Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Ah. Hadn't thought of that possibility, but now that you mention it, the particular angle fits not only the AWL, but also cockers/OSS.
SWP expulsions and squabbles
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Ah. Hadn't thought of that possibility, but now that you mention it, the particular angle fits not only the AWL, but also cockers/OSS.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Allegedly Trudell said at a factigon meeting that those who are planning to leave after conference are "scabs". [Edit to add: that's false, I'm told she didn't use that word] There's definitely going to be a split the current issue is how big. The next issue will be how many the SWP lose through demoralisation. And then after that the question will be how opposition the rump opposition stay behinds remain.
It will probably take a while for any of these questions to be clarified, even though the third conference of 2013 is this weekend.
It will probably take a while for any of these questions to be clarified, even though the third conference of 2013 is this weekend.
Last edited:
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Yes, if they were racist or homophobic they would still be twattish comments - I'm surprised you don't agree. And since I've never commented on whether or not he's welcome at socialism I'm not sure how to reply to that but I'd still have better things to do than worry about it (I'd rather he wasn't invited to speak to be honest - at least until we have a better idea of what went on - but I don't get to decide unilaterally what a group of a couple of thousand members does, though admittedly it would be much better if everyone just did what I wanted them to).
Can you explain why you'd sign up to a messageboard just to comment on this issue if you're not especially keen? Seems like odd behaviour to me.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
That's not really true is it? Steve and Bruce have been prevented from endlessly posting rate of profit stuff on the CWI page because it got to the point where that was all you could read on there and appeals for help in organising were being drowned out by it. But unless things have changed since I last spoke to him about it he can still post whatever the fuck he wants elsewhere.
Phillip_Larkin
New Member
Because Janine Booth told me I had to or face re-education from Sean.
I think you know what I meant, I meant that saying such things is more serious than just dismissing them as twattish. The people leafletting your conference about it didn't realise Hedley had been invited to speak, they just thought he was attending. Even worse. Anyway I've set the record straight about Janine and the Socialist Party seem happy that someone like Hedley can speak at their events (even if you are uneasy as an individual), so not much more to say really.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
You mean you've passed on her lies? Well done.
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
Sorry to distract from the SP/AWL debate, but things are coming to something of a head on the SWP front....
The Appeal to Comrades initiated by Megan T (thanks for the name, Nigel) and Paul McG has been signed by some "middle-of-the-roaders" and some faction members. IMO, it falls well short of what the faction is calling for, but includes the following sentence:
"We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress
caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes
processes."
Apparently, it is causing splits among CC loyalists, so the IdooMers have counter-attacked with a statement initiated by Pete J, which says:
"If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with the majority of the organisation united. We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to conference the motion as put in the IB."
The Appeal to Comrades initiated by Megan T (thanks for the name, Nigel) and Paul McG has been signed by some "middle-of-the-roaders" and some faction members. IMO, it falls well short of what the faction is calling for, but includes the following sentence:
"We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress
caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes
processes."
Apparently, it is causing splits among CC loyalists, so the IdooMers have counter-attacked with a statement initiated by Pete J, which says:
"If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with the majority of the organisation united. We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to conference the motion as put in the IB."
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Interesting. So yet again there looks like multiple factions in play, albeit this time only one of them is a formal faction. It makes things slightly less predictable than they had seemed a week ago where it looked like a united CC/IDOOM bloc were just going to stomp on the opposition.
My guess:
1) the main impact of the new "Middle faction" statement will be to give cover to some of the softer oppositionists to stay after conference.
2) there will still be a big loss of members after conference, probably including an organised split.
3) the ongoing impact of the "Middle ground" statement will be to make divisions in the rump post conference SWP more prominent than they would otherwise have been.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Just heard from someone who was there that Megan T did did not call people scabs at a faction meeting.
It would be interesting to see what effect if any a new organised split might have on the ISN which currently seems to be in the process of disolving into Left Unity anyway. While I can't see the core of the ISN being interested in any new breakaway org or indeed particularly welcome in it, I wouldnt be surprised if it could attract enough of the fraying fringes of the ISN to push it over into oblivion.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
The ISN doesn't have enough of a common project to hold itself together. It contains people who are moving away from the SWP in very different directions. But both its "left" and its "right" have traveled quite a long way from the SWP already, so its hard to predict how they will interact with any new SWP split. There doesn't seem to be much of an audience in the ISN for forming a new, more democratic SWP for instance.
bolshiebhoy
socialism leinster drink
Who knows we may now never see an ISO(GB). Shawki must be fuming.
leyton96
NGO's selling privilege checking solutions
Only in your head bolshie (and what a colorful cast of fictional characters inhabit that space!)
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I see the paranoia levels inside delta towers show no signs of abating before the conference. God, imagine what other hyped up tripe they're trying to get the cannon fodder to swallow right now.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I juts googled that and the third result was the wise words of comrade Avakian.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
really? When I did it it only brought up Robert Johnson!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I tell a lie, it was the second result:
Attachments
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
Leyton, here's the middle-of-the-roaders statement, followed by the IdooMers riposte. Enjoy.
Appeal to comrades
The party is at a crossroads. Which road we take matters. It matters not just
for ourselves, but will have an impact on the course of struggles in Britain
- and elsewhere. It is two minutes to midnight. When the clock strikes the
hour – at the party conference in not so many days’ time - we will all have to
make a choice. The choice should not only be based on internal arguments,
important as they are. We face a world in crisis, and a global assault on our
class. In Britain the scale of that assault deepens daily.
The level of resistance to those attacks is low. In Britain official leaders of
workers’ organisations retreat from, or at best vacillate over, fighting back.
Those at the top of society whip up racism and scapegoat immigrants to
divide us and divert our anger against one another instead of at those
responsible for the situation. All of this underlines the need for maintaining
and building a party like ours. Our party is small, and its influence in Britain
and internationally is limited, but it does have an impact. It would be a great
loss if it were badly damaged or destroyed; whatever weaknesses we may
need to address, it has taken decades to build the party and our comrades
have won influence and authority in a whole range of areas.
Yet the deep crisis we face threatens to inflict precisely such injury.
Comrades need to take a deep breath, pause, and think about where we
are and what is to be done. We, like many other comrades, may disagree
on many questions which are the subject of robust and legitimate debate
within the party. And we have no doubt that we will continue to have sharp,
but comradely, disagreements and debates over many questions. This is
essential in any healthy party. Like many other comrades, we also have
different views on the issues around the disputes cases which have played
a central role in the crisis in the party. But we, and we hope many other
comrades, do agree on some important matters.
We are committed to the idea that we should argue and decide what we
should do as party, and then test that by putting it into practice together.
We do think that the review of the disputes committee recognises that we
did not get things right in how we have handled the cases at the heart of
the arguments in the party, and that we need to change and improve our
procedures. We think that ensuring that the second case of alleged sexual
misconduct was properly dealt with was important.
We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress
caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes
processes. It is a matter of regret that this question has become enmeshed
in wider disputes. We believe any charge that the party is morally corrupt,
is a sexist organisation, or has abandoned its tradition of fighting women’s
oppression has no basis. We look forward to more discussion and debate on
question of oppression.
We also agree that the Democracy Commission, whose report and
conclusions the party as a whole voted to accept, should be a guide to how
we conduct our internal life and debates from now on. Democratic centralism
means ensuring a healthy internal democratic culture while also maintaining
our focus as an interventionist party based on testing our decisions in
practice. That will mean moving beyond factional positions and seeking
collectively to face the enormous challenges and responsibilities swirling
around us. We have built so much together, and so much that is precious,
that surely, even at this late hour, we can face the world in comradeship, with a shared commitment to continuing to build the party the times so clearly demand.
IdooM
Subject: URGENT: Comrades - you may want to put your name to this statement in
opposition to the "Appeal to Comrades" that appeared today
"We understand a statement is being circulated from a small group in the faction
and some leading members of the party that includes the call for the party to
apologise to the complainants in the recent disputes cases.
The CC position on why the faction’s demand for an apology was wrong has been
argued clearly at the NC, at every aggregate and has been supported by the vast
majority of members of our organisation.
The CC motion has been put forward and supported as the basis for uniting the
party and moving forward.
If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging
divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with
the majority of the organisation united.
We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to
conference the motion as put in the IB."
Appeal to comrades
The party is at a crossroads. Which road we take matters. It matters not just
for ourselves, but will have an impact on the course of struggles in Britain
- and elsewhere. It is two minutes to midnight. When the clock strikes the
hour – at the party conference in not so many days’ time - we will all have to
make a choice. The choice should not only be based on internal arguments,
important as they are. We face a world in crisis, and a global assault on our
class. In Britain the scale of that assault deepens daily.
The level of resistance to those attacks is low. In Britain official leaders of
workers’ organisations retreat from, or at best vacillate over, fighting back.
Those at the top of society whip up racism and scapegoat immigrants to
divide us and divert our anger against one another instead of at those
responsible for the situation. All of this underlines the need for maintaining
and building a party like ours. Our party is small, and its influence in Britain
and internationally is limited, but it does have an impact. It would be a great
loss if it were badly damaged or destroyed; whatever weaknesses we may
need to address, it has taken decades to build the party and our comrades
have won influence and authority in a whole range of areas.
Yet the deep crisis we face threatens to inflict precisely such injury.
Comrades need to take a deep breath, pause, and think about where we
are and what is to be done. We, like many other comrades, may disagree
on many questions which are the subject of robust and legitimate debate
within the party. And we have no doubt that we will continue to have sharp,
but comradely, disagreements and debates over many questions. This is
essential in any healthy party. Like many other comrades, we also have
different views on the issues around the disputes cases which have played
a central role in the crisis in the party. But we, and we hope many other
comrades, do agree on some important matters.
We are committed to the idea that we should argue and decide what we
should do as party, and then test that by putting it into practice together.
We do think that the review of the disputes committee recognises that we
did not get things right in how we have handled the cases at the heart of
the arguments in the party, and that we need to change and improve our
procedures. We think that ensuring that the second case of alleged sexual
misconduct was properly dealt with was important.
We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress
caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes
processes. It is a matter of regret that this question has become enmeshed
in wider disputes. We believe any charge that the party is morally corrupt,
is a sexist organisation, or has abandoned its tradition of fighting women’s
oppression has no basis. We look forward to more discussion and debate on
question of oppression.
We also agree that the Democracy Commission, whose report and
conclusions the party as a whole voted to accept, should be a guide to how
we conduct our internal life and debates from now on. Democratic centralism
means ensuring a healthy internal democratic culture while also maintaining
our focus as an interventionist party based on testing our decisions in
practice. That will mean moving beyond factional positions and seeking
collectively to face the enormous challenges and responsibilities swirling
around us. We have built so much together, and so much that is precious,
that surely, even at this late hour, we can face the world in comradeship, with a shared commitment to continuing to build the party the times so clearly demand.
IdooM
Subject: URGENT: Comrades - you may want to put your name to this statement in
opposition to the "Appeal to Comrades" that appeared today
"We understand a statement is being circulated from a small group in the faction
and some leading members of the party that includes the call for the party to
apologise to the complainants in the recent disputes cases.
The CC position on why the faction’s demand for an apology was wrong has been
argued clearly at the NC, at every aggregate and has been supported by the vast
majority of members of our organisation.
The CC motion has been put forward and supported as the basis for uniting the
party and moving forward.
If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging
divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with
the majority of the organisation united.
We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to
conference the motion as put in the IB."
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
To support this would be to make a point that the first allegation of rape was not dealt with properly. With nothing as to how it would no be dealt with now. Again, it is to make a principle of not dealing with it. To argue that as a point of unity.
Disgusting people.
Disgusting people.
Last edited:
BK Double Stack
Reconstructed Marcyite
So, here's what I could dig up from the middle ground and IDooM.
Appeal to comrades The party is at a crossroads. Which road we take matters. It matters not just for ourselves, but will have an impact on the course of struggles in Britain - and elsewhere. It is two minutes to midnight. When the clock strikes the hour – at the party conference in not so many days’ time - we will all have to make a choice. The choice should not only be based on internal arguments, important as they are. We face a world in crisis, and a global assault on our class. In Britain the scale of that assault deepens daily. The level of resistance to those attacks is low. In Britain official leaders of workers’ organisations retreat from, or at best vacillate over, fighting back. Those at the top of society whip up racism and scapegoat immigrants to divide us and divert our anger against one another instead of at those responsible for the situation. All of this underlines the need for maintaining and building a party like ours. Our party is small, and its influence in Britain and internationally is limited, but it does have an impact. It would be a great loss if it were badly damaged or destroyed; whatever weaknesses we may need to address, it has taken decades to build the party and our comrades have won influence and authority in a whole range of areas. Yet the deep crisis we face threatens to inflict precisely such injury. Comrades need to take a deep breath, pause, and think about where we are and what is to be done. We, like many other comrades, may disagree on many questions which are the subject of robust and legitimate debate within the party. And we have no doubt that we will continue to have sharp, but comradely, disagreements and debates over many questions. This is essential in any healthy party. Like many other comrades, we also have different views on the issues around the disputes cases which have played a central role in the crisis in the party. But we, and we hope many other comrades, do agree on some important matters. We are committed to the idea that we should argue and decide what we should do as party, and then test that by putting it into practice together. We do think that the review of the disputes committee recognises that we did not get things right in how we have handled the cases at the heart of the arguments in the party, and that we need to change and improve our procedures. We think that ensuring that the second case of alleged sexual misconduct was properly dealt with was important. We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes processes. It is a matter of regret that this question has become enmeshed in wider disputes. We believe any charge that the party is morally corrupt, is a sexist organisation, or has abandoned its tradition of fighting women’s oppression has no basis. We look forward to more discussion and debate on question of oppression. We also agree that the Democracy Commission, whose report and conclusions the party as a whole voted to accept, should be a guide to how we conduct our internal life and debates from now on. Democratic centralism means ensuring a healthy internal democratic culture while also maintaining our focus as an interventionist party based on testing our decisions in practice. That will mean moving beyond factional positions and seeking collectively to face the enormous challenges and responsibilities swirling around us. We have built so much together, and so much that is precious, that surely, even at this late hour, we can face the world in comradeship, with a shared commitment to continuing to build the party the times so clearly demand.
IdooM Subject: URGENT: Comrades - you may want to put your name to this statement in opposition to the "Appeal to Comrades" that appeared today "We understand a statement is being circulated from a small group in the faction and some leading members of the party that includes the call for the party to apologise to the complainants in the recent disputes cases. The CC position on why the faction’s demand for an apology was wrong has been argued clearly at the NC, at every aggregate and has been supported by the vast majority of members of our organisation. The CC motion has been put forward and supported as the basis for uniting the party and moving forward. If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with the majority of the organisation united. We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to conference the motion as put in the IB."
Appeal to comrades The party is at a crossroads. Which road we take matters. It matters not just for ourselves, but will have an impact on the course of struggles in Britain - and elsewhere. It is two minutes to midnight. When the clock strikes the hour – at the party conference in not so many days’ time - we will all have to make a choice. The choice should not only be based on internal arguments, important as they are. We face a world in crisis, and a global assault on our class. In Britain the scale of that assault deepens daily. The level of resistance to those attacks is low. In Britain official leaders of workers’ organisations retreat from, or at best vacillate over, fighting back. Those at the top of society whip up racism and scapegoat immigrants to divide us and divert our anger against one another instead of at those responsible for the situation. All of this underlines the need for maintaining and building a party like ours. Our party is small, and its influence in Britain and internationally is limited, but it does have an impact. It would be a great loss if it were badly damaged or destroyed; whatever weaknesses we may need to address, it has taken decades to build the party and our comrades have won influence and authority in a whole range of areas. Yet the deep crisis we face threatens to inflict precisely such injury. Comrades need to take a deep breath, pause, and think about where we are and what is to be done. We, like many other comrades, may disagree on many questions which are the subject of robust and legitimate debate within the party. And we have no doubt that we will continue to have sharp, but comradely, disagreements and debates over many questions. This is essential in any healthy party. Like many other comrades, we also have different views on the issues around the disputes cases which have played a central role in the crisis in the party. But we, and we hope many other comrades, do agree on some important matters. We are committed to the idea that we should argue and decide what we should do as party, and then test that by putting it into practice together. We do think that the review of the disputes committee recognises that we did not get things right in how we have handled the cases at the heart of the arguments in the party, and that we need to change and improve our procedures. We think that ensuring that the second case of alleged sexual misconduct was properly dealt with was important. We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes processes. It is a matter of regret that this question has become enmeshed in wider disputes. We believe any charge that the party is morally corrupt, is a sexist organisation, or has abandoned its tradition of fighting women’s oppression has no basis. We look forward to more discussion and debate on question of oppression. We also agree that the Democracy Commission, whose report and conclusions the party as a whole voted to accept, should be a guide to how we conduct our internal life and debates from now on. Democratic centralism means ensuring a healthy internal democratic culture while also maintaining our focus as an interventionist party based on testing our decisions in practice. That will mean moving beyond factional positions and seeking collectively to face the enormous challenges and responsibilities swirling around us. We have built so much together, and so much that is precious, that surely, even at this late hour, we can face the world in comradeship, with a shared commitment to continuing to build the party the times so clearly demand.
IdooM Subject: URGENT: Comrades - you may want to put your name to this statement in opposition to the "Appeal to Comrades" that appeared today "We understand a statement is being circulated from a small group in the faction and some leading members of the party that includes the call for the party to apologise to the complainants in the recent disputes cases. The CC position on why the faction’s demand for an apology was wrong has been argued clearly at the NC, at every aggregate and has been supported by the vast majority of members of our organisation. The CC motion has been put forward and supported as the basis for uniting the party and moving forward. If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with the majority of the organisation united. We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to conference the motion as put in the IB."
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Beaten to it
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
I think you're right on all three counts.
The dirty deal that has been struck seems to require that the oppo signatories call for the others to stay in the party post-conference while, quid pro quo, the loyalists agree to an apology. It's a bad deal because (a) if the latter require a stay-in-the-party call so as to be able to make an apology one has to wonder about the sincerity of their desire to apologise to the women who have been treated so badly (b) and, more importantly, there is absolutely no accountability of the leaders who have caused this mess.
The only saving graces: the Idoomers are clearly in a flap and it makes things somewhat less predictable tomorrow.
Karmickameleon
Too long in exile
The first case clearly can't be reopened as by all accounts W doesn't want to have to go through the DC procedure again (even an improved DC version). But someone should publish all the documentation relating to the two cases. There's no way that the DC/CC is going to do this, so we need a whistleblower in the party to do it. The leadership has manipulated the question of confidentiality for too long. Let the membership and the wider movement come to their own conclusions. Any Snowdens or Mannings out there?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
How long does the SWPs annual conference go on for? I understand that registration started mid afternoon today. Do the actual sessions start this evening?
Also does it finish on Sunday, or does it go on into Monday?
Also does it finish on Sunday, or does it go on into Monday?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
There are other ways to deal with it than being reopened though (and if i was to be cynical, they had enough to reach a judgment first time around). The middle statement seems to make a point of refusing to even deal with any of these steps.
Similar threads
