The SWP's conduct throughout this indicates that they are not prepared to work in a coalition in which their leadership do not call the shots.
The SWP leadership agreed to negotiations through a third party to split the organisation as amicably as possible. They insisted these negotiations were kept secret and then walked out denouncing some of the others in Respect to the capitalist media.
The solution is to recommence negotiations and then we can see what is possible. If the SWP want to go back to being in a broad Respect then I am sure that might a negotiable position, but as far as I understand it they do not - their position is that it is a left/right split and they are on the left. This is clearly not the case, but by using the terms "Galloway faction" and "reformist" interchangeably to describe everyone who supported the launch of Respect Renewal, you seem be going along with that.
If the SWP do not return to negotiations there will be no Respect candidates in elections. The SWP will have to stand as a new organisation and the farce will be over.
Those people supporting Respect Renewal wish to work in a broad coalition - SWP members are perfectly welcome in that, as are all other leftwingers. However I have no doubt that any individual SWP member wishing to do that would be expelled from the SWP for taking such action.
right, let's clear a few things out of the way first.
SW and myself perceive this as a right left split not based upon the constituent members of each faction, but on the strategy of each faction, okay? Do you really think I am suggesting my friend in SW who is working in Respect renewal has suddenly become a reformist? Even the Labour Party in the quote above have recognized that some of the Revolutionary groups and individuals in Respect renewal. So no one nowhere has said revolutionaries are not in the Galloway faction.
There are several members of SW in Respect renewal in my area. Everybody knows this. They will not be expelled or until there is a "crucial vote". (Don't know what this vote is, just heard about it briefly in a telephone conversation today.) I'm pretty sure it will be voted that being a member of the Galloway faction makes their position untenable in SW. Not because they are no longer revolutionaries, but because their position completely contradicts the agreed position of the party membership. I am sure you are fully aware the strictures placed upon members of a democratic is centralised organisation, are nowhere near comparable to those placed upon the members of a coalition. If the same members wanted to be a part of both Respect renewal, and Respect, no problem.
Now on the generality of your post.
I accept you honestly believe SW are not able to work in a coalition if they don't have control. All I ask of you to accept is that it is quite possible for me to hold a different opinion. Every time I put a different opinion you say I am either been dishonest or brainwashed.
The Central committee of the Galloway faction decided, without recourse to the membership, to publish instead of negotiate problems in their relationship with Socialist worker. The Central Committee of the Galloway faction decided, without recourse to the membership, that they would seize the opportunity to negotiate split, rather than negotiate unity. In fact there was never a meeting proposed by the Central committee of the Galloway faction to discuss a negotiated unity, was there? I think it is extremely evident is it not, that if Socialist worker would have accepted that split, the Central committee of the Galloway faction would too have accepted it? For a group which claims to have not been unorganised and of disparate opinions, they do seem to have been able to move with amazing speed and clarity of purpose. Right from the beginning of Respect Unity coalition, there has been many people who have predicted the self avowed Trotskyite hating Galloway would go down this path, who knows perhaps they were right.
The only thing that is on offer from Respect renewal, is a negotiated split? IF I AM WRONG HERE PLEASE! Give me some evidence of this, as I would be genuinely interested. The only evidence I can offer you at the moment is that all the SW members I have spoken to have ALL said Respect would welcome back George Galloway etc. none of the Respect renewal members have said that Respect renewal would welcome back SW. This is a key difference to me.
" The SWP's conduct throughout this indicates that they are not prepared to work in a coalition in which their leadership do not call the shots." If they ONLY wanted to work in an organisation they could control, why not remain part of the Socialist Alliance? Easily controllable. Why piss off the people they did piss off, in order to join respect in which they were convinced as Cockney points out would be much bigger, constituted mainly of those to the rights of SW, AND IT HAD SUPER EGO GALLOWAY, and so they could not possibly be in control of, if all they wanted was control? it just doesn't make sense. Come up with some political analysis, not the usual apolitical claptrap that appears on this forum "control freakery".
There are loads of other things, some of which I've already mentioned which contradict your position, IN MY HONEST UNBRAINWASHED OPINION.
he did nothing wrong. as you and Galloway argue, only socialist worker did things wrong.
ffs
