sorry chill, I had problems trying to post this response yesterday
I'd say there are echoes here of Scargill and the SLP. The SLP could've (should've) provided a coherent and credible left reformist alternative to Labour. I remember the optimism in the Left when it was launched. Even I (at the time a straight up anarcho hard liner) was excited by the prospect.
Now, the SLP fell apart for various reasons. Some of which I'll come back to later. But a major factor was an emibittered and egotistical Scargill.
Surely, the SWP could've (shouldv'e) seen how the ego of a celeb lefty leader can cause huge problems to a new project?
of course SW knew there were going to be difficulties, there always will be in an alliance. Talking to individual comrades in SW, they used to fight amongst themselves not to go to SA meetings, which were just full of interminable political pointscoring. Respect was considered by individual members of SW, a refreshing change where meetings were concerned with what could be done rather than the minutiae of interleft politics and historic political divisions.. but!
As a side issue why on earth have we had the Scargill, Marek, Galloway etc. all forming seperate parties instead of a united effort? Ego is surely part of the answer, but I'd say opputunism and forced hands are equally at fault. My guess is that they all would've stayed happily in the Labour Party if they could've.
this is exactly the argument SW placed, respect and the Socialist Alliance going after the same vote, SW made to amalgamate the two groups.
When these issues were raised at the start of the Respect project the SWP gave the appearance of ignoring them...too eager to leap on the Galloway bandwagon.
this is where I think SW is being dishonest with itself. SW will argue now, quite rightly, that respect has come further than any other alliance of a left nature in such a short space of time. They have in some measures done a lot better than the Greens for example. However, this is in the context of the supposed void, there is meant to be on the left wing British politics. Even before the split, I don't think 10 years have produced a success necessary, and believed possible in 1997, and then again with respect. I think a reasonable success by this point for respect would have been, not necessarily election results but I suppose the two have to go hand in hand, bought a real activist base of 10,000 members. if we had achieved that then I think there would have been sufficient counterweight to the egos, SW, to have made jumping on the bandwagon worthwhile. It was a considered calculation, rather than eagerly leaping in my opinion. One we got wrong, at great expense to Socialist worker [ from 10,000 paper members, to 2/3000 in 10 years?], but still one I believe and SW members believe they should have taken because it would have benefited the working class. But before party.
I'm sorry but "segregated canvassing"?
Why on earth would you be in the same party as people who advocate this?
Perhaps you would be in anti-war camapign together, but a formal Party?
just to clarify things, it was a brief telephone conversation where I heard about this, and segregated canvassing didn't happen I think, it was a suggestion by one of the people sw I think. But perhaps I should retract it, as I don't have the facts. but it is quite evident from Galloway statements SW trying to do things about this kind of thing discreetly within the coalition, and this is one of the things that caused a split. But I will come back to this at the end.
By the way, how are you whiter than white? no grey areas in the Green party?
well and that is fair enough, but I think it is important to accept that SW were continually criticised by many quarters for accepting too much rough, and still are. you know this is the one occasion where George Galloway could have gone, fair enough Big Brother, John Rees dodgy check, let's call it quits.
The thing about the dodgy check is not political. John Rees was not going to gain financially. He made sure the money went to a good cause. He may have been stupid, but we should have been able to work through this problem of stupidity, just like George Galloway's problem of stupidity over big brother. If George Galloway faction had responded how SW did all the Big Brother, we would have done. (This is all going over your point about SW being incapable of working in coalitions.)
There is considerable debate about exactly waht happenned here, no?
Is there. I thought everybody was agreed there was a discussion paper by Galloway that was first seen by SW on the Internet. That there were proposed more discussion documents, which greatly disturbed SW to say the least and here they were still to be put out. And that by the time of the meeting the only option considered feasible by the Galloway faction was splitting. And no of this went to any sort of conference, the only conference that was cold was a fete accompli. It is certainly what most of the members RR have said. I know Fisher would put a more convoluted explanation, but in essence it is what he has said.
But I will say, ime the SWP caucus in order to impose a previously determined agenda onto a group. Other factions may well do the same. Regardless, we have shown that we can't do it amicably and honestly.
I've yet to work in an alliance with the SWP that hasn't ended up with large numbers of the participants alienated by the SWP (ANL, CJB, STW etc). Even if you think the SWP is right politically (which I don't, but thats by the by) surely tactically something needs to be done to improve how it operates with other groups and independents? (of whom no doubt there are equally issues about working with others...but the SWP as the largest ostensibly revolutionary group must bear the greatest share of the responsibilty).
I accept all that in the red except for the word impose. The word is win. You cannot impose on 2 million people march around London against the war. and you are doing exactly the same with me now. You have a previously determined agenda from your experience and learning which you are trying to win me to. The only difference is, SW do it as a group, where as you seem to impose
that we should all act as an individuals.
Now this explanation may not satisfy your experience, but your experience is part of the problem. Yours and my experience, in the main, is of politics as a minority sport, not on the 2, 5, 20, 60 million types of movement. When you have the tiny piffling movements we have been involved in, perhaps a tiny piffling group like SW with its level of organisation, counterposed to your 'organisation', can numerically impose what SW members agreed at their national conference they honestly believe is best for the movement. BUT is that their fault, or your fault for your lack of organisation? what is the alternative for a political PARTY?
By the way, I do have some of my old suggestions and criticisms for SW.
There is an honest way to operate as a political party/National group with caucusing etc. That is to democratically organise your party/group, come to a shared viewpoint analysis, try to win the positions of that analysis supports within movements, and take it on the chin and still work within that movement when you don't win your position. I believed we had to operate like this because when there is movements of 2, 5, 20, 60 million and revolutionaries aren't organised to influence them like they did the stop the War movement, there will be others organised to influence them in a more reactionary direction.
I think bending over backwards to accomodate the sort of ideas and practices that the SWP have spent decades protesting against (such as sexism, homophobia etc) is more pertinant than posturing from the "hard left" grouplets.
am not going to answer this bit, because it is just bollocks, which I thought you were honest enough to be above.
This guy seems to corroborate everything SW has said. 
