Was reliable you cunt
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Initial "Platform" signatories by branch:
Bristol South
Brixton (x3)
Camden (x2)
Canterbury (x3)
Edinburgh (x6)
Euston (x5)
Hackney East (x2)
Hornsey and Wood Green
Oxford (x3)
Leeds Central
Leicester (x4)
Leytonstone
Liverpool (x4)
Manchester Rusholme (x3)
Newcastle
Norwich (x2)
Nottingham (x2)
Portsmouth (x5)
Sheffield North (x3)
Sheffield South (x4)
Stoke on Trent (x2)
Sussex and Brighton (x7)
Swansea
Thanet
Tottenham (x2)
Tower Hamlets
Wandsworth and Merton (x2)
Wigan
York
80 total in 33 branches (plus four expelled)
Initial "Faction" signatories by branch:
Goldsmiths (x2)
Norwich
Birmingham (x5)
Brighton (x3)
Brixton
Bury (x2)
Cambridge
Camden
Croydon
Edinburgh
Euston (x7)
Glasgow
Hackney (x5)
Hackney South (x2)
Hornsey and Wood Green
Islington (x3)
Kent (x2)
Leeds (x2)
Leicester
Lewisham
Liverpool (x2)
Manchester (x3)
Newham
Norwich
Oxford (x3)
South London
Tooting
Walthamstow (x6)
No branch given (x5)
(66 signatories, 28 branches, 5 have no branch given)
Branches which passed a recall conference motion:
Aberdeen
Canterbury
Croydon
Edinburgh
Hull
Liverpool
Middlesbrough
Manchester Rusholme
+at least two others.
Branches which passed some other critical motion:
Brighton
Brixton
Bury
Euston
Lewisham
Norwich
Portsmouth
Tower Hamlets
Wandsworth and Merton
Bristol South
Brixton (x3)
Camden (x2)
Canterbury (x3)
Edinburgh (x6)
Euston (x5)
Hackney East (x2)
Hornsey and Wood Green
Oxford (x3)
Leeds Central
Leicester (x4)
Leytonstone
Liverpool (x4)
Manchester Rusholme (x3)
Newcastle
Norwich (x2)
Nottingham (x2)
Portsmouth (x5)
Sheffield North (x3)
Sheffield South (x4)
Stoke on Trent (x2)
Sussex and Brighton (x7)
Swansea
Thanet
Tottenham (x2)
Tower Hamlets
Wandsworth and Merton (x2)
Wigan
York
80 total in 33 branches (plus four expelled)
Initial "Faction" signatories by branch:
Goldsmiths (x2)
Norwich
Birmingham (x5)
Brighton (x3)
Brixton
Bury (x2)
Cambridge
Camden
Croydon
Edinburgh
Euston (x7)
Glasgow
Hackney (x5)
Hackney South (x2)
Hornsey and Wood Green
Islington (x3)
Kent (x2)
Leeds (x2)
Leicester
Lewisham
Liverpool (x2)
Manchester (x3)
Newham
Norwich
Oxford (x3)
South London
Tooting
Walthamstow (x6)
No branch given (x5)
(66 signatories, 28 branches, 5 have no branch given)
Branches which passed a recall conference motion:
Aberdeen
Canterbury
Croydon
Edinburgh
Hull
Liverpool
Middlesbrough
Manchester Rusholme
+at least two others.
Branches which passed some other critical motion:
Brighton
Brixton
Bury
Euston
Lewisham
Norwich
Portsmouth
Tower Hamlets
Wandsworth and Merton
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I make that 48 branches with at least one oppositionist present, so the spread isn't bad. 146 have signed up so far. It's also worth noting that quite a few people seem to be unaffiliated oppositionists, given that there are branches which passed recall motions without having a single platform or faction signatory in them and others which passed such motions with one or two.
As against that, it's hard to know how many branches the two strands of oppositionists actually control in practice. A lot would depend on whether less involved members side with their local oppositionists or their local loyalists.
As against that, it's hard to know how many branches the two strands of oppositionists actually control in practice. A lot would depend on whether less involved members side with their local oppositionists or their local loyalists.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
lol Random it is top notch analysis he's done true enough!
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Stockport Plaza 20th April.
We will be calling for a general strike in support of this event. ( I think there is a spiritualist and a medium on the week after if anyone is interested)
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I blame insomnia.
I'm a bit curious about the "oppositional" branches with no declared oppositionists in them. Places like Hull, Aberdeen, Middlesbrough. Are they just out of the (London based) loop of either factional leadership? Or are they people who are opposed to the CC but suspicious of the factionalists?
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Alan Gibbons, ex swp, on Sky News just now speaking passionately about library closures. Unless the cc want to see the likes of Stack and Barker on the outside too they need to solve the riddle of how to keep the faction in while losing the platform.
Well? Was my source reliable then? Think so knobhead.
I can vouch for one of the two others but that would be personally identifying info and I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DARK SIDE ... OH NO.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Wash your mouth out with soap and water.
Has Stack resigned as your reliable source stated?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
That's been roughly their game plan from the start: Split the hard and soft oppositionists. But the problem is that action against the "hard" lot risks inflaming the soft lot. Davidson, for instance, was in the "soft" pre-conference faction but is now in the platform, and that's without the CC going on an expulsion spree.
And there's the additional complication that this stuff is, uniquely in terms of SWP splits, newsworthy. And the key people in the platform are well connected in the media. You don't need to be a spin doctor to work out what angle the papers will take should they start expelling them.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
True but a lot easier to do if they listen to the faction and lance the festering delta case boil.
i'm obviously wrong if you saw him as recent as two years ago - apologies.
If you see him again you might mention that he isn't in fact dead - he may want too know
yeah from the dc. sorry about the abuse comrade XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Its probably also safe to reinstate the turncoat epithet. What a trajectory though - SWP loyalist, NUM loyalist, RJB Mining (ie significant beneficiaries of the assault upon the NUM) loyalist, and now, an SWP oppositionist!
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I'm not even sure if that's true now. After all, why have the "vacillators" chosen now to form a faction?
It seems to me to be a direct response to last weekend's NC and them Monday's CC, which is to say the clear preparations for a purge. And one of their demands is for no disciplinary action. It looks to me like an attempt to force the CC to back down on its plans to get rid of what is now the Platform. The CC has already shown unprecedented weakness in this row - nobody has ever gotten away with thumbing their nose at the leadership this loudly and for this long in public without being swiftly ejected before.
I'd have previously said that no SWP CC would dream of taking this from uppity members, but it seems to me that the "vacillators" may think that the CC is so weak that they can push it back entirely. So the CC are left with a choice: Call their bluff and risk a huge split or back down and lose all authority.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
There is only one option for them then.
yep - call their bluff
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Every single dispute in the SWP's history provides strong supporting evidence for that. But, yet, there are a lot of unusual things about this row: The fact that they haven't long ago expelled the public dissidents at the very least is merely the most obvious.
The "Faction" people, the old lags and third tier leaders, do have access to better information than we do - Bergfeld was on the CC up until a few days ago, and Choonara still seems to be. Their gamble seems to be that the CC has lost its bottle.
I still think that expulsions are their most likely move. But I'm not quite 100% sure of it anymore.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Hold your nerve nige, the leninists steed shall charge - the prof is working it up to a proper lather as we speak,
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I still think that's the most likely course, by a distance.
I note though that someone in the comments on SU is claiming that they've been told the Faction now has 300 signatories. That's third hand and obviously not to be taken at face value, mind you.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think that would change things if true - in the short term at least. That would def extend the game.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Yes.
Although, it's difficult to see what kind of fudge/compromise could really be arranged.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
To paraphrase Dr Johnson: When a person does not like cricket, they do not like life.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
The biggest problem is the range of positions within the faction (excluding the platform). There probably isn't agreement among the faction about what should happen to the hard core in the platform. Makes a negotiated settlement with the prof difficult when Stack won't be speaking for everyone.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's both the strength and the weakness. Negotiated peace with some is going to come at a very heavy cost and spur on those who want more. Key thing for CC is to use the faction in the short term, play on it's loyalty and its range of differences.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I suspect that opposition to expulsions is probably the overwhelming preference of people in the Faction. Although how absolute that preference is may vary considerably.
Serious question:
Assume for a moment that the CC does lose it's bottle, how could it arrange a compromise? What it could it offer?
Similar threads
