Post by Mitch on Nov 10, 2004 12:32:59 GMT
A woman's right to choose, I had not realised that George Galloway was opposed to this - Trot sisters do you not choke at this one, and stand up to defend this long fought for right. Or what of Lindsey German's comments on 'Wrespect' - this is not a socialist organisation. Trouble tut mill hey?!
WAKE UP - AND BE AS CLEVER AS THE LANCASHIRE WEATHER, BUT TWICE AS FREE!
REPORTS FROM THE OCTOBER RESPECT CONFERENCE
JOHN NICHOLSON
Manchester delegate
Conference started with a really good debate on ‘War and imperialism’. Most, if not all, agreed with the direction of that discussion, on how to fight Bush and Blair. Contributions from all the different speakers were received really positively.
However, for me there was a huge low point by the end of the first day - not just because motions on abortion rights and others were defeated, but because of the scale of the defeat. At this point, particularly the SWP introduced the notion that the movers were being “deliberately divisive”. That was a complete insult - particularly to those women and men who have fought for of a woman’s right to choose for many, many years. It was totally out of order.
This attitude was reinforced as soon as we got back into the hall on the second day - I don’t think there was anything positive at all on the Sunday. It felt like back in the 80s, when I was involved in the Labour left. We encouraged any delegates we had at Labour Party conference to give out leaflets and petitions. They would come back, having of course totally failed to do so, saying, ‘You don’t understand what the atmosphere was like. People simply wouldn’t take our stuff.’
That’s what it felt like today. As soon as there was the slightest hint of dissent you were targeted as a troublemaker. I got the impression that this was wider than the actual SWP membership. There seemed to have been quite a few people there who have come into politics through the anti-war movement. I don’t want to be disparaging about anybody coming new into politics, but, on the other hand, they were very rightwing.
A lot of views that were expressed from the platform about housing, about anti-social behaviour orders, council tax, etc were not challenged and the leadership view was simply accepted. People simply did not put any speaker’s slips in - which is of course the reason that the chair got through conference so swiftly. I am not used to being at a political event where people do not seek to speak. There were more than 300 people and so many resolutions were moved formally, such as on proportional representation. This is a very important issue, which I have spent many, many hours discussing - you need to have some sort of debate on such questions.
Then of course we had the sequence of attacks by Michael Lavalette, Salma Yaqoob, Chris Bambery, Lindsey German and others. They were making accusations of being “deliberately divisive”, “dishonest”, “undemocratic”, “deceptive” and then finally saying that people were not in favour of the anti-war movement - attacks that were thrown at every single mover of motions in the constitutional section. These were motions that were calling for an internal newspaper; for democratic platforms inside the party; for proposals on how the national council could work better, etc. Simple, constructive motions that were not meant to be divisive at all (such an accusation may or may not be true in relation to the CPGB’s motions).
But the idea that those dissenting motions were somehow targeting George Galloway, because he said that he cannot be expected to live on a worker’s wage and he does not agree with a woman’s right to choose, is just patently silly. I would say that those movers were actually more in tune with George Galloway than they were with the SWP. The SWP have denied their own politics completely, in order to appeal to some unspecified group of people outside.
The worst thing for me was Lindsey German’s speech, saying this is “not a socialist organisation” and that as socialists we have failed to reach out to wider sections of society. Now that is almost word for word what Tony Blair said at the Labour Party conference in 1994 when he announced that clause four would be removed from the constitution. At that point I left the Labour Party and now I am leaving Respect.
If the room today had been full of all those newly politicised young people from all sorts of backgrounds that I am working with in the Manchester No Borders campaign and the anti-war movement, our task would have been to convince them that socialism is not what they have been taught at school. That it has nothing to do with Stalin’s dictatorship. But that was not what Lindsey German was doing today. She was saying that there is a more rightwing population out there that we need to bring on board. She is looking at a very respectable set of people to whom we can appeal for votes.
Electorally, there is of course some sort of logic to this: people who can vote normally live in houses, are registered, are not migrants, are not homeless, are not destitute - in other words, a stable, sitting, residential population. Their views are well to the right of the organisations and people who have been involved in building the Socialist Alliance and Respect. I certainly do not want to be a part of this. I left the Labour Party with Arthur Scargill, because not only had Labour dismantled any commitment to socialism it ever had: it had removed any method of challenging the organisation from within. I have just witnessed Respect not only removing any direction towards socialism, but, by voting against the rights of platforms to organise, they have also removed the democratic possibility of challenging it.
This is not the end of politics. But there is a short-term problem: the SWP is the biggest force on the left in England and it is difficult to be involved in politics without engaging with them. But let’s see what happens in the general election. If they put all their eggs in the Respect basket, maybe they will suffer the consequences. There is a real possibility that many SWP and Respect members, who have been told that they will win seats and massive amounts of votes, will be awfully disappointed and demoralised.
The anti-war movement was a liberal movement, so we should not be surprised if the vast majority of people involved in it will be voting for the Liberal Democrats. The Socialist Alliance input into the Stop the War Coalition was never explicit. That was done on purpose by the SWP and it was wrong. Some of it was accidental, but it was never rectified. In consequence, you will have Charles Kennedy being able to present the Lib Dems as the anti-war party at the next election.
At some point, the left in this country has to stick with something. It cannot keep launching the Socialist Alliance, Respect and this or that. Even if it will take a long time to do it, the left has to sit together in the same room, talking through things and agreeing to stay together for a foreseeable future. I think this conference has made this prospect considerably harder. I cannot go to other people now and advocate that they join Respect. There is a better chance to get something useful out of the Campaign Group of MPs - and that is very depressing.
BEV LAIDLAW
Sheffield reserve delegate
Unfortunately, I had not been given notification of the deadline for motions and delegate nominations, so at our selection meeting the chair turned up with a pre-produced list of 11 people, which did not include me, although I had indicated for months that I would like to be delegate. I was finally elected as a reserve delegate - ie, number 12.
As only 10 of our 11 delegates turned up at conference, I asked if I could take up my position as replacement delegate. However, our local chair, Maxine Bowler (SWP, and newly elected member of Respect national council), told me from Saturday morning onwards that comrade Phil Turner was “on his way”. She said that she saw no need to actually phone him, so I offered to phone him instead in order to find out when exactly he would arrive. She refused to give me his mobile number.
At 3pm on Saturday I asked again if I could take up my elected position as a delegate. After all, Sheffield branch is entitled to 11 votes and we were one short throughout the day. She again told me he was on his way and that I couldn’t be a delegate. He eventually did turn up - at 2pm on Sunday, just two hours before conference ended!
In my union, the PCSU, the practice is obviously different: if somebody does not turn up, their position is taken over by the replacement - at least until they show up. It seemed quite clear to me that they did not want me in there.
The only motion that our branch submitted was the emergency resolution on the PCSU that I put forward and it is very disappointing that as an observer I was not allowed to move it. I will certainly report this at our next union meeting where a fair number of Respect members will be present. I will also complain at my next Respect meeting that elected me a reserve delegate in the first place.
JIM JEPPS
Colchester delegate
I think the SWP tried to smear all those people who opposed their motions or put forward independently minded resolutions. Frankly, the repercussions of this lack of fraternal discussion will be that normal Respect members feel that they cannot raise their head any more or put forward heartfelt independent motions. If you want to build a democratic organisation and encourage debate you have to accept that some people will say things you disagree with.
WAKE UP - AND BE AS CLEVER AS THE LANCASHIRE WEATHER, BUT TWICE AS FREE!
REPORTS FROM THE OCTOBER RESPECT CONFERENCE
JOHN NICHOLSON
Manchester delegate
Conference started with a really good debate on ‘War and imperialism’. Most, if not all, agreed with the direction of that discussion, on how to fight Bush and Blair. Contributions from all the different speakers were received really positively.
However, for me there was a huge low point by the end of the first day - not just because motions on abortion rights and others were defeated, but because of the scale of the defeat. At this point, particularly the SWP introduced the notion that the movers were being “deliberately divisive”. That was a complete insult - particularly to those women and men who have fought for of a woman’s right to choose for many, many years. It was totally out of order.
This attitude was reinforced as soon as we got back into the hall on the second day - I don’t think there was anything positive at all on the Sunday. It felt like back in the 80s, when I was involved in the Labour left. We encouraged any delegates we had at Labour Party conference to give out leaflets and petitions. They would come back, having of course totally failed to do so, saying, ‘You don’t understand what the atmosphere was like. People simply wouldn’t take our stuff.’
That’s what it felt like today. As soon as there was the slightest hint of dissent you were targeted as a troublemaker. I got the impression that this was wider than the actual SWP membership. There seemed to have been quite a few people there who have come into politics through the anti-war movement. I don’t want to be disparaging about anybody coming new into politics, but, on the other hand, they were very rightwing.
A lot of views that were expressed from the platform about housing, about anti-social behaviour orders, council tax, etc were not challenged and the leadership view was simply accepted. People simply did not put any speaker’s slips in - which is of course the reason that the chair got through conference so swiftly. I am not used to being at a political event where people do not seek to speak. There were more than 300 people and so many resolutions were moved formally, such as on proportional representation. This is a very important issue, which I have spent many, many hours discussing - you need to have some sort of debate on such questions.
Then of course we had the sequence of attacks by Michael Lavalette, Salma Yaqoob, Chris Bambery, Lindsey German and others. They were making accusations of being “deliberately divisive”, “dishonest”, “undemocratic”, “deceptive” and then finally saying that people were not in favour of the anti-war movement - attacks that were thrown at every single mover of motions in the constitutional section. These were motions that were calling for an internal newspaper; for democratic platforms inside the party; for proposals on how the national council could work better, etc. Simple, constructive motions that were not meant to be divisive at all (such an accusation may or may not be true in relation to the CPGB’s motions).
But the idea that those dissenting motions were somehow targeting George Galloway, because he said that he cannot be expected to live on a worker’s wage and he does not agree with a woman’s right to choose, is just patently silly. I would say that those movers were actually more in tune with George Galloway than they were with the SWP. The SWP have denied their own politics completely, in order to appeal to some unspecified group of people outside.
The worst thing for me was Lindsey German’s speech, saying this is “not a socialist organisation” and that as socialists we have failed to reach out to wider sections of society. Now that is almost word for word what Tony Blair said at the Labour Party conference in 1994 when he announced that clause four would be removed from the constitution. At that point I left the Labour Party and now I am leaving Respect.
If the room today had been full of all those newly politicised young people from all sorts of backgrounds that I am working with in the Manchester No Borders campaign and the anti-war movement, our task would have been to convince them that socialism is not what they have been taught at school. That it has nothing to do with Stalin’s dictatorship. But that was not what Lindsey German was doing today. She was saying that there is a more rightwing population out there that we need to bring on board. She is looking at a very respectable set of people to whom we can appeal for votes.
Electorally, there is of course some sort of logic to this: people who can vote normally live in houses, are registered, are not migrants, are not homeless, are not destitute - in other words, a stable, sitting, residential population. Their views are well to the right of the organisations and people who have been involved in building the Socialist Alliance and Respect. I certainly do not want to be a part of this. I left the Labour Party with Arthur Scargill, because not only had Labour dismantled any commitment to socialism it ever had: it had removed any method of challenging the organisation from within. I have just witnessed Respect not only removing any direction towards socialism, but, by voting against the rights of platforms to organise, they have also removed the democratic possibility of challenging it.
This is not the end of politics. But there is a short-term problem: the SWP is the biggest force on the left in England and it is difficult to be involved in politics without engaging with them. But let’s see what happens in the general election. If they put all their eggs in the Respect basket, maybe they will suffer the consequences. There is a real possibility that many SWP and Respect members, who have been told that they will win seats and massive amounts of votes, will be awfully disappointed and demoralised.
The anti-war movement was a liberal movement, so we should not be surprised if the vast majority of people involved in it will be voting for the Liberal Democrats. The Socialist Alliance input into the Stop the War Coalition was never explicit. That was done on purpose by the SWP and it was wrong. Some of it was accidental, but it was never rectified. In consequence, you will have Charles Kennedy being able to present the Lib Dems as the anti-war party at the next election.
At some point, the left in this country has to stick with something. It cannot keep launching the Socialist Alliance, Respect and this or that. Even if it will take a long time to do it, the left has to sit together in the same room, talking through things and agreeing to stay together for a foreseeable future. I think this conference has made this prospect considerably harder. I cannot go to other people now and advocate that they join Respect. There is a better chance to get something useful out of the Campaign Group of MPs - and that is very depressing.
BEV LAIDLAW
Sheffield reserve delegate
Unfortunately, I had not been given notification of the deadline for motions and delegate nominations, so at our selection meeting the chair turned up with a pre-produced list of 11 people, which did not include me, although I had indicated for months that I would like to be delegate. I was finally elected as a reserve delegate - ie, number 12.
As only 10 of our 11 delegates turned up at conference, I asked if I could take up my position as replacement delegate. However, our local chair, Maxine Bowler (SWP, and newly elected member of Respect national council), told me from Saturday morning onwards that comrade Phil Turner was “on his way”. She said that she saw no need to actually phone him, so I offered to phone him instead in order to find out when exactly he would arrive. She refused to give me his mobile number.
At 3pm on Saturday I asked again if I could take up my elected position as a delegate. After all, Sheffield branch is entitled to 11 votes and we were one short throughout the day. She again told me he was on his way and that I couldn’t be a delegate. He eventually did turn up - at 2pm on Sunday, just two hours before conference ended!
In my union, the PCSU, the practice is obviously different: if somebody does not turn up, their position is taken over by the replacement - at least until they show up. It seemed quite clear to me that they did not want me in there.
The only motion that our branch submitted was the emergency resolution on the PCSU that I put forward and it is very disappointing that as an observer I was not allowed to move it. I will certainly report this at our next union meeting where a fair number of Respect members will be present. I will also complain at my next Respect meeting that elected me a reserve delegate in the first place.
JIM JEPPS
Colchester delegate
I think the SWP tried to smear all those people who opposed their motions or put forward independently minded resolutions. Frankly, the repercussions of this lack of fraternal discussion will be that normal Respect members feel that they cannot raise their head any more or put forward heartfelt independent motions. If you want to build a democratic organisation and encourage debate you have to accept that some people will say things you disagree with.
