SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Spanky Longhorn]

Exposing the trots as hypocrites is not a bad thing.

lol

 

[cesare]

Exposing the trots as hypocrites is not a bad thing.

Well it's bad if it's not true.

 

[DrRingDing]

I will say what I told you was the truth.....it's pretty bloody obvious too.

 

[DrRingDing]

Well it's bad if it's not true.

Who did you speak to there?

You know they are all card carrying Counterfire bar one or two.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Who did you speak to there?

You know they are all card carrying Counterfire bar one or two.

let the dissembling begin, anyway I'm off to bed

 

[cesare]

Ah, fuck it. He'll say if there's any substance to it.

 

[cesare]

.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Wow that was an interesting night everyone had there, glad I went to bed early

And for the record there is a working assumption in a majority of the posts on here that delta is guilty. I read the transcript like everyone else and the debate at least was fair. But for a lot of people on here the only way they'd be happy is if the transcript had detailed descriptions of w chopping delta's balls off. Neither of them should have been there as the debate wasn't about the detail of the case but rather the process used to judge that detail. It wasn't a public solidarity meeting (though by fuck W better have been treated with the compassion and absolute sensitivity Candy claims she was in private) over a proven miscarriage, it was a chance to hold the dc accountable and establish if they got it right in terms of process. Now whether it fulfilled that obligation is another matter entirely. But all the handwringing about w being allowed to speak misses the purpose of that conference session.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

PH criticising the prof is still the biggest shock of this thing for me. Tells me all I need to know about how this will ultimately play out at the special conf.

 

[The39thStep]

Was I right about Pat Stack?

only half right

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Many of the faction seem to be torn today. Welcoming the concession but hating the tone. Don't think they get it yet that once the immediate cause of this mess has been resolved (not that that's easy in itself!) there remains the fact that the Platform stared into the abyss far too long and it did indeed stare back.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Dude, your weird bloodlust is showing.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Seymour's Christ act does bring out the Nietzsche in me true enough.

Seriously though you've read the tone of the leading platform folk in their discussions with loyalists (and even moderate faction members) and there's no way they can stay in the same party for long.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Jeezus I hadn't realised how oblique people could be about these debates. Just seen a debate about the merits of Spielberg's Lincoln take off on a FB thread. And it wasn't about the film, not for a minute. Was about identity politics and the alleged failings of the white working class (albeit people were talking about the class a long time ago and on another continent). These divisions run very deep.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Seymour's Christ act does bring out the Nietzsche in me true enough.

Seriously though you've read the tone of the leading platform folk in their discussions with loyalists (and even moderate faction members) and there's no way they can stay in the same party for long.

Did Neil Davidson never really understand your tradition?

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Did Neil Davidson never really understand your tradition?

You mistake understanding with agreeing. I'm pretty sure butchers understands 'my' tradition better than most swpers for example

But yes as far back as Choonara's 2011 reply to Davidson on Permanent Revolution there are enough hints at how the failure to accept PR as a concept of useful historical analysis could have implications for the role of a (leninist) revolutionary minority party. In discussing Iran and Bolivia Choonara implicitly chides Davidson " the absence of a revolutionary party with sufficient size and experience is the central problem rather than the non-revolutionary nature of the working class." That sentence could be a one line summary of Callinicos' recent Leninism Unfinished reply to the Seymourites.

But people can move in more than one direction as the prof's own intelectual history shows! Not all the platform will be beyond redemption but with Seymour it's surely now only a question of when not if.

 

[newbie]

so will W, X and Delta be able to speak at, or even attend, the special conference?

It seems inconceivable that any organisation can formally set up a conference confrontation between accuser and accused over a question of rape.

whether it's dressed up as merely looking at whether the disputes process was fair or not.

How could anyone think that right?

Poring over the intimate details of a personal relationship through rousing speeches, emotional appeals and rhetorical flourishes is madness, even without the obviously asymmetrical balance of power and organisational opportunity.

Salacious details to be argued out in front of an audience of passionate activists, spooks and wannabe journalists. Then splashed all over the News of the World along with the background checks, doorstepping, CRB and health records, interviews with former partners and so on.

At least a modicum of decorum is required, surely.

 

[The39thStep]

Jeezus I hadn't realised how oblique people could be about these debates. Just seen a debate about the merits of Spielberg's Lincoln take off on a FB thread. And it wasn't about the film, not for a minute. Was about identity politics and the alleged failings of the white working class (albeit people were talking about the class a long time ago and on another continent). These divisions run very deep.

It was the hideously white working class in Lancashire who even though tens of thousands were in poverty on Poor Law relief due to the cotton shortage caused by the Union blockade of the Confederate ports voted to side against slavery and support the Union?
Lincoln wrote and thanked them.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

At least a modicum of decorum is required, surely.

Which is why the majority are agreed the details of the case are not to be discussed. Only in the rancid imagination of the Mail would a conference ever have a show of hands on the facts of the case.

 

[Oisin123]

Many of the faction seem to be torn today. Welcoming the concession but hating the tone. Don't think they get it yet that once the immediate cause of this mess has been resolved (not that that's easy in itself!) there remains the fact that the Platform stared into the abyss far too long and it did indeed stare back.

Again with the 'opposition = political deviation from the true Leninism that is the CC' refrain. It's the techno backbeat to this thread and its been going on so long now I hardly hear it. Your comment about Paul Holborrow is more interesting. Weren't he and Jan for very mild Molyneux-esque reforms back before the Counterfire split?

It seems to me that the CC have picked the place of battle and made sure the terrain favours them. But they might still lose. If I were in the SWP opposition I'd accept the fight and pull out all the stops in the battle for delegates. I'd also ensure that among the motions was a very soft acknowledgement that the rape accusation was not handled appropriately. That way even if the full range of demands isn't won e.g. reinstatement for the expelled 4, new CC elections, at least the foaming-mouthed toy Bolsheviks represented by the NC majority are given a check.

 

[two sheds]

And for the record there is a working assumption in a majority of the posts on here that delta is guilty.

I'd say there's a working assumption that any verdict made by a panel packed with Comrade Delta's mates is worthless. Worse than worthless because of the message given to other women who might consider making a similar complaint.

It was more than about retaining confidentiality, it was an attempt to cover up the details of the inquiry. There is nothing in the following that would have given away the identities of the people involved but the woman was still interrupted and talked over:

Sadia J: She was questioned about why she went for a drink with him, her witnesses were repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him, and you know, she was asked about (Karen begins to talk over Sadia to warn about providing details) … she was asked about relationships with other comrades including sexual relationships. All this was irrelevant to the case.

I presume the reason W wanted to speak was at least in part because of:

Sadia J: Her treatment afterwards has been worse. She feels completely betrayed. ... The disgusting lies and gossip going round about her has been really distressing and disappointing for her to hear, and the way her own witnesses have been treated in Birmingham hasn’t been much better.

... Is it right that a young woman has to plan her route to work avoiding paper-sellers, or that she comes away from a meeting crying because people refuse to speak to her? Is it right that her witnesses are questioned about their commitment to the party because they missed a branch meeting?

If she's been attacked in public by the rank and file then I can imagine she'd want to put her side in public.

I really am surprised that you t consider that the Chair's actions don't amount to a cover up, though. The complaints about the transcript being leaked, too. If the SWP is a beacon of transparancy and a model for a democratic operation then they should welcome this being shown to the rest of the world, not try and hide it like some grubby little secret.

Again - I think the discussion would have a very different flavour if we were talking about a bourgeois court that had acted in this way.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Weren't he and Jan for very mild Molyneux-esque reforms back before the Counterfire split?

Could be true but look at where JM is on all this.

 

[Athos]

so will W, X and Delta be able to speak at, or even attend, the special conference?

It seems inconceivable that any organisation can formally set up a conference confrontation between accuser and accused over a question of rape.

whether it's dressed up as merely looking at whether the disputes process was fair or not.

How could anyone think that right?

Poring over the intimate details of a personal relationship through rousing speeches, emotional appeals and rhetorical flourishes is madness, even without the obviously asymmetrical balance of power and organisational opportunity.

Salacious details to be argued out in front of an audience of passionate activists, spooks and wannabe journalists. Then splashed all over the News of the World along with the background checks, doorstepping, CRB and health records, interviews with former partners and so on.

At least a modicum of decorum is required, surely.

If one of the questions the forthcoming conference will consider is whether or not to reaffirm to decisions taken at the previous one (which will include whether or not to endorse the DC's findings in respect of W's allegations), then W must be heard. She can give crucial evidence regarding the procedural fairness of the DC's investigation. And this could be done without reference to the substance of her allegations. For instance, she could raise the issue of the suspect seeing her evidence in advance, whereas she was cross-examined without having had the opportunity to see his case. There is no reason to suggest that 'allowing' her to speak will result in W and Delta arguing over the facts of the alleged incident, and the conference voting on which of them it believes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Cmde Kimber - Beware the ides of March..

And the shoving hands on tube platforms of April.

 

[newbie]

If one of the questions the forthcoming conference will consider is whether or not to reaffirm to decisions taken at the previous one (which will include whether or not to endorse the DC's findings in respect of W's allegations), then W must be heard. She can give crucial evidence regarding the procedural fairness of the DC's investigation. And this could be done without reference to the substance of her allegations. For instance, she could raise the issue of the suspect seeing her evidence in advance, whereas she was cross-examined without having had the opportunity to see his case. There is no reason to suggest that 'allowing' her to speak will result in W and Delta arguing over the facts of the alleged incident, and the conference voting on which of them it believes.

She has the opportunity to add her testimony to any number of blogs whilst maintaining relative anonymity. She "must be heard" at conference: is that from behind a screen or does the SWP now expect those who allege rape to stand at a lectern & defend themselves?

tbf, I hope you're saying she should have the right to speak, rather than the duty or obligation, that it should be her choice, but adding your expectation on her to do so looks like you're suggesting she should be subjected to some sort of Vicky Price spotlight moment, in which case surely Jeremy Kyle is a better forum?

 

[Before Theory]

I would yes. If she was prepared to confront him at conferree then OK, that's her choice. But the SWP could not give her a platform while denying him one.

I would yes. If she was prepared to confront him at conferree then OK, that's her choice. But the SWP could not give her a platform while denying him one.

The SWP already gave Delta a platform - the 2011 conference when he got to speak for almost ten minutes, giving his "side" of the story, resulting in the infamous standing ovation and chants of "the workers united will never be defeated".

The CC faction led by Delta have already enjoyed numerous platforms to disseminate their "version" of events through whispering campaigns against the victim and her supporters, and outright censorship in expelling four members who wanted to takes the issue at conference 2013.

Don't think for one minute that this has been an equal fight.

I don't start from the assumption that Delta is guilty, I start from the assumption that a young woman making a complaint of sexual violence against a man in a position of power over her is not a liar.

I take the same starting point over the Jimmy Saville and Catholic Church scandals.

 

[redcogs]

Its hard to see that a conference simply dealing with the Delta abuse issue will pacify the discontents.

It is obvious that the Prof/Kimber bully controlling element are seeking to narrowly define the terms of debate at the March special, and all they want is reaffirmation of "the decisions of January’s conference and the NC, resolve recent debates, clarify some elements of the constitution and move the party forwards". Many of the oppo's will not find this acceptable for the equally obvious reason that what they appear to seek is a more open and responsive organisation which makes the intimidation of those with alternative political understandings a relic of history rather than a current modus.

It isn't a situation that can end well for either wing. We are definitely looking at a painful and messy long term demise of the swp if the hard loyalists succeed in thrashing the oppo's, which they must, unless the debate is widened to encompass the important matters being raised by dissident voices.

 

[ViolentPanda]

cos a lot of them are up to the same sort of thing?
one of the 'fringe benefits' of being an swp leader

Even if they're not (and I doubt the likes of "king" Al have the juice for it), ignoring that it may well have happened makes them come across as guilty of it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry, but I think an assumption of guilt is creeping into some posts.

Why do you think that might be?
Whilst I'm sure that CC loyalists would argue that it's because of external forces hating on the SWP, a case can also be made that "comrade" Delta's own past history of behaviour does NOT stand him in good stead. Blind eyes have been turned to his previous indulgences in "banter" and his fondness for physical contact with "it's just the sort of person he is" and the like being used as excuses. That doesn't make him guilty, but it will give some people in the party who are "in the know" pause when considering whether Delta is capable of and guilty of such actions, especially as anyone remotely informed about sexual offences will be aware that an offender usually travels along a spectrum, starting with stuff like inappropriate touching and ending with offenses of the sort of seriousness he's being accused of.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where did I say that yer cunt?

You tattooed it on your mum's clit.