Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

SWP expulsions and squabbles

i once had an acquaintanceship with a bloke who was a local at one of the pub's i used to frequent. When it was revealed that he had been sexually fiddling with a minor i remember feeling very shocked indeed. Subsequently i had to consider how to react towards him (following his release from prison). Later, when i bumped into him (in a pub) i used the moment to calmly say that i no longer wished to have any conversation with him on any basis, and that he should stay away from me, which he did. It was a hard and emotionally difficult thing to do, even though he was not what i regarded as a friend. But it was necessary for my own sense of decency.

Delta ought to have been dealt with similarly by the swp high command. The idea that he is still being courted by some of them seems curious.
 
i once had an acquaintanceship with a bloke who was a local at one of the pub's i used to frequent. When it was revealed that he had been sexually fiddling with a minor i remember feeling very shocked indeed. Subsequently i had to consider how to react towards him (following his release from prison). Later, when i bumped into him (in a pub) i used the moment to calmly say that i no longer wished to have any conversation with him on any basis, and that he should stay away from me, which he did. It was a hard and emotionally difficult thing to do, even though he was not what i regarded as a friend. But it was necessary for my own sense of decency.

When I was first a union rep I discovered one of the members in my workplace was a convicted nonce, because the police notified the chair of his local tenants association who told me... Which did make some other things about his behaviour towards a colleagues kid, and some of his comments all fit together so 2+2 made 4.

In the end I didn't tell colleagues (because they might have murdered him) except the one with the kid, who I knew would not react violently or tell anyone else if I asked him not to.

I did tell the bloke I knew though, as we were fairly friendly and I didn't think I could be any more, but also I owed him an explanation - also told him I'd be happy to represent him as a union member as well, it didn't change that.

He excepted it, think he'd got that a lot.

It was all very weird...
 
IB2 is out. Apparently, it makes for more entertaining reading than IB1 - at least, judging by today's Facebook discussions. If you have a link to the IB, please post it here. Failing that, we'll just have to wait for WW on Friday...
 
Yeah, I fear you're right.

Does the SWP resorting to threats of libel count as an example of "bending the stick", BTW? I've never been quite sure exactly what that expression refers to.

I hated that saying when I was in the swp.
It was used to excuse bullying behaviour...ie I was shouted at once over something ...and I told the person to talk politely or not at all (I may not have been as polite as that in all honesty) and was told they were bending the stick ... they never shouted at me again after I told them where to put their stick.

229_jimmy_edwards_in_wacko.jpg
 
Just received a copy of IB2. Unfortunately, I can't post a link as it was sent to me as an email attachment.
Haven't had time to read much of it, but was struck by the membership figures claimed: the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year. Can anyone seriously believe either figure? What's more, recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?
I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!
 
I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!
in around 1995 my mate signed his name on a bit of paper on a clip board at a demo...he didnt really look to see what it was but he was being supportive...turns out he gave his name and number to the SWP. He says that he was then assigned a worker who rang him up regularly asking him to come to meetings, help with this and that, and so on. After a few weeks of relentless calling he asked to be left alone. That was both of our introduction to the SWP. It might work with some people, but im not sure its such a great tactic.
 
Last edited:
Just done a quick search. There is a piece which is very critical of the majority of anarchists in the No to Nato grouping in Newport: apparently, they showed themselves to be "sectarian and ultra-left".
that's the one! :D
and some moaning about refusal to talk to cops or deal with labour party :facepalm:
swappies calling others sectarian!
 
the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year... recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?

I have always taken it as a rule of thumb that the "dwell time" of a member was 1.01 year. So many signed up in freshers' week... for a week.
 
Just received a copy of IB2. Unfortunately, I can't post a link as it was sent to me as an email attachment.
Haven't had time to read much of it, but was struck by the membership figures claimed: the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year. Can anyone seriously believe either figure? What's more, recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?
I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!

You can upload the file to drop box then share the link to the file here.
https://www.dropbox.com/help/274
 

This stuff is awful...with a slightly changed language it is the spitting image of material churned out by the CPB, the NCP and others prior to their rallies; disappointing but unsurprising. I wouldn't normally respond to this sort of stuff but it is really depressing from one of the small but largest left organisations.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
This stuff is awful...with a slightly changed language it is the spitting image of material churned out by the CPB, the NCP and others prior to their rallies; disappointing but unsurprising. I wouldn't normally respond to this sort of stuff but it is really depressing from one of the small but largest left organisations.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Oopps that's Bullitin 1 not 2
 
in around 1995 my mate signed his name on a bit of paper on a clip board at a demo...he didnt really look to see what it was but he was being supportive...turns out he gave his name and number to the SWP. He says that he was then assigned a worker who rang him up regularly asking him to come to meetings, help with this and that, and so on. After a few weeks of relentless calling he asked to be left alone. That was both of our introduction to the SWP. It might work with some people, but im not sure its such a great tactic.

I've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.

What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.
 
Just received a copy of IB2. Unfortunately, I can't post a link as it was sent to me as an email attachment.
Haven't had time to read much of it, but was struck by the membership figures claimed: the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year. Can anyone seriously believe either figure? What's more, recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?
I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!

1,000 a year is probably a fair enough estimate of people who signed something saying they'd like to join the SWP. That doing so is enough to have the SWP count you as a member is less reasonable and automatically leads to a huge "turnover" of members who were never really members to start with.
 
I've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.

What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.
Sometimes I think its an exaggeration and then I remember the time a postman I know signed an AWL petition and forgot about it until three weeks later Martin Thomas turned up on his doorstep several hours journey from central London while he was putting the kids to bed and stood outside in a rain storm asking him to take the paper and come to some demo

ETA I remember during my brief dalliance with the Cliffites every branch meeting would see a list of names shoved round and divvied up for us to contact - these were names from petitions etc
 
I've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.

What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.
the story of my (close) friend is completely true - no axe to grind, he remains someone detached from the organised left. He may have embelished the extent of the calls, but he definitely found it creepy and invasive
 
Sometimes I think its an exaggeration and then I remember the time a postman I know signed an AWL petition and forgot about it until three weeks later Martin Thomas turned up on his doorstep several hours journey from central London while he was putting the kids to bed and stood outside in a rain storm asking him to take the paper and come to some demo

ETA I remember during my brief dalliance with the Cliffites every branch meeting would see a list of names shoved round and divvied up for us to contact - these were names from petitions etc

the story of my (close) friend is completely true - no axe to grind, he remains someone detached from the organised left. He may have embelished the extent of the calls, but he definitely found it creepy and invasive

I certainly do believe the constant hassle stories, or at least some of them. But for the most part I don't believe that the people who get it are random names harvested straight off petitions lists. That would just be much too labour intensive even if it wasn't completely stupid.

Generally these stories seem to come from people who signed an application form and then forgot about it or didn't realise what they were signing. Or from people who ticked a box seeking more info about joining the SWP on a petition or something like that. And of course there'll be some fuck ups at the other end, where the wrong person's details are taken off said petition etc. But the systematic harassment of everyone who does something like sign a petition gets you into "how does Santa have time to get to every chimney, Dad?" territory. It's not viable and the SWP aren't stupid enough to think its desirable.

That's quite distinct from the hassle you may get once you are semi-accidentally on a membership list, particularly if the local branch secretary was an enthusiast. The extreme difficulty in getting membership lists reduced to realistic scope comes from their dedication to exaggerating their size.
 
"Dear redcogs.

Thankyou for your enquiry about the International Socialists. I am writing to invite you to attend our next public meetings at the Fraternity Hall in (a northern industrial town ;) ). The meeting will debate the exciting events of the Portuguese Revolution, and will have a speaker (John A) who has recently returned from there to give our account of this important workers struggle. Usually, following the meeting, we retire to the (local pub;)) for a drink, where you might like to get to know a few of our members.

I look forward to meeting you.

Yours Fraternally

Jim."

As someone who was in the process of acquiring socialist consciousness, the above letter fired my enthusiasm immensely. The lad who wrote it was a local shop steward in engineering, who became a good friend (and comrade). How the world turns - a proper letter, from a proper human with a courteous and friendly approach. No texts or emails or unwelcome robots rapping on the door late at night. Looking back, the leninist shift, after they became the SWP, set in train a number of unfortunate 'stick bending' maneuvers that allowed the centre to become an entrenched and remote body that can't see that there was any problem with a rape investigation being conducted by the accused person's mates..

Still bitter.
 
It's a difficult balancing act at times, there is nothing wrong with phoning people up if they are generally interested. when I was in the SWP I found you quickly got a sense of who was happy to hear from you and who was just being polite and tolerated you, a few would flat out say they won't interested any more. Also you would find out that some people were only interested in certain things, so you would know there was no point talking to X about the branch meeting but they might want to know about the demo coming up.

I only ever got one bad reaction. I got a phone call from Julie Waterson saying someone had joined on a stall in London but my branch (up north) was the nearest to where they lived. She gave me a name and phone number and asked me to give them a ring. When I phoned up a women answered but It was a blokes name so I asked to speak to X, and the phone was passed over and this kid came on who sounded about 11 or 12! I know some people seem to join pretty young but I was never too comfortable with it, so I felt a bit awkward but started of anyway. I didn't get very far before the women, who was obviously his mother, figured out who I was snatched the phone and started yelling down it that her son would never be standing around in the streets selling papers then slammed the phone down ... Don't think we ever phoned back again. So I guess the moral of this story is that if you don't wont to be hassled by the SWP get you mum to tell them of.

Oh and to be fair to Julie she complained that they had not used a proper membership form just a cut out slip from Socialist Worker, so I don't think she would have had a DOB.
 
Back
Top Bottom