troops also broken from most of the well-known figures who could draw crowd for Respect - notably Galloway and Salma Yaqoob, but also Victoria Brittain and Ken Loach.
In other words the SWP leadership's tactics have driven off virtually all of the independent forces that made Kespect a genuinely broad-based coalition. After three years of work they now stand to walk away from the project weaker and more discredited than they were betore it launched: their track record is one of politically hobbling
under-selling it and failing to tap its potential in a period uniquely favourable to building a left alternative.
And having failed to build it to its potential, rather than face up to any of the errors that have been made, or correct them, they have embarked a suicidal policy of polarising Respect for and against the SWP.
However, for those of us who have not stopped looking to build a broad leftwing party, the fact that the SWP leadership appears to have pressed the selfdestruct button opens up a far from a satistying situation. They are threatening to destroy something far more than the SWP itself.
against
ALL
wars It is possible for highly centralised groups such as the SWP to march in squads of delegates who know what they are going to vote for before they get there, and who will be oblivious to the damage that they and their antics do to the organisation. NO MORE CROSS
The problem is that if the SWP leadership stick to their guns, reject the proposals that we have made for postponement, and insist on convening the conference on November 17 there is no viable basis for non-SWP members to participate in it. There could only be a negative outcome
We already know that there is no way we would be allowed to win any voles, and that the process of checking credentials of delegations from Tower Hamlets, Student Respect and other areas would be a nightmare, with a real possi bility of anger and frustration on both sides exploding into threats and even violence.
But we also know that even if by some fluke we DID win a vote on a contested issue, there is no chance of the policy being implemented as long as the SWP leadership calls the shots.
Worse, we know from grim episodes in the history of the sectarian left, and from the way the SWP has now drummed up signatures for its current "petition" that it is possible for highly centralised groups such as the SWP to march in squads of delegates who know what they are going to vote for before they get there, who will be oblivious to the damage that they and their antics do to the organisaton.
We also know the impact a polarised, packed conference like this would have on independent forces and those with no experience of the far left: they would be profoundly shocked, alienated and demoralised: the result would be that many valuable people would be lost to the project and quite possibly lost to the left for years to come
So we have a real problem: do we march whoever we can gather into a stitched-up conference to be abused and reviled and voted down by SWPers accusing of witch-hunting them - and decide only afterwards how to regroup and rebuild?
Do we participate in a conference that not only cannot solve the problems, but which could make them many times worse and also parade them on the national stage in front of the press and mass media, to the delight of the real right wing and witch hunters?
Or do we decide that that is a not a useful expenditure of energy and that the time has come to build something new and inclusive which can address the problem of working class representation for which Respect was originally launched to address?
Of course it would be a setback to accept that Respect as we have known it, with all the effort involved in getting it off the ground has been destroyed by the SWP leadership. But the fact is the political conditions which created it are as relevant now as they were then,
And it is Hole so already clear that there are people all round the country who are ready to join or rejoin inclusive organisation.
With the of Brown the situation is far worse in the LP than it was when Respect was founded. The possibly of reclaiming Labour for the left is dead in the water.
The defeat of the John McDonnell campaign saw the Labour left at it lowest ebb for 60 years. There has to be a recomposition of the left which goes far beyond what Respect has been able to do.
We need a new organisation as soul as possible which will start to address these issues and create the condition to unite with those from the Labour left, the trade union left and the activists of ecological and climate change campaigns which can present a political alternative to the betrayals of new Labour. instructed to withdraw his name Friday October Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoveman receive an ultimatum to resign from their posts in Galloways office or face expulsion from SWP Sunday October 20 members of National Council circulate letter supporting Nick Wrack as candidate for national organiser. Nick Wrack, Rob Hoveman and Kevin Ovenden expelled from SWP Monday October Respect officers meeting at which there is only one candidate for national organiser, Nick Wrack. Officers meeting votes not to appoint - overturning decision of National Council. Tuesday October Conference Arrangements Committee meeting. Linda Smith argues the CAC is unconstitutional as membership not agreed by NC. Proposes additions to CAC which are not agreed. Linda Smith asks for membership records on financial contributions behind student delegation which could not be produced. Meeting proceeds. Tower Hamlets branch meeting breaks up in disarray. Wednesday October 17 Linda Smith sends letter recalling national council for for circulation. This letter is not circulated for some days and Rees disputes her right to call meeting. Thursday October 18 Tower Hamlets committee meeting votes to reconvene members meeting on October 25. SWP walk out.
Continued page 15