SWP expulsions and squabbles

[Spanky Longhorn]

" If you really care about this"


Sorry but I don't, history moves on

perhaps time for Left Unity?

why the long face?

*ironically this eeyore does have an incredibly long face

 

[treelover]

Which 'eeyore'?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Which 'eeyore'?

you eeyore

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I honestly believe a year from now the SWP will continue to be a major force for good in the world

Do you honestly really believe this? Leaving aside the fact that politically I think the SWP is totally stalinoid and does far more harm than good with things like the anti-cuts movement, do you really think it is, or has ever been, a major anything? It can't even be regarded as anything like a major force in the UK, in fact it is an utterly marginalised organisation with virtually no connection to the working class. But on a world level? Seriously this is just delusional.

 

[treelover]

you eeyore

never met you...

you really are a bullying twat, for many years I never dissed anyone on here, but you have made a lifetime career out of it, I wonder how many have left here because of you, you represent a cynical decaying and soon to be extinct politico whose time is over,



so there!

 

[Red Cat]

Sorry Red Cat, wasn't being rude, just too busy admiring the view. I think the honest answer is the party couldn't (or thought it couldn't) afford to lose another cc member so soon after the Counterfire split and the people who dealt with this case just had too much political stake in the outcome to be completely objective. Stack was and decided there was a case to answer. But he was a minority of one. Then once the decision was made everything else had to follow. If there's one thing this tradition does well its defend a decision once made (I like to think that explains much of my thinking on this). What made things so much worse was the fact that there was an opposition waiting in the wings, looking for a chance to strike - even though they may not have been conscious of their own need to break at an earlier stage- and the fight against that project has given people like me an excuse not to admit what was blatantly obvious about this case from the word go. Namely that the group of people who judged it never should have. And that is no slight on them. It is not an inch of a concession to the crazy argument that the SWP is a sexist organisation. That notion is just mad. But pure and simple, the people deciding if MS had done wrong should never have been some of his closest colleagues.

So. What now? Clearly the party will survive this if it decides to tough it out without admitting the mistake. And the attempts to exclude it or people associated with the case from left events / actions or just heckling them will eventually lose its force because it's just daft. There are people on left platforms associated with parties responsible for much worse than this. But for the sake of simple justice and the good conscience of those who are staying with the SWP , there needs to be a reckoning with what went on beyond the "this case is closed" stance.

Haven't got time to post my thoughts as visiting family but thanks for replying bb.

And enjoy Athens!

 

[marty21]

The Left Unity project does sadden me, because it looks like the first time since the Socialist Alliance that an admittedly small proportion of those involved in a national project are people who are genuinely new to active "left" or pro-working class politics, and will inevitably be driven off by the shit that goes with it.

It does remind me of the Socialist Alliance, which I had great hopes for until the inevitable collapse

 

[Scribbling S]

Also , on "if there's one thing this tradition does well its defend a decision once made" - isn't true at all - during my membership the SWP significantly reversed its stand from both the start of the Miners Strike and the start of the Poll Tax - and was all the better for it. Other people on the left had it much better than the SWP on both, the party recognised it, and totally changed position and was much better and stronger as a result. That would be doubly true now. I think there are a couple of reasons why the "we've started driving in this mad direction so we may as well crash in to the wall repeatedly" strategy seems to have taken hold. Firsly "this tradition" - I don't remember ever being part of a "tradition", that sounds so wierd and ossified. Maybe I am blanking it out, but I just don't remember the word being bandied about so much, it sounds more like Morris Dancing than Marxism. Secondly, the turnaround on the Miners and the Poll Tax wasn't perceived as a threat from the members against the CC, so didn't lead to this wierd "obey me!" stuff from the top:- ironically, at the point where the SWP has to admit that many CC members are capable of the most appaling screw ups (because I assume that is the 'official' party line on Rees, German , Bambery), it won't admit to the one mistake that is really killing the party. Only half the people inside the party believe the "line". Nobody outside it does, and really it causes, frankly, revulsion in a way that making a mistake about Anti Poll Tax Unions never did. The last discussion I had with a "loyalist" - no doubt a good militant and active socialist - they said the party had to stand this way to "defend the intergrity of the Disputes Commission" - that's where misleadership takes you, stuck with a strategy that makes the SWP look wierd and unpleasant under a banner "defend the integrity of the disputes commission", which sounds like some Maoist group, not the SWP. One of the most pathetic things about Plan Callinicos is that it actually burns up "Delta" in the process - this mad plan was meant to be a defence of "Delta" , but he would have been far better off if the Disputes Committee had followed Pat S's lead, accepted they couldn't rule on rape, but said there was evidence of harrasment, and that he faced higher standards as a leading member, and expelled him for x2 years : At least then he could have been looking to return to some political role in 2014. Even if he resigned "for the greater good" he could be looking at returning to significant political activity, with some sort of penance, in 2014, 2015. As it is, it is hard to imagine the party giving him any public job for many more years. So as well as burning up the student groups, tarnishing the reputation, burning bridges with many in the wider left, poisoning recruitment, the pigheaded "I'm in charge" approach has helped destroy the man it was supposed to be for. You can hope the "class struggle" will come to the rescue like the 5th cavalry over the hill, but I think this is all down to people we know making decisions in hired rooms. I'd say again to Bolshieboy, if you have cottoned on to how bad this mistake is, I'd get in touch with every single friend, acquaintance or whatever who still has any relationship with the SWP and say "turn back before its too late"

 

[TremulousTetra]

I used to be in the swp and didn't find it an unsafe space for women. In fact I found it full of people genuinely committed to fighting sexism. I really do pity those people still in the organisation who are. And reading the posts of RMP3 and it's ilk has made me question whether I was just blind to the kind of hideous attitudes clearly present. "Ah, those teenagers are often predatory. Poor sexually aggressive old men, what are they to do?" WTF?!

the whole point of the image, and what was written on her chest, was no matter how provocatively I dress, "I'm still not asking for it" (any kind of abuse including rape). The interference that was meant to be taken from me putting that image under my writing was, no matter what I've said I am not inferring there was any kind of asking for it (abuse) in young gay men seeking out older gay men (the example I gave) or women.

At no point have I condoned any kind, ANY KIND of abusive relationship. Just said I am not prepared judge relationship ONLY on the basis of age difference.

 

[TremulousTetra]

To be fair to RMP3 (not something I thought I'd be writing!) there are quite a few cases coming out now, so perhaps it's not surprising that he's mixing them up.

But seriously, yes, he is being totally disingenuous. If it were just the age difference, perhaps some of his arguments excuses might hold up, but there's also the fact that Smith was in a position of leadership/authority, the fact that it was secret because Smith was ostensibly in a long-term relationship with someone else, and the fact (and this is relevant whether we like it or not) that there is always potentially a power imbalance between a man and a woman, even if all else is equal (which in this case it's clearly not).

That's before we even start on what happen once W went to the Party, and before we consider the nature and character of Smith himself, who many sources describe as an aggressive bully.

Adding it all together, dismissing this by attempting to argue that criticising a relationship between two people of such different ages is an indication of bourgeois morality is fucking ludicrous.

that is disingenuous, because I clearly stated I was ignoring those factors, and just making a single point about age difference relationships several times, including this one;

it's not particularly that it is Marx, it's just a well-known example. You could've took my early example of the young gay man claiming to be a predator of older men. My single point is about, the age difference and doing it behind a wife's back, which October lost judged as enough to make him stand down. But hey Ho.

I've also made it very clear throughout the thread I AM NOT defending the organisation. I've chose not to defend the organisation. That people want to shoehorn my comments into that framework, is not my fault. What do I have to say?

I would say once again, that the SWP did something wrong, doesn't make misrepresenting their ideas right ie shibboleth.

And just to make it abundantly clear that again, in no way am I defending any type of abusive relationship.

 

[dennisr]

the crazy fellas back...

 

[leyton96]

Socialist Party EC statement on Steve Hedley and the RMT investigation: http://m.socialistparty.org.uk/arti...-concludes-steve-hedley-has-no-case-to-answer

 

[bolshiebhoy]

One to prove the game ain't over quite yet. When we stopped SEK comrades flyposting by the Omonia metro station earlier and asked for a poster to take home to England they immediately offered one and said "you realise we are the sister organisation of the swp?" Only ruined slightly by mrs bb's observation that this picture was taken by her in a 5 star hotel.

 

[imposs1904]

One to prove the game ain't over quite yet. When we stopped SEK comrades flyposting by the Omonia metro station earlier and asked for a poster to take home to England they immediately offered one and said "you realise we are the sister organisation of the swp?" Only ruined slightly by mrs bb's observation that this picture was taken by her in a 5 star hotel.

yep, you're Irish.

 

[barney_pig]

One to prove the game ain't over quite yet. When we stopped SEK comrades flyposting by the Omonia metro station earlier and asked for a poster to take home to England they immediately offered one and said "you realise we are the sister organisation of the swp?" Only ruined slightly by mrs bb's observation that this picture was taken by her in a 5 star hotel.

I thought he'd be slimmer.

 

[The39thStep]

Socialist Party EC statement on Steve Hedley and the RMT investigation: http://m.socialistparty.org.uk/arti...-concludes-steve-hedley-has-no-case-to-answer

Are the RMT a fit and proper organisation to carry out an investigation of domestic abuse into one their leading members?

 

[cesare]

How was the investigation and decision making handled, does anyone know?

 

[imposs1904]

One to prove the game ain't over quite yet. When we stopped SEK comrades flyposting by the Omonia metro station earlier and asked for a poster to take home to England they immediately offered one and said "you realise we are the sister organisation of the swp?" Only ruined slightly by mrs bb's observation that this picture was taken by her in a 5 star hotel.

Did you used to paper sales at the Brunswick Centre in the early to mid 90s?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

....

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

....

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I do really think this case should not be discussed on this thread - and probably shouldn't be on here at all to be honest.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I thought he'd be slimmer.

I thought I remembered him being good looking must have been someone else

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Fair enough. I thought as the link to the Socialist Party statement had been put up then it was felt differently. But won't comment any more and will edit my posts.

 

[articul8]

How was the investigation and decision making handled, does anyone know?

This is a perflectly legit question though. Her account - assuming what she says is true - suggests it isn't at all competent, with questions like why weren't your injuries worse amongst other howlers

 

[Nigel Irritable]

questions like why weren't your injuries worse amongst other howlers

Without commenting on the specifics of the RMT investigation this comment sprang from (because I know nothing about their procedures):

It is widely accepted that there are some lines of questioning that should not be permitted in some kinds of cases, ie that sexual assault complainants should not be questioned about their previous sexual histories (although the criminal law does still in fact allow that under some circumstances). But it seems to me that some people are proposing a rather different standard, that complainants in a wider range of cases should not be asked any questions which might reasonably be seen as sceptical.

It seems to me that it would be extremely difficult for investigators, working for any body, to hold an adequate investigation of any serious allegation without exploring apparent inconsistencies in a complaint and putting any counter-claims to a complainant.

 

[Jean-Luc]

I do really think this case should not be discussed on this thread - and probably shouldn't be on here at all to be honest.

Maybe, but the neither should the SWP cases have been. Some might argue that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander especially as the gander has been prominent in criticising the goose. In neither case is anybody here is in a position to judge what actually happened. So there's no point in discussing them. Time to archive this thread?

 

[oskarsdrum]

the SP deserve to be hammered in the same way as the SWP have been for that response, the political issues at stake are almost identical. 'no case to answer' is ludicrous, we all know the number of cases where men get away with sexist violence is massive whereas the number of false complaints by women is tiny. you can't respond to such a case without risking injustice to one of the parties, but the evidence would have to be extraordinary to justify validating the man's inherent advantage in much a case, in our oppressive society.

where the 'bourgeois state' responds to a similar case in council housing the woman's protection would overrule any other considerations and rightly so.

also if the accused is known to have made misogynist statements belittling mental health issues in the past, then that isn't irrelevant because it impacts on the accused's credibility as a witness. and witness credibility is a key factor in assessing the evidence in any such case.

very disappointed by that response, whatever the facts of this individual case may be. but will the SP internal culture be up to anything more than the SWP's?

 

[cesare]

Hang on - didn't he resign from the SP before they were forced into carrying out their own investigation and then making a decision? Surely the most one can criticise them for now is if there's any hint of just ratifying the RMT's decision without any investigation of their own?

 

[dennisr]

Hang on - didn't he resign from the SP before they were forced into carrying out their own investigation and then making a decision? Surely the most one can criticise them for now is if there's any hint of just ratifying the RMT's decision without any investigation of their own?

Then again how can they do an investigation of their own?

 

[cesare]

Then again how can they do an investigation of their own?

Well they can't really, can they. So they're not in a position to ratify the RMT's decision.