Galloway leaves Respect
- Thread starter Barking_Mad
- Start date
92 day's to go before Mayday and the London Elections
I have just read Lindsey German's article *Fight for London a very bland boring diet of sound bites, just a meaningless verbose of ineffective dismal uncommunicative and patronizing ( to East London ) piffle.
Who the hell is she or come to that, any member of the SWP to speck of the hardships and life that we in London's East End endure and have had to put up with under New Labour and its predecessor Tory Governments....of the last thirty years.
What do they ( SWP ) know of poverty? What do they know of child poverty?...... OK i will tell you,...... "Jack Shit" thats what.
We live in a city of contradictions with much wealth on the one hand and much poverty on the other, two fifths of our children thats over 600.000 are growing up in poverty and it is visible no more so than in the East end, this is the polarization and inequality that cries out loud for real answers and solutions not empty-handed egghead slogans or favorite sayings of a sect or political group like the SWP.
We in the East end and indeed the truth being other parts of London face a multiple of disadvantages, like increasing competition for jobs from younger people moving into the capital from other parts of the country and internationally. As a result some groups - lone parents, some Black and Ethnic Minority groups and those who don't speak English at home - face very high rates of poverty.
I will tell you how hard it is for some folk, a family that live near me with four kids, the mother mentioned to me that things are so hard to manage
on the wages that her husband brings home from his low paid job, that she spends most her evenings trolling the supermarkets for reduced food just to feed the family adequately and says that her husband wages are barely sufficient, that for the last two years they have been unable to save even a pound.
I myself have spent the last two years on the dole just like a lot of my neighbours and friends making the best of it we can, week in week out bullied frightened with threats in a domineering manner by the DWP if we are not seen to be actively seeking work, some are even sent off on 28 week courses to be re-programed to take on a low paid job.
I realize that this post is a wee bit on the long side so i will end for now by saying this, the answer to all our problems dose not blow in the wind, nor dose it lie with SWP who have split from Respect and with it the promise and commitment given to millions like me to provide an alternative to New Labour, they ( SWP ) with their Left Foot, Right Foot have taken a walk, they have failed but Socialism has not, through the mud of it all RR will come uniting people with knowledge as our weaponry and cooperation as our guarantee. In May we will not only ask people to vote but why? Why not join us? Why leave it any longer? .........Action not verbal diarrhea.
I have just read Lindsey German's article *Fight for London a very bland boring diet of sound bites, just a meaningless verbose of ineffective dismal uncommunicative and patronizing ( to East London ) piffle.
Who the hell is she or come to that, any member of the SWP to speck of the hardships and life that we in London's East End endure and have had to put up with under New Labour and its predecessor Tory Governments....of the last thirty years.
What do they ( SWP ) know of poverty? What do they know of child poverty?...... OK i will tell you,...... "Jack Shit" thats what.
We live in a city of contradictions with much wealth on the one hand and much poverty on the other, two fifths of our children thats over 600.000 are growing up in poverty and it is visible no more so than in the East end, this is the polarization and inequality that cries out loud for real answers and solutions not empty-handed egghead slogans or favorite sayings of a sect or political group like the SWP.
We in the East end and indeed the truth being other parts of London face a multiple of disadvantages, like increasing competition for jobs from younger people moving into the capital from other parts of the country and internationally. As a result some groups - lone parents, some Black and Ethnic Minority groups and those who don't speak English at home - face very high rates of poverty.
I will tell you how hard it is for some folk, a family that live near me with four kids, the mother mentioned to me that things are so hard to manage
on the wages that her husband brings home from his low paid job, that she spends most her evenings trolling the supermarkets for reduced food just to feed the family adequately and says that her husband wages are barely sufficient, that for the last two years they have been unable to save even a pound.
I myself have spent the last two years on the dole just like a lot of my neighbours and friends making the best of it we can, week in week out bullied frightened with threats in a domineering manner by the DWP if we are not seen to be actively seeking work, some are even sent off on 28 week courses to be re-programed to take on a low paid job.
I realize that this post is a wee bit on the long side so i will end for now by saying this, the answer to all our problems dose not blow in the wind, nor dose it lie with SWP who have split from Respect and with it the promise and commitment given to millions like me to provide an alternative to New Labour, they ( SWP ) with their Left Foot, Right Foot have taken a walk, they have failed but Socialism has not, through the mud of it all RR will come uniting people with knowledge as our weaponry and cooperation as our guarantee. In May we will not only ask people to vote but why? Why not join us? Why leave it any longer? .........Action not verbal diarrhea.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
This is a little ridiculous, Lindsey German prob earns around £10,000 per year
George Galloway, £300,000
Who knows more about poverty?
George Galloway, £300,000
Who knows more about poverty?
And her partner £10,000 that £10.000 thats £20.000 + not bad compared to lot's, what a differences that would make to the family in my post.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Good gosh and jolly hockey sticks I tell you. Piffle.
cockneyrebel
New Member
To be fair a family on 20k in London is poverty wages, even if many others are in an even worse situation. The average national wage is 23-24k and most people I know would struggle on 20k a year in London to bring up a family.
To be honest though in the past L German's blog has read more like a middle class restaurant critic than a representative of the working class. And has, inadvertantly, been totally patronising at times.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
No that's not true.
Firstly there is no such thing as the "Galloway faction". A faction has a common viewpoint about most things and works collectively to seek to win the view of an organisation - that is a more accurate description of the way the SWP relate to Respect. There are many different views about all kinds of things amongst those people who support Respect Renewal, but one thing they are united on is the need to have diverse views within any new party of the left.
Secondly, it was the SWP that started the split dynamic by stating that if Galloway was going to criticise them, they would firstly "go nuclear" (August), then they stated that they would "walk" (October). They made it clear that they were heading down this course by expelling Ovenden and Hoveman because they would not resign from Galloway's staff without a full discussion, and Wrack because he had been nominated for the post of National Organiser (that the SWP voted to create!).
The specific issues raised in Galloway's letter in August could have easily been agreed to by the SWP. The resolution at the NC in September put by Alan Thornett, that included the proposal for a new National Organiser, was agreed unanimously, including by SWP members. The SWP subsequently argued they were unacceptable and claimed that Galloway was "going public" to witchhunt the SWP (something that never happened and was pure fantasy).
The main precipitate action taken to split Respect was when the SWP supported the resignation of their members from the Tower Hamlets group, went to the capitalist media to denounce fellow members of Respect, and negotiated secretly with the LibDems to try to form a coalition to take over the opposition in Tower Hamlets.
One underlying issue was also kept from the members of the SWP, so they are not the most reliable witnesses. This was that the illegal cheque for £5,000 from the Dubai construction company, was not returned and donated to Stop the War Coalition as requested by Galloway in January, but was secretly routed into Respect's coffers by Rees via OFFU to pay off the debt made on the OFFU conference. This only became clear after Galloway's August letter and the Rees/Graham-Leigh response that said Galloway was wrong on finances, because OFFU had broken even, as a result of "other donations".
When Galloway discovered that this was because of the illegal Dubai cheque, he raised it in a meeting with four SWP CC members to discuss his August letter, and said it had led to a breakdown in trust between him and John Rees. It is hardly surprising that he was angry, since he had been lied to by Rees (as was everyone else), and as Peter Hain's resignation has shown, it is the MP who gets the public attention for breaches of the donation law.
The SWP CC however then used that as the basis for the claim that Galloway was witchhunting the SWP and wanted them out. Galloway said nothing about wanting the SWP out - his objection was to the way Rees had behaved over the Dubai cheque in particular. The SWP CC claimed in an aggregate to their members that Galloway had spent 20 minutes in a meeting going on about some "obscure cheque" and wanted Rees out, and therefore wanted the SWP out of Respect. This was then used as the basis for launching the ludicrous "Witch-hunt" petition used as a loyalty tool inside the SWP and to whip up the members against Galloway.
In fact, of course, the Dubai cheque did prove that Rees was incompetent and dangerous. Evidence of this is that despite Rees stating to the SWP-Respect fake "Officers Group" in December that the donation was above board, yet the SWP CC then had to issue an unprecedented statement to its members a few days later apologising for taking the Dubai money being "inappropriate" (reprinted below from David Osler's blog).
By the time that those members of the NC who supported Renewal had seen the conduct of Rees in relation to the Tower Hamlets resignations, the Dubai cheque and the defence of Rees by the CC it became clear that there was an irrecoverable split. However there was certainly no intention of "ridding" Respect of the SWP before that point.
I suggest you read the chronology of events in this set of documents to make sure you have the full story and don't rely on witnesses who have not been given the whole picture, but just a distorted one (ie the membership of the SWP).
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/20...he-politics-behhind-it-pamphlet-for-download/
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
more bollocks again from Fisher...
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14055
Ernie Mandel must be turning in his grave - the ghost of Monty Python is about (Splitters)
I presume the CC realised that the Guardian article was a big mistake and have rushed to correct the impression it gave. I welcome the article, it may be a sign things are going to have to change.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Aren't the ISG calling for a vote for Lindsay German as Mayor as the only credible left alternative to Livingstone ? And isn't Fishergate in the ISG? I'm confused
This is all getting silly.
I'm not in the ISG. I understand that they are in favour of a vote for a credible left candidate in the election and then giving Livingstone the second vote.
Lindsey German's candidacy has been invisible for the last four months, but she recently wrote an ultra-left article on the Guardian (circulation 300,000+) website attacking Livingstone without a mention of the need to support him against Boris Johnson. This has now been corrected in today's edition of Socialist Worker (circulation a couple of thousand). If this is a sign of a change then I welcome it and opens the possibility of a vote for German as a leader of the anti-war movement. One thing is certain though - if the SWP do not come to the negotiating table to resolve all the outstanding issues of the split, she will not be standing as the Respect candidate.
[QUOTE
Lindsey German's candidacy has been invisible for the last four months, but she recently wrote an ultra-left article on the Guardian (circulation 300,000+) website attacking Livingstone without a mention of the need to support him against Boris Johnson. This has now been corrected in today's edition of Socialist Worker (circulation a couple of thousand). If this is a sign of a change then I welcome it and opens the possibility of a vote for German as a leader of the anti-war movement. One thing is certain though - if the SWP do not come to the negotiating table to resolve all the outstanding issues of the split, she will not be standing as the Respect candidate.[/QUOTE]
It's a start i do suppose,they have a lot at stake and it must be taking it's toll on them may even be hitting paper sales.
They have to fined £10.000 for Mayors deposit, AM deposit is £1.000 and £5.000 for the London-wide list not to mention the party nominating officer all in all it's quite a lot, a lot of Johnny Cash to lay out.
Lindsey German's candidacy has been invisible for the last four months, but she recently wrote an ultra-left article on the Guardian (circulation 300,000+) website attacking Livingstone without a mention of the need to support him against Boris Johnson. This has now been corrected in today's edition of Socialist Worker (circulation a couple of thousand). If this is a sign of a change then I welcome it and opens the possibility of a vote for German as a leader of the anti-war movement. One thing is certain though - if the SWP do not come to the negotiating table to resolve all the outstanding issues of the split, she will not be standing as the Respect candidate.[/QUOTE]
It's a start i do suppose,they have a lot at stake and it must be taking it's toll on them may even be hitting paper sales.
They have to fined £10.000 for Mayors deposit, AM deposit is £1.000 and £5.000 for the London-wide list not to mention the party nominating officer all in all it's quite a lot, a lot of Johnny Cash to lay out.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
sorry this post has to be splitover two posts.
oh yes it is! come on now, the question wasn't about three months back, the question was related to your point, and so I asked "Once again I will answer your question. No I am not denying meeting took place after it became clear the Galloway faction wanted the SWP to leave RESPECT. However, that is my point. The Galloway faction had come to a conclusion they wanted rid of SW, hadn't they?" by the time of the meeting it was clear wasn't it that the Galloway faction wanted SW out? You even say yourself "By the time that those members of the NC who supported Renewal had seen the conduct of Rees in relation to the Tower Hamlets resignations, the Dubai cheque and the defence of Rees by the CC it became clear that there was an irrecoverable split. However there was certainly no intention of "ridding" Respect of the SWP before that point."
The rest of what precipitated this is open to debate.
oh yes it is! come on now, the question wasn't about three months back, the question was related to your point, and so I asked "Once again I will answer your question. No I am not denying meeting took place after it became clear the Galloway faction wanted the SWP to leave RESPECT. However, that is my point. The Galloway faction had come to a conclusion they wanted rid of SW, hadn't they?" by the time of the meeting it was clear wasn't it that the Galloway faction wanted SW out? You even say yourself "By the time that those members of the NC who supported Renewal had seen the conduct of Rees in relation to the Tower Hamlets resignations, the Dubai cheque and the defence of Rees by the CC it became clear that there was an irrecoverable split. However there was certainly no intention of "ridding" Respect of the SWP before that point."The rest of what precipitated this is open to debate.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
now that is the definition you want to impose, a faction can have many diverse views, whilst having agreement over a single issue. Such as the Eurosceptics faction in the Tory party.
which is just mimicking what SW has said AND DONE since 1997 about these "United Fronts of a Special Kind", and every united front we have been involved in, particularly the anti-war movement. We have fought within such movements to win this position, possibly even impose it, when others on the left have sought a narrower base. Haven't we? For example look how some people wanted to condemn both imperialism, and Al Qaeda etc in the anti-war movement.
Whoa! If as you pointed out SW responded, isn't Galloway's action seen as the beginning of the dynamic from SW's perspective? How many papers did SW leak criticising Galloway? I agree possibly at this stage Galloway's vision wasn't to expel the SW leadership, in order to win his model for Respect, but it was plain he was not going to discuss these issues internally in a fraternal and democratic fashion.
yes so the answer to the obvious alarm SW rightly or wrongly held, was to pour more fuel on the fire. And when this is done, and an individual from SW makes a comment on the telephone, as I said, the Galloway faction seized the opportunity to rid SW of respect .
did they say at this time they intend to walk from respect? That is your inference.SW is a democratic centralist organisation. When members don't adhere to the principles of democratic centralism they sign up to, it is an internal SW matter about expelling or not. It doesn't make any statement about respect. In this respect you are absolutely right about SW being a faction within respect. I have spoke to some SW members who are now members of Respect renewal. I don't agree with their model, the same model the SSP had imho and which meant the anti-war movement wasn't built in Scotland in the same way it was in the rest Britain. There is a political difference between myself, SW, and those SW members who have accepted this model. And so even though I am a very good friend of one of these people, and we have made initial discussions so I can understand his position whilst going to the match to gether recently, I don't really consider him part of the SW "faction" any longer politically (though used to my knowledge still a member). He has a different political view I and SW disagree with.
With regard to Ovenden and Hoveman, like my friend and I have nothing but respect for them. I don't really want to discuss third hand their views. I prefer like my friend, to speak to them and ascertained my own views on what they are saying. However, if, and it is an if because I do not know the full story, but if their model for Respect is the same as my friends, I can understand why such prominent members position was untenable/contradictory. Particularly when it was obvious one way or another there was going to be a big battle over the way forward for respect. You, with your definition, must argue it is untenable for a faction to hold contradictory views? How can one faction advocate two contradictory models for Respect, in your definition?
there was jockeying for position. Various clubs, however merited, were being acquired and used to bring about a change to the model, which if won would have meant SW how would have had to leave Respect anyway, in my opinion. I think SW could have accepted many of the proposals, but I think the change of heart came about because it was perceived the change to Respect was going to go far beyond these initial proposals.
why? When did the party notes you quote come out? When was it the CC came into possession of the full facts about the cheque?
Many people predicted when George Galloway had no further use, he would turn. Whether in case this happened in August, I don't know his intentions as you don't. However my personal opinion is after everything SW had done to defend George Galloways many misdemeanours, his actions were not fraternal. In my personal opinion there was a growing rupture that goes back way before three months which could have been dealt with fraternally and democratically, or the way George Galloway initiated. However, no matter what SW would not have been able in my opinion to work within a coalition which IMPOSED upon its members a model like the SSP (something even the SSP didn't do). In my opinion we now have the right model, but not enough coalition (having said that respect was never big enough for SW's position to be considered successful). In my opinion, though there is a very good argument for such a coalition, I think SW should walk. I think they are stuck in a place that is inappropriate for a revolutionary organisation. I sincerely hope they prove me wrong.
PS. There is acres of analysis of the difference between the SW model and the SSP model, on Socialist Workers websites.
HarrisonSlade
say NO to the vaccine
Galloway. The new Kilroy?
Naw. kilroy was never completly antigay anti abortion, and he believed that oppressive religious nuts were detremental to civilised society.
Galloway is a corrupt, sleazy little man not even low enough to lick the dirt off Mr Silks feet.
Naw. kilroy was never completly antigay anti abortion, and he believed that oppressive religious nuts were detremental to civilised society.
Galloway is a corrupt, sleazy little man not even low enough to lick the dirt off Mr Silks feet.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
The "An Apology" item about the Dubai cheque was in Party Notes in December 2007- about the 14th I believe but I don't have the exact date it was e-mailed. (I'm sure one of the SWP members on here will kindly correct the exact date if I'm wrong.)
Whenever Rees told them - but by the 4th September 2007 at the latest.
On that date four SWP CC members met with Galloway and a couple of his allies, including Salma Yaqoob, to discuss his letter and he raised the cheque as a serious example of how irresponsible Rees was (it was not the only example by the way, some of the others have yet to become public).
On 7th September, the CC briefed a meeting of all-London SWP members that Galloway had 'launched a witch-hunt' by allegedly going on for 20 minutes about some 'obscure cheque' and wanted Rees out, and therefore wanted the SWP out of Respect. In fact it was Yaqoob who told the CC members that Rees should "consider his position".
Rees and Graham-Leigh's response to Galloway's claim that the OFFU conference lost £5,000, was circulated to the SWP membership in Pre Conference Bulletin 1 dated October. Rees and G-L claimed that Galloway was incorrect about the financial issues, as OFFU had broken even thanks to "other donations". The significance of this was never made clear to the SWP membership even though it was being used to stoke up the fires to claim that there was a "witch-hunt".
This was the entire house of cards on which the 'witch-hunt' thesis was predicated. It came crashing down in December when the Dubai cheque became public - and the connection with the Tories, PFI and anti-union behaviour in the Emirates was taken up by the East London Advertiser and Dave Osler.
The connection with the Tories/PFI was bad enough, but of course the SWP's subsequent focus on this obscured the fact that the central reason that Galloway had said the cheque should be returned, was because as an overseas donation it was manifestly illegal for it to be paid to Respect. Rees thought he could get away with paying it to OFFU as that was "not Respect" and coincidentally thanks to his incompetence, OFFU owed the same amount to Respect. As Peter Hain subsequently discovered when he was challenged for not revealing donations to his 'front', and Galloway argued in January, the two were interlinked.
I'll come back to your other comments later.
Perhaps its worth reminding ourselves what the SWP actually said as opposed to what fisher price claims -
“This is a fight the SWP did not choose. We chose not to rush into print with a reply to George and approached George on a number of occasions to secure a meeting with him to try to discuss the issues raised.
Eventually a meeting was held on 4 September between SWP representatives (John Rees, Lindsey German, Alex Callinicos & Chris Bambery), George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Ger Francis, Abjol Miah, Linda Smith and Glyn Robbins.
It is important to say that at this meeting we made it clear we were happy to discuss and come to consensus on the three proposals George concludes his letter with - and that remains the case.
That, however, was not what the meeting centred on. This was not an argument or discussion about how best to build Respect. In a 30 minute introduction George discussed his proposals for five minutes and then the rest on attacking John Rees.
The main plank of this was an attack on us for 'endangering the whole project' by our actions in Shadwell, in particular by our support at the selection meeting for a young woman Bengali candidate rather than the eventual winner, Harun Miah. This was true but it should of course be added that it did not stop us throwing everything we could into support for Councillor Miah, a fact demonstrated by the thanks we received afterwardsfrom both him and Abjol Miah.
In the discussion that followed George's introduction both Salma and Abjol called for John Rees to resign with Abjol calling for 'a complete change of leadership.' The SWP representatives made clear they were happy to discuss George's three proposals but were not prepared to swallow demands for John Rees's resignation. This is not just a question of loyalty to a comrade who has pursued a strategy on which the SWP is in agreement. The attack is not on John but on the SWP - as the emphasis on Shadwell indicates. If, say, we were prepared to accept this demand any replacement National Secretary could face a similar ultimatum in event of future disagreements….
George's document makes considerable criticism of the Organising for Fighting Unions initiative, although this was decided upon by Respect's highest bodies. Yet the whole initiative was premised on the need to expand Respect's base of support within the organised working class and to re-connect with a layer of trade unionists who are not yet ready to embrace Respect.
Similarly the criticism of Respect's intervention on this year's Pride seems strange given that since the SWP started going on Pride two decades and more ago Labour, the Lib-Dems and major trade union have been consistently represented on it. The criticism is even stranger given the slander constantly thrown at Respect by our enemies that because of Respect's support in the Muslim community it is somehow soft on homophobia.
That need to extend Respect's base of support is something SWP members believe is vital. That's why we encouraged the local meetings on gun crime, which drew a good response from the African-Caribbean community and beyond.
The original vision of Respect lay behind the whole selection procedure for the GLA that has seen a list of candidates that reflect fully the London working class. A retreat into a party whose elected representatives are overwhelmingly male and Muslim would be to retreat into the caricature of us drawn by our opponents. It would be also unacceptable not just for socialists but for so many who come from the trade unions, from Labour backgrounds and from the anti-war, women's and so many other movements.
We want to fight for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unionism.
The Central Committee, Socialist Worker Party (Britain)”.
“This is a fight the SWP did not choose. We chose not to rush into print with a reply to George and approached George on a number of occasions to secure a meeting with him to try to discuss the issues raised.
Eventually a meeting was held on 4 September between SWP representatives (John Rees, Lindsey German, Alex Callinicos & Chris Bambery), George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Ger Francis, Abjol Miah, Linda Smith and Glyn Robbins.
It is important to say that at this meeting we made it clear we were happy to discuss and come to consensus on the three proposals George concludes his letter with - and that remains the case.
That, however, was not what the meeting centred on. This was not an argument or discussion about how best to build Respect. In a 30 minute introduction George discussed his proposals for five minutes and then the rest on attacking John Rees.
The main plank of this was an attack on us for 'endangering the whole project' by our actions in Shadwell, in particular by our support at the selection meeting for a young woman Bengali candidate rather than the eventual winner, Harun Miah. This was true but it should of course be added that it did not stop us throwing everything we could into support for Councillor Miah, a fact demonstrated by the thanks we received afterwardsfrom both him and Abjol Miah.
In the discussion that followed George's introduction both Salma and Abjol called for John Rees to resign with Abjol calling for 'a complete change of leadership.' The SWP representatives made clear they were happy to discuss George's three proposals but were not prepared to swallow demands for John Rees's resignation. This is not just a question of loyalty to a comrade who has pursued a strategy on which the SWP is in agreement. The attack is not on John but on the SWP - as the emphasis on Shadwell indicates. If, say, we were prepared to accept this demand any replacement National Secretary could face a similar ultimatum in event of future disagreements….
George's document makes considerable criticism of the Organising for Fighting Unions initiative, although this was decided upon by Respect's highest bodies. Yet the whole initiative was premised on the need to expand Respect's base of support within the organised working class and to re-connect with a layer of trade unionists who are not yet ready to embrace Respect.
Similarly the criticism of Respect's intervention on this year's Pride seems strange given that since the SWP started going on Pride two decades and more ago Labour, the Lib-Dems and major trade union have been consistently represented on it. The criticism is even stranger given the slander constantly thrown at Respect by our enemies that because of Respect's support in the Muslim community it is somehow soft on homophobia.
That need to extend Respect's base of support is something SWP members believe is vital. That's why we encouraged the local meetings on gun crime, which drew a good response from the African-Caribbean community and beyond.
The original vision of Respect lay behind the whole selection procedure for the GLA that has seen a list of candidates that reflect fully the London working class. A retreat into a party whose elected representatives are overwhelmingly male and Muslim would be to retreat into the caricature of us drawn by our opponents. It would be also unacceptable not just for socialists but for so many who come from the trade unions, from Labour backgrounds and from the anti-war, women's and so many other movements.
We want to fight for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unionism.
The Central Committee, Socialist Worker Party (Britain)”.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
but there's no mention of the cheque ... was it raised at that meeting or not? The SWP CC are silent on it, yet four months later they go to the unprecedented step of issuing an "Apology" to their membership having told their pocket "officers' group" it was above board.
Without any reference to the cheque in the CC statement, Galloway's attack on Rees is presented as a witch-hunt; once you realise what Rees had done with the cheque and the reckless way in which he behaved, not to mention the deceit, Galloway's mistrust of Rees and criticisms of his behaviour makes perfect sense.
so on the basis of this cheque, his attacks on the SWP for backing a woman from a Muslim background as opposed to a Muslim businessman, his attacks on the SWP for insisting RESPECT take part in pride, and his attacks on the SWP for trying to orient respect on trade union work within OFFU are understandable. Nothing to do with politics then
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
so on the basis of this cheque, his attacks on the SWP for backing a woman from a Muslim background as opposed to a Muslim businessman, his attacks on the SWP for insisting RESPECT take part in pride, and his attacks on the SWP for trying to orient respect on trade union work within OFFU are understandable. Nothing to do with politics then
Reread the CC statement you posted. If these so-called attacks were SO serious WHY DID THE SWP SAY:
"we were happy to discuss and come to consensus on the three proposals"???
the one thing that they would not accept was an attack on Rees, because any attack on Rees was an attack on the SWP - Pride, OFFU, Shadwell, they didn't matter to the SWP, it was Rees they drew the line on. How is that "politics"????
And by their own cack-handed and belated admission, the SWP have ultimately accepted REES WAS WRONG to take the cheque and hide it from everyone. They just will not admit that they got it totally wrong and smashed their own project up in their support for his infallibility.
You have missed the point - which isn't about any one individual, but about politics. Actually on those POLITICAL grounds, we fought our corner. We won the argument about Pride and OFFU, and lost the vote about candidates in Shadwell. In fact its the Gallowayistas who have attempted to smash the project on the basis of uncle George's erm..... indefatigability
JHE
.
I used to think I understood Trotese. Really. I was all ready to apply for a job as a Community Interpreter. Now I'm not so sure.
The reference to "Pride" I think I understand. It's not a reference to beer. It's what used to be called Gay Pride - a procession of gay people. Nwnnwnwnwn is claiming that the Social Working faction of al-Respeq gave up its earlier claim that support for equality for gay people was a shibboleth.
I gather they even asked some of the nice Mohammedan folk to tolerate an al-Respeq banner or leaflet or something at the Gay Pride thingy. Good for the Social Workers.
But "OFFU"... I don't know. It's not like tofu, is it? The Office For Fuck U? Ordinary Folk Fookin Unite? No, I don't get it.
Is there an Trot-English translator available?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
That really has to be the most stupid statement you have ever made. What exactly did you "win" here?
Simple question:
Galloway said the OFFU conference lost money. Rees said it didn't. Who was right?
Nah, the most stupid statement in the whole galloway fiasco are the ones by you claiming he didn't split from respect even though he organised a conference on the same day as respect conference to set up an alternative respect. What was won, was an orientation on the Pride demo/mardi gras and an orientation on the trade unions. Galloway has never made much of a fuss about 'losing' money; claiming that he spends so much of his own money on political activity as an argument against taking a workers wage. His convenient allusions to cheques ar a convenient smoke screen for wider political differences.....
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
cockneyrebel
New Member
How can you have the nerve to write this stuff? Firstly, as was mentioned above, the SWP said that gay rights shouldn't be a "shibolleth". Secondly the SWP voted down a proposal at the founding conference for Galloway to have a workers wage.
As for the OFFU (organising for fighting unions), it's an absolute joke. A talking shop for the top table bureaucrats which has done absolutely fuck all in terms of building anything practical.
Report on one OFFU meeting here:
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1900
Which at least sounds a bit better than the national meetings which have been utterly useless.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
because they felt GG couldn't win them? that's what SW wanted, and honest open and democratic discussion.
just started to read the article by Salma on the Galloway factions website,just like yourself she distorts things and take things out of context, to paint a picture which is untrue. Martin Smith clearly says the motivations are electoralism, leading to a popular front style, which contradicts SW vision of a class-based coalition. he doesn't go out to paint a picture of Islamic organisations are organising inside respect against socialists.
you and Salma I am sure genuinely believe what you are saying is the truth,because you've built up this theory and you only look for evidence to sustain your views, which I suppose we all do to a degree. what galls me is your arrogance. Anyone who has a different view to you is a "trobot". you are doing what you are condemning SW of doing.I expect such rubbish from JHE Cockney, but Cockney do you honestly believe in your heart SW or Lindsay German had given up on gay rights?
PS.do you have a link to the Chris Harman article Sheene mentions?
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I found the article by Chris, and cannot help quoting from it as it says something I have been trying to say less eloquently for a long time on here.
Chris's article does not try to paint the picture Salma would have us believe, he is making the point about caucusing.
Chris's article does not try to paint the picture Salma would have us believe, he is making the point about caucusing.
Similar threads
- Poll
