The Respect conference on October 30-31 had many strengths. The conference took a series of decisions that took the organisation closer to the pluralist, democratic, campaigning socialist political party to the left of labour that is so desperately needed and that Respect has the real potential to become.
Around delegates attended, and at least 100 observers, though most not for the whole time, a weekend CYCILL that discussed and debated - and usually agreed policy on a whole range of issues of international and national politics.
It was a pleasant change from many conferences of the radical left that many of the participants were from number of different ethnic minority communities, reflecting the real strides forward Respect has made in this regard.
What was agreed will undoubtedly give the incoming National Committee a real basis to develop a rounded general manifesto and the organisation issues to campaign around.
Conference started with a session imperialism opened by councillor Oli Rahman, from Tower Hamlets, our first elected representative.
Lindsay German, secretary of the Stop the War coalition as well as a member of Respect's outgoing national executive also made an introduction in this session.
Conference went on to debate 10 resolutions, starting with a very comprehensive statement from the National Executive Council and agreed or remitted everything in this section.
Things seemed a bit flat at this point, but that is not that surprising.
The war in Iraq was the driving force that brought the coalition together, so you would not expect there to be a huge amount of disagreement over it.
Conference was then addressed by the General Secretary of the PCS, Mark Serwotka and went on to Ken Loach argued for a paper with in-depth policy supplements debate the emergency resolution calling for solidarity with the November strike. Serwotka's speech - see box -was definitely one of the highlights of the weekend.
There were then a series of workshops Kashmir, Kurdistan, Palestine, Civil Liberties and trade unions (see box). After lunch conference considered the motions relating to these issues first. This did get frustrating.
It was clear for example from the Kashmir workshop that there was a wealth of knowledge on the subject as well as ideas for practically campaigning around the issue - and building Respect more strongly in the relevant communities. But one speech of 3 minutes can't explain 57 years of occupation and broken promises or why it came to pass never mind what we should do about it.
That these problems are ones that arose in a new organisation at its first conference is no real surprise.
There were more than 70 resolutions for conference to consider over two days as well as a load of other business.
On publications, the executive supported the stronger amendment from Oxford, which commits Respect to producing a national publication for sale before the general What was agreed will undoubtedly give the incoming National Committee a real basis to develop a rounded general election manifesto and the organisation issues to campaign around. And we reached the end of the order paper - unlike for example most trade union conferences that remit masses of stuff to the incoming executive to ignore.
OK so there was stuff remitted but this was on the decision of the mover - even if it sometimes seemed that EC members had influenced this decision.
Perhaps we need to look at future conferences at limiting the number of motions that each branch can submit -while also perhaps bringing in a provision for branches to submit motions they don't agree with but believe are worthy of debate.
Both provisions exist for example in the procedures of the Scottish Socialist Party and this, together with other practices have worked to ensure that conference considers motions properly and that there is a culture of pluralism and dissent.
There are other issues that
needs to address about procedures. The standing orders were a little thin and in retrospect it was a mistake not to give movers of motions the right of reply, not to be clear who decided whether speakers would be taken in debate etc.
We have no proper procedures for compositing, either in terms of when it should take place or what the rules are for doing it.
This is not anyone's fault -it is just how it is but we should learn from our weaknesses and inexperience and ensure that we are better prepared for the next conference.
Alarm bells rang more loudly with some of Saturday afternoon's debates. A session on youth and crime might better have been separated in
two, or called "New Labour's attempt to criminalise young people".
Then the final debate of the afternoon on abortion definitely left a bitter taste in people's mouths. It is certainly a big step forward that Respect adopted a position of defending the existing legislation and supporting woman's right to choose.
Defence of the existing, albeit inadequate legislation, opens the door for more developed discussion and positions to be taken by Respect in the future.
Conference supported the composite motion moved by comrades from the SWP but voted against the two other motions one from Resistance supporters and one from the CPGB.
It was a great pity that the guillotining of the discussion, twenty minutes before conference was due to end, meant that the debate could not be properly had and left women who had wanted to speak very frustrated.
Everyone knew this was one of the most contentious debates of the weekend and it should have been given adequate time. And this basic lack of democracy was a problem to some extent or another throughout much of the conference.
Socialist Resistance is not hostile to the alliances the SWP have managed to make within Respect with ethnic minority and Muslim groups in principle.
We believe these alliances can strengthen Respect and deepen the fightback against Blairism. But there can be a danger of bending to the perceived views of some of allies, in an opportunist fashion.
For example there is no evidence that all Muslims are opposed to abortion and anyhow, even if some of them are they can vote against such resolutions.
If the adoption of such positions leads to them leaving Respect, when they agree