of these, calling for a feasibility study might just about be agreed but we were pleasantly surprised to hear just before the discussion that the executive were supporting the stronger amendment from Oxford, which commits
producing national publication for sale before the general election.
While the lack of any argued opposition meant the debate was less focused than it might have been otherwise, the agreement to these resolutions was a very important step forward.
Ken Loach, in speaking for the Oxford position, argued that the paper could be a way of developing policy from working groups by having special supplements on specific issues like housing or education.
The decision gives us the basis to seriously build Respect as a national organisation in areas where we hardly exist currently and in places where we will not stand misleading statements about Marx and religion for example. But overall Respect seemed to be moving in the right direction
Of course the debate on self organisation, which for us is also a priority issue, was still to come. But it was difficult to believe that something that is policy in virtually every trade union, every other left party in Europe and is supported by SWP members in all those places wouldn't be agreed.
But in the debate on the constitution the worm turned. Actually it happened just before that. I don't actually remember what Michael Lavalette was supposed to be talking about when he launched his vicious attack on dissidents within Respect.
He called those moving the resolution on a worker's wage "divisive and dishonest" and set the tone for a flurry of speeches that would follow.
Sait Atgul went on to move the constitution in a way that did nothing to suggest that he really supported the pluralism intrinsic to that document, incidently accusing (all?) those who had raised the question of abortion as being "cynical":
Socialist Worker editor, Chris Bambery, went further and attacked the idea that 20 members had the right to move motions to conference -but he was not called as a speaker against the constitution that incorporates precisely this provision.
Salma Yacoob spoke against the amendment on self-organisation, which was then roundly defeated. One of her arguments seemed to be that minorities in Respect did not need to caucus to gain self-confidence - apparently this has already been clearly have the numerical strength to win all their political positions that they choose to treat those who disagree with them in such a manner.
Socialist Resistance was successful in getting the majority of the political positions we wanted to see agreed at this conference adopted.
We didn't agree with many of the positions from other "dissidents" which were not adopted at this conference such as the call for elected representatives to receive no more than a workers wage, and on open borders and some constitutional issues.
But in order for Respect to be a broad pluralist democratic socialist alternative to the left of labour needs broad debates, which include many positions with which we and others disagree.
You can't pick your opposition comrades, and if you try you will weaken the whole project and taint the lifeblood of Respect. Conference warmly applauded Nick Wrack when from the chair he conveyed best wishes for a speedy recovery to Socialist Resistance supporter Alan Thornett, a member of Respect's National Executive, who was in hospital awaiting what has proved a successful operation.
Wrack played tribute to Alan's work on the Committee, not least in formulating the bulk of the Constitution which was passed largely unamended by the Conference.
Alan was among those reelected to the new National Council. are not standing, and where we are not urging support for another left of Labour candidate, we should call for a vote for Labour".
it was interesting here, that Galloway did not argue, as the amendment from John Rees later agreed by conference appears to, that we should only consider supporting other candidates to the left of Labour, where they agree to call for a reciprocal vote for Respect.
Obviously we should press them to do so, but it would be sectarian to base our final decision as to whether to support for example a local, wellrooted anti-privatisation, anti-war candidate on whether they also supported us in neighbouring areas.
Galloway went en to describe the many unsuccessful attempts that Respect has made to discuss at least a nonaggression pact with the Green Party, concluding that though he did not think the prospects were great, this was something we should keep trying to do.