Respect crisis deepens: SWP expels three leading figures

Submitted by martin on 14 October, 2007 - 11:21 Author: Martin Thomas

According to the Socialist Unity blog, the crisis in Respect has taken a dramatic new turn with the SWP expelling three leading members for softness towards George Galloway.

"News has just broken that long term SWP members Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoveman have been expelled from the party, along with Nick Wrack. Nick joined the SWP three years ago and was a former editor of the Militant newspaper...

The expulsions followed an ultimatum to Nick that he should turn down the position of Respect national organiser or resign from the SWP. A similar ultimatum was given to Rob and Kev that they should stop working in George Galloway’s office, or leave the SWP.

These three comrades have been internally critical of the SWP Central Committee’s handling of Respect, but have been very disciplined by not airing that criticism outside the ranks of the SWP. There still remain critics of the CC’s position within the SWP, including some very well known comrades, but the expulsions are obviously a shot over their bows as well".

Meanwhile, the East London Advertiser claims that the Respect council group in Tower Hamlets, the jewel in its hijab, may split into two groups, one led by Galloway ally Abjol Miah and the other by SWP-close Oliur Rahman.

Whatever you think of the SWP CC, Hoveman, Ovenden, and Wrack are despicable wretches if they break the discipline of what they presumably consider to be a revolutionary party (albeit a mistaken one) just in order to get or keep jobs in the entourage of George Galloway. That the SWP's escapade with Respect has bred such attitudes even in its leading circles shows the extent of the degradation it has brought.

But, on the face of it, the expulsions look like insane "control-freakery" by the SWP Central Committee. After all, if SWP have to accept a National Organiser counterweighing Respect National Secretary (and SWP member) John Rees, what better for them than to have an SWPer in the post? Even a dissident SWPer can't be a bad option for them, surely?

These expulsions must pretty much terminate the possibilities of the Respect crisis ending in anything other than a split. Organisationally and electorally, the split will damage SWP more than Galloway, and indeed organisationally and electorally it may positively benefit Galloway. So why expel?

The SWP Central Committee's brains must be somewhat fried after thirty years of operating a regime of "expel first, ask questions afterwards, respond to all critics by denouncing them as vermin".

But insane? I doubt it. The likeliest explanation is that the SWP CC is convinced that a split with Galloway is inevitable anyway (the Tower Hamlets report would fit in with that), reckons that it cannot avoid losing some people to Galloway, and wants to cauterise in order to minimise the losses.

The fundamental factor here, I suggest, is that the SWP Central Committee knows perfectly well what Galloway is - has known all along - and has no higher opinion of him than we do at Solidarity and Workers' Liberty.

Nevertheless, they thought they could play clever. I remember a conversation I had with David Glanz, leader of the ISO, Australian offshoot of the SWP, around the time Respect was being formed. Everything on the left being rather smaller-scale in Australia, you can actually have a human (if maybe rather tense) conversation with leading ISOers there; it's not like in Britain, where SWPers whom I've known for years look straight through me, as if I'm not there, when we meet by chance.

I put our assessment of Galloway to Glanz, no holds barred. Well, he said, everything you say may be true, and I'm sure any hook-up with Galloway can't last long, but at the end of it the SWP can come away with more members. And that is what matters.

The SWP Central Committee followed Glanz's reasoning. That meant that they had to say things about Galloway - great anti-imperialist, good socialist, blah blah - which they knew to be untrue. Unfortunately, some SWP members, even leading and experienced SWP members, took the blather for good coin.

What can the SWP CC do now? Tell those SWP members that the SWP CC was lying, and knew all along that Galloway was the sort of person any socialist should shun? Or just try to get through the split with as few losses as possible by playing the SWP loyalty card?

Comments

Submitted by martin on Mon, 15/10/2007 - 13:12

A possibly important dimension to this crisis which I know nothing about is how the various dissident SWP-offshoot groups around the world are responding and will respond.

There is now quite a large network of dissident SWP-offshoot groups, led by the International Socialist Organization of the USA, which the SWP expelled from its international tendency in 2001.

The alleged reason for the expulsion was that the ISO was too snooty and stand-offish towards the "new anti-capitalist" movement.

ISO has been pretty much as enthusiastic about Galloway as SWP has been; but distinctly cool on Respect. In its comment on the 2005 general election, the ISO gave its readers a pro-Respect view from an interview with SWP sympathiser Clive Searle, but also (and with somewhat more emphasis) an anti-Respect view from Mike Marqusee.

Socialist Alternative in Australia, another major group in the ISO-centred axis, was slightly warmer about Respect, but by no means gushing. Socialist Alternative's tactics are pretty much "1980s SWP" - wave the red flag, be ostentatiously leftist, do stunts, avoid immersion in broad movements, build the party as a "thing in itself" - but I can't believe it would be unwilling to do a flip to the "right" in order to attract the SWP dissidents.

In other words, it would not be at all impossible for the ISO/SA axis to jump in now and try to organise the pro-Galloway, anti-Central-Committee elements in the SWP.

But that is pure speculation. Any hard facts, anyone?

Martin Thomas

Submitted by martin on Wed, 17/10/2007 - 06:45

The latest, apparently, is that the Respect "officers' group", dominated by the SWP, has stalled the "National Organiser" appointment.

According to blog reports, "Nick Wrack has been blocked from being the National Organiser, despite support from 20 of the National Council, including a majority of the independents... John Rees writes: ‘The idea of an interim appointment had only arisen in the context of an imminent general election and since this is now not a factor it was felt that we might usefully spend a little more time over this important decision'."

Martin Thomas

Submitted by martin on Wed, 17/10/2007 - 15:23

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.