Billy Bragg debates the SWP at Marxism 08

[Fisher_Gate]

This is bullshit.

As I understand what happened was that the guy was clearly told he did not have permission to attend the event (any organisation has the right to refuse individuals entry to events), he bought a ticket and was attending meetings, and was asked to hand over his ticket (with the cost being refunded). As the SWP don't employ security, Smith started grappling with the guy to grab his ticket.

The same scenario could quite easily happen at an anarchist event, or any other event.

If someone is told they are not welcome, turn up anyway, are asked to leave, and they refuse, what do they expect?

The point is that the SWP didn't want the person to attend because he had been expelled.

A member of the Labour Party or even the Tory Party is allowed to attend Marxism, but there is a lifetime ban on anyone who has been expelled from the SWP attending any 'public' event of the SWP, including Marxism.

Since the SWP do not, as you point out, employ "security", it falls on oafs like Martin Smith to physically enforce this policy, a duty he appears to relish.

Technically and legally, Marxism is not a 'public' event but a private one. An SWP meeting in support of an election candidate would be public however, and the SWP could not legally exclude anyone, expelled ex-members or others. This may be one of the reasons why they do not stand in elections under their own name. It's certainly one of the reasons why the Labour Party have not organised election meetings for many decades.

 

[Zachor]

Apparently the Unite Union spent a fortune on leaflets advertising the abortive LMHR Rally march in London, bad enough, but they were basically left in boxes till well near the day! Yet, they(the unions) never seem to spend money on actual issues that impact on the working class, etc and which may give ammunition to the Far Right, such as the draconian welfare reforms which when they hit hard are going to have desperate people looking for scapegoats.

Good point. You can always find a middle class union activist willing to jump up and parrot bollocks about 'Israel' or 'Iraq' to give an example but very rarely will one step up to the plate to speak about Mrs Smith's broken windows or the piss poor state of customer service at the Town Hall.

This is being noticed and is being exploited by the far right. Its not the welfare reforms that are going to be a boost for the fash over this matter its going to be the credit crunch and the subsequent repossessions. This will bring more people into contact with a tottering and inefficient system and angry dispossesed people are more likely to look for scapegoats.

When that hits I'm on the first plane to somewhere safer. I'm not going to stay and get caught out.

 

[biff curtains]

When that hits I'm on the first plane to somewhere safer. I'm not going to stay and get caught out.

The most compelling reason to vote for the far right I have seen yet.

 

[Zachor]

The most compelling reason to vote for the far right I have seen yet.

OK you've had yer dig now how about debating sensibly.

 

[nwnm]

The point is that the SWP didn't want the person to attend because he had been expelled.

A member of the Labour Party or even the Tory Party is allowed to attend Marxism, but there is a lifetime ban on anyone who has been expelled from the SWP attending any 'public' event of the SWP, including Marxism.

Since the SWP do not, as you point out, employ "security", it falls on oafs like Martin Smith to physically enforce this policy, a duty he appears to relish.

Technically and legally, Marxism is not a 'public' event but a private one. An SWP meeting in support of an election candidate would be public however, and the SWP could not legally exclude anyone, expelled ex-members or others. This may be one of the reasons why they do not stand in elections under their own name. It's certainly one of the reasons why the Labour Party have not organised election meetings for many decades.

usual bollocks from you... legally and technically we produce posters and leaflets advertising it. I bumped into at least 2 expellees attending this year, we don't stand as SWP in elections as we stand under the banner of left list. So has world war 2 ended yet then orthotrot?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

usual bollocks from you... legally and technically we produce posters and leaflets advertising it. I bumped into at least 2 expellees attending this year, we don't stand as SWP in elections as we stand under the banner of left list. So has world war 2 ended yet then orthotrot?

So why was this person excluded then? There was no question he was being disruptive; it was just that he had been expelled and joined a rival group. He was sent a letter saying he was banned from all SWP public events that he published ... was he lying?

And I think you meant "stood" under the banner of Left List "in some places" ... your members in Preston in May couldn't be arsed to follow the party line and probably knew they would have got an even more pathetic vote if they had.

But at least that's the most honest assessment I've read recently of your electoral tactics. It's not a question of: "we participate in Left List and build it as a broad coalition", it's: "we stand under the banner of left list" showing that it is no more than a flag of convenience.

And while on the subject of the late unlamented "Left List", I see the non-SWP New Labour-joining Oli Rahman has been replaced as nominating officer by the SWP loyal Michael Gavan - presumably anyone who follows central committee instructions to stand agains the democratically selected Respect candidate that your members voted for before your volte face, can be trusted not to join New Labour (or the Tories), whereas non-SWP members (and a few who are shaky) cannot be trusted?

 

[LLETSA]

Good point. You can always find a middle class union activist willing to jump up and parrot bollocks about 'Israel' or 'Iraq' to give an example but very rarely will one step up to the plate to speak about Mrs Smith's broken windows or the piss poor state of customer service at the Town Hall.

This is being noticed and is being exploited by the far right. Its not the welfare reforms that are going to be a boost for the fash over this matter its going to be the credit crunch and the subsequent repossessions. This will bring more people into contact with a tottering and inefficient system and angry dispossesed people are more likely to look for scapegoats.

When that hits I'm on the first plane to somewhere safer. I'm not going to stay and get caught out.

Why? What do you think is going to happen?

 

[exosculate]

Isn't Bragg into the QUEEN these days - he is a twat of the highest order, and should be ignored!

What value has Bragg debating with the swappies got? They are both clearly useless and irrelevant!

 

[treelover]

yes, but it begs the question, who is relevant?, the left seems to be finished

 

[exosculate]

yes, but it begs the question, who is relevant?, the left seems to be finished

The left (in its ridiculous minority format) has been dead for a long time. Where is the rebirth? People are surely ready for it!

 

[nwnm]

But at least that's the most honest assessment I've read recently of your electoral tactics. It's not a question of: "we participate in Left List and build it as a broad coalition", it's: "we stand under the banner of left list" showing that it is no more than a flag of convenience.

I'd rather have a flag than a fig-leaf of convenience pal - exactly what percentage of the respect membership went with Galloway, less than a quarter wasn't it?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

yes, but it begs the question, who is relevant?, the left seems to be finished

The movement some of us were lucky enough to witness at climate camp represents a way forward. More than a few leftists there as well.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

... - exactly what percentage of the respect membership went with Galloway, less than a quarter wasn't it?

I dunno and nor do you.

That was one of the reasons for the split. The SWP kept the membership "figures" and refused to hand them over to scrutiny by the elected officers, along with the accounts.

What proportion of student delegates to your "conference" represented paid up members? - no one knows because the SWP refused to supply lists of members.

What proportion of SWP members actually joined Respect?

What proportion of Respect members signed the SWP petition, as distinct from SWP members who signed as "Respect supporters" because they couldn't be arsed to join?

What proportion of SWP branches built functioning Respect branches in their area (in Lancashire that would be a lot less than one quarter!)

If you want to play numbers' games you are on very shaky ground indeed.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I'd rather have a flag than a fig-leaf of convenience pal - exactly what percentage of the respect membership went with Galloway, less than a quarter wasn't it?

Can't be bothered to answer the other points?

 

[nwnm]

Can't be bothered to answer the other points?

No - unlike you I have this thing called A LIFE....
I say less than a quarter went with renewal, you are unable to counter this. That puts you on shaky ground

 

[butchersapron]

No you don't. You just shout at students.

 

[jed123]

So why was this person excluded then? There was no question he was being disruptive; it was just that he had been expelled and joined a rival group. He was sent a letter saying he was banned from all SWP public events that he published ... was he lying?

And I think you meant "stood" under the banner of Left List "in some places" ... your members in Preston in May couldn't be arsed to follow the party line and probably knew they would have got an even more pathetic vote if they had.

But at least that's the most honest assessment I've read recently of your electoral tactics. It's not a question of: "we participate in Left List and build it as a broad coalition", it's: "we stand under the banner of left list" showing that it is no more than a flag of convenience.

And while on the subject of the late unlamented "Left List", I see the non-SWP New Labour-joining Oli Rahman has been replaced as nominating officer by the SWP loyal Michael Gavan - presumably anyone who follows central committee instructions to stand agains the democratically selected Respect candidate that your members voted for before your volte face, can be trusted not to join New Labour (or the Tories), whereas non-SWP members (and a few who are shaky) cannot be trusted?

What evidence have you got of disruptedness?

 

[treelover]

The movement some of us were lucky enough to witness at climate camp represents a way forward. More than a few leftists there as well.

i went to one a few years ago and it was amazing, very respectful of other peoples needs, an intellectual powerhouse, incredibly friendly,

but, most of the people there were just not cognisant of the very basic problems facing people in the UK, in many ways they had a very narrow focus.

 

[Das Uberdog]

As opposed to your incredibly inclusive focus, which rejects all but petty localism?

 

[mk12]

petty localism

What is 'petty localism'?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

No - unlike you I have this thing called A LIFE....
I say less than a quarter went with renewal, you are unable to counter this. That puts you on shaky ground

You can call being an SWP hack "A LIFE" if you want to ... I think most people would disagree. You have no idea what I do, or spend my time on but I can assure you it's very definitely a real life.

As I pointed out there are no agreed facts about Respect membership - because the SWP had responsibility for the membership list - there are only disputes.

But one thing I can be sure of is that I say less than 20% of SWP members could be bothered to sign the "petition against the witchhunt" that was the centrepiece of their campaign to "support" their position in Respect. Of these a significant proportion (at least 10%) had to sign as "Respect supporters" because they were not members of Respect, in violation of a Party instruction to all members.

My evidence for this is
1) the SWP membership report in pre-conference bulletin Number 1 October 2007
2) the list of signatures on the SWP "Appeal against the Witch-hunt"
3) Party Notes May 2005.
4) membership figures filed to the electoral commission.

Would you care to dispute any of these sources?

 

[Das Uberdog]

What is 'petty localism'?

t'aint self-explanatory?

 

[nwnm]

You can call being an SWP hack "A LIFE" if you want to ... I think most people would disagree. You have no idea what I do, or spend my time on but I can assure you it's very definitely a real life.

As I pointed out there are no agreed facts about Respect membership - because the SWP had responsibility for the membership list - there are only disputes.

But one thing I can be sure of is that I say less than 20% of SWP members could be bothered to sign the "petition against the witchhunt" that was the centrepiece of their campaign to "support" their position in Respect. Of these a significant proportion (at least 10%) had to sign as "Respect supporters" because they were not members of Respect, in violation of a Party instruction to all members.

My evidence for this is
1) the SWP membership report in pre-conference bulletin Number 1 October 2007
2) the list of signatures on the SWP "Appeal against the Witch-hunt"
3) Party Notes May 2005.
4) membership figures filed to the electoral commission.

Would you care to dispute any of these sources?

Well lets see.... If we have all the names and you don't one thing I can confirm is less than 25% of those who were in respect joined the galloway fan club (based on their figures as well as ours - I know one renewalite very well)

With the witch hunt appeal letter most of those who signed weren't party members. I know this as I got a lot of them through texts and emailing (although a lot of them joined later). It was never an 'SWP loyalty' test or attempt to get SWP members in respect to all sign arrangement. In fact it had been going for nearly a month before it got mentioned in party notes. Those who signed as supporters probably did so as they were active in respect campaigns but not respect members (not all of them were SWPer btw). One of the big problems with respect was that many people didn't see the point of us joining it en masse. 2 reasons for this - 1) we would swamp it ( we studiously avoided this with the socialist alliance...), 2) the effect of Galloway's big brother stunt. Even non SWPers would campaign for a local respect candidate whilst muttering that they had no time for Galloway. He went from someone who would challenge the U.S. senate to a liability in record breaking time....

As for having a life..... I have a wife, kids, job and a course at uni, whereas your post count on here would suggest your having difficulty existing elsewhere

 

[butchersapron]

As for having a life..... I have a wife, kids, job and a course at uni,

But of course!

 

[nwnm]

But of course!

presumably you never went to school but worked on milk rounds until you got to comprehensive, then you left at easter with no qualifications and never went to uni, and live on gravel...... (and only get on t'internet once month at the library)

 

[Fisher_Gate]

presumably you never went to school but worked on milk rounds until you got to comprehensive, then you left at easter with no qualifications and never went to uni, and live on gravel...... (and only get on t'internet once month at the library)

Monty Python's "Four Yorkshireman" sketch was available free with the Observer today. I suggest you listen to it.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Well lets see.... If we have all the names and you don't one thing I can confirm is less than 25% of those who were in respect joined the galloway fan club (based on their figures as well as ours - I know one renewalite very well)

With the witch hunt appeal letter most of those who signed weren't party members. I know this as I got a lot of them through texts and emailing (although a lot of them joined later). It was never an 'SWP loyalty' test or attempt to get SWP members in respect to all sign arrangement. In fact it had been going for nearly a month before it got mentioned in party notes. Those who signed as supporters probably did so as they were active in respect campaigns but not respect members (not all of them were SWPer btw). One of the big problems with respect was that many people didn't see the point of us joining it en masse. 2 reasons for this - 1) we would swamp it ( we studiously avoided this with the socialist alliance...), 2) the effect of Galloway's big brother stunt. Even non SWPers would campaign for a local respect candidate whilst muttering that they had no time for Galloway. He went from someone who would challenge the U.S. senate to a liability in record breaking time....

As for having a life..... I have a wife, kids, job and a course at uni, whereas your post count on here would suggest your having difficulty existing elsewhere

If you have the names and personal details of people who are members of Respect, you are probably in breach of the Data Protection Act, so I would not go shouting about it too much.

What you are saying is that Respect was a hopeless cause because Galloway went on Big Brother...?

That was not the SWP line at the time and your statement is the biggest post hoc justification for a political line I have ever read, because never once did you say that when you were members and mostly running the show...

I suggest you watch Michael Lavalette's speech in Manchester on 6th November 2007 (the date is significant), if you want to know what your party's line really was about being in the same organisation as George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob ...


And my reference to Party Notes was to the 2005 edition that instructed all members to join Respect - not some.

Or are you denying that there was such an instruction? If so on what basis did some SWP members choose not to join Respect?

 

[Das Uberdog]

Monty Python's "Four Yorkshireman" sketch was available free with the Observer today. I suggest you listen to it.

Predictably, Fishy_Face, I think you got your accusations of 'prolier than thou' attitudes confuddled and directed towards the innocent party...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Predictably, Fishy_Face, I think you got your accusations of 'prolier than thou' attitudes confuddled and directed towards the innocent party...

I think you've missed the point of the sketch.

 

[osterberg]

I think you've missed the point of the sketch.

So you post at 06:07 in the morning to dispute the meaning of a Monty Python sketch and you claim swp "hacks" don't have "A LIFE" .
You're marvellous entertainment value you know. Keep up the good work .