SWP Expel leading members in Respect

[Fisher_Gate]

well they didn't actually walk out the organisation, the George Galloway faction did. WHY? because they weren't prepared to try and win the argument for "the way forward". As I understand it George Galloway and his whole faction are welcome to rejoin respect.

They have NOT walked out of Respect. They have refused to attend an illegitimate conference.

The only people who walked away from Respect were four councillors, two of whom are SWP members, who publicly resigned the whip on Tower Hamlets Council, attacked the elected officers in the press(officers elected by the whole membership, not just the councillors) and established an 'Independent' group on the Council, with their own leader and deputy leader. They then went into negotiations with the LibDems to form an opposition coalition on the Council against the Respect Group. They have also refused to take up any of the issues that they claim led them to this step (eg claims about sexist harassment etc) within the structure of Respect, despite being members of both the local branch committee and the National Council.

The 19 members of the Respect national council who refused to attend the illegitimate conference derive their authority from their election at the last conference of Respect in 2006. This includes the Chair (and technically the Leader and Nominating Officer), Vice Chair, the sole MP and they are supported by two thirds of the councillors. When the SWP members of the National Council elected in 2006 are ready to resume normal behaviour they will happily meet with them to take forward Respect. Sadly this is not likely to happen as the SWP now live in a fantasy world where the 46 people appointed at the illegitimate conference (60% of whom are in the SWP) are claiming to be Respect. It's nonsense.

 

[belboid]

so our refusal to criticise Arthur Scargill during and after the miners strike, and Derek Hatton during and after the attacks upon militant were due to what?

eh? what refusal?

where has the criticism of billy hayes been lately?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

2 entertaining news snippets:

1) The SWP have finally removed their membership census from their website. It has been replaced by a brief list of prominent people and a single sentence saying that 1,139 others have signed the list. Do you think it finally dawned on someone in their office that it might not be the brightest idea in the world to have a list of their members names on their website?

2) According to comments on Socialist Unity, the SWP have set up an organisation within the Stop the War Coalition called the Muslim Network. This is, according to a couple of commenters, an organisation intended to hold the line against the existing Muslim organisations within the StWC, which have become more critical of the SWP.

The first meeting of the new Muslim Network was apparently chaired by Chris Nineham, not previously known for his adherence to Islamic beliefs.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

... Do you think it finally dawned on someone in their office that it might not be the brightest idea in the world to have a list of their members names on their website?
...

or that the fact that only 1,139 people have signed it, not all of whom are Respect members, when the SWP claim a membership of over 7,000 registered and unregistered, indicates what a bunch of liars they are?

 

[brasicritique]

three men in a pub jealous of a fourth who owns a packet of pork scratchings so they ask him to get of there ttable 90% of the locals reckoned they were all losers anyway

 

[stylegar]

Repeating lies and half-truths doesn't make them come true, you delusional dimwit.

They have NOT walked out of Respect. They have refused to attend an illegitimate conference.

The only people who walked away from Respect were four councillors, two of whom are SWP members, who publicly resigned the whip on Tower Hamlets Council, attacked the elected officers in the press(officers elected by the whole membership, not just the councillors) and established an 'Independent' group on the Council, with their own leader and deputy leader. They then went into negotiations with the LibDems to form an opposition coalition on the Council against the Respect Group. They have also refused to take up any of the issues that they claim led them to this step (eg claims about sexist harassment etc) within the structure of Respect, despite being members of both the local branch committee and the National Council.

The 19 members of the Respect national council who refused to attend the illegitimate conference derive their authority from their election at the last conference of Respect in 2006. This includes the Chair (and technically the Leader and Nominating Officer), Vice Chair, the sole MP and they are supported by two thirds of the councillors. When the SWP members of the National Council elected in 2006 are ready to resume normal behaviour they will happily meet with them to take forward Respect. Sadly this is not likely to happen as the SWP now live in a fantasy world where the 46 people appointed at the illegitimate conference (60% of whom are in the SWP) are claiming to be Respect. It's nonsense.

 

[butchersapron]

2 entertaining news snippets:

1) The SWP have finally removed their membership census from their website. It has been replaced by a brief list of prominent people and a single sentence saying that 1,139 others have signed the list. Do you think it finally dawned on someone in their office that it might not be the brightest idea in the world to have a list of their members names on their website?

I seem to remember them attempting to discipline a member of this forum for naming two very well known members on here last year (both publically named in the later list). Looks like it wasn't such a big crime after all.

 

[TremulousTetra]

whoops

 

[Nigel Irritable]

More bizarre news from Bristol.

The SWP put a motion to the Respect branch demanding the removal of the local steering committee. They then mobilised absolutely every member they could scrape up, many of them people who had no involvement in Respect. So every non-SWP members bar one walked out of the meeting. A more perfect example of "capturing yourself" it's hard to find. After years of work in the city, the SWP has been left with an alliance of itself and one individual.

The other telling point is that there were apparently only seven non-SWP members at the meeting to start with, which doesn't say much for the prospects of non-SWP Respect either.

This sort of thing is unbelievably childish. Are they seriously planning to have more of these squabbles up and down the country? Wouldn't it be less humiliating for all concerned if they sat down and negotiated the terms of the split?

Although it may be that both sides are less concerned about being humiliated than they are about proving a point. I suppose that the SWP may feel that packing each branch in turn will given them a better claim to being "official" Respect. The other lot may think that going through such a process will ensure that the few non-SWP people who haven't made their minds up / still dream that a split can be avoided / sympathise with the SWP are completely alienated from the SWP.

Fucking idiocy all round.

 

[Wilf]

Would the swp be upset if a teacher encouraged the kids to name their teddy bear 'George'?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

honestly mate, I am not confusing the two events, I am fully aware of the chronology of which you speak. I am fully aware there was a series of attacks, including the "the worst of times the best of times", which led John Rees to make his remark in the telephone call. ....

Oh dear what an interesting juxtoposition of events...

the document was called "the best of times, the worst of times", it was released on 23 August. Subsequently the SWP wrote a reply which they circulated to their members only, the SWP then held an aggregate of London members where they denounced Galloway and Yaqoob as communalists, John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh penned a response to Galloway, Salma Yaqoob wrote a document, Galloway and Yaqoob met with Rees and the SWP, Alan Thornett and John Lister wrote a document, the Respect NC met twice and unanimously agreed a resolution drafted by Alan Thornett proposing a National Organiser, the Officers group refused to appoint Nick Wrack and refused to change the composition of the Conference Arrangements Committe, the request from the Chair for membership records of student branches sending delegates to conference is refused and described as a "witch hunt", the SWP instruct Ovenden and Hoveman to resign immediately from Galloway's office and expel them when they ask for more time to discuss it, the SWP expel Nick Wrack for not refusing the nomination for National Organiser, two meetings of Tower Hamlets members end in disarray, 19 members of the NC consider a statement critical of the SWP,

...
then, and only then, a full two months after the original letter, on Monday 22 October does John Rees pick up the phone and say to Alan Thornett "we might as well call it a day if you are going to criticise us" ...

 

[nwnm]

Third disgraceful attack on Councillor Oliur Rahman

Councillor Oliur Rahman's windows were smashed again last night, and he was warned by local people to stay away after they saw people acting suspiciously outside his home.

This is the latest incident in a campaign of violence and intimidation against Oliur Rahman, including a physical attack and threatening emails and phone calls, since he and Councillors Lutfa Begum, Rania Khan and Ahmed Hussain resigned the whip of the councillors group in Tower Hamlets in protest at the leadership of the group.

Councillor Rahman said "I'm amazed that people can think that this violence is the way to solve anything. This is supposed to be a democratic society, where everyone should be prepared to resolve their differences through the political process, not with bricks and boots.

"It's an attempt to intimidate me, but I refuse to be intimidated. If they feel that by intimidating me that they will get me out of politics, they will have a very long wait. I condemn violence against anyone, in any circumstances. Anyone who believes in democracy should do the same."

 

[laptop]

I condemn violence against anyone, in any circumstances.

That's him expelled from the SWP, then.

Anyone who believes in democracy should do the same.

Or is this supposed to be a get-out clause?




Moral: if you get into Bangla politics and fall out with people, your windows may suffer. The possibility of your windows suffering from the attentions of people who think that your cause would be advanced by your claiming victim status is not excluded.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Repeating lies and half-truths doesn't make them come true, you delusional dimwit.

tell me - what was a lie?

 

[barney_pig]

Third disgraceful attack on Councillor Oliur Rahman

Councillor Oliur Rahman's windows were smashed again last night, and he was warned by local people to stay away after they saw people acting suspiciously outside his home.

This is the latest incident in a campaign of violence and intimidation against Oliur Rahman, including a physical attack and threatening emails and phone calls, since he and Councillors Lutfa Begum, Rania Khan and Ahmed Hussain resigned the whip of the councillors group in Tower Hamlets in protest at the leadership of the group.

Councillor Rahman said "I'm amazed that people can think that this violence is the way to solve anything. This is supposed to be a democratic society, where everyone should be prepared to resolve their differences through the political process, not with bricks and boots.

"It's an attempt to intimidate me, but I refuse to be intimidated. If they feel that by intimidating me that they will get me out of politics, they will have a very long wait. I condemn violence against anyone, in any circumstances. Anyone who believes in democracy should do the same."

once again c+ping and spamming across threads. Has editor gone on holiday?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Oh dear what an interesting juxtoposition of events...

the document was called "the best of times, the worst of times", it was released on 23 August. Subsequently the SWP wrote a reply which they circulated to their members only, the SWP then held an aggregate of London members where they denounced Galloway and Yaqoob as communalists, John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh penned a response to Galloway, Salma Yaqoob wrote a document, Galloway and Yaqoob met with Rees and the SWP, Alan Thornett and John Lister wrote a document, the Respect NC met twice and unanimously agreed a resolution drafted by Alan Thornett proposing a National Organiser, the Officers group refused to appoint Nick Wrack and refused to change the composition of the Conference Arrangements Committe, the request from the Chair for membership records of student branches sending delegates to conference is refused and described as a "witch hunt", the SWP instruct Ovenden and Hoveman to resign immediately from Galloway's office and expel them when they ask for more time to discuss it, the SWP expel Nick Wrack for not refusing the nomination for National Organiser, two meetings of Tower Hamlets members end in disarray, 19 members of the NC consider a statement critical of the SWP,

...
then, and only then, a full two months after the original letter, on Monday 22 October does John Rees pick up the phone and say to Alan Thornett "we might as well call it a day if you are going to criticise us" ...

God this is tedious! how many times do you want me to say this,I KNOW.
I am fully aware there was a series of attacks,including "the best of times, the worst of times",butit was only after the final straw, the telephone conversation, that John Rees made a remark about walking.

I can see why you keep pedantically going on about these issues,which have no relevance to the essence of what I was saying, because then you don't have to apologise for saying what I said was untrue even though we have both demonstrated what I said was in essence true.

 

[TremulousTetra]

More bizarre news from Bristol.

The SWP put a motion to the Respect branch demanding the removal of the local steering committee. They then mobilised absolutely every member they could scrape up, many of them people who had no involvement in Respect. So every non-SWP members bar one walked out of the meeting. A more perfect example of "capturing yourself" it's hard to find. After years of work in the city, the SWP has been left with an alliance of itself and one individual.

The other telling point is that there were apparently only seven non-SWP members at the meeting to start with, which doesn't say much for the prospects of non-SWP Respect either.

This sort of thing is unbelievably childish. Are they seriously planning to have more of these squabbles up and down the country? Wouldn't it be less humiliating for all concerned if they sat down and negotiated the terms of the split?

Although it may be that both sides are less concerned about being humiliated than they are about proving a point. I suppose that the SWP may feel that packing each branch in turn will given them a better claim to being "official" Respect. The other lot may think that going through such a process will ensure that the few non-SWP people who haven't made their minds up / still dream that a split can be avoided / sympathise with the SWP are completely alienated from the SWP.

Fucking idiocy all round.

I never go to the meetings of respect, though I still do stuff. Still going through the motions of treasure actually. Just because you don't turn up to the meetings, doesn't mean you don't do stuff towards respect. In my experience, the vast majority of people who do stuff around election time don't come to the boring meetings.

I know people feel animosity when socialist worker get all those who agree with their analysis and strategy to turn up to the meeting when there is a battle about the way forward (packing). But do you honestly believe Nigel, the Galloway faction isn't doing the same? I find it hard to believe there are any groups that wouldn't do the same, IF THEY HAD THE SUPPORT.

I believe Galloway faction is being disingenuous when he compares Socialist worker attack on a group over a disagreement about a single policy, to the attack on Socialist worker suggesting they have systematically set out to undermine the growth of respect just so they can maintain control. I agree with you none of this is doing any good. This is why Socialist worker was against having such an argument about the way forward, and scapegoating the Galloway faction, Socialist worker, any groups, in public. I think the reese initial reaction was right, socialist worker should just walk from the whole project of substituting for reformists to kickstart reformist Organisation, but Socialist worker seem to think the building of this organisation is essential, and so are trapped in trying to keep hold of that organisation. I cannot see what can possibly be gained for the common cause.

 

[Do predele]

Havent got time to read 60pages - Can someone please explain what has shaun wright phillips done now?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Havent got time to read 60pages - Can someone please explain what has shaun wright phillips done now?

he hasn't crawled on his hands and knees back to COMS and offered to play on the right wing for nothing, and so when the revolution happens he will be first against the wall!

PS. It is only 38 pages, can you not count? I guess you must be a Cockney rag.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

But do you honestly believe Nigel, the Galloway faction isn't doing the same? I find it hard to believe there are any groups that wouldn't do the same, IF THEY HAD THE SUPPORT..

In South Birmingham Respect, the SWP were effectively purged off the committee by Respect Renewal. However, they didn't walk out of the meeting but stayed afterwards and ate some somoza's - I would do the same, no point letting political quarrels get in the way of nice food! The Respect Renewal do have an upper hand on this, while Lindsey German has some nice recipes for coucous according to her blog, the petit-bourgeois restaurant owners have probably gone over to the Renewal side.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

In South Birmingham Respect, the SWP were effectively purged off the committee by Respect Renewal.

Yes, although at least I believe they were regularly scheduled elections. The Bristol committee was elected at an AGM all of two months ago. Still it certainly shows that wherever they have the upper hand both sides are hammering it home.

The other thing both areas have in common is the total isolation of the SWP. They've now been working on building some kind of broad alliance in Birmingham and in Bristol for seven years now. And in both places they are now smaller than they started and in both places they could only find one single non-member to vote with them. Alliances of a shrunken SWP with one person. What a triumph.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

God this is tedious! how many times do you want me to say this,I KNOW.
I am fully aware there was a series of attacks,including "the best of times, the worst of times",butit was only after the final straw, the telephone conversation, that John Rees made a remark about walking.

I can see why you keep pedantically going on about these issues,which have no relevance to the essence of what I was saying, because then you don't have to apologise for saying what I said was untrue even though we have both demonstrated what I said was in essence true.

It's important because this 'series of attacks', as you put it, included a meeting of the National Council that agreed unanimously to make some serious changes in the way Respect ran, including the appointment of a National Organiser accountable to the NC (not the National Secretary). The National Secretary insisted on seconding this resolution - so much for it being "an attack".

Of course the event that changed all of this behaviour was the announcement that there would be no general election.

My point in emphasising an understanding of the chronology (pedantically' as you put it) is that these events were not as they are now being portrayed as a 'drip drip' of escalating attacks on the SWP until they reached a point of no return, but a series of crises which the SWP lurched in and out of - first being defensive, then conciliatory, then massively upping the stakes with the "Galloway goes on the Rampage" PN and the instruction to Hoveman/Ovenden to resign, then claiming to want to walk and they wanted to postpone the conference, then saying they wanted unity and the conference had to go ahead, etc etc....

 

[JHE]

Two grudge matches?

Getting more or less back up to date...

Al-Respeq (Renewal) in Tower Hamladesh has selected its parliamentary candidates. As expected by everyone, Big GG is to be the candidate in Poplar and Canning Town and, predictably enough, Big Abjol Miah, the Top Man in the al-Respeq council group, is to be the candidate in GG's current constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow.

What is al-Respeq (Social Workers' Façade) going to do? Come on Social Workers! It's time to select your candidates. How about Oliur Rahman to stand against Big Abjol and Johnny Rees to stand against Big GG? That would be a lively pair of contests.

 

[Das Uberdog]

I'd be fairly appalled if we didn't just let them have it.

 

[nwnm]

what - as in open fire?

 

[TremulousTetra]

It's important because this 'series of attacks', as you put it, included a meeting of the National Council that agreed unanimously to make some serious changes in the way Respect ran, including the appointment of a National Organiser accountable to the NC (not the National Secretary). The National Secretary insisted on seconding this resolution - so much for it being "an attack".

Yes the comrade did confirm John Rees initially had reservations, but then supported the nomination.

Of course the event that changed all of this behaviour was the announcement that there would be no general election.

How did it change behaviour, and that what was the motive for this change in behaviour?

My point in emphasising an understanding of the chronology (pedantically' as you put it) is that these events were not as they are now being portrayed as a 'drip drip' of escalating attacks on the SWP until they reached a point of no return, but a series of crises which the SWP lurched in and out of - first being defensive, then conciliatory, then massively upping the stakes with the "Galloway goes on the Rampage" PN and the instruction to Hoveman/Ovenden to resign, then claiming to want to walk and they wanted to postpone the conference, then saying they wanted unity and the conference had to go ahead, etc etc....

Okay, I tried to get the information from the horse's mouth's, so to speak.

I have tried to speak to several people who are either members of the Galloway faction, or part of their periphery. None of them have been prepared to phone back in the past week. So much for anti-sectarianism. (Just to clarify, are the Galloway faction prepared to work with SW an organisation?)

Did manage to get an SW member to discuss the issue, he is an ordinary member, not part of the leadership. He made it clear that it wasn't just the recent events that worried SW. I think this is what is meant by the rightword shift the Galloway faction represents. Broadly speaking I think the worry could be generally described as "electoralism", that more emphasis was being placed upon choosing candidates that could win, rather than socialists. With the ' success' of respect in some areas, careerists could see that respects represented an opportunity to get elected. 50 £10 memberships would suddenly arrive before a meeting, and a small businessman would end up being the candidate. In another instance, it would be argued a Bengali candidate would have a better to opportunity of winning, the meeting was packed to win this candidate, and the woman Socialist candidate not chosen. In these instances this comrade insisted, even though SW lost the vote, they did throw what resources they had behind the decision.

Then come the recent events, which we have already described. SW acknowledges respect were not in a position to fight the snap election financially or membership wise. George Galloway possibly in a panic about this began to write his discussion document. George Galloway was approached about the "discussion document" before it was finished, but he refused to discuss it. Instead of going to the National Council, it mysteriously became public, George possibly once again circumventing respect democracy, (like with Big Brother).

The comrades emphasised, SW would gladly welcome George Galloway back and anyone else from the Galloway faction.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Yes the comrade did confirm John Rees initially had reservations, but then supported the nomination.

How did it change behaviour, and that what was the motive for this change in behaviour?

Okay, I tried to get the information from the horse's mouth's, so to speak.

I have tried to speak to several people who are either members of the Galloway faction, or part of their periphery. None of them have been prepared to phone back in the past week. So much for anti-sectarianism. (Just to clarify, are the Galloway faction prepared to work with SW an organisation?)

Did manage to get an SW member to discuss the issue, he is an ordinary member, not part of the leadership. He made it clear that it wasn't just the recent events that worried SW. I think this is what is meant by the rightword shift the Galloway faction represents. Broadly speaking I think the worry could be generally described as "electoralism", that more emphasis was being placed upon choosing candidates that could win, rather than socialists. With the ' success' of respect in some areas, careerists could see that respects represented an opportunity to get elected. 50 £10 memberships would suddenly arrive before a meeting, and a small businessman would end up being the candidate. In another instance, it would be argued a Bengali candidate would have a better to opportunity of winning, the meeting was packed to win this candidate, and the woman Socialist candidate not chosen. In these instances this comrade insisted, even though SW lost the vote, they did throw what resources they had behind the decision.

Then come the recent events, which we have already described. SW acknowledges respect were not in a position to fight the snap election financially or membership wise. George Galloway possibly in a panic about this began to write his discussion document. George Galloway was approached about the "discussion document" before it was finished, but he refused to discuss it. Instead of going to the National Council, it mysteriously became public, George possibly once again circumventing respect democracy, (like with Big Brother).

The comrades emphasised, SW would gladly welcome George Galloway back and anyone else from the Galloway faction.

The "electoralism" claim is a load of old tosh and a cover for a series of disasterous manouevres. Are the SWP leadership seriously saying that Jerry Hicks resigned from the SWP because he had become an "electoralist". Or that Linda Smith has gone over to "electoralism"? It's as nonsense as the idea that Galloway represents a 'right wing'.

It is clear that the real reason for the crash and burn/scorched earth policy is that the SWP leadership were not prepared to accept that they had to change their ways in order to work in a "coalition", and had to give up their unrelenting hold that had not exactly taken Respect forward.

I am sure everyone in the Respect Renewal "camp" is perfectly prepared to work with the SWP membership within a broad organisation. What they are not prepared to accept is to be dictated to by an unaccountable SWP leadership who have become incapable of building broad unity. The only people who can change that are the SWP membership - however I'm not holding out much hope, as they have been schooled in a mode of functioning that denies them independent critical evaluation.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The "electoralism" claim is a load of old tosh and a cover for a series of disasterous manouevres.

so big brother was not an attempt to build in respect? his media career is not a attempt to build respect? emphasis on candidates that can win, over candidates politics is not electoralism?

Are the SWP leadership seriously saying that Jerry Hicks resigned from the SWP because he had become an "electoralist". Or that Linda Smith has gone over to "electoralism"?

I don't know what the leadership saying about them, as far I can make out Jerry Hicks was prepared to work with SW until SW packed a meeting. Isn't that right?

It's as nonsense as the idea that Galloway represents a 'right wing'.

so would you argue George Galloway represents the left wing of respect? and would you argue that SW membership are a right wing of respect?

It is clear that the real reason for the crash and burn/scorched earth policy is that the SWP leadership were not prepared to accept that they had to change their ways in order to work in a "coalition", and had to give up their unrelenting hold that had not exactly taken Respect forward.

I am sure everyone in the Respect Renewal "camp" is perfectly prepared to work with the SWP membership within a broad organisation. What they are not prepared to accept is to be dictated to by an unaccountable SWP leadership who have become incapable of building broad unity. The only people who can change that are the SWP membership - however I'm not holding out much hope, as they have been schooled in a mode of functioning that denies them independent critical evaluation.

trotbots? so there is no politics. No political differences about strategy. All there is his personality issues. Leadership of SW who just want to control things for controlling sake, and a membership who are brainwashed. even I who have not been a active member for several years am incapable "independent critical evaluation", if that view disagrees with yours? in fact, I've even noticed on these boards that nonmembers who tried to look at the argument from both sides of the coin gets accused of being trotbots.

SW's analysis of George Galloway, Respect, etc may be wrong, but at least it's an attempt at a political analysis.

 

[TremulousTetra]

you know SW's "their unrelenting hold", how did this manifest? They don't seem to have had a "their unrelenting hold " on the national committee.