SWP Tower Hamlets Councillors in secret talks with LibDems over coalition?
- Thread starter Fisher_Gate
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
nwnm said:
The East London Advertiser claimed the SWP were leaving Respect and then "buggered off themselves"?
nwnm said:
I don't think that anyone believes that a deal was done. The question is if there were talks with the Lib Dems. For the record, I don't believe for a second that the SWP would sanction such talks. I also think that it is unlikely that any of the four councillors would, but the absence of a denial at this stage is getting a bit strange. It isn't, after all, beyond the bounds of possibility that a relatively new SWP members or a radical councillor could off their own bat make such a mistake, is it?
It isn't as if this was something that some irrelevant sectarian was peddling. The main local newspaper in Tower Hamlets and Newham made the claim and made it to tens of thousands of people who have voted Respect. Why haven't the councillors issued a straightforward denial? That, by the way, is intended as a real question and not as some rhetorical jab.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
nwnm said:
So, of course, with two of its members so openly flouting the discipline of the party, some kind of disciplinary action was taken against them?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
nwnm said:
Yes you're losing it!
It obviously needs spelling out.
First of all the SWP CC members did meet a week last thursday (in the morning - and there are some of us who know who it was and where they met) to agree to a managed split in Respect.
Fortunately it was in the offices of a neutral third party who read back the tentative agreement to all concerned. The SWP insisted on keeping the existence of such a meeting secret, despite claiming to be for 'unity' in public. There was a further meeting the following Sunday when the SWP demanded the Respect national council called for that day be cancelled. At that meeting the SWP agreed to pursue the split on a managed and damage-limitation basis.
On the day after (last Monday), the SWP set up the press conference with the councillors who had split the Respect group on Tower Hamlets council and John Rees appeared in their support in full gaze of the capitalist media (who to be quite honest were not very interested - so that was £329 down the drain). According to the East London Advertiser, the leader of the LibDem group on the council attended this press conference, taking notes at the back, and the ELA (and Dave Osler) claim that there were discussions between the 'gang of four' and the LibDem group to establish a joint opposition group of ten.
At this point, the non-SWP people in the Respect leadership declared an end to the secrecy, the SWP CC reneged on the tentative agreement to split in a civilised way and decided to pursue the 'scorched earth' policy of packing the conference with SWP members as delegates wherever they had the forces to do so.
Osler also claims that the two SWP members in the 'gang of four' were not instructed to split by the SWP, although clearly Rees' presence at the press conference indicated they retrospectively endorsed it.
None of the SWP, 'gang of four' or LibDems have denied the ELA article that discussions have taken place, though there has been ample opportunity to do so. Clearly the SWP and 'gang of four' have not denied it because of the threat that if the LibDems were then to confirm it and show them up as liars, it would blow the 'gang of four' and their split tactics out of the water.
It is also clear to some of us who the source for Osler's story about the SWP and who the third party was - you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work it out.
It is fear of being revealed for the liars they are, that have led the SWP CC not to question the history of these events, but to attempt classic diversion tactics into attacking Galloway's alleged shortcomings (years after others raised them), rather than account for or defend their own actions.
Meanwhile some rank and file gullible SWP members, in true 'Animal Farm' style fearing the unsettling revelation that their leaders have been 'economical with the truth', have stuck their heads in the sand and denied that either of these two processes (discussions to split Respect and discussions to form a joint opposition with the LibDems) ever took place.
Now are you clear?
Fisher_Gate said:
My understanding is that this is half untrue. Namely there was a meeting precided over by a third party and there had been agreement to keep the details secret but this was not only renaged upon immediately by the Galloway camp, but the meeting itself was misrepresented. There was no agreement to split, although that position was presented to the SWP and rejected. The SWP position was that any decisions would need to be taken by Respect conference. The meeting broke without agreement as the Galloway camp wanted a recess but they did not return, they instead issued an immediate e-mail stating that the SWP were leaving Respect.
Meanwhile the important issue is the sovereign nature of Respect conference. We have seen Trade Unions and the Labour Party undermine their conferences. The left always defend the sovereignty of conference. Fearing they will lose conference the Galloway camp have declared a rival organisation and have split, not willing to be accountable to the Respect membership.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Groucho said:
You seriously believe this account of events? You are more gullible than I thought.
Let's unwrap this thought process ...
According to the latest SWP pre conference bulletin the membership of the SWP is 5,938 registered members with 1,700 'unregistered members. Do you believe that too? If so then either 6,000+ SWP members have failed to join Respect or sign the SWP petition - in which case you either have a major problem with discipline in a 'bolshevik'/'Leninist' party ... or the SWP leadership lies to the membership about basic facts. Which is it?
If it does lie to the membership about basic facts, like how many members there are, then why should it not lie about its version of events?
There is an option here to establish the truth - if you are so believing that the SWP leadership are so truthful, why don't you ask the third party to publish the record of the meetings?
as with the socialist alliance we didn't get all our members to join RESPECT - if we had peope like you would have accused us of 'swamping' it. When we try and mobilise those members who are active in RESPECT because we are are being witch hunted, you and your ilk blather on about us trying to 'pack' the conference. You speak fluent bollocks.....
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
nwnm said:
Not true - SWP Party Notes issued after the General Election 2005 instructed all SWP members to join Respect.
There are three possible explanations:
1) Approx 4 out of 5 SWP members ignored this instruction;
2) You cannot believe SWP Party Notes;
3) You cannot believe the membership figures in the pre conference bulletin
urbanrevolt
New Member
I don't think you can trust the East London Advertiser; if this turns out to be even remotely true then it is shameful.
However, there's not much point proceeeding on rumours imho.
Far better to concentrate on putting all our energies into united front work like getting support for the Karen Reissmann strike in Manchester an absolutely key battle with very high stakes.
However, there's not much point proceeeding on rumours imho.
Far better to concentrate on putting all our energies into united front work like getting support for the Karen Reissmann strike in Manchester an absolutely key battle with very high stakes.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
urbanrevolt said:
I don't think for one minute the East London Advertiser will have made up the fact that Stephanie Eaton, leader of the LibDem group on Tower Hamlets Council, attended the 'gang of four''s press conference last week and sat at the back taking notes. The leader of the Respect group on the council, Abjol Miah, was, of course, not invited or aware of the press conference, even though the booking was via the Respect Office and the bill was sent there.
How do the SWP hacks on this list explain that piece of duplicity and double-dealing?
urbanrevolt said:
Absolutely - so Rees spends £329 and many hours of his time arranging a press conference with the capitalist media, behind the backs of the Respect leadership so as to attack them in the national press, while his own members are facing attack from employers. Strange sense of priorities.
Galloway, of course, has issued a statement condemning the sacking of Reissman, offered to do all he can and will be in Manchester this evening where he will no doubt offer whatever support is needed.
Rees will no doubt be in meetings with solicitors and accountants to get issues like his control of the Respect bank account sorted.
urbanrevolt
New Member
All I'm sayoing is let's proceed off what we know- there's enough damning evidence without going into speculation.
On the Galloway in support of Reissmann statement do you have a link? Or could you post it up here?
I think the bread and butter of building class politics and campaigns of the working class and the oppressed is the way to go- it is not counter posed to building a new party of the working class but absolutely essential preparatory work.
It would be excellent if Galloway agreed to go on a public platform with McDonnell, Corbyn, Benn and anyone else willing to make a public statement in support of Reissmann and invite Dave Prentis to attend. I think this is a massively important struggle.
On the Galloway in support of Reissmann statement do you have a link? Or could you post it up here?
I think the bread and butter of building class politics and campaigns of the working class and the oppressed is the way to go- it is not counter posed to building a new party of the working class but absolutely essential preparatory work.
It would be excellent if Galloway agreed to go on a public platform with McDonnell, Corbyn, Benn and anyone else willing to make a public statement in support of Reissmann and invite Dave Prentis to attend. I think this is a massively important struggle.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
urbanrevolt said:
I've sent you the contact details by PM. Galloway is travelling to Manchester this evening and will also be in the neighbourhood on Sunday. It would be good for him to issue a statement of support to the local press and into the blogosphere.
I do not think there will be any doubt about him going on platforms with the labour left on this issue - it would also be good if we could get a statement from Wareing, as a North West MP.
I'll be going this evening, for a while.
urbanrevolt
New Member
OK thanks. I've tried the numbers you gave and left a message and on e-mail.
However, in meantime have had another e-mail saying a full public statement should be releasable by Friday. I'm hoping the McDonnell one will be out before then.
I may see you at the meeting tonight.
However, in meantime have had another e-mail saying a full public statement should be releasable by Friday. I'm hoping the McDonnell one will be out before then.
I may see you at the meeting tonight.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
The journalist from the East London Advertiser has confirmed that the talks between the LibDems and SWP/Rahman/Khan group on Tower Hamlets Council were about coalition, not routine council business.
Still no comment from the SWP.
Still no comment from the SWP.
Fisher_Gate said:
Not having been there, but my understanding is that the 4 RESPECT councillors at no point considered for a second any kind of coalition. The Lib Dems may have offered one. In which case the 'talks' would have gone Lib Dem: Would you consider a coalition? OR: No.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Groucho said:
Precisely - you were not there, neither was I. Journalists have clearly reported the LibDem side of the story, which is that there were definite talks on forming a coalition.
So, the question remains - why do the SWP or Oli Rahman not make a full statement explaining where and when the meeting or meetings took place, who was there, and what was discussed, instead of all these vague comments that a coalition was not agreed, leaving completely open the question about whether it was contemplated?
Given the seriousness of the claim, it is the SWP who should be demanding such a statement, and SWP members who should be demanding that their leadership insist on such a statement from their members (or else expel them for refusing to come clean).
Until we get that full statement, the only explanation that makes sense is that the talks did included coalition, but the SWP/Rahman cannot claim that they did not, because the LibDems would blow the gaff.
It also means that anyone who ever meets these charlatans would be well advised to have a hidden tape recorder to make sure that they don't lie afterwards.
Similar threads
