what no "pitifully small swc demo" thread?

[Random]

this is the only reference i could find to last weekend's swc demo in the new social worker.

No, there were also articles focusing on the London and the Washington demos. THe London one was described as attended by 'tens of thousands', and the Washington one by 'hundreds of thousands', but of which are claims that are supportable -- if very different from that claimed by SWPers earlier.

A return to reason brought on by the SW's editors?

 

[flimsier]

And thats from somebody who's told us to vote labour since the beginning of time!
But im sorry to see that the old boy is going senile. Or perhas he felt sorry for you and thought he'd give you nice comforting words.

He's been saying this for many years, despite his differences with the SWP.

 

[Groucho]

this is the only reference i could find to last weekend's swc demo in the new social worker.

rebel, if it really had been a reasonable turnout, don't you think that it might have received a somewhat larger report?

There was a full page on-line report of the demo.

J_W. Tony Benn has endorsed the SW appeal each year for some years now. He is President of the StWC (which he describes as the most important movement of his lifetime) and regularly debates with the SWP at Marxism which he also endorses as a 'university of the left'. He opposes RESPECT because he remains loyal to the LP (as he sees it the 'true LP' rather than NL) and believes that RESPECT are splitting the left vote. If all socialists and peace campaigners joined the LP instead of setting up numerous rival small parties on the fringes...he says.

I have a lot of respect for Benn. Our PCS strike last year over jobs saw Tony Benn joining our demonstration and chatting with us despite not having been invited to speak at the rally (there were lesser speakers than he aplenty). He is a very genuine bloke. But he is wrong about LP.

 

[Pickman's model]

groucho & random, you're both right.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2005/1970/1970_05.pdf



but they do repeat the 100,000 arsery on the front page.

 

[james_walsh]

He is a very genuine bloke. But he is wrong about LP.

He's also wrong about socialist worker.The two could be connected.

 

[Pickman's model]

at the not inconsiderable risk of incurring rebel warrior's feeble ire, i don't think that the police are quite so ready to entirely manipulate the attendances at demonstrations these days as they were in the '70s, '80s and (at least) early '90s. in recent years they have been much more in accordance with reality.

eg:

http://www.copyriot.com/unefarce/police/index-Dateien/june18.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/af/online/j18/reflec5.html

both the city police in the first link and the anarchist federation in the second link quote the same figure for the turnout on june 18 - 6,000. i was at first wary of that number as it at the time appeared higher due to the area covered by the protest; but i believe it's about right (as - obviously - do the af! )

 

[Random]

but they do repeat the 100,000 arsery on the front page.

I can't see that -- they do repeat the nonsense in a caption to one of the London pictures, but picture captions are notorious for being lightly subbed.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can't see that -- they do repeat the nonsense in a caption to one of the London pictures, but picture captions are notorious for being lightly subbed.

it's in the pdf of page one.

 

[Random]

it's in the pdf of page one.

Yeah, I see it, in the caption for the p1 picture. As I said before, that's a ludicrously large over-estimate.

 

[Groucho]

at the not inconsiderable risk of incurring rebel warrior's feeble ire, i don't think that the police are quite so ready to entirely manipulate the attendances at demonstrations these days as they were in the '70s, '80s and (at least) early '90s. in recent years they have been much more in accordance with reality.

That is not my view. At the 1million plus whoknowshowfuckinbigitwasabsolutelyhuge 2003 anti-war demo the police first said 20,000. Then 10s of 1,000s. Then agreed with Livingstone that 1 million plus was a safe bet. Then released an official statement saying 'over 100,000'!

On the G8 Gleaneagles protest they tried to ban the police then allowed a certain restricted number (3,000 or 5,000 I can't remember). They then attempted to stop thousands from joining the march saying that the 'agreed' figure had been exceeded before giving in and allowing all to march. The figure they then gave to the media was their original restricted number.

Strangely I find that Sky News tend to be more honest/accurate if they have their helecopter out to estimate numbers.

All estimates are just that - estimates. Demonstration organisers will tend to estimate optimistically. The police deliberately downplay numbers (except in their estimation of turn out to the Countryside Alliance demonstrations - wonder why!).

 

[Pickman's model]

That is not my view. At the 1million plus whoknowshowfuckinbigitwasabsolutelyhuge 2003 anti-war demo the police first said 20,000. Then 10s of 1,000s. Then agreed with Livingstone that 1 million plus was a safe bet. Then released an official statement saying 'over 100,000'!

On the G8 Gleaneagles protest they tried to ban the police then allowed a certain restricted number (3,000 or 5,000 I can't remember). They then attempted to stop thousands from joining the march saying that the 'agreed' figure had been exceeded before giving in and allowing all to march. The figure they then gave to the media was their original restricted number.

Strangely I find that Sky News tend to be more honest/accurate if they have their helecopter out to estimate numbers.

All estimates are just that - estimates. Demonstration organisers will tend to estimate optimistically. The police deliberately downplay numbers (except in their estimation of turn out to the Countryside Alliance demonstrations - wonder why!).

perhaps because the people on the countryside alliance demonstration bothered counting the attendance?

i must admit i'd forgotten the kerfuffle about the demonstration on 15/2.

but in the main the police are much nearer reality than they used to be.

 

[james_walsh]

They also talk rot about the cathers- i thought the idiot reviewing was going to say that islam was the same heart in a heartless world.

Heres a good book on the subject http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-7722171-0379013
only £5.51 plus post

 

[Pickman's model]

one thing the foul swp doubtless like about the cathars, is that they had their very own nobility grinding them down. anyone who cares to find out about the cathars can read any of the several books published about them in the last few years, although i'd recommend zoe oldenbourg's "massacre at montsegur: a history of the albigensian crusade" (london: phoenix, 2000), which has the virtue that you can get it elsewhere than bookmarks. jonathan sumption's book, which jw refers to above, is another excellent book on the subject.

 

[cockneyrebel]

There are those who think the anti-war movement must commit itself to a revolutionary defeatist, victory to the Resistance position. WP spring to mind.

Sorry BB, but this isn't true.

Workers Power said that that STWC should take up the united front position of "troops out now". We will raise and fight for the revolutionary defeatist position, and if a majority of the anti-war movement was won to it, that would obviously be a good thing.

It was totally wrong that the SWP voted down "troops out now" in the STWC, when that is clearly a valid thing to have a united front around.

 

[flimsier]

Of course it is. Strange that you failed to defend it when challenged at the time of the vote or rather, you got involved in some argument about whether it meant workers power wanted a workers' party now!

However, you can defend that in hindsight as much as you like.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

It was totally wrong that the SWP voted down "troops out now" in the STWC, when that is clearly a valid thing to have a united front around.

It might be valid in itself but there are all sorts of perfectly valid slogans that aren't appropriate at this stage of the game.

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry BB, but this isn't true.

Workers Power said that that STWC should take up the united front position of "troops out now". We will raise and fight for the revolutionary defeatist position, and if a majority of the anti-war movement was won to it, that would obviously be a good thing.

Why is this *the* "united front postion" btw? It's *a* position isn't it? Aren't there other positions to organise UF around?