SWP expulsions and squabbles

[tenniselbow]

I'm sorry you feel the statement was one sided. As far as I know the intention was to try to put forward a balanced position once all investigations were complete. Clearly following Andy Littlechilds statement there will be more investigations.

I honestly don't think the statement trys to take sides but of course people are entitled to have different views on a subject that is highly contested.

Have to agree with oskarsdrum here, leyton96. As we've been through on the thread already, it reads as a very one-sided statement. While the EC might have in fact taken a balanced and fair approach to the investigations, the issues press release read very much like it had come straight from the accused's camp. All that was really required was a report on the facts of the RMT findings, the police's decision not to pursue the case, and the fact that DV is very serious and taken seriously by the SP.

The link to the accused's blog was ridiculous in the context of a supposedly neutral press release, since the contents there were extremely hostile in tone towards the complainant and made a number of serious allegations against her. Whatever the circumstances of the case this seemed wholly unjustifiable to me. How does this square with your view of it as being balanced, Leyton96?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Not at all, I acknowledged that it was a difficult case. I'm just disappointed by the lack of balance in the statement

Be honest though - you're quite enjoying sticking the knife in. Understandable, it's not often that a labour hack gets to feel like they have the moral high ground.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Have to agree with oskarsdrum here, leyton96. As we've been through on the thread already, it reads as a very one-sided statement. While the EC might have in fact taken a balanced and fair approach to the investigations, the issues press release read very much like it had come straight from the accused's camp. All that was really required was a report on the facts of the RMT findings, the police's decision not to pursue the case, and the fact that DV is very serious and taken seriously by the SP.

The link to the accused's blog was ridiculous in the context of a supposedly neutral press release, since the contents there were extremely hostile in tone towards the complainant and made a number of serious allegations against her. Whatever the circumstances of the case this seemed wholly unjustifiable to me. How does this square with your view of it as being balanced, Leyton96?

I actually think making the statement full stop was the mistake. Completely impossible under those circumstances to make a statement that won't be viewed as one sided by someone or other. The truth is they really didn't need to make a statement at all.

 

[tenniselbow]

I actually think making the statement full stop was the mistake. Completely impossible under those circumstances to make a statement that won't be viewed as one sided by someone or other. The truth is they really didn't need to make a statement at all.

Yeah I can see that point of view. Given the (limited beyond the trainspotting left?) publicity the case had attracted I think they may have felt compelled to do so? I think a short but carefully worded statement would have sufficed for this. But as you say since the accused had already left the party, what was the point. It wasn't like they totally bodged and covered-up the case.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yeah I can see that point of view. Given the (limited beyond the trainspotting left?) publicity the case had attracted I think they may have felt compelled to do so? I think a short but carefully worded statement would have sufficed for this. But as you say since the accused had already left the party, what was the point. It wasn't like they totally bodged and covered-up the case.

If the two of us were to sit down and try and come up with a short statement I'm sure we'd have been able to agree on something. But I'd guarantee that someone would find something in it to take offence at - and to an extent I could understand it too, it's an incredibly sensitive issue and nobody knows the facts - certainly not the EC. I've only been asked about it twice outside the SP and these boards and on neither occasion did anyone assume a cover up - and both were satisfied when I told them how it had been dealt with.

I just don't think it was necessary - it's asking for trouble.

Edit: and they had already released a statement stressing that this was a very serious issue and that he'd resigned his membership and that it was now for the RMT and the legal system to deal with - I don't think it was necessary to add anything to that.

 

[tenniselbow]

I've only been asked about it twice outside the SP and these boards and on neither occasion did anyone assume a cover up - and both were satisfied when I told them how it had been dealt with.

Oh totally, I was just drawing a contrast with the SWP case. Very different.

 

[SpackleFrog]

RW?

RH I would guess, LR has recently been dismissed which the PCS there are challenging because he's a workplace rep and has been unfairly sacked, so that would explain what CPGB and AWL were doing palling up.

 

[The39thStep]

Oh totally, I was just drawing a contrast with the SWP case. Very different.

Appeal submitted to RMT

http://socialistunity.com/more-on-the-rmts-domestic-violence-investigation/#.UWQtlFeQOx0

 

[J Ed]

http://forgetoday.com/news/nus-conf...-conference-following-denial-of-rape-apology/

 

[SLK]

http://forgetoday.com/news/nus-conf...-conference-following-denial-of-rape-apology/

Yes,he got fifteen votes, less than RON. I remember us having sixty plus delegates back in the day!

The Beecroft speech is on YouTube - it's pretty mad but any SWP member would feel uncomfortable watching or listening to it.

 

[belboid]

RH I would guess, LR has recently been dismissed which the PCS there are challenging because he's a workplace rep and has been unfairly sacked, so that would explain what CPGB and AWL were doing palling up.

yup, that's who I meant. ,shudders.

I see Paul Le Blanc is speaking on “Leninism in the 21st Century” at Marxism. Their new spirit of openness and friendly debate.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I almost feel sorry for the kid they wheeled out to defend the indefensible in front of a hostile (and partisan) crowd. It suits all the other factions to have them be pariahs.

 

[barney_pig]

yup, that's who I meant. ,shudders.

I see Paul Le Blanc is speaking on “Leninism in the 21st Century” at Marxism. Their new spirit of openness and friendly debate.

I written to him asking him to cancel.

 

[dominion]

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/nus-students-walk-out-over-swp-rape.html

 

[tenniselbow]

How consequential? Not very I imagine. It's reflective of the factional cesspit and posturing that is NUS politics. But how much weight did the SWP usually have at conference? Not much. Its importance beyond NUS squabbles? Very little.

The impending Marxism embarrassment, on the other hand, is going to have some punch.

 

[discokermit]

How consequential? Not very I imagine. It's reflective of the factional cesspit and posturing that is NUS politics. But how much weight did the SWP usually have at conference? Not much. Its importance beyond NUS squabbles? Very little.

you reckon? it's a sign of how weak they are now on campus and how they're going to have their main recruiting ground cut from under them.

 

[tenniselbow]

you reckon? it's a sign of how weak they are now on campus and how they're going to have their main recruiting ground cut from under them.

Yeah I think so. I agree separately that their ability to do campus recruitment is going to be decimated due to the scandal. But I think the NUS conference is so unrepresentative of "campus life" as such and dominated by small cliques from organized political groupings that the repercussions of whatever happens at NUS will be very small. The vast majority of students won't have a clue that NUS conference was meeting; the whole thing is a joke. The SWP's campus work is done for in the short term, but this won't play a part in that.

 

[discokermit]

Yeah I think so. I agree separately that their ability to do campus recruitment is going to be decimated due to the scandal. But I think the NUS conference is so unrepresentative of "campus life" as such and dominated by small cliques from organized political groupings that the repercussions of whatever happens at NUS will be very small. The vast majority of students won't have a clue that NUS conference was meeting; the whole thing is a joke. The SWP's campus work is done for in the short term, but this won't play a part in that.

very few delegates and only fifteen votes aren't representative of anything?

 

[tenniselbow]

very few delegates and only fifteen votes aren't representative of anything?

Not sure how this compares to previous years. If it's significantly less then it's likely representative of the SWP's weakness and isolation, sure, as was the walkout. I just think it has very little relevance outside the small world of NUS politics, so it's unrepresentative of wider realities among students, as I said.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

very few delegates and only fifteen votes aren't representative of anything?

I wonder how many SWSS delegates did not vote for the SWSS candidate.

 

[emanymton]

Not sure how this compares to previous years. If it's significantly less then it's likely representative of the SWP's weakness and isolation, sure, as was the walkout. I just think it has very little relevance outside the small world of NUS politics, so it's unrepresentative of wider realities among students, as I said.

I think your right, but I don't think anyone really disagrees with you. The conference itself does not mean very much but it is a good indication of how week the SWP is in the universities. By way of comparison, I helped out at an NUS conference years ago and the SWSS candidate pulled around 60 odd first preference votes. But that was years ago so I am not sure if it reflects their performance in recent years, but I can't imagine it has changed all that significantly.

 

[frogwoman]

the nus as an organisation is utterly irrelevant to students, or at least was when i was at university. they were seen as part of mgmt.

 

[belboid]

I wonder how many SWSS delegates did not vote for the SWSS candidate.

1

(well, there was 1 ISN delegate)

 

[muscovyduck]

Appeal submitted to RMT

http://socialistunity.com/more-on-the-rmts-domestic-violence-investigation/#.UWQtlFeQOx0

Or a direct link to the statement:
http://carolineleneghan.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/steve-hedleys-statement-not-cleared-of-domestic-violence-with-a-case-still-to-answer-andy-littlechild-rmt-rep/

The only plausable theory I have (although it's probably wrong) as to why the SP got involved was that the RMT pressured them into it. For some reason, I always got the impression that the SP need more from the RMT than the RMT need from the SP, or that the SP are really keen for a good relationship with them and it gets exploited. Just a few comments here and there made me think so but I can't put my finger on it, maybe the other SP members on here know what I'm talking about? Or maybe it's just me jumping to the wrong conclusions? I've always felt uneasy about it - Bob Crow is a powerful speaker but I'm not sure he believes everything he says. If he's such a socialist as some people like to believe, then why is he earning so much?

Anyway, I think when the RMT saw it going tits up they called for backup. They knew it had to be the SP because who else was even vaguely connected to the two involved? So they put the pressure on -maybe through TUSC, maybe not- and the SP's statement happened.

I know that maybe no one really cares about the SP in this situation, but I'm still worried when a political party which I am a member of would write such a thing.

 

[oskarsdrum]

Interesting hypothesis, muscovy. Due to the RMT-SP links, I presume the EC will know more than most about the facts of the matter. So the best case is that they really believe he's innocent, and therefore released a ham-fisted statement that was totally inappropriate in a case of the nature. The middling scenario is that they don't know what happened, but decided to prioritise organisational self-interest over the principles surrounding a socialist understanding of sexist violence. Finally, the most damning scenario would be the inverse of the first one, and they're giving a 'no case to answer' message when the truth is the opposite.

And things look pretty bad on the RMT in the light of the new post/statement. It's the responsibility of all of us not to tolerate bureaucratic imperative being capable of perpetuating women's oppression I think/

 

[muscovyduck]

Interesting hypothesis, muscovy. Due to the RMT-SP links, I presume the EC will know more than most about the facts of the matter. So the best case is that they really believe he's innocent, and therefore released a ham-fisted statement that was totally inappropriate in a case of the nature. The middling scenario is that they don't know what happened, but decided to prioritise organisational self-interest over the principles surrounding a socialist understanding of sexist violence. Finally, the most damning scenario would be the inverse of the first one, and they're giving a 'no case to answer' message when the truth is the opposite.

And things look pretty bad on the RMT in the light of the new post/statement. It's the responsibility of all of us not to tolerate bureaucratic imperative being capable of perpetuating women's oppression I think/

You've made the points I was struggling to make for me. My hypothesis could work with all three of them I think, and although I knew there were variations, I couldn't split them out. If there was no pressure from anywhere then the middle wouldn't exist, because after the original statement everyone agreed the SP didn't need to say anything, and politically it would've been best for them to stay out of it.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

1

(well, there was 1 ISN delegate)

But the bulk of what remains of SWSS is oppositional, so I wouldn't be at all sure that they can be presumed to have voted for a loyalist in a secret ballot, particularly after said loyalist went to bat on the Delta issue in his speech.

 

[oskarsdrum]

You've made the points I was struggling to make for me. My hypothesis could work with all three of them I think, and although I knew there were variations, I couldn't split them out. If there was no pressure from anywhere then the middle wouldn't exist, because after the original statement everyone agreed the SP didn't need to say anything, and politically it would've been best for them to stay out of it.

Ah, well, your comments on the RMT explain a lot I think! Hadn't seen it in that way before and does explain why they'd do something that's otherwise so incomprehensible. From the weekend's developments it does seem that there's more to run on the case, one way or the other, so we might be in a better position to judge things later down the line.

I suppose there is a certain strategic justification for the SP in maintaining its relationship with a key militant union that goes somewhat beyond pure organisational self-interest, although it's a pretty weak one. hmmmm.....

 

[Fedayn]

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/nus-students-walk-out-over-swp-rape.html

Aaaaah Howard Fuller, aka Howard Fullashit perennial flabby trousered Zionist dribbler and regular national election failure in PCS.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

New ISJ out with an article by Sheila M defending the Cliff-Harman-German legacy on feminism vs the 'Marxist Feminists'. Critical of Lise Vogel, the name most often used by others in the IST who are moving in that direction. "Vogel herself does not go down this route [patriarchy theory] although her own analysis is, in part, about establishing the potential for cross-class alliances among women."

And the Prof sets out what role the ISJ wil play in the coming year.

"International Socialism is relatively unusual among Marxist theoretical journals these days in being the journal of a political organisation—the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), as it was of its predecessors (the Socialist Review group and the International Socialists). We have, therefore, inevitably been affected by the intense internal debates the SWP has experienced over the past six months. These originated in disagreements over how the party handled serious sexual allegations against a leading member, but have broadened out into much wider political arguments.
A special conference of the SWP met on 10 March and sought to resolve the original controversy by setting up a committee to examine the party’s disciplinary procedures. But the main resolution passed by a large majority of delegates also stated:

We believe that underlying many of the recent debates in and around the party lie a series of vital political questions where we need to seek urgently to assert, develop and win our political tradition. Some of the key debates include:​

a) The changing nature of the working class.​

b) Lenin’s conception of the party and its relevance in the 21st century.​

c) Oppression and capitalism.​

d) The trade union bureaucracy and the rank and file.​

e) The radical left, the united front and the SWP.​

f) The role of students and intellectuals in revolutionary struggle.​

g) The value of new electronic media in the ideological and organisational work of a revolutionary party.​

The pages of this journal are an obvious venue for these debates, and we intend to make sure they happen here. Sheila McGregor’s article in the present issue on Marxism and women’s oppression today represents a start but there will be others, expressing a variety of standpoints. All these debates matter, and not simply for those who share the politics of the SWP."