where lots of internal bulletins were produced.It was totally forbidden to distribute them outside of the organisation.Of course that was easier to enforce in the days before the internet.

I’m all for open discussion but I’m not happy if enemies of the organisation I’m in are looking for distorted or out of context information to use as ammunition to bash us with.

“Sorry if those critics of the SWP feel they have not been adequately involved in the process.”
Seconded.

LikeLike

Reply
rob

January 15, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Of course these days you have to be relaxed about internal stuff getting out. With the internet it’s pretty unavoidable.

LikeLike

Reply
jim jay

January 15, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Just for clarity, as a non-SWP member, I don’t think I should have been involved in the process at all. I don’t think I should have had a vote nor do I think it’s important whether I have access to internal documents or not.

That doesn’t mean that any subject is off limits for discussion. Nor does it mean people can’t regard the SWP as undemocratic, they can do that perfectly well without expecting that they should personally have had a part in decision making (if they aren’t SWP members).

When things happen in the Labour Party, the Tories, the BNP, the Lib Dems – I’ve commented on all of those and have no intention of joining any of them.

Not only have I commented on them – I think its important when trying to assess the political situation to understand what organisations are doing.

As a smaller, less influential party the SWP isn’t as interesting as some others but it’s still part of the political landscape and people will naturally want to discuss significant happenings. That might include statements like “they shouldn’t do such and such…” “they should structure it like so and so…” You don’t have to take notice of that, but it doesn’t make it wrong for people to have an opinion.

I reckon.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

January 15, 2009 at 5:04 pm

“Of course these days you have to be relaxed about internal stuff getting out. With the internet it’s pretty unavoidable.”

It still takes someone to purloin the documents and those hosting websites to publish it without permission.

LikeLike

Reply
rob

January 16, 2009 at 9:09 am

Jim,no problem with opinion and debate as long as it’s honest.
Skidmarx,your right of course but what can anyone do about it?

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

January 16, 2009 at 11:36 am

Throw up their hands in despair.

Or not purloin internal documents, not publish them, not participate in discussions solely based on them. State our extreme disapproval for those who engage in the first two. I realise to stop the practice completely would require those who practice bad faith to show good faith and so is extremely unlikely, but the more a consensus is reached that the practice is unacceptable, the more such worms will have to squirm the the further reaches of the sectarianet.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

January 16, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Rob: “I was a member of the ISG’s forerunner in the 80s. It was an extremely factionalised organisation with a feverish internal atmosphere where lots of internal bulletins were produced.It was totally forbidden to distribute them outside of the organisation.”

I think that was understandably to avoid people being victimised eg in the Labour Party or workplace (the Economic League were operating then).

The political differences discussed were certainly not confidential. I seem to recollect one time when the IMG/SL’s paper published summaries of all four different positions put forward at the conference in the weekly paper. I’ve never seen a minority position put forward in socialist worker of course.

I can even remember one conference (1979 world congress conference) where the SWP were invited to make a submission and the IMG documents were given to the SWP. (I’ve still got the SWP submission, if anyone doesn’t believe it.)

It was routine to invite members of close organisations or sympathisers to preconference discussion meeting and I recollect in the late 1970s the International Socialist Alliance (a group of ex IS/SWP members including ex members of the Workers League) being invited to pre-conference discussions as observers.

The LCR paper Rouge always reports on both majority and minority positions at its conference.

There is no comparison between the two traditions.

LikeLike

Reply
rob

January 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Branches were closed internal meetings unlike in the swp.In the “IMG”(socialist league in my day) members were lined up in fairly rigid factions,debate was conducted in the interests of factional advantage rather than properly discuss the political issues.I find the lack of such permanent factions in the swp quite refreshing.You can listen to the arguments and make up your own mind free of any factional interests.Makes for a better and more useful debate.Certainly did last week.
So yes completely different traditions.
By the way we had a guest from the LCR at last year’s conference IIRC and this year’s conference has wide coverage in this week’s Socialist Worker.

“I think that was understandably to avoid people being victimised eg in the Labour Party or workplace (the Economic League were operating then). ”
Do you seriously think that no longer applies?

LikeLike

Reply
rob

January 16, 2009 at 3:39 pm

In fact it was such a factional s**t storm in the IMG in the 80’s that they couldn’t come to terms with the big defeats of that time and agree on a clear political response . Instead they tore their organisation to bits.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

January 16, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Rob: “Branches were closed internal meetings unlike in the swp”
Are you seriously saying that anyone off the street could have turned up at the SWP Branch meetings over the last couple of months that discussed the documents for this year’s conference? I wished I’d know that – I’d have made an effort to turn up.

“You can listen to the arguments and make up your own mind free of any factional interests.”
Why then did Maxine Bowler say “too many of us bit our tongues” at last year’s conference, if SWP conferences are such a genuine open debate?

The elephant in the room is of course the view that unites all factions in last weekend’s debate, that it was Galloway moving right that led to the split in Respect. How do SWP members explain that two of their members, councillors in Tower Hamlets, joined the Tories and New Labour, as did the National Chair of their side in the split? Were these people not moving to the right? Did the SWP not have any responsibility for that? Was a balance sheet made of why this happened?

LikeLike

Reply
Andy newman

January 16, 2009 at 5:03 pm

It is not true that there are NO factions in the SWP, because the CC constitites itself as a permament faction. It is more accurate to say that there are no minority factions permitted.

LikeLike

Reply
Liam

January 16, 2009 at 11:48 pm

The main disagreements in the SR/ISG family in the last few years have been over environmental issues, in particular congestion charging. You can see that comrades have expressed a range of contrasting views on the matter on this site if you look at the discussion about the Manchester referendum.

As regards British politics, our orientation for building Respect, Latin America, the imperialist wars and the economic situation there is not much disagreement. But we think dissent is good and that independent thinking is to be encouraged. In the issue of the SR journal which was on sale at the Respect conference we carried a piece by Andy Newman precisely because he was offering a different strategic approach. It is much better to deal with contrasting opinions frankly and without trying to distort them and carve them out of an organisation’s decision making processes or try to pulverise those putting them forward.

LikeLike

Reply
rob

January 19, 2009 at 9:06 am

Prinkipoexile said:
“Are you seriously saying that anyone off the street could have turned up at the SWP Branch meetings over the last couple of months that discussed the documents for this year’s conference? I wished I’d know that – I’d have made an effort to turn up.”

Most branches,including my own are having a conference report back at which your welcome to go to and discuss as much as you like.And you can find out what we discussed about Respect.

I never said the swp was perfect , did I?There’s definitely progress and I’ve always felt more comfortable being able to raise differences in the swp than I ever did in the IMG/SL and the Communist League after that. I remember Brian Heron going completely ballistic,I mean practically psychotic,at someone in a minority faction at an aggregate..And that wasn’t the only time I saw that sort of behaviour.It hardly makes for an atmosphere of free and open discussion.

Liam said:
“dissent is good and that independent thinking is to be encouraged”

Absolutely Liam , totally agree with that,but does Galloway and his clique pay any attention to the opinions of free and independent thinkers in “Respect”?

The swp is adressing the issue of accountability of it’s leadership,is “Respect”?

Prinkipoexile said:
“The elephant in the room is of course the view that unites all factions in last weekend’s debate, that it was Galloway moving right that led to the split in Respect. ”

Two words if you dont think Galloway’s moving to the right. Progressive London.

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

January 19, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Two words if you dont think Galloway’s moving to the right. Progressive London.

How does the PL letterhead compare with STWC in terms of the left-right spread?

LikeLike

Reply
rob

January 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Phil,One’s a united front , the other’s Livingstone’s re-election campaign.But you knew that already.
So is anyone going to tell me if Galloway’s going to be held accountable to “Respect”? I’ve mentioned it a couple of times already.
It really is a bit much getting criticised on democracy by members of Respect Renewal.
A bit like getting lectured on human rights by George Bush.
Ta-ra

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

January 19, 2009 at 2:56 pm

One’s a united front , the other’s Livingstone’s re-election campaign.

Oooh, it’s a united front. No further questions, m’lud – obviously its integrity as a valid project for socialists is beyond reproach.

All sarcasm aside, Progressive London strikes me as a rather good example of a united front, albeit of a special type (viz. top-down); it’s a united front in favour of getting the damage done by Boris Johnson rectified as soon as possible, and as such a project the Left can cheerfully endorse*. Whether Livingstone should be opposed or not was an open question in the pre-split RESPECT; I think we can see now that the correct answer was ‘not’.

*OK, cheerful might be pushing it.

LikeLike

Reply
rob

January 19, 2009 at 3:17 pm

I’m confused.Your saying you don’t support StWC?
Of course it’s a united front , it’s not an elephant or a giraffe.
Who’s saying it’s beyond reproach?Did I say it was beyond reproach? Stop twisting stuff round .
Just looked at the PL website. Ken Livingstone re-election campaign , end of.We’ll have to agree to disagree on that . I have no opinion one way or another if “respect” gets involved with it.
Good luck with it.
Now is Galloway accountable to “respect ” or not?

LikeLike

Reply
jim jay

January 19, 2009 at 4:00 pm

The discussion on Progressive London did make me wonder two things.

Firstly why does George Galloway speaking at an event automatically means he is submerging his politics into it? At least his presence will be pulling the rather wet platform of speakers to the left. I’d have thought it’s all rather dependent on what he says at the conference as to whether he is moving to the right.

Or don’t we speak to people we disagree with us anymore? I’m looking forward to upcoming vow of silence from those who think we must remain pure by not talking to anyone who’s views they see as to their right.

Secondly I wonder if it would be possible to ditch the term “united front”. It is essentially exclusively used by the far left marking the user immediately as someone who uses a special lexicon that others have to learn.

It is also bound up with so much ideological baggage and theological weight that it might do people some good to at least try to use other phrases occasionally. I know I have found it helpful to try (imperfectly sadly) to throw off the habitual use of dead language.

Currently I’m trying out for size the following; Campaigning organisation. Campaign group. Joint Initiative. I’m sure there are others.

I personally find it helpful to rethink what these things actually are and give them everyday terms partly so I sound less like the robot hack that I am and partly so organisations with specific purposes don’t take on some kind of religious significance that they are not entitled to (like when the stwc and the anti-war movement are conflated for example)

LikeLike

Reply
Phil

January 19, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Of course it’s a united front , it’s not an elephant or a giraffe.

Sure. It’s a united front, which is one type of broad organisation involving people on the Left together with people who aren’t on the Left.

Just looked at the PL website. Ken Livingstone re-election campaign , end of.We’ll have to agree to disagree on that .

I don’t disagree at all. It’s a campaign for London run the way Ken would like it run. As such, it’s a perfectly valid example of a broad organisation which involves people on the Left together with people who aren’t on the Left.

Since you obviously don’t oppose the principle of involvement in broad organisations which involve, etc, etc, the only way endorsement of Progressive London is knockdown evidence of a move to the Right is if you think the re-election of Livingstone is something socialists shouldn’t support. As I said earlier on, whether Livingstone should be opposed or not was an open question in the pre-split RESPECT; I think we can see now that the correct answer was ‘not’.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

January 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm

“At least his presence will be pulling the rather wet platform of speakers to the left.”

Not neccessarily.

“I’d have thought it’s all rather dependent on what he says at the conference as to whether he is moving to the right.”

At the “Respect” conference he apparently ranted about arguments between dead Russians, and I still await an explanation of wtf he was talking about. I can’t be sure his next appearance will be any different.

LikeLike

Reply
Prinkipo Exile

January 19, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Skidmarx – I heard that at last year’s London SWP members’ aggregate over the split in Respect, SWP councillor Ahmed Hussain, said that George Galloway should be put down, like a dog.

Were you there? Did you agree with him? If so, will you be joining your comrade Hussain in the local Conservative Party?

I still await an explanation of why the SWP leaders said that he should be listened to, and have yet to here you explain his position as evidence that the SWP were moving to the right, er sorry left.

LikeLike

Reply
charliemarks

January 19, 2009 at 10:13 pm

“At the “Respect” conference he apparently ranted about arguments between dead Russians, and I still await an explanation of wtf he was talking about. I can’t be sure his next appearance will be any different.”

Well, the point was that the priorities for socialists at this time of the greatest crisis of capitalism for a generation is that we should not be talking about our disagreements on the past, but on how we can work together in the future.

LikeLike

Reply
skidmarx

January 20, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Were you there? Did you agree with him? If so, will you be joining your comrade Hussain in the local Conservative Party?

No,no and although the third may be moot as a conditional,no.

I still await an answer to most questions I’ve asked about Respect(evasion is our stock in trade). I have no idea what the answer to your last question is.

Well, the point was that the priorities for socialists at this time of the greatest crisis of capitalism for a generation is that we should not be talking about our disagreements on the past

How can you be sure? Was he referring to specific arguments between specific dead Russians? If so, which? And if he’s a born-again non-sectarian, why did he tell a copper on his radio show that he wouldn’t have been allowed on if he’d been in the SWP?

LikeLike

Reply
swp member

January 20, 2009 at 6:25 pm

‘we should not be talking about our disagreements on the past, but on how we can work together in the future.’

Good point. RR members should try and take it on board, rather than trying to fan the embers of the split arguments, as is happening both here (Prinkipo exile)and on SU where someone wants to have ANOTHER discussion about the old Tower hamlets Respect malarkey.

LikeLike

Reply
chjh

January 20, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Prinkipo Exile – at that meeting, Alex Callinicos publicly disassociated the SWP from those remarks. If you weren’t told that, then you were given a one-sided and sectarian account of the meeting. If you were told that, then you’re perpetuating a one-sided and sectarian account.

It’ll help if both sides stop fanning the sectarian embers.

LikeLike

Reply