Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
Interesting report:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/11/respect-very-live.html
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/11/respect-very-live.html
17 November Conference Reports Part 1 - Respect (SWP), Westminster
- Thread starter Fisher_Gate
- Start date
Respect – The Unity Coalition
4th Annual Conference
17th November 2007
University of Westminster, London
1. Welcome and opening – Michael Gavan, Newham Respect (Chair, first session)
Michael Gavan welcomed everyone to the 4th annual Respect Conference. He introduced the people on the platform: Rebecca Townesend (timekeeper) Oliur Rahman, Respect Councillor, John Rees, National Secretary and Elaine Graham-Leigh, National Treasurer.
Michael said this is a very important conference. The need for a coalition is more important now than ever. Brown is no better than Blair. Both are warmongers in Iraq and are threatening war on Iran. They are attacking trade unionists and communities. We have to fight for all. We can’t abandon any community or trade union to the Labour Party. This would be a disaster. We need to offer a real opposition to New Labour. Michael concluded by saying that no one will stop us building Respect.
2. Conference Arrangements Committee Report – Elaine Graham-Leigh
Elaine said that there were two issues she wished to present to conference. The first is the question about delegations. Some delegations – from Tower Hamlets, Birmingham South and from Student Respect have been disputed. She addressed the issues around each, and the decision of the CAC in turn.
Tower Hamlets branch was entitled to 77 delegates. Forty-six people submitted their names as interested in attending the conference to the branch secretary by the branch’s agreed deadline. This list was presented to and voted on at a properly constituted branch meeting and was passed. There had been a hand-written list produced during the meeting but this was not voted on. The view of the CAC was that 46 names had been sent to the National Office by the national deadline, no other list was received, and therefore they would accept the 46 names as delegates from Tower Hamlets.
Birmingham was entitled to 15 delegates: 3 from Birmingham North and 12 from Birmingham South. At the branch meeting 17 delegates were elected. This list was submitted but with no priority attached to the names. On checking it was found that 6 had never been members of Respect, so they were excluded, with the others accepted as delegates.
Students – At the National Council meeting in September 2006 it was decided to allow delegates from student groups to attend conference in that year and subsequent years. This year, as every year, a list of members of Student Respect was obtained, and the definition of membership was in accordance with the university regulations. From this list Student Respect was entitled to 48 delegates.
Conference voted to approve these decisions.
Elaine explained that Standing Orders for the conference were in the delegate and observer packs. Because of recent events it was decided to hold a one-day conference now focusing on recent issues and how we move forward. The resolutions to be discussed were in the packs. The remaining resolutions would be discussed at a second conference to be held in the first 6 months of 2008.
At this conference, speakers’ slips would be used and speakers would have 3 minutes. There would be a mover and a speaker against each motion, with other speakers taking place in the debate. Vote would be by show of hands with a delegate card.
The CAC Report was agreed.
3. Procedure for National Council Election – Michael Lavalette (Motion 53)
Michael explained that in the last few years the NC had been elected by a slate system. Alternative slates could be presented to conference. This method was used to ensure a balance of geographical location, gender, and ethnicity. Unease about the slate system had been expressed in the past and discussion was held by the NC. It was decided to propose using the eSTV system, which is the current recommendation of the Electoral Reform Commission.
The post of a National Organiser had been proposed at a previous NC and was passed unanimously at the last NC. The National Organiser would be part of the National Officers group, along with the Chair, Secretary and Treasurer. They would hold weekly meetings and report to the NC and conference. The decision had been made two days before the expected announcement of a general election. The following day Brown said there would be no election before 2009 so the pressure to appoint the National Organiser became less urgent.
The CAC proposed that the 3 posts of National Organiser, National Secretary and Chair be directly elected at conference and that the post holders would be accountable to conference. The National Council would be elected by a single transferable vote.
This was unanimously agreed.
Election of Officers
Chair: Oliur Rahman, unanimously elected
National Organiser: Elaine Graham-Leigh, carried overwhelmingly.
National Secretary: John Rees, carried overwhelmingly.
A point of order was raised by John Molyneux asking what would happen if one of the NC was run over by a bus before the next conference. Elaine Graham-Leigh was called upon to respond. She said that in these circumstances the NC could co-opt until the next conference.
<part 2 to follow>
4th Annual Conference
17th November 2007
University of Westminster, London
1. Welcome and opening – Michael Gavan, Newham Respect (Chair, first session)
Michael Gavan welcomed everyone to the 4th annual Respect Conference. He introduced the people on the platform: Rebecca Townesend (timekeeper) Oliur Rahman, Respect Councillor, John Rees, National Secretary and Elaine Graham-Leigh, National Treasurer.
Michael said this is a very important conference. The need for a coalition is more important now than ever. Brown is no better than Blair. Both are warmongers in Iraq and are threatening war on Iran. They are attacking trade unionists and communities. We have to fight for all. We can’t abandon any community or trade union to the Labour Party. This would be a disaster. We need to offer a real opposition to New Labour. Michael concluded by saying that no one will stop us building Respect.
2. Conference Arrangements Committee Report – Elaine Graham-Leigh
Elaine said that there were two issues she wished to present to conference. The first is the question about delegations. Some delegations – from Tower Hamlets, Birmingham South and from Student Respect have been disputed. She addressed the issues around each, and the decision of the CAC in turn.
Tower Hamlets branch was entitled to 77 delegates. Forty-six people submitted their names as interested in attending the conference to the branch secretary by the branch’s agreed deadline. This list was presented to and voted on at a properly constituted branch meeting and was passed. There had been a hand-written list produced during the meeting but this was not voted on. The view of the CAC was that 46 names had been sent to the National Office by the national deadline, no other list was received, and therefore they would accept the 46 names as delegates from Tower Hamlets.
Birmingham was entitled to 15 delegates: 3 from Birmingham North and 12 from Birmingham South. At the branch meeting 17 delegates were elected. This list was submitted but with no priority attached to the names. On checking it was found that 6 had never been members of Respect, so they were excluded, with the others accepted as delegates.
Students – At the National Council meeting in September 2006 it was decided to allow delegates from student groups to attend conference in that year and subsequent years. This year, as every year, a list of members of Student Respect was obtained, and the definition of membership was in accordance with the university regulations. From this list Student Respect was entitled to 48 delegates.
Conference voted to approve these decisions.
Elaine explained that Standing Orders for the conference were in the delegate and observer packs. Because of recent events it was decided to hold a one-day conference now focusing on recent issues and how we move forward. The resolutions to be discussed were in the packs. The remaining resolutions would be discussed at a second conference to be held in the first 6 months of 2008.
At this conference, speakers’ slips would be used and speakers would have 3 minutes. There would be a mover and a speaker against each motion, with other speakers taking place in the debate. Vote would be by show of hands with a delegate card.
The CAC Report was agreed.
3. Procedure for National Council Election – Michael Lavalette (Motion 53)
Michael explained that in the last few years the NC had been elected by a slate system. Alternative slates could be presented to conference. This method was used to ensure a balance of geographical location, gender, and ethnicity. Unease about the slate system had been expressed in the past and discussion was held by the NC. It was decided to propose using the eSTV system, which is the current recommendation of the Electoral Reform Commission.
The post of a National Organiser had been proposed at a previous NC and was passed unanimously at the last NC. The National Organiser would be part of the National Officers group, along with the Chair, Secretary and Treasurer. They would hold weekly meetings and report to the NC and conference. The decision had been made two days before the expected announcement of a general election. The following day Brown said there would be no election before 2009 so the pressure to appoint the National Organiser became less urgent.
The CAC proposed that the 3 posts of National Organiser, National Secretary and Chair be directly elected at conference and that the post holders would be accountable to conference. The National Council would be elected by a single transferable vote.
This was unanimously agreed.
Election of Officers
Chair: Oliur Rahman, unanimously elected
National Organiser: Elaine Graham-Leigh, carried overwhelmingly.
National Secretary: John Rees, carried overwhelmingly.
A point of order was raised by John Molyneux asking what would happen if one of the NC was run over by a bus before the next conference. Elaine Graham-Leigh was called upon to respond. She said that in these circumstances the NC could co-opt until the next conference.
<part 2 to follow>
NC Nominations
46 nominations had been made for 50 places. The 46 were elected unanimously. A point of order was made saying that Tim Danby had withdrawn his name. This was noted.
4. Opening statement – John Rees
John said that he wanted to give a political framework for the discussion of recent weeks in Respect. There have been many documents, internet commentary, and debate in branches of Respect; delegates will have formed their own views. The core of the debate is an irreducible element – how we respond to electoral pressure especially in centres where Respect has been most successful. The debate has been produced by the success of Respect. It is a young organisation, less than 4 years old. Initially we had to hunt for people to stand for us, we convinced some people that out of principle there ought to be a left of Labour organisation, other people agreed that they should give time and money to campaign for Respect candidates irrespective of the outcome – people stood in elections on the basis that they may not win. This was the case in the GLA, EU, and parliamentary by-elections.
This is not possible now in Tower Hamlets or North Birmingham where tens of people put themselves forward as candidates. Hundreds joined specifically or mainly to get their candidate selected. With the victory in Bethnal Green and Bow and council victories, a situation arose where not everyone was involved because they were convinced of the political principle. Some people joined who couldn’t get selected by other parties – they saw Respect as the best way of being selected. These pressures didn’t exist when Respect was first formed. We want support in the community where we stand but want people to stand who are committed to Respect as an anti-capitalist, anti-war and pro-trade union opposition to New Labour. It is not an easy situation to resolve. There has been some cost: in Tower Hamlets two of the councillors elected in May 2006 have been lost. One to the Labour Party, and one resigned causing a by-election that we only won by 97 votes. There is pressure from the Labour machine; it is a big machine.
Three of our councillors: Oliur Rahman, Michael Lavalette and Salma Yaqoob have been approached by the Labour Party saying if they cross the floor they would be offered parliamentary seats in the next general election. The Labour Party in Preston offered to de-select the sitting Labour MP and select Michael. This illustrates the kind of pressure exerted by the Labour Party machine on people we select as councillors. There have been cases in Tower Hamlets where people have left Respect. There have been pressures on the MP; sometimes George Galloway rejected these pressures, sometimes he hasn’t. Delegates need to know about the accountability of our elected representatives, national leaders and local officers and how they deal with that pressure. We need a more robust attitude to candidate selection and accountability. It is not good enough to select the person most likely to be elected, they have to want to win for the principles. Also we need to be sure we are not selecting people who 6 months later undermine what we stand for and make us look like the other political parties – they take the politics out of politics, like New Labour. Without ideology, what is left is careerism, avarice and opportunists. We can’t allow the culture in Respect to be the same as in the main political parties. If we do, we cease to be the alternative to the hundreds of thousands of people who look to us as a real alternative to New Labour.
We can agree on our policy on paper like the Labour Party, but if our elected representatives don’t fight for it, it isn’t worth paper it is written on. This is why the debate has happened in this way.
This has only happened to a minority of the organisation. It is a different position in other parts of the country. To maximize our chances of success we chose areas where we were likely to have success and we are planning to replicate this elsewhere in the future. These are the problems we tried to address.
In the 2006 elections we got excellent results in certain places. However, Muslims were the only people elected, they did what we asked them to do – to fight and to win. But they and we knew that to develop we had to elect people in other core working class areas in other parts of country. After the 2006 election we made two key decisions:
The first was to call for the setting up of Organising for Fighting Unions. This involved working with people in the Labour Party, other organisations, no organisation, not just Respect. We hope also to influence them politically. It is a success story, and we hope to become a small minority in it, with more support from people who are in the Labour Party and trade union movement.
The second decision was about the re-election of Michael Lavalette in Preston. He was the first councillor to come over to Respect, and we didn’t want him to lose his seat. We agreed that we would work hard to get Michael re-elected. As a result he got the biggest share of the vote ever of any candidate in Preston.
A constant theme of our critics is that we didn’t stand up for gay rights. We took the decision to have a float at Pride. We did not want to be out of step with the best in the trade union movement.
This strategy is key to making Respect a viable left political organisation. The strategy is correct and one we should pursue now.
It is not the case that there are only some communities where we get votes. If we look at the example of Ray Holmes in Bolsover, we can see there are no ‘no-go’ areas for Respect in this country.
We can’t have the situation where, whenever there are candidates to be selected, we have mass recruitment of new members, with one individual bringing in membership forms paying large sums of money in their own cash. This is the core of some of the argument that has taken place.
We didn’t want an argument that started this way, but the issues couldn’t be avoided and had to be addressed. The seeming imminence of a general election earlier this year was important. That pressure has gone, and there is the chance to build Respect on the original vision. John Rees said that he is sorry that anyone else takes a different view, but no individual is bigger than the party or movement. The meaningful core of the organisation is not the leadership but the membership, who meet in branches and campaign on the streets.
<part 3 to follow>
46 nominations had been made for 50 places. The 46 were elected unanimously. A point of order was made saying that Tim Danby had withdrawn his name. This was noted.
4. Opening statement – John Rees
John said that he wanted to give a political framework for the discussion of recent weeks in Respect. There have been many documents, internet commentary, and debate in branches of Respect; delegates will have formed their own views. The core of the debate is an irreducible element – how we respond to electoral pressure especially in centres where Respect has been most successful. The debate has been produced by the success of Respect. It is a young organisation, less than 4 years old. Initially we had to hunt for people to stand for us, we convinced some people that out of principle there ought to be a left of Labour organisation, other people agreed that they should give time and money to campaign for Respect candidates irrespective of the outcome – people stood in elections on the basis that they may not win. This was the case in the GLA, EU, and parliamentary by-elections.
This is not possible now in Tower Hamlets or North Birmingham where tens of people put themselves forward as candidates. Hundreds joined specifically or mainly to get their candidate selected. With the victory in Bethnal Green and Bow and council victories, a situation arose where not everyone was involved because they were convinced of the political principle. Some people joined who couldn’t get selected by other parties – they saw Respect as the best way of being selected. These pressures didn’t exist when Respect was first formed. We want support in the community where we stand but want people to stand who are committed to Respect as an anti-capitalist, anti-war and pro-trade union opposition to New Labour. It is not an easy situation to resolve. There has been some cost: in Tower Hamlets two of the councillors elected in May 2006 have been lost. One to the Labour Party, and one resigned causing a by-election that we only won by 97 votes. There is pressure from the Labour machine; it is a big machine.
Three of our councillors: Oliur Rahman, Michael Lavalette and Salma Yaqoob have been approached by the Labour Party saying if they cross the floor they would be offered parliamentary seats in the next general election. The Labour Party in Preston offered to de-select the sitting Labour MP and select Michael. This illustrates the kind of pressure exerted by the Labour Party machine on people we select as councillors. There have been cases in Tower Hamlets where people have left Respect. There have been pressures on the MP; sometimes George Galloway rejected these pressures, sometimes he hasn’t. Delegates need to know about the accountability of our elected representatives, national leaders and local officers and how they deal with that pressure. We need a more robust attitude to candidate selection and accountability. It is not good enough to select the person most likely to be elected, they have to want to win for the principles. Also we need to be sure we are not selecting people who 6 months later undermine what we stand for and make us look like the other political parties – they take the politics out of politics, like New Labour. Without ideology, what is left is careerism, avarice and opportunists. We can’t allow the culture in Respect to be the same as in the main political parties. If we do, we cease to be the alternative to the hundreds of thousands of people who look to us as a real alternative to New Labour.
We can agree on our policy on paper like the Labour Party, but if our elected representatives don’t fight for it, it isn’t worth paper it is written on. This is why the debate has happened in this way.
This has only happened to a minority of the organisation. It is a different position in other parts of the country. To maximize our chances of success we chose areas where we were likely to have success and we are planning to replicate this elsewhere in the future. These are the problems we tried to address.
In the 2006 elections we got excellent results in certain places. However, Muslims were the only people elected, they did what we asked them to do – to fight and to win. But they and we knew that to develop we had to elect people in other core working class areas in other parts of country. After the 2006 election we made two key decisions:
The first was to call for the setting up of Organising for Fighting Unions. This involved working with people in the Labour Party, other organisations, no organisation, not just Respect. We hope also to influence them politically. It is a success story, and we hope to become a small minority in it, with more support from people who are in the Labour Party and trade union movement.
The second decision was about the re-election of Michael Lavalette in Preston. He was the first councillor to come over to Respect, and we didn’t want him to lose his seat. We agreed that we would work hard to get Michael re-elected. As a result he got the biggest share of the vote ever of any candidate in Preston.
A constant theme of our critics is that we didn’t stand up for gay rights. We took the decision to have a float at Pride. We did not want to be out of step with the best in the trade union movement.
This strategy is key to making Respect a viable left political organisation. The strategy is correct and one we should pursue now.
It is not the case that there are only some communities where we get votes. If we look at the example of Ray Holmes in Bolsover, we can see there are no ‘no-go’ areas for Respect in this country.
We can’t have the situation where, whenever there are candidates to be selected, we have mass recruitment of new members, with one individual bringing in membership forms paying large sums of money in their own cash. This is the core of some of the argument that has taken place.
We didn’t want an argument that started this way, but the issues couldn’t be avoided and had to be addressed. The seeming imminence of a general election earlier this year was important. That pressure has gone, and there is the chance to build Respect on the original vision. John Rees said that he is sorry that anyone else takes a different view, but no individual is bigger than the party or movement. The meaningful core of the organisation is not the leadership but the membership, who meet in branches and campaign on the streets.
<part 3 to follow>
No one can take away from members their right to attend branch meetings, to put themselves forward as a conference delegate, to put forward a resolution or to vote on them. This is the proper way that debate should be conducted. This network of militants will be at the core of movement. The CWU is discussing having its own political fund, there is a debate in the labour and trade union movements. Fifteen Liverpool fire-fighters want to stand against the officials in the fire authority elections. Bob Wareing is standing as an Independent in Liverpool. We want to back him. These are all part of a core in the country who want to stand against New Labour.
The meeting was opened to the floor for discussion.
Jackie Turner, Tower Hamlets
Jackie spoke of some of the things that have led to recent events in Tower Hamlets. This included people joining Respect to seek nomination as council candidates, who left Respect and joined other political parties, when they weren’t selected.
There had been compromises over the council leader. Oliur Rahman was elected by the membership but the councillors chose Abjol Miah. The compromise was that Abjol would be the leader and Oli the chair of the group.
Before the 2006 AGM there was a move to get one candidate elected as chair. Forty-five membership applications were received on the closing date. These are just some examples. Jackie asked is this the way we want to run Respect?
Lindsey German, NC
Lindsey spoke of how regrettable the current situation is. She is a founder member of Respect and of the Stop the War movement. Without socialists there would be no trade union involvement in either movement.
Treating people in this way as pocket members is condescending to Muslims if not racist. It is important not to see Bengalis as the same, there are many Bengalis who vote Tory. The argument that women can’t get elected has to be challenged. Labour has chosen a woman candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow. They aren’t afraid of taking on that argument and we shouldn’t be either. We want people to vote for us because they agree with the principles we share, not because we come from the same family or village.
Dave Franklin, Plymouth and Cornwall
Dave said that prior to George Galloway’s first letter they had been in discussion with two Labour councillors about them joining Respect. He was concerned about the proposal that members have to attend 2 meetings before they can vote. In his area people have to travel up to 100 miles to attend meetings.
Amina Mangera, Greenwich and Lewisham
Amina described herself as an independent socialist. She is concerned that both sides are behaving badly and that public emails don’t help. She expressed concern that the result will be the election of BNP candidates to the GLA. She said there is not a left / right split in Respect, and most branches don’t want a split. She is worried they are not being listened to.
Nahella Ashraf, Manchester
Nahella said that many members feel that no one has asked them what they want. Respect is the people in the room and all our members. We need to keep fighting for the original vision of Respect.
Kumar Murshid, Tower Hamlets
Kumar said that the way things have happened is not the way that we would have liked things to go. But there are critical factors especially in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets.
Kumar said that we cannot have pocket members in a democratic party. This derails the democratic process, it has a corroding impact and stops ordinary members from engaging fully. He has seen this in the Labour Party in East London. He railed against this and joined Respect and found this happening here. He was dismayed at the first Respect meeting he attended to find this happening.
He said that we had to take a firm position and challenge these corrupt practices; we cannot allow the party to be destroyed.
Anna Livingstone, Tower Hamlets
Anna spoke about the work with the councillors on their case work. Much of the case work is brought forward by women. There are issues such as overcrowding, poor housing conditions and immigration that Respect needs to be campaigning around.
Anna said that the current system of paying membership fees put many people off joining. We need a system where people can pay in instalments.
John Molyneux, Portsmouth
John spoke of the importance of our involvement in the Campaign against Climate Change and the 8th December demonstration.
Other participants in the debate were: Tom Rubens, Hackney, Paddy O’Keefe, Brighton and Hove, Musarat Sujawal, Leeds, Jonny Jones, Cardiff, Shaun Doherty, Tower Hamlets, Cllr Lutfa Begum, Tower Hamlets, Balvinder Rana, Southall, Sarah Creagh,
<part 4 to follow>
The meeting was opened to the floor for discussion.
Jackie Turner, Tower Hamlets
Jackie spoke of some of the things that have led to recent events in Tower Hamlets. This included people joining Respect to seek nomination as council candidates, who left Respect and joined other political parties, when they weren’t selected.
There had been compromises over the council leader. Oliur Rahman was elected by the membership but the councillors chose Abjol Miah. The compromise was that Abjol would be the leader and Oli the chair of the group.
Before the 2006 AGM there was a move to get one candidate elected as chair. Forty-five membership applications were received on the closing date. These are just some examples. Jackie asked is this the way we want to run Respect?
Lindsey German, NC
Lindsey spoke of how regrettable the current situation is. She is a founder member of Respect and of the Stop the War movement. Without socialists there would be no trade union involvement in either movement.
Treating people in this way as pocket members is condescending to Muslims if not racist. It is important not to see Bengalis as the same, there are many Bengalis who vote Tory. The argument that women can’t get elected has to be challenged. Labour has chosen a woman candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow. They aren’t afraid of taking on that argument and we shouldn’t be either. We want people to vote for us because they agree with the principles we share, not because we come from the same family or village.
Dave Franklin, Plymouth and Cornwall
Dave said that prior to George Galloway’s first letter they had been in discussion with two Labour councillors about them joining Respect. He was concerned about the proposal that members have to attend 2 meetings before they can vote. In his area people have to travel up to 100 miles to attend meetings.
Amina Mangera, Greenwich and Lewisham
Amina described herself as an independent socialist. She is concerned that both sides are behaving badly and that public emails don’t help. She expressed concern that the result will be the election of BNP candidates to the GLA. She said there is not a left / right split in Respect, and most branches don’t want a split. She is worried they are not being listened to.
Nahella Ashraf, Manchester
Nahella said that many members feel that no one has asked them what they want. Respect is the people in the room and all our members. We need to keep fighting for the original vision of Respect.
Kumar Murshid, Tower Hamlets
Kumar said that the way things have happened is not the way that we would have liked things to go. But there are critical factors especially in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets.
Kumar said that we cannot have pocket members in a democratic party. This derails the democratic process, it has a corroding impact and stops ordinary members from engaging fully. He has seen this in the Labour Party in East London. He railed against this and joined Respect and found this happening here. He was dismayed at the first Respect meeting he attended to find this happening.
He said that we had to take a firm position and challenge these corrupt practices; we cannot allow the party to be destroyed.
Anna Livingstone, Tower Hamlets
Anna spoke about the work with the councillors on their case work. Much of the case work is brought forward by women. There are issues such as overcrowding, poor housing conditions and immigration that Respect needs to be campaigning around.
Anna said that the current system of paying membership fees put many people off joining. We need a system where people can pay in instalments.
John Molyneux, Portsmouth
John spoke of the importance of our involvement in the Campaign against Climate Change and the 8th December demonstration.
Other participants in the debate were: Tom Rubens, Hackney, Paddy O’Keefe, Brighton and Hove, Musarat Sujawal, Leeds, Jonny Jones, Cardiff, Shaun Doherty, Tower Hamlets, Cllr Lutfa Begum, Tower Hamlets, Balvinder Rana, Southall, Sarah Creagh,
<part 4 to follow>
Bristol, Michael Lavalette, Preston, Sarah Cox, Brent and Harrow and Debbie Rolls, Leeds.
Guest Speakers Karen Reissmann & Kevin Kennedy, UNISON Manchester Health
Karen and Kevin received a standing ovation and a warm welcome from the conference. Karen said that she has been a CPN for 25 years in Manchester. She was sacked on 5th November having been promoted to a senior nurse practitioner on the day she was suspended. Her crime was to be quoted in an article criticising the government transfer of the NHS to the voluntary sector. She told people she was suspended and why. She told people she was innocent. She told the media about her sacking and the issues. All these were seen as gross misconduct and for these reasons she was sacked.
She is the UNISON branch chair and a member of the national Health Executive. She organises people at work against cuts in the health service – this was her real crime. She would happily plead guilty to that.
Karen reported that fourteen branches went on strike. There are now 150 community health staff on indefinite strike. There are cuts in the mental health trust. People are on waiting lists to be sectioned. There are 20 beds in the ward and 27 patients. Sixteen nurse posts have been cut to four.
The Trust management closed 3 wards rather than allow the union to provide emergency cover. Patients were discharged home, sent to a locked hospital or moved 100 miles on coach to a private hospital for 3 weeks. This is costing up to £1000 per patient per day. Money is no object to management now. They are funding 20 extra beds in the private sector during strike. These will be cut when strike is over.
So far £120,000 has been raised for the strike fund. More money is needed. People on strike are losing money and Xmas is approaching. The local media, the Lib Dems and the Greens have called for her reinstatement. The Labour Party is the only party who haven’t called for her reinstatement. The Labour Party was set up by trade union leaders, but they can’t defend trade unionists. Karen said that they are determined to fight against privatisation and marketisation in health.
Kevin said that he too is a CPN and here today as a striker. He asked how can you improve a public service without being able to speak out publicly? He said that he is an ex-soldier, and left the military 10 years ago. The Trust has some comparisons with the military. He called for the reinstatement of Karen Reissmann and for the government to get the troops out alive rather than in body bags.
Karen and Kevin received a standing ovation and a collection was held as delegates and observers left for lunch.
Cllr Ray Holmes, Bolsover
Ray said that he thinks we’ve done an exceedingly good job in the last few weeks. We’ve stood by our principles, and by the principles he fought for in Shirebrook. He said that it gives him great pleasure to stand up in the council and say “I oppose that!” We are opposed to the way workers are being treated in the post offices, and he been on the picket line. He said that we talk about representation of people’s interests, but we’re expected to show deference to a government that is attacking us every day. The reason he joined Respect is because he wanted a society that has the same principles. We need to be as broad and principled as we can be to take on those challenges. He concluded saying he wants to see this hall in 2 or 3 years time where every one of us is a Respect councillor!
Guest Speaker Jane Loftus, President, CWU
Jane said that she knows this is her home – the real Respect. The postal dispute highlighted problems with New Labour and old Labour. £23 billion has been given to Northern Rock but we are told there is no money for public services. Brown is continuing the policies as Blair. Brown will attack workers. New and old layers are active, trades councils are being re-launched, the OFFU meetings across the country are a great success. The CWU is punching its weight in the political arena. The settlement is out to ballot. The attacks will continue on the proposed changes and pensions but postal workers will fight back. Respect is on the picket lines, postal workers are looking for who will represent them. Democracy is important. The debate about where we go at this conference is the only way to go. Great councillors and trade union leaders have to be accountable.
Jane said that it had been agreed to postpone the OFFU day school planned for 24th November so that trade unionists and socialists could support the Karen Reissmann demonstration in Manchester. The will be an OFFU day school in London on 2nd February. There will be workshops on a wide range of topics: organising in unions; recruitment; international work; wages don’t cause inflation; agency and casual workers.
Guest Speaker Francois Duval, LCR France
Francois said that he is a guest therefore won’t interfere in the internal debate. He spoke of the situation in France where since Wednesday the previous week, there have been massive disputes. Railway workers, like in 1995 are on the front line, resisting attacks on the pensions system. Electricity workers, bus and tube drivers are also on strike. Students are also resisting university “reforms” – which means more privatisation and competition between rich and poor universities. The Presidents slogan is ‘work more to earn more’ but workers are working more but not earning more. The LCR aims to broaden the strikes and promote general strike of all workers. On Tuesday 20th there will be a strike of all civil servants. The Parliamentary left, the Socialist Party – France’s own Labour Party – share the same analysis as the right wing parties. More people feel it’s time for a new political party of the left, and this is what they are fighting for: a party of social resistance. They want to build a real opposition and a party for class struggle. Francois said that our lives are more valuable than their profit. They will be holding a conference January to which Respect will be invited. They are currently holding small meetings in towns and workplaces to test the idea for a new workers party. They will check the idea in the March elections.
<part 5 to follow>
Guest Speakers Karen Reissmann & Kevin Kennedy, UNISON Manchester Health
Karen and Kevin received a standing ovation and a warm welcome from the conference. Karen said that she has been a CPN for 25 years in Manchester. She was sacked on 5th November having been promoted to a senior nurse practitioner on the day she was suspended. Her crime was to be quoted in an article criticising the government transfer of the NHS to the voluntary sector. She told people she was suspended and why. She told people she was innocent. She told the media about her sacking and the issues. All these were seen as gross misconduct and for these reasons she was sacked.
She is the UNISON branch chair and a member of the national Health Executive. She organises people at work against cuts in the health service – this was her real crime. She would happily plead guilty to that.
Karen reported that fourteen branches went on strike. There are now 150 community health staff on indefinite strike. There are cuts in the mental health trust. People are on waiting lists to be sectioned. There are 20 beds in the ward and 27 patients. Sixteen nurse posts have been cut to four.
The Trust management closed 3 wards rather than allow the union to provide emergency cover. Patients were discharged home, sent to a locked hospital or moved 100 miles on coach to a private hospital for 3 weeks. This is costing up to £1000 per patient per day. Money is no object to management now. They are funding 20 extra beds in the private sector during strike. These will be cut when strike is over.
So far £120,000 has been raised for the strike fund. More money is needed. People on strike are losing money and Xmas is approaching. The local media, the Lib Dems and the Greens have called for her reinstatement. The Labour Party is the only party who haven’t called for her reinstatement. The Labour Party was set up by trade union leaders, but they can’t defend trade unionists. Karen said that they are determined to fight against privatisation and marketisation in health.
Kevin said that he too is a CPN and here today as a striker. He asked how can you improve a public service without being able to speak out publicly? He said that he is an ex-soldier, and left the military 10 years ago. The Trust has some comparisons with the military. He called for the reinstatement of Karen Reissmann and for the government to get the troops out alive rather than in body bags.
Karen and Kevin received a standing ovation and a collection was held as delegates and observers left for lunch.
Cllr Ray Holmes, Bolsover
Ray said that he thinks we’ve done an exceedingly good job in the last few weeks. We’ve stood by our principles, and by the principles he fought for in Shirebrook. He said that it gives him great pleasure to stand up in the council and say “I oppose that!” We are opposed to the way workers are being treated in the post offices, and he been on the picket line. He said that we talk about representation of people’s interests, but we’re expected to show deference to a government that is attacking us every day. The reason he joined Respect is because he wanted a society that has the same principles. We need to be as broad and principled as we can be to take on those challenges. He concluded saying he wants to see this hall in 2 or 3 years time where every one of us is a Respect councillor!
Guest Speaker Jane Loftus, President, CWU
Jane said that she knows this is her home – the real Respect. The postal dispute highlighted problems with New Labour and old Labour. £23 billion has been given to Northern Rock but we are told there is no money for public services. Brown is continuing the policies as Blair. Brown will attack workers. New and old layers are active, trades councils are being re-launched, the OFFU meetings across the country are a great success. The CWU is punching its weight in the political arena. The settlement is out to ballot. The attacks will continue on the proposed changes and pensions but postal workers will fight back. Respect is on the picket lines, postal workers are looking for who will represent them. Democracy is important. The debate about where we go at this conference is the only way to go. Great councillors and trade union leaders have to be accountable.
Jane said that it had been agreed to postpone the OFFU day school planned for 24th November so that trade unionists and socialists could support the Karen Reissmann demonstration in Manchester. The will be an OFFU day school in London on 2nd February. There will be workshops on a wide range of topics: organising in unions; recruitment; international work; wages don’t cause inflation; agency and casual workers.
Guest Speaker Francois Duval, LCR France
Francois said that he is a guest therefore won’t interfere in the internal debate. He spoke of the situation in France where since Wednesday the previous week, there have been massive disputes. Railway workers, like in 1995 are on the front line, resisting attacks on the pensions system. Electricity workers, bus and tube drivers are also on strike. Students are also resisting university “reforms” – which means more privatisation and competition between rich and poor universities. The Presidents slogan is ‘work more to earn more’ but workers are working more but not earning more. The LCR aims to broaden the strikes and promote general strike of all workers. On Tuesday 20th there will be a strike of all civil servants. The Parliamentary left, the Socialist Party – France’s own Labour Party – share the same analysis as the right wing parties. More people feel it’s time for a new political party of the left, and this is what they are fighting for: a party of social resistance. They want to build a real opposition and a party for class struggle. Francois said that our lives are more valuable than their profit. They will be holding a conference January to which Respect will be invited. They are currently holding small meetings in towns and workplaces to test the idea for a new workers party. They will check the idea in the March elections.
<part 5 to follow>
Francois said they are interested in having links with other socialist organisations in Europe. He said that the left has to fight in its own way in its own country but it is important to debate and learn from each other.
Guest Speaker Sami Ramadani, Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation
Sami Ramadani said that he waited with some anticipation when Gordon Brown made his first speech at conference, since it was suggested there would be a policy change on Iraq. But Brown only devoted 19 words to the Iraqi carnage in an hour-long speech. Over a million people have been killed since the invasion, there are 4 million refugees, the health service is collapsing, Iraqi children can't go to school any more – and only 19 words about this. They are now dividing Baghdad into thirty military zones, using tactics they learned in Vietnam. They know if they can isolate an area and surround it, they can crush all the resistance within it. Sami said that they have convinced the media that a withdrawal from Iraq will result in bloody war but this is a lie. The presence of troops is the main reason for the violence. And the American idea of a withdrawal strategy is to leave a puppet regime, a network of military bases and a subdued population. That isn’t the kind of withdrawal that Iraqis want. He continued saying that the same multi-national corporations who are after Iraq’s oil are profiting from a system that kills 2 million children ever year from hunger. So, this movement really matters.
Sami said that he lives in Britain and has a son who was born in Britain so he feels that he is entitled to comment on recent events. He said that looking around here – just like in the other conference – there are many people who have devoted their lives to the anti-imperialist cause and he saluted the conference for that. He described the anti-imperialist movement as one of the brightest things on this planet. £19 million had been raised for Children in Need the previous day, while the US is planning spending $1.6 trillion on attacking Iran. These are the same people who are causing death in Iraq and causing the death of 2 million children a year across the world through hunger. He made an appeal to all saying that he is from the left, splits happen, some for better some for worse, but in anti-imperialist struggle we must keep this unity going.
Salvinder Dhillon, Southall (Motion 31)
Digby Jones in government is Brown’s vision of maximising profits. Our message is that we serve the working class. Over a million people have been killed in war at our expense. We will continue to be the pillar of the anti-war movement. All people in every country have the right to choose their own government. Gordon Brown has an unholy alliance with trade union leaders, buying certain sections of the labour movement. We are trying to build OFFU to transform trade unions to challenge Thatcherite laws and defend public services. The strength of the working class movement will make sure that human rights and civil liberties are defended. We will unite with anyone who will hoist the banner of working people and the defence of civil rights. Unity is forged through struggle and we will continue fighting for the politics and principles we cherish.
Elaine Graham-Leigh proposed a vote of thanks to Michael Gavan as chair of the morning session. She reminded conference that Michael is facing the same sort of victimisation as Karen Reissmann and called for solidarity and support for Michael.
Guest Speaker Mark Serwotka, PCS General Secretary
Mark said that he is delighted to come to the conference today. The context is the need in this country for a united left alternative to Labour. And after having spoken here today, he was going to speak to the Labour Representation Committee to support John McDonnell, and also especially to urge them to look out more to the non-Labour left. We need industrial unity to resist the attacks of New Labour, but we also need political unity to give people hope. We’ve got to look at the opportunities today – every time he has met government ministers, and even trade union leaders, and he raises the problems faced by his members and other workers, the uniform answer is always that no matter how bad it is, the offer from the Tories will be worse. The Labour Party thinks it can take working class support for granted, and this gives them a tremendous in-built arrogance: it invites them to be more right-wing. So, we have to make some important decisions now, because we don’t want to be in the same situation 10 years from now.
Mark said that three weeks ago in Stirling, the churches were giving out food vouchers to people who couldn’t get their benefits. The reason why they couldn’t get their benefits is that there weren’t enough staff to support them – they are cutting 40,000 civil servants’ jobs. When it came to those who needed emergency loans, the most desperate people, what should have been available in 24 hours took five weeks to be delivered. These are not isolated incidents – among the cuts, New Labour is increasingly delegating welfare to the charities and private companies. This is not Bush’s America, it is a Labour government that is doing this to us. People are dying in hospitals because of under-investment and yet they have hundreds of thousands of pounds to give to private consultants. And look at EDS – they have a clause in their contract that says if they are ever removed from a contract for poor performance or anything else, they have to be offered another contract. These are clearly corrupt contracts. And when billions are being paid in city bonuses each year, we are being told that public sector workers are the cause of inflation.
Mark said if this was as good as politics could get, then we may as well pack up right now. But it isn’t. How do we get from where we are now to something better? The first thing is that if you are in a union you must redouble your efforts to hold your union leaders accountable, especially if they are looking the other way while workers are being attacked. These are not idle thoughts. He said that he has spent months working with comrades to defend our services, some of whom he can see in this hall, and he’s seen union leaders turn their back. The PCS, from not striking for years, has now had four strike ballots in three years, and the last one held three weeks ago had the highest level of support of the lot. Look at the members of the CWU, who showed they were not cowed. They were prepared to fight against their employers and the government, and not only in official strike action either. They took illegal action to defend their conditions. So, we have got to bring the unions together in action to produce the maximum effort. In a message to Karen Reissmann he said that, it’s almost certain that at the next PCS NEC meeting, there will be a unanimously passed resolution on giving a substantial financial donation to her campaign.
<part 6 to follow>
Guest Speaker Sami Ramadani, Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation
Sami Ramadani said that he waited with some anticipation when Gordon Brown made his first speech at conference, since it was suggested there would be a policy change on Iraq. But Brown only devoted 19 words to the Iraqi carnage in an hour-long speech. Over a million people have been killed since the invasion, there are 4 million refugees, the health service is collapsing, Iraqi children can't go to school any more – and only 19 words about this. They are now dividing Baghdad into thirty military zones, using tactics they learned in Vietnam. They know if they can isolate an area and surround it, they can crush all the resistance within it. Sami said that they have convinced the media that a withdrawal from Iraq will result in bloody war but this is a lie. The presence of troops is the main reason for the violence. And the American idea of a withdrawal strategy is to leave a puppet regime, a network of military bases and a subdued population. That isn’t the kind of withdrawal that Iraqis want. He continued saying that the same multi-national corporations who are after Iraq’s oil are profiting from a system that kills 2 million children ever year from hunger. So, this movement really matters.
Sami said that he lives in Britain and has a son who was born in Britain so he feels that he is entitled to comment on recent events. He said that looking around here – just like in the other conference – there are many people who have devoted their lives to the anti-imperialist cause and he saluted the conference for that. He described the anti-imperialist movement as one of the brightest things on this planet. £19 million had been raised for Children in Need the previous day, while the US is planning spending $1.6 trillion on attacking Iran. These are the same people who are causing death in Iraq and causing the death of 2 million children a year across the world through hunger. He made an appeal to all saying that he is from the left, splits happen, some for better some for worse, but in anti-imperialist struggle we must keep this unity going.
Salvinder Dhillon, Southall (Motion 31)
Digby Jones in government is Brown’s vision of maximising profits. Our message is that we serve the working class. Over a million people have been killed in war at our expense. We will continue to be the pillar of the anti-war movement. All people in every country have the right to choose their own government. Gordon Brown has an unholy alliance with trade union leaders, buying certain sections of the labour movement. We are trying to build OFFU to transform trade unions to challenge Thatcherite laws and defend public services. The strength of the working class movement will make sure that human rights and civil liberties are defended. We will unite with anyone who will hoist the banner of working people and the defence of civil rights. Unity is forged through struggle and we will continue fighting for the politics and principles we cherish.
Elaine Graham-Leigh proposed a vote of thanks to Michael Gavan as chair of the morning session. She reminded conference that Michael is facing the same sort of victimisation as Karen Reissmann and called for solidarity and support for Michael.
Guest Speaker Mark Serwotka, PCS General Secretary
Mark said that he is delighted to come to the conference today. The context is the need in this country for a united left alternative to Labour. And after having spoken here today, he was going to speak to the Labour Representation Committee to support John McDonnell, and also especially to urge them to look out more to the non-Labour left. We need industrial unity to resist the attacks of New Labour, but we also need political unity to give people hope. We’ve got to look at the opportunities today – every time he has met government ministers, and even trade union leaders, and he raises the problems faced by his members and other workers, the uniform answer is always that no matter how bad it is, the offer from the Tories will be worse. The Labour Party thinks it can take working class support for granted, and this gives them a tremendous in-built arrogance: it invites them to be more right-wing. So, we have to make some important decisions now, because we don’t want to be in the same situation 10 years from now.
Mark said that three weeks ago in Stirling, the churches were giving out food vouchers to people who couldn’t get their benefits. The reason why they couldn’t get their benefits is that there weren’t enough staff to support them – they are cutting 40,000 civil servants’ jobs. When it came to those who needed emergency loans, the most desperate people, what should have been available in 24 hours took five weeks to be delivered. These are not isolated incidents – among the cuts, New Labour is increasingly delegating welfare to the charities and private companies. This is not Bush’s America, it is a Labour government that is doing this to us. People are dying in hospitals because of under-investment and yet they have hundreds of thousands of pounds to give to private consultants. And look at EDS – they have a clause in their contract that says if they are ever removed from a contract for poor performance or anything else, they have to be offered another contract. These are clearly corrupt contracts. And when billions are being paid in city bonuses each year, we are being told that public sector workers are the cause of inflation.
Mark said if this was as good as politics could get, then we may as well pack up right now. But it isn’t. How do we get from where we are now to something better? The first thing is that if you are in a union you must redouble your efforts to hold your union leaders accountable, especially if they are looking the other way while workers are being attacked. These are not idle thoughts. He said that he has spent months working with comrades to defend our services, some of whom he can see in this hall, and he’s seen union leaders turn their back. The PCS, from not striking for years, has now had four strike ballots in three years, and the last one held three weeks ago had the highest level of support of the lot. Look at the members of the CWU, who showed they were not cowed. They were prepared to fight against their employers and the government, and not only in official strike action either. They took illegal action to defend their conditions. So, we have got to bring the unions together in action to produce the maximum effort. In a message to Karen Reissmann he said that, it’s almost certain that at the next PCS NEC meeting, there will be a unanimously passed resolution on giving a substantial financial donation to her campaign.
<part 6 to follow>
Mark also raised the example of the Prison Officers Association taking illegal action. He said he takes his hat off to them – they faced punitive fines, and possibly the destruction of their union. If the POA are fined, then his union and every other union should put their hands in their pockets and pay the fine, and show the government that we won’t let our fellow trade unionists be bullied. We have repeatedly called for co-ordinated strike action, and a lot of other unions have said they hoped they would have unity – but you must have unity in your sector before you can unite with others. When Gordon Brown has announced that he will be imposing pay restraint until 2011, we need all public sector workers on the picket line, on the same day. If they can do it in France, we can do it here. Now, that may win victories, and we may make progress, but it won’t stop the bosses coming back. We need a political alternative. He said that he has seen the SSP prove that with a fair election system and a basic unity, you can overturn the lie that people won’t vote for left-wing parties.
Mark said that he was as happy as anyone when George Galloway won in Bethnal Green and Bow, and when the Respect councillors were elected. He called for unity, and said it is a sad irony that he is visiting three socialist meetings in London that day – the Socialist Party, the LRC and this one. He said that he declined to speak to the Renewal conference. He has always believed in unity. He asked who is the happiest when some people split from Respect? Gordon Brown. He sees this as an opportunity. Mark said that his appeal is for unity, but there can never be unity in a left-wing organisation when people attack and witch hunt other socialists. He disagrees with Martin Smith and John Rees on a number of things, but we have to find where we agree. We have to tolerate difference, welcome debate, but we need unity.
Mark said that we should not see today as a desperate position. We should see it as an opportunity to clear some things up, and move on stronger. He urged everyone present to avoid splits like this consuming the organisation, saying we need to root it in the organised labour movement.
He spoke about the TUC general council in July. Eighteen people went to see Gordon Brown. When Brendan Barber and the others arrived, he asked all of us for a list of our concerns. We raised conditions, pay cuts, services and so on. The general secretary of Britain’s biggest trade union then said, “I have to stop you all here, this is crazy: we are all forgetting that our priority is to get our government re-elected.” We have always had people in our movement who put Labour before the interests of the movement. But more people are questioning that. We see Bob Wareing standing against Labour, where he has been disgracefully de-selected so that Stephen Twigg can stand as the Blairite candidate. We see Respect standing elsewhere. And today could perhaps be the day that we recognise what unites us is so much more than what divides us. We need to go out there and build an alternative that gives Gordon Brown sleepless nights, and our children hope for a better future.
The conference broke for lunch. The afternoon session was chaired initially by Elaine Graham-Leigh and later by Oliur Rahman.
Cllr Rania Khan, Tower Hamlets
Rania said that she wanted to explain why she, Oliur Rahman, Lutfa Begum and Ahmed Hussain had resigned the Respect whip on Tower Hamlets Council. This had been a very painful decision and not taken lightly. She denied that John Rees, National Secretary had urged them to do so, on the contrary, he had urged them to stay and fight from within.
She outlined some of the events that had made staying in the Respect group intolerable. These included threatening behaviour, intimidation of women at meetings and a failure to campaign for the core policies of Respect.
Shirley Franklin, Islington
Shirley spoke about her personal experience of cuts in mental health services and how this affected a member of her family.
Nicolas Young, Manchester Student Respect, talked about the way Student Respect has injected radicalism back into student politics.
Pat McManus, GLA constituency candidate for Brent and Harrow talked about the anti-terror legislation and the sinister similarities with his own experience in Northern Ireland. People were targeted simply for being activists.
Jayne Basset, Hackney, spoke about the building of political and industrial opposition in the NUT, and the importance of Respect in this.
Berlyne Hamilton, GLA list candidate, stressed the need to put our efforts into the GLA, to get Lindsey elected. He said that he has also witnessed some personal attacks in meetings from members of Respect Renewal and there is no place for this behaviour in Respect.
Stuart Halforty from the Stop the War office said that we must build for the World Against War Conference on 1st December, the propaganda about Iran is similar to that used in the build up to the Iraq war.
Chris Bambery, West London, said that the establishment demonise the working class, Respect must be the voice of the voiceless, the working class people who society has written off, Respect must be proud to organise with the working class. We must also must fight for women’s right to choose, and there should no further decrease in the upper time limit for abortion
<part7 to follow>
Mark said that he was as happy as anyone when George Galloway won in Bethnal Green and Bow, and when the Respect councillors were elected. He called for unity, and said it is a sad irony that he is visiting three socialist meetings in London that day – the Socialist Party, the LRC and this one. He said that he declined to speak to the Renewal conference. He has always believed in unity. He asked who is the happiest when some people split from Respect? Gordon Brown. He sees this as an opportunity. Mark said that his appeal is for unity, but there can never be unity in a left-wing organisation when people attack and witch hunt other socialists. He disagrees with Martin Smith and John Rees on a number of things, but we have to find where we agree. We have to tolerate difference, welcome debate, but we need unity.
Mark said that we should not see today as a desperate position. We should see it as an opportunity to clear some things up, and move on stronger. He urged everyone present to avoid splits like this consuming the organisation, saying we need to root it in the organised labour movement.
He spoke about the TUC general council in July. Eighteen people went to see Gordon Brown. When Brendan Barber and the others arrived, he asked all of us for a list of our concerns. We raised conditions, pay cuts, services and so on. The general secretary of Britain’s biggest trade union then said, “I have to stop you all here, this is crazy: we are all forgetting that our priority is to get our government re-elected.” We have always had people in our movement who put Labour before the interests of the movement. But more people are questioning that. We see Bob Wareing standing against Labour, where he has been disgracefully de-selected so that Stephen Twigg can stand as the Blairite candidate. We see Respect standing elsewhere. And today could perhaps be the day that we recognise what unites us is so much more than what divides us. We need to go out there and build an alternative that gives Gordon Brown sleepless nights, and our children hope for a better future.
The conference broke for lunch. The afternoon session was chaired initially by Elaine Graham-Leigh and later by Oliur Rahman.
Cllr Rania Khan, Tower Hamlets
Rania said that she wanted to explain why she, Oliur Rahman, Lutfa Begum and Ahmed Hussain had resigned the Respect whip on Tower Hamlets Council. This had been a very painful decision and not taken lightly. She denied that John Rees, National Secretary had urged them to do so, on the contrary, he had urged them to stay and fight from within.
She outlined some of the events that had made staying in the Respect group intolerable. These included threatening behaviour, intimidation of women at meetings and a failure to campaign for the core policies of Respect.
Shirley Franklin, Islington
Shirley spoke about her personal experience of cuts in mental health services and how this affected a member of her family.
Nicolas Young, Manchester Student Respect, talked about the way Student Respect has injected radicalism back into student politics.
Pat McManus, GLA constituency candidate for Brent and Harrow talked about the anti-terror legislation and the sinister similarities with his own experience in Northern Ireland. People were targeted simply for being activists.
Jayne Basset, Hackney, spoke about the building of political and industrial opposition in the NUT, and the importance of Respect in this.
Berlyne Hamilton, GLA list candidate, stressed the need to put our efforts into the GLA, to get Lindsey elected. He said that he has also witnessed some personal attacks in meetings from members of Respect Renewal and there is no place for this behaviour in Respect.
Stuart Halforty from the Stop the War office said that we must build for the World Against War Conference on 1st December, the propaganda about Iran is similar to that used in the build up to the Iraq war.
Chris Bambery, West London, said that the establishment demonise the working class, Respect must be the voice of the voiceless, the working class people who society has written off, Respect must be proud to organise with the working class. We must also must fight for women’s right to choose, and there should no further decrease in the upper time limit for abortion
<part7 to follow>
Andy North, South Birmingham said that any of us can get campaigns going, we don’t need to be a councillor. One teacher in a Birmingham school threatened with academy status has started a vibrant campaign.
Suzanne Jeffrey, Islington said that climate change is the big issue. We can see in the cyclone in Bangladesh yesterday that the poorest suffer the most. She said that we must build 8th December Climate Change demonstration. We must move away from the establishment mantra of blaming the individual, responsibility must be collective.
Resolutions
Resolution 53, agreed.
Resolution 31, Amendment 1, carried. Amendment 2 therefore lost. Resolution 31 as amended, carried.
Resolution 32, withdrawn.
Resolution 33, remitted.
Resolution 34, carried.
Resolution 35, defeated.
Resolution 36, defeated.
Resolution 37, Amendment 2, remitted. The resolution was carried.
Emergency motion 1, carried.
Emergency motion 2, carried.
Emergency motion 3, carried.
Elaine Graham-Leigh handed the Chair to Cllr Oliur Rahman.
Oli paid tribute to his fellow Cllrs, Ahmed Hussain, Lutfa Begum and Rania Khan, and thanked everyone for the support and solidarity shown to him during these very difficult few weeks, culminating in the attack on him outside his home last week.
Elaine Graham-Leigh presented the Finance Report, each delegate was given a copy of the income and expenditure. Respect spends money on campaigning materials, staff and office expenses, but money does not last long. We need it especially now that all our belongings have been locked into the Club Row office by Respect Renewal and the bank account has been frozen. She urged all to give generously to Respect.
A delegate from Chesterfield said that he was concerned that many of us are paying money into the frozen account. Elaine reassured conference that no money could go in or out while the account is frozen, and asked people not to cancel standing orders, and that a new account would be set up soon.
The Chair gave apologies from the next speaker from the British Muslim Initiative who was unable to attend due to family circumstances.
Guest speaker Derek Wall, Green Party
Derek said that he was very pleased to be here. He talked about eco-socialism and the legacy of Marx to the environmental movement. He said there are lessons we could learn from Latin America. Capitalism is a disposable economy and not sustainable.
The Chair read a statement from Michael Rosen to conference.
Noreen Fatima, Chair of Student Respect
Noreen said that Muslims are not separate from the Left, most Muslims are working class, many are poor and have the most to gain from working with the left. She said this National Conference is the highest decision-making body of Respect and if people don’t recognise that they are subverting the democratic process. We have to have democratic debate at conference whether we agree or disagree. This is not about Muslims versus non-Muslims, we must exchange ideas, and any break can only hinder this.
She said that Student Respect has achieved a lot, including successfully campaigning for the NUS to be affiliated to Stop the War. She said that students came to the Respect conference this year under the same rules as last year, and we must defend this.
Miriam Scharf, Newham Respect
She spoke about End the Siege of Gaza, a lobby of Parliament organised by PSC and other Palestine organisations on 28th November from 2-6pm and urged all who can to make an appointment to see their MP about it.
Closing statement – John Rees, National Secretary
John said that not many political organisations could meet in circumstances like this, and be able to carry it off. He thanked the people who sent the Respect office staff and himself messages of support. He also thanked the staff who had organised the conference when office, furniture and office equipment had been taken away from them two weeks ago. He said that speaking personally he was absolutely sick of emails, rival documents and stuff on the blogosphere. It is understandable, desirable and necessary to debate issues today at the national conference.
He said that what interests him now is what we do as a serious working class political organisation. We have a real commitment to fighting for the basic needs of working class people that separates us from people on the left who aren’t serious.
He said that he can’t imagine people wanting to continue debating recent events in their branch meetings. Tower Hamlets councillors are supporting the RMT in the battle against the privatisation of the East London line. We need to be building the World Against War conference, taking people along to it and hearing from the inspiring list of speakers. It will be a great international gathering of the anti-war movement. John said that he wants to see you delegates and observers there taking the anti-war message to parliament, defending Karen Reissmann and Michael Gavan, the postal workers and civil servants. This is why we founded Respect. Perhaps we will have to defend ourselves if attacked. The focus though is on building a vibrant, left of centre party.
We are committed to a vision of ordinary people coming together, campaigning together. The work is just beginning.
Suzanne Jeffrey, Islington said that climate change is the big issue. We can see in the cyclone in Bangladesh yesterday that the poorest suffer the most. She said that we must build 8th December Climate Change demonstration. We must move away from the establishment mantra of blaming the individual, responsibility must be collective.
Resolutions
Resolution 53, agreed.
Resolution 31, Amendment 1, carried. Amendment 2 therefore lost. Resolution 31 as amended, carried.
Resolution 32, withdrawn.
Resolution 33, remitted.
Resolution 34, carried.
Resolution 35, defeated.
Resolution 36, defeated.
Resolution 37, Amendment 2, remitted. The resolution was carried.
Emergency motion 1, carried.
Emergency motion 2, carried.
Emergency motion 3, carried.
Elaine Graham-Leigh handed the Chair to Cllr Oliur Rahman.
Oli paid tribute to his fellow Cllrs, Ahmed Hussain, Lutfa Begum and Rania Khan, and thanked everyone for the support and solidarity shown to him during these very difficult few weeks, culminating in the attack on him outside his home last week.
Elaine Graham-Leigh presented the Finance Report, each delegate was given a copy of the income and expenditure. Respect spends money on campaigning materials, staff and office expenses, but money does not last long. We need it especially now that all our belongings have been locked into the Club Row office by Respect Renewal and the bank account has been frozen. She urged all to give generously to Respect.
A delegate from Chesterfield said that he was concerned that many of us are paying money into the frozen account. Elaine reassured conference that no money could go in or out while the account is frozen, and asked people not to cancel standing orders, and that a new account would be set up soon.
The Chair gave apologies from the next speaker from the British Muslim Initiative who was unable to attend due to family circumstances.
Guest speaker Derek Wall, Green Party
Derek said that he was very pleased to be here. He talked about eco-socialism and the legacy of Marx to the environmental movement. He said there are lessons we could learn from Latin America. Capitalism is a disposable economy and not sustainable.
The Chair read a statement from Michael Rosen to conference.
Noreen Fatima, Chair of Student Respect
Noreen said that Muslims are not separate from the Left, most Muslims are working class, many are poor and have the most to gain from working with the left. She said this National Conference is the highest decision-making body of Respect and if people don’t recognise that they are subverting the democratic process. We have to have democratic debate at conference whether we agree or disagree. This is not about Muslims versus non-Muslims, we must exchange ideas, and any break can only hinder this.
She said that Student Respect has achieved a lot, including successfully campaigning for the NUS to be affiliated to Stop the War. She said that students came to the Respect conference this year under the same rules as last year, and we must defend this.
Miriam Scharf, Newham Respect
She spoke about End the Siege of Gaza, a lobby of Parliament organised by PSC and other Palestine organisations on 28th November from 2-6pm and urged all who can to make an appointment to see their MP about it.
Closing statement – John Rees, National Secretary
John said that not many political organisations could meet in circumstances like this, and be able to carry it off. He thanked the people who sent the Respect office staff and himself messages of support. He also thanked the staff who had organised the conference when office, furniture and office equipment had been taken away from them two weeks ago. He said that speaking personally he was absolutely sick of emails, rival documents and stuff on the blogosphere. It is understandable, desirable and necessary to debate issues today at the national conference.
He said that what interests him now is what we do as a serious working class political organisation. We have a real commitment to fighting for the basic needs of working class people that separates us from people on the left who aren’t serious.
He said that he can’t imagine people wanting to continue debating recent events in their branch meetings. Tower Hamlets councillors are supporting the RMT in the battle against the privatisation of the East London line. We need to be building the World Against War conference, taking people along to it and hearing from the inspiring list of speakers. It will be a great international gathering of the anti-war movement. John said that he wants to see you delegates and observers there taking the anti-war message to parliament, defending Karen Reissmann and Michael Gavan, the postal workers and civil servants. This is why we founded Respect. Perhaps we will have to defend ourselves if attacked. The focus though is on building a vibrant, left of centre party.
We are committed to a vision of ordinary people coming together, campaigning together. The work is just beginning.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
belboid said:
Certainly Salma Yaqoob has been approached, and has made it clear she has been approached and has rejected it. There is a vacant seat in Ladywood with an all woman shortlist, which is going to be difficult for Labour and there is a battle for the nomination. Some people within the Labour Party would no doubt prefer Salma to the various New Labour clones in the race. That Salma will not entertain the idea of joining Labour is a testament to her support for Respect, and shows why the SWP are completely wrong to have sidelined her and accused her of "communalism".
As far as Lavalette is concerned it is complete bollocks. The left in the Labour Party in Preston are not strong enough to deselect Hendrick. If they were, they would put forward one of their own number like Matthew Brown, who is a good councillor and a serious nomination contender. There would have have had to have been a trigger ballot in Preston anyway. Deselecting a sitting MP is very difficult in New Labour-land.
Hendrick beat Valerie Wise for the nomination fair and square (I was at the selection meeting and voted for Valerie) and if anyone from the left was going to defeat him it would have been her. Besides Lavalette is a member of the SWP and the national leadership of the Labour Party would never allow a member of the SWP to even join the Party (it is against the rules after all!). I don't doubt however that one or two members of the Preston Labour Party would have said "we would rather have Lavalette as MP than Hendrick". But it is completely ludicrous wishful thinking on their part that this would ever be allowed to happen by Lavalette getting the Labour nomination.
nightbreed
Im Bored
belboid said:
What on earth would the LP be offering Respect members like Yaqoob and Lafayette safe seats for while the LP is busily organising to see genuine lefties in the LP, like Bob Wareing , deselected?
I would hate to think that the LP heirarchy sees them as politically reliable.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
As far as Lavalette is concerned it's true - though he wasn't approached by the whole Labour Party, just a selection of the Leftwing councillors. There was no substantative plan as to how they would succeed in deselecting Hendrick in Favour of Michael, which made it all the more easy to say no.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Das Uberdog said:
So its true apart from the bits about the approach coming from the Labour Party and the offer of a parliamentary seat. Poor DU.
Louis MacNeice
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
nightbreed said:What on earth would the LP be offering Respect members like Yaqoob and Lafayette safe seats for while the LP is busily organising to see genuine lefties in the LP, like Bob Wareing , deselected?
I would hate to think that the LP heirarchy sees them as politically reliable.
No need to be confused. It's just typical SWP bluster and crap from Rees. The reports says:
He does not mean "the Labour Party" at all.
What he should have said in his speech is:
How's that for an alternative speech?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Das Uberdog said:
The same leftwing councillors who hoped that John McDonnell would be on a leadership ballot paper. Some hope.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Das Uberdog said:
And how did they think Michael's membership of the SWP would be handled by the Labour Party? And did they succeed in winning a majority in the Party for a trigger ballot?
It's complete nonsense.
But the worrying thing is that it's not what Rees said. According to the report he said:
"The Labour Party in Preston offered to de-select the sitting Labour MP and select Michael."
So is that pure unadulterated bollocks or not? and is any member of the SWP going to e-mail him and point out his error?
When you do so, please copy us in on the reply, and a copy of your expulsion letter for having the temerity to question anything the Great Leader says would be handy to see too.
Just out of interest, re: the student delegations....does anyone else think that the method of assigning a delegate depending on the number of people on a student group email list is totally insane? If we proposed doing that in the Green Party, we'd be laughed out of the hall, and for good reason. People sign up at Freshers Fairs for all sorts of reasons - the numbers of an elist bear absolutely no relation to the level of activity of a student branch, nor their committment to the politics of a party.
I just find Elaine Graham-Leigh defending that method of assigning delegates deeply, deeply odd.
Matt
I just find Elaine Graham-Leigh defending that method of assigning delegates deeply, deeply odd.
Matt
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Matt S said:
It's worse than that. Those paid up members in England/Wales who are also students will have also been counted in their 'home' branch delegation to the conference as well as by their student branch. Is it little wonder that Linda Smith, as chair of Respect, demanded a list of student members lying behind each student group delegate claimed? The SWP portrayed this as a 'witch hunt' and a call to 'ban student delegates' when nothing could have been further from the truth.
The courts will no doubt have a good laugh at it too, if the SWP try to insist to the electoral commission that they represent the continuity of Respect and get Linda's name removed as the Nominating Officer for elections. Until that is sorted there will be no 'Respect' candidates in elections that are not endorsed by Linda Smith.
http://www.electoralcommission.org....fm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=467&frmType=partydetail
Meanwhile the SWP are claiming they are going to fight the forthcoming by-election in Preston, which I am a bit dubious about as it is a highly marginal ward and there will be a BNP candidate. There can be little doubt a 'Respect' candidate will let either the Tories or the BNP in. The other two Labour councillors in this ward and the deceased councillor were all Labour left wingers, anti-war, pro-palestinian, anti-academy (the local school is targeted), who met regularly with Respect and supported its campaigns. If the new Labour candidate is in a similar vein or the SWP cannot persuade Stephen Brooks the former Labour councillor who joined Respect to stand, then it will be the height of sectarianism. I suggest that John Rees gets the SWP registered with the electoral commission pronto if they are going in that direction.
Respect Renewal - 6 hours of SWP bashing
9 SWP members intervened at the Respect Renewal Rally. The event could well have been subtitled "bash the SWP". Despite George Galloway and others pledging that the day would not be dominated by the SWP the next six hours were pretty much packed with our various crimes. The basic line was this. The SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.The party was accused at various times of Islamophobia <sic> of meeting in secret and having its own "line" and of using bureaucratic methods and intimidation to control the organisation. A little example of the mood amongst some was that one speaker attacked Lindsey German as the candidate for mayor (nobody mentioned that 300 Respect members had elected her as candidate until we did) and got a great round of applause for arguing Boris Johnson would be preferable. At no time (other than in the two three minute contributions we were allowed) did anybody acknowledge that there might be any real argument about the course Respect had been taking or that heaven forbid George or anyone other than the SWP may have made some mistakes that have affected Respect's development. The SWP had apparently played no positive role in Respect except perhaps at it's earliest point. Some in the audience were unhappy with all this. Many people argued in one to one conversations that a split should be avoided and a united conference held. But this was effectively the birth of a new political party as far as the top table was concerned. Activists were given a strategy to "deal" with the SWP and those who might sympathise with us. They were told "Where possible new branches of "Respect Renewal" should be set up. Where the SWP and "sympathisers" dominated a branch there should be an attempt to win the "middle ground" in order to split later. "And where the SWP was in a minority the idea was to push to marginalise them, pull the "best" people and over time push those loyal to their own party out. The speed of this process would depend on the relative strengths involved. Sadly some of the most vicious attacks on us came from five or six ex SWP members. One thing that's worth noting is the absence of any serious trade unionists and the complete absence of students. Anybody who was unsure about whether the SWP faced a witch hunt should have sat in that hall for six hours. But it's worth remembering that even in such an atmosphere there were many people who were against a break, unsure of what was happening or who didn't want to face what was being outlined...a Respect without the SWP. The top table had to work very hard to whip up the mood against us.Many people were open to a political argument about the future even if the top table had set their face against us. Just to repeat: Galloway is arguing for his supporters to set up a completely new organisation "Respect Renewal" in some areas. One important thing came out of the Respect Renewal meeting - In others they are being urged to carry out a more "flexible" strategy. Where they think they are strong - Birmingham South - they intend to drive us out. In other areas where they are weaker - Bristol, Manchester North and Southwark they intend to break up Respect groups.
9 SWP members intervened at the Respect Renewal Rally. The event could well have been subtitled "bash the SWP". Despite George Galloway and others pledging that the day would not be dominated by the SWP the next six hours were pretty much packed with our various crimes. The basic line was this. The SWP from pretty early on had decided that to keep control of Respect the organisation had to stay small. The SWP leaders had therefore failed to build the organisation, not through incompetence but through deliberate action.The party was accused at various times of Islamophobia <sic> of meeting in secret and having its own "line" and of using bureaucratic methods and intimidation to control the organisation. A little example of the mood amongst some was that one speaker attacked Lindsey German as the candidate for mayor (nobody mentioned that 300 Respect members had elected her as candidate until we did) and got a great round of applause for arguing Boris Johnson would be preferable. At no time (other than in the two three minute contributions we were allowed) did anybody acknowledge that there might be any real argument about the course Respect had been taking or that heaven forbid George or anyone other than the SWP may have made some mistakes that have affected Respect's development. The SWP had apparently played no positive role in Respect except perhaps at it's earliest point. Some in the audience were unhappy with all this. Many people argued in one to one conversations that a split should be avoided and a united conference held. But this was effectively the birth of a new political party as far as the top table was concerned. Activists were given a strategy to "deal" with the SWP and those who might sympathise with us. They were told "Where possible new branches of "Respect Renewal" should be set up. Where the SWP and "sympathisers" dominated a branch there should be an attempt to win the "middle ground" in order to split later. "And where the SWP was in a minority the idea was to push to marginalise them, pull the "best" people and over time push those loyal to their own party out. The speed of this process would depend on the relative strengths involved. Sadly some of the most vicious attacks on us came from five or six ex SWP members. One thing that's worth noting is the absence of any serious trade unionists and the complete absence of students. Anybody who was unsure about whether the SWP faced a witch hunt should have sat in that hall for six hours. But it's worth remembering that even in such an atmosphere there were many people who were against a break, unsure of what was happening or who didn't want to face what was being outlined...a Respect without the SWP. The top table had to work very hard to whip up the mood against us.Many people were open to a political argument about the future even if the top table had set their face against us. Just to repeat: Galloway is arguing for his supporters to set up a completely new organisation "Respect Renewal" in some areas. One important thing came out of the Respect Renewal meeting - In others they are being urged to carry out a more "flexible" strategy. Where they think they are strong - Birmingham South - they intend to drive us out. In other areas where they are weaker - Bristol, Manchester North and Southwark they intend to break up Respect groups.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Fisher_Gate said:
Well, it obviously wasn't going to happen - Michael wasn't going to acceptand even if he had and the deselction process had miraculously been successful, central office would have intervened and he wouldn't have got it.
But they did approach him as Labour and offer him the selection; who knows? Could have been a plot to break up Respect and doubly fail to get him elected? could have simply been naivety? It did happen though.
Similar threads
