SWP member becomes UK government adviser

[Lenin's Law]

Britain: Socialist Workers Party member becomes government adviser

By Chris Marsden
28 October 2008


It was a golden moment for the Conservative press and they made the most of it. The October 8 Mail on Sunday headlined its article, "Teenage Trotsky is Cabinet's new adviser on radical Islam."

The focus of the article was the nomination of 18-year-old Sabiha Iqbal to act as a consultant on the 22-strong Young Muslim Advisory Group.

The YMAG has been set up by the Brown government to advise it on how to combat the influence of Islamic extremism, especially on the Internet. It will also advise on "The development and delivery of faith projects, including addressing issues of theology" and "An examination of how best to boost the representation and participation of young Muslims in civic life such as becoming local councillors or school governors."

In addition to this core task, the "advisers" will work directly with Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, Families Secretary Ed Balls and other cabinet members to supposedly probe the "challenges they face as young Muslims and their vision for their future as British Muslims" and to "encourage active citizenship through increased volunteering."

What supposedly outraged the Mail on Sunday is that Sabiha Iqbal "belongs to the Socialist Workers Party, which is dedicated to the overthrow of parliament, the state and capitalism."

The Daily Express complained, in addition, that Iqbal was part of a group given "direct access to Cabinet Ministers in a £1.3 million ‘community cohesion' initiative." "The budget has doubled in a year and is expected to increase to £2 million in 2009," it added.

The Mail and the Express were keen to embarrass the Labour government by associating it with a supposed revolutionary and member of the SWP. However, the picture that emerges of Sabiha Iqbal is of someone far removed from socialist politics whose membership of the SWP testified only to its own political opportunism regarding a longstanding orientation to young people influenced by Islam.

Sabiha Iqbal is a respectable middle class girl, who no one within ruling circles--including, it should be stressed, the Mail and the Express--would find truly objectionable in her new role. She states that her religious views are paramount, while her politics can only be described as generally liberal rather than socialist.

Privately educated at the £10,500-a-year Bradford Grammar School for Girls and now a law student at Leeds University, Iqbal told the press that her religious beliefs were "the most important thing in my life." As to her politics, "I am left-wing about some things and right-wing about others."
She said of her appointment, "As a young, proud British Muslim ... I want to use my position in the YMAG to create achievement through understanding, acceptance through empathy and a balanced but diverse community which can evolve together for a stronger, more positive British society."

When asked about her membership of the SWP, she explained only that she appreciated "what the party is trying to do.... I agree with the equality ideas of socialism. Having a sense of equality is important."
Little wonder then that Hazel Blears was sanguine in the face of the feigned outrage of the Mail and the Express. "If you don't want to change the world at 17, that's a shame," she said. "This group (YMAG) is made up of people with a wide range of beliefs. Getting them around a table to talk is all about democracy in action."

Iqbal would become one of what Blears described as "the next generation of Muslim community leaders," acting as "role models by coaching and inspiring their peers to achieve their potential."
Labour is a government that has waged two wars that have provoked mass outrage in the working class, particularly amongst Muslim youth; has enacted anti-terror legislation that threatens fundamental democratic rights; and is responsible for a massive deterioration in the living standards of working people.

Iqbal's decision to become an adviser to Blears and Balls may be a question of extraordinary naiveté, a belief that she can help represent voiceless young Muslims. But for her to accept such a position certainly reflects negatively on her party, the SWP, which can have made no effort whatsoever to politically educate her.

It was for the SWP, when the invite was extended, to tell Iqbal that her responsibility as a member was to oppose all efforts to encourage illusions that Labour would be responsive to the needs of working people and youth, Muslim or otherwise, and to insist that she publicly reject the offer. It did no such thing.

Moreover, even after Iqbal's appointment was announced, the SWP leadership felt no obligation to distance itself from the actions of its young member, to remove her from membership and to make clear to those who look to it for leadership that collaboration with the government is impermissible.

After several days with no comment being made, this writer contacted the SWP and asked whether they had anything to say. A representative said no. When I asked whether Iqbal was still a member of the party, the SWP spokesperson replied that she did not know.
The SWP's silence betrays a complete disregard for political principle. Either it disagrees with Iqbal's actions, but would rather remain silent than explain how it is that one of its members took such a course--possibly for fear of alienating others it has recruited with a similar political and class outlook. Or, alternatively, silence denotes consent and the SWP has no objection to working with the government if the offer is made and the opportunity arises.

At any rate, the party obviously believes that it need make no account for the political fallout from its own rampant opportunism.
In the aftermath of the disintegration of Respect--the alliance between the SWP, George Galloway and various Muslim politicians--the party has lost hundreds of members, including several from its leadership who went with Galloway. It has also seen former councillors and SWP members desert to both the Labour Party--in the case of Waiseul Islam in Tower Hamlets--and to the Conservatives in the case of Ahmed Hussain. Now one of its members has joined a Labour think tank.

Having recruited broadly on the basis of religious identity politics and confused anti-war sentiment, it is certain that others will take a similar path towards the greener pastures of the "political mainstream."

[Coggeh]

Surprise surprise.

This is just another article that denotes the swp for what they really are that is opportunists , I hate sectarianism among the left and i don't want to buy into fighting for fightings sake but the swp have to be called on their policies . Not just their opportunism to religious and anti-war politics but their actions throughout the UK and Ireland .
Their refusal to boot out Jimmy Kelly the head of a trade union who has because of his actions 3 workers on hunger strike , he has betrayed the workers and the swp again through their opportunism have fell silent on this issue stating again their willingness to turn on workers when it suits them .

[Q]

This only further notes the degeneration of the SWP in the opportunist politics indeed. The centralised leadership makes no effort to consolidate and educate members at all, then these kind of things happen. I agree with the writer of the article: In their embarrasment and in their fear for losing more members or even a split if the leadership suddenly opposes such a move and expels Iqbal, they just remain silent, letting the rotting process continue.

The SWP is more and more becoming a roadblock in organising the revolutionary left and to be honest I wouldn't be sad if they and their international just happened to implode very soon.

[Devrim]

I liked this bit from the Mail:


Miss Iqbal insisted yesterday that she was not an extremist, saying 'I am Left-wing about some things and Right-wing about others.

It makes one wonder what things one can be 'right-wing' about in the SWP.


Miss Iqbal said her religious beliefs were 'the most important thing in my life',

Devrim

[Trystan]

What a joke. And that Mail article has it wrong - the SWP are liberal reformist, not a revolutionary, or a workers', party.

[Revy]

All the more reason to join the Socialist Party (UK)....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I like the way you lot automatically accept just any old sectarian rubbish about the SWP. Have any of you even so much as begun to question the source of all this material: the Mail and the Express?!?

As usual, Devrim swallows yet more lies about the SWP, and treats them as gospel, even though they are from the Mail and the Express! He'll be quoting George W Bush next!:rolleyes:

And my fellow Trotskyists above: you should be ashamed of yourselves! The way you lot have reacted, you should in all honesty abandon Trotskyism. Who, after all, are all those Neo-con Bush advisers but ex-Trots?

And Trystan: what evidence do you have for that slur?

[jaffe]

so tell us. what exactly are the lies in this article?

[Yehuda Stern]

And my fellow Trotskyists above: you should be ashamed of yourselves! The way you lot have reacted, you should in all honesty abandon Trotskyism. Who, after all, are all those Neo-con Bush advisers but ex-Trots?

1. Only those are really just lies. Of all those Neo-Cons whom people claim were Trotskyists, only four were actually involved in left groups, and all of them, as far as I know, were Shachtmanites (member of the Workers' Party).

2. Even if your point had any truth in it, it would still not account for the fact that while all the neo-Cons are at best ex-"Trots," Iqbal is still an SWP member.

Kindly explain.

[BobKKKindle$]

Forgive me for asking, but what is actually wrong with agreeing to take up a advisory post on a government committee? If the young comrade had taken up an executive post which involved the implementation of government policy then there might be grounds for opposition to her decision, but this position will be limited to giving the government advice on how they should engage with the Muslim community - hopefully Sabiha will be able to use her position to expose the failure of the government to treat Muslims with the respect they deserve and combat prejudice directed against Muslims.

Let's get a sense of perspective. The Socialist Party originated from the Militant Tendency, which at one point took control of an entire local council in Liverpool as a faction working inside the Labour Party, and then accepted the government's demands for lower council spending by issuing redundancies to 30,000 local council workers. We need to be asking the question - what's worse, a single individual independently taking up an advisory role which could be used a platform to gain support for socialist ideas, or an entire party selling out a large group of workers during a period of economic hardship and popular discontent by trying to use the bourgeois state for their own misguided purposes?

[Yehuda Stern]

You can imagine that I very much agree with you about the Militant, but then again this is no answer for those of us who aren't in the CWI/IMT. How can someone claiming to be a working class revolutionary take any position in government in a bourgeois state? Being an MP is one thing, but what your member has done is simply class collaboration.

[Herman]

"I am left-wing about some things and right-wing about others."What the hell does that even mean?


You can imagine that I very much agree with you about the Militant, but then again this is no answer for those of us who aren't in the CWI/IMT. How can someone claiming to be a working class revolutionary take any position in government in a bourgeois state? Being an MP is one thing, but what your member has done is simply class collaboration.

There's nothing wrong with taking an official position. What is wrong is that this SWP member should limit and moderate her politics to "appease" labourites and conservatives.

[Devrim]

As usual, Devrim swallows yet more lies about the SWP, and treats them as gospel, even though they are from the Mail and the Express! He'll be quoting George W Bush next!:rolleyes:

In case anyone needs reminding here is the last time that Rosa accused me of believing bourgeois papers lies:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/swp-councillor-joins-t70540/index.html?t=70540&highlight=respect+tory+party
I said the Respect councilar had joined the Tory party. Rosa denied it,...and I was right. He had.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

Interesting (unless it's "all lies", right? :laugh:). Surely, a revolutionary organisation doesn't have to be a super-exclusive fraternity. But it's a bit much to have members who are basically just left/religious liberals*, and who are part of the social-democrats' effort to rescue the 'multi-cultural project': systematic maintenance of a cheap supply of immigrant labour and ghettoisation, while using 'community leaders' like Ms Iqbal to 'coach' immigrant youths who grow up in these conditions.

*Of course, the quotes are drawn up by Tory papers, but I doubt that even they would just make quotes up. It's just not done.

[benhur]

"I am left-wing about some things and right-wing about others."

What the hell does that even mean?


Maybe, she meant left/right hand. Like, she plays tennis with her left (makes her left-wing about some things), and she eats with her right (makes her right-wing about others).:rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim, once more you miss the point, which is that you were prepared to believe a bourgeois source before it had been confirmed -- as you are again doing here.

In fact, you are quite happy to believe any old lies/smears about the SWP, no matter from where they originate.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jaffe:


so tell us. what exactly are the lies in this article?

Here's one for starters:


"belongs to the Socialist Workers Party."

This is presented as fact, when it isn't one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS (confirming the sectarianism he tried to deny):


1. Only those are really just lies. Of all those Neo-Cons whom people claim were Trotskyists, only four were actually involved in left groups, and all of them, as far as I know, were Shachtmanites (member of the Workers' Party).

2. Even if your point had any truth in it, it would still not account for the fact that while all the neo-Cons are at best ex-"Trots," Iqbal is still an SWP member.

1. Does that condemn Trotskyism? No, it doesn't -- but the way some of the comrades here argue, it should do.

2. Do you know that for a fact?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

WM:


Of course, the quotes are drawn up by Tory papers, but I doubt that even they would just make quotes up. It's just not done.

As you no doubt know, they are experts at distortion, ommision, mis-quotation and out-of-context quotation.

But it is revealing the number of comrades here who (yet again) are happy to bad-mouth fellow socialists on the strength of smears in the Tory press.

[Q]

Let's get a sense of perspective. The Socialist Party originated from the Militant Tendency, which at one point took control of an entire local council in Liverpool as a faction working inside the Labour Party, and then accepted the government's demands for lower council spending by issuing redundancies to 30,000 local council workers. We need to be asking the question - what's worse, a single individual independently taking up an advisory role which could be used a platform to gain support for socialist ideas, or an entire party selling out a large group of workers during a period of economic hardship and popular discontent by trying to use the bourgeois state for their own misguided purposes?

Are you now that desperate that you'll resort to this kind of blatant lieing?
We refused to cary out any cuts and organised the popular resistance against it to demand the money back that was being cut from the council, at one point having demonstrations up to 50 000 in the city in support of the councils stance against Thatcher.

For a detailed account I suggest Liverpool - A City That Dared to Fight (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/liverpool/)

[Pogue]

In the ghetto.....(in the ghettooooooooooo)

[Yehuda Stern]

How does anything I said confirms my sectarianism? Please answer the question - is she or is she not currently an SWP member? If not, then it's slander and those spreading it should be ashamed. If she is, then you are a liar. It's as simple as that.

[Random Precision]

I honestly don't see what's the big deal about this. This is probably a decision that Ms. Iqbal made herself, without informing her organization. The SWP is not exactly in the position, nor should it be, to have spies constantly informing the CC or whatever of every decision that each member makes. As an organization with at least several thousand members left, I'm guessing they have slightly better things to do than knowing exactly what each member does on their personal time.

As Bob said, maybe she can use the position to propagandize for socialism. I'm not going to judge her because I don't live in the UK.

Secondly, I find it kind of disgusting what people are willing to believe about the SWP. It's to be expected from Devrim, who doesn't believe anything good will ever come out of the left. But this information is sketchy to say the least, and it also came from a fucking Tory newspaper. I feel like people are going to decide to forego attacking their secondary enemies, the Tories and New Labour, so that they can mount an assault on the SWP, the greatest danger to the working class. :rolleyes:

[Sam_b]

Maybe all the CWI members here are getting all hot and bothered about this because the young woman in the article is a Muslim? Well, y'know, seeing as the CWI section in Scotland voted against an open-borders immigration policy because it ignored "the very real fears of the white working class"......

[black magick hustla]

I honestly don't see what's the big deal about this. This is probably a decision that Ms. Iqbal made herself, without informing her organization. The SWP is not exactly in the position, nor should it be, to have spies constantly informing the CC or whatever of every decision that each member makes. As an organization with at least several thousand members left, I'm guessing they have slightly better things to do than knowing exactly what each member does on their personal time.


It does show, however, that the SWP lets in everyone and their grandmothers in provided they sell papers and pay dues. A "marxist" who thinks "religion" is the most important, and who says she is "right wing" in some issues pfffffffffffffffffff?

I think it is important to criticize leftist groups who become integrated to the state, especially big groups like the SWP. Everyone knows Labour and the Tories are up to no good, but the thing is, they do not pose as allies of the working class in the way the SWP does.

[Hit The North]

It does show, however, that the SWP lets in everyone and their grandmothers in provided they sell papers and pay dues. A "marxist" who thinks "religion" is the most important, and who says she is "right wing" in some issues pfffffffffffffffffff?



She's a very young women. I like to think the SWP offers space for people to develop. Unlike you, we don't expect to find finished revolutionaries off the shelf.


I think it is important to criticize leftist groups who become integrated to the state, especially big groups like the SWP. Everyone knows Labour and the Tories are up to no good, but the thing is, they do not pose as allies of the working class in the way the SWP does.


Integrated to the state? You're having a laugh.

What doctrinaire bullshit you spew forth.

[Led Zeppelin]

Maybe all the CWI members here are getting all hot and bothered about this because the young woman in the article is a Muslim?

Eh, only two CWI members posted in this thread so far.

[Herman]

She's a very young women. I like to think the SWP offers space for people to develop.When you enter a party called "Socialist Worker's Party", you're expected to know something about socialism. What she said completely undermined everything the SWP is supposed to represent.

Left-wing about "some issues" and "right-wing" about others?

If it had been anyone else on this board saying that, clarification would have been needed... and woe if one of those "right-wing issues" had been about abortion or religion.

[black magick hustla]

She's a very young women. I like to think the SWP offers space for people to develop. Unlike you, we don't expect to find finished revolutionaries off the shelf.

There where people who were solid communists when they were 13. Age does not matter. I dont think organizations should demand heavy theoretical maturity, but they should demand some basic things. After all, how can you build a functional organization where everybody participates in the intellectual development (i.e. not having a nucleus of professional "communists" dictating to a bunch of footsoldiers who have no idea what they are doing) If atleast you do not have a basic platform that everybody can agree with? A muslim "who is right wing in some things" surely does not agree with fundamental, and very basic and simple marxist principñes?




Integrated to the state? You're having a laugh.

What doctrinaire bullshit you spew forth.

Well, RESPECT, union bosses opposing a hunger strike, a muslim who is "right wing" in some issues becoming a goverment adviser......Yeah, I am being a "doctrinaire".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I honestly don't see what's the big deal about this.

If it's true...

Class collaboration. Joining forces with a bourgeois government. A "Marxist" who says religion is the most important thing in her life and that she's "right wing" on somethings? A supposedly 'revolutionary socialist' party which opportunistically lets that kind of person join.

You don't see anything wrong?

Do you see something right?


This is probably a decision that Ms. Iqbal made herself, without informing her organization. The SWP is not exactly in the position, nor should it be, to have spies constantly informing the CC or whatever of every decision that each member makes.

It's not about having spies (nor would they need any, since this is apparently public news now). We're talking about a member of a political party going against the principles and traditions of the workers movement she (and the party) are supposed to be a part of.

If this is true (which I have no way to confirm), the question is whether or not this was a breach of party discipline or something okayed by the leadership (and yes most revolutionary parties do have party discipline... most aren't like the ISO in the U.S., which signs up paper members on the spot on college campuses).


As an organization with at least several thousand members left, I'm guessing they have slightly better things to do than knowing exactly what each member does on their personal time.

Becoming an adviser to a bourgeois government is not something done on "personal time." It's a public, political move.

[Yehuda Stern]

So, from the new posts I understand that Iqbal is indeed still a member of the SWP, so all the SWPers who claimed otherwise were simply lying.

At any rate, my problem isn't that she is Muslim*. That's an incredibly stupid thing to say. My problem is exactly that she has taken a role in the government of a capitalist state, which happens to be involed in the oppression of workers, including Muslims, at home and abroad, on how to "treat" Muslims.

It also proves a very basic and broadly known fact - that, like someone else in this thread already said, practically anyone can get in the SWP.

*I don't rule out that other leftists have a problem with the fact that Iqbal is a Muslim. It is very fashionable to adopt racist anti-Muslim rhetoric among leftists today. But the way that some SWPers, for example Sam b, defend SWP opportunism is downright caricaturistic. When British leftists were telling of the SWP's conduct I was always certain that they're exaggerating, but it doesn't seem so anymore.

[Random Precision]

Let me reiterate here that the only information we have on this currently comes from a Tory newspaper. These are not people we should be trusting for our information. It does provide some quotes that seem to be incriminating from a revolutionary standpoint, but without reference to when and how those quotes were obtained.

We don't know what Ms. Iqbal's reasons for joining this project are. It could be as Bob Kindles said, that she'll use the position to propagandize for socialism. Revolutionaries have a long history of using bourgeois institutions for that.

Also, even if she is doing this as a move to the right (which certainly has not been established) it could be that she's changed her mind about socialism and about the workers movement. It happens sometimes, and when people abandon the class struggle we can't hold their former organizations responsible for it. I say "former" because if she doesn't have good reasons for accepting this post, we may safely assume that she won't be a member of the SWP for very much longer.

Like I said, it's just one more instance in a long tradition of automatically thinking and expecting the worst of fellow revolutionaries.

[Sam_b]

Like I said, it's just one more instance in a long tradition of automatically thinking and expecting the worst of fellow revolutionaries.

Any chance to try and score petty points off the SWP and the usual mob of sectarians on here jump on it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


How does anything I said confirms my sectarianism? Please answer the question - is she or is she not currently an SWP member? If not, then it's slander and those spreading it should be ashamed. If she is, then you are a liar. It's as simple as that.

Notice how you want your questions answered, but you rarely answer mine.

So, in line with the spirit you have brought with you to this board: you work out the answer to your own question.

If you can't -- tough.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


It does show, however, that the SWP lets in everyone and their grandmothers in provided they sell papers and pay dues. A "marxist" who thinks "religion" is the most important, and who says she is "right wing" in some issues pfffffffffffffffffff?

I think it is important to criticize leftist groups who become integrated to the state, especially big groups like the SWP. Everyone knows Labour and the Tories are up to no good, but the thing is, they do not pose as allies of the working class in the way the SWP does.

You know, if SWP-ers here were to believe any lies they read in the Tory press about, say, your sad little group, we can be sure you'd be the first to complain.

In fact, what we would do is ask you first, and in a PM. We certainly would not wash dirty linen in public, since an injury to one is an injury to all.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It could be as Bob Kindles said, that she'll use the position to propagandize for socialism. Revolutionaries have a long history of using bourgeois institutions for that.

I'm not sure if you don't understand the difference, or if you're just trying to blur the distinction, but there is a huge difference between being elected to parliament in a bourgeois government (and using that as a platform to promote the interests of the working class) and joining a bourgeois government as an appointed adviser, minister, etc.


Any chance to try and score petty points off the SWP and the usual mob of sectarians on here jump on it.

Anyway, sectarianism means putting the program of your sect above the interests of the working class. It doesn't mean criticizing another party or individual for their politics and the actions of their members (things that Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. all did frequently).

Is the SWP off limits to criticism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NHIA:


Becoming an adviser to a bourgeois government is not something done on "personal time." It's a public, political move.

I will repeat to you what I have said to Marmot:

You know, if SWP-ers here were to believe any old lies they read in the Tory press about, say, your organisation, we can be sure you'd be the first to complain.

In fact, what we would do is ask you first, and in a PM. We certainly would not wash dirty linen in public, since an injury to one is an injury to all.

Furthermore, when you set up your new party, I was among the first here to wish you well -- knowing that we would all benefit if you did.

It works the same way in reverse.

Some of you sectarians just do not understand the meaning of solidarity, do you?


Is the SWP off limits to criticism?

Certainly not, but not on the basis of smears in the Tory press.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS (and here's another example of your knee-jerk sectarianism):


So, from the new posts I understand that Iqbal is indeed still a member of the SWP, so all the SWPers who claimed otherwise were simply lying.

No they are not. No one knows for a fact if she is a member, and neither do you.

But no, you are prepared, as RP noted, to believe the worst about comrades based on reports in two Tory rags.

If the tables were turned, and we were to believe any old lies about your sad little group on the same basis, you'd be spitting blood by now.

What we would do is disbelieve it first, and then perhaps ask you privately in a PM for the facts, if you knew them. We certainly would not want to wash your dirty linen in public, knowing that an injury to you is an injury to us all.

One or two of you should hang your heads in shame!
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/999922.gif

[Q]

I'm awaiting with interest an official response from the SWP leadership on these articles.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


I'm awaiting with interest an official response from the SWP leadership on these articles.

This is a purely internal SWP matter. Why should you expect to hear about it in public?

No, as I have noted above several times already: if SWP-ers here were to believe any old lies they read in the Tory press about, say, your organisation, we can be sure you'd be the first to complain.

In fact, what we would do is automatically disbelieve the Tory press, and then if anything ask you, and in a PM. We certainly would not wash your dirty linen in public, since an injury to one is an injury to all.

But, no, you do the opposite: you give this Tory rumour credence and then expect an 'official' response in public.

Shame on you!

[zimmerwald1915]

Yes, the quotes come from the Tory press. What is the Tory press' agenda with this article? To discredit the committee Iqbal is sitting on. How will they do that? By playing up Iqbal's role in it. How will they make sure that their supporters feel that Iqbal and by extension this committee are discredited? By making Iqbal look as revolutionary as possible.

Why would the Tories try to make the SWP seem mainstream? It wouldn't fit their agenda. Liars the Mail and Express may be, but that doesn't mean that every single word they print is a lie. Rather, it means that they distort things to make them fit their agenda. Given that, they will distort Iqbal's comments and orientation to fit their agenda. This means that they will make her seem as threatening (read "revolutionary") as possible.

If this is as threatening as they can make her sound, then the rest of her statements...can't have been that threatening.

amirite?

[zimmerwald1915]

This is a purely internal SWP matter.
Is this a coded admission that the member in question is actually part of the SWP?

[Q]

This is a purely internal SWP matter. Why should you expect to hear about it in public?
Because if these are lies then said papers are waging big slander. Slander which could nest in the minds of many if not replied to.


No, as I have noted above several times already: if SWP-ers here were to believe any old lies they read in the Tory press about, say, your organisation, we can be sure you'd be the first to complain.

In fact, what we would do is automatically disbelieve the Tory press, and then if anything ask you, and in a PM. We certainly would not wash your dirty linen in public, since an injury to one is an injury to all.

But, no, you do the opposite: you give this Tory rumour credence and then expect an 'official' response in public.

Shame on you!

You're starting to sound like an old LP now.

[Pogue]

We can cure sectarianism by admitting that the whole of the left is an organisation fucking mess at the moment, we're all taking the piss big-time with our splits and bollocks and we all need a kick up the arse.

Cue about 50 people who are slaves to their party telling me how much of an **** or idealist i am. Funny cos we're socialists :D

[zimmerwald1915]

Cue about 50 people who are slaves to their party telling me how much of an **** or idealist i am. Funny cos we're socialists :D
...you're a **** and an idealist.

Happy?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Yes, the quotes come from the Tory press. What is the Tory press' agenda with this article? To discredit the committee Iqbal is sitting on. How will they do that? By playing up Iqbal's role in it. How will they make sure that their supporters feel that Iqbal and by extension this committee are discredited? By making Iqbal look as revolutionary as possible.

Why would the Tories try to make the SWP seem mainstream? It wouldn't fit their agenda. Liars the Mail and Express may be, but that doesn't mean that every single word they print is a lie. Rather, it means that they distort things to make them fit their agenda. Given that, they will distort Iqbal's comments and orientation to fit their agenda. This means that they will make her seem as threatening (read "revolutionary") as possible.

If this is as threatening as they can make her sound, then the rest of her statements...can't have been that threatening.

I don't give a fig for the motives of the Tory press, about which you can only speculate.

I do care that comrades here believe these lies.

[zimmerwald1915]

Z:



I don't give a fig for the motives of the Tory press, about which you can only speculate.

I do care that comrades here believe these lies.
So it doesn't matter at all why they published the article in question? Because that would have absolutely no bearing on what sort of things they would include in it?

Nice non-refutation. Try again.

[Herman]

I do care that comrades here believe these lies.

We don't even know if they're lies. Let's keep the reins in until we hear or see anything else.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Is this a coded admission that the member in question is actually part of the SWP?

No it's not. The Tory press contains allegations about an alleged member of the SWP.

I was addressing Q's demand for an 'official' response, which he won't get, for if there is any truth in this, it will be an internal matter for the SWP, and not for public consumption. If on the other hand there is no truth in it, then the answer is the same: mind your own business, and stop parading the alleged crimes of fellow comrades in public as if the source of such rumours was gospel truth.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


Because if these are lies then said papers are waging big slander. Slander which could nest in the minds of many if not replied to.

Yes, I note that you are quite happy to spread these lies.

And if others are prepared to believe these Tory rags, then why should we care? Such idiots are not the sort of individuals we would want to recruit anyway -- perhaps your sad mob might.


You're starting to sound like an old LP now.

Only because you are repeating Tory lies.

[Q]

Z:



No it's not. The Tory press contains allegations about an alleged member of the SWP.

I was addressing Q's demand for an 'official' response, which he won't get, for if there is any truth in this, it will be an internal matter for the SWP, and not for public consumption. If on the other hand there is no truth in it, then the answer is the same: mind your own business, and stop parading the alleged crimes of fellow comrades in public as if the source of such rumours was gospel truth.
Besides the technicality of expelling Iqbal or not (which is what you refer to as "internal matter" I guess?), there's also a political side to this: what is the SWP's stance on these kind of advisory councils, cooperating with the government, etc. These are things I would be very interested in, especially after several SWP'ers inhere saying it is "no big deal". It's from a political stance that policy flows after all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


So it doesn't matter at all why they published the article in question? Because that would have absolutely no bearing on what sort of things they would include in it?

Nice non-refutation. Try again.

I have no interest in 'refuting' speculation. If you want to fill your empty head with such stuff, that is your problem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


Besides the technicality of expelling Iqbal or not (which is what you refer to as "internal matter" I guess?), there's also a political side to this: what is the SWP's stance on these kind of advisory councils, cooperating with the government, etc. These are things I would be very interested in, especially after several SWP'ers inhere saying it is "no big deal". It's from a political stance that policy flows after all.

I am not responsible for what others say; deal with what I say when replying to me.

[Q]

I am not responsible for what others say; deal with what I say when replying to me.

I was just saying I'm interested in the SWP stance on this that I took the example of what individual SWP'ers said. But you're just on defense mode 101, you're not giving any answers because you're probably shocked (at least I hope) about this yourself and probably doubting what your party's political stance on this is.

If I'm wrong, please provide me with an answer, thank you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Q:


I was just saying I'm interested in the SWP stance on this that I took the example of what individual SWP'ers said. But you're just on defense mode 101, you're not giving any answers because you're probably shocked (at least I hope) about this yourself and probably doubting what your party's political stance on this is.

If I'm wrong, please provide me with an answer, thank you.

I am not giving answers to smears in the Tory press, which you, as a socialist, should automatically disbelieve.

And, even if that upsets your tiny sectarian brain, that is all the response you will get from me.

[politics student]

Q:



I am not giving answers to smears in the Tory press, which you, as a socialist, should automatically disbelieve.

And, even if that upsets your tiny sectarian brain, that is all the response you will get from me.

I only believe evidence and you have provided none.

I am rather glad I did not join the SWP but it seems that none of the parties really have any interest in revolution or creating a united front. Its a very sad state to see the left wing in.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In fact, what we would do is ask you first, and in a PM. We certainly would not wash dirty linen in public, since an injury to one is an injury to all.

It's already public. It's in a newspaper. Someone brought it here for discussion. It's a perfect opportunity for you to refute it, if it is indeed false.


No one knows for a fact if she is a member, and neither do you.


No one knows? Surely someone must. The leadership, fellow members, etc.


You know, if SWP-ers here were to believe any old lies they read in the Tory press about, say, your organisation, we can be sure you'd be the first to complain.

If a newspaper reported something false about our Party, and someone brought it up here, I would tell you what the truth was. Our Party would also likely make a public statement to clarify things (especially if one of our members was accused of joining a bourgeois government).

Simply screaming 'lie, smear, lie, smear, Tory, Tory, sectarian' doesn't real help the situation at all. If this is a lie, and you know it to be so, give us the truth. If the quotes are fabricated, let us know (and the SWP should do the same).

[Pogue]

...you're a **** and an idealist.

Happy?

Absolutely :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Passmore:


I only believe evidence and you have provided none.

This just means you belive the Tory press. What the hell are you doing at RevLeft then?


I am rather glad I did not join the SWP but it seems that none of the parties really have any interest in revolution or creating a united front. Its a very sad state to see the left wing in.

Indeed, the SWP does not recruit gullible twerps like you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NHIA:


It's already public. It's in a newspaper. Someone brought it here for discussion. It's a perfect opportunity for you to refute it, if it is indeed false.

What has this got to do with anything? Just because a couple of Tory rags smear the SWP, and a Trotskyist site retails the smears, you call upon the SWP to refute them.

As I noted, the comradely thing to do is not parade this all over RevLeft, but disbelieve it automatically, and, if you must, contact SWP-ers by PM to check the facts.

I'd certainly do that if anyone smeared your party.

But, what do comrades do here? They talk as if this were gospel truth, and automatically believe it. And why do they do that? Because their first reaction is knee-jerk sectarianism, and not just against the SWP. The same happens with sectarian attacks on the CWI, or the IMT, or anyone else, for that matter.

You lot make me sick; you allow Tory rags to set you against fellow socialists. And then you wonder why the left is so impotent.

The ruling-class really have you lot on a leash, don't they.

Pathetic.

[chegitz guevara]

1) The fact that it comes from the Tory Press doesn't automatically make it false.

2) I don't think there's anything wrong with a revolutionary taking a position in one of these advisory councils, so long as he or she is prepared to use it as a platform from which to spread the revolutionary socialist message and not actually be trying to solve problems for the bourgeois state. This is not the same thing as taking an executive position. By entering into this arrangement, the comrade is not taking responsibility for the actions of the bourgeois state.

3) The biggest issue I see is that she seems to be distancing herself from the politics of socialism, if the quote is accurate, and trying to appear more respectable.

[redarmyfaction38]

I like the way you lot automatically accept just any old sectarian rubbish about the SWP. Have any of you even so much as begun to question the source of all this material: the Mail and the Express?!?

As usual, Devrim swallows yet more lies about the SWP, and treats them as gospel, even though they are from the Mail and the Express! He'll be quoting George W Bush next!:rolleyes:

And my fellow Trotskyists above: you should be ashamed of yourselves! The way you lot have reacted, you should in all honesty abandon Trotskyism. Who, after all, are all those Neo-con Bush advisers but ex-Trots?

And Trystan: what evidence do you have for that slur?
for once. i sympathise with you, the swp, for all its faults, are not responsible for the actions of one member.
i do think however, that the top down approach of the swp does encourage this kind of approach.
btw, i was watching a youtube post by some spawning aristo that suggested the swp was subject to the same kind of right wing "entryism" during thev '80s as the labour party was.
what's your take on this?

[KC]

As I noted, the comradely thing to do is not parade this all over RevLeft, but disbelieve it automatically, and, if you must, contact SWP-ers by PM to check the facts.

I'd certainly do that if anyone smeared your party.

So if we PM you we'll get an answer out of you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG:


The fact that it comes from the Tory Press doesn't automatically make it false

The point is that comrades here treat it as automatically true. And that is the worrying thing.

------------------------------

RAF:


i do think however, that the top down approach of the swp does encourage this kind of approach.
btw, i was watching a youtube post by some spawning aristo that suggested the swp was subject to the same kind of right wing "entryism" during thev '80s as the labour party was.
what's your take on this?

I was highly active in the SWP in the 1980s and early 1990s and I didn't see any of this.

And, my experience of the SWP was that it wasn't (and still isn't) 'top down'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


So if we PM you we'll get an answer out of you?

No, because I am not in the SWP, and do not know the facts.

But, unlike many here, I do not automatically believe the Tory press.

[KC]

Really? For some reason I always thought you were an SWP member.

But you know that this is false?

[Pogue]

Rosa you seem to be avoiding the whole situation by calling your fellow Trots uncomradely and saying its right wing press lies. Some things the right wing press report are true and this story is not compeltely unbelievable. So refute the claim, please.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


Really? For some reason I always thought you were an SWP member.

But you know that this is false?

I do not know whether it is true or false, or half-true, or 90% false...

But, what I do know is that only sectarians will look to the Tory press for their information about fellow comrades.

I was a very active member of the SWP in the 1980s and early 1990s, and I still sell the paper on marches, etc. But I am not in the party at present.

I will re-join it (if they'll have me!) when my project is finished.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HLVS:


Rosa you seem to be avoiding the whole situation by calling your fellow Trots uncomradely and saying its right wing press lies. Some things the right wing press report are true and this story is not completely unbelievable. So refute the claim, please.

It is quite plain to me that certain comrades here believe the rubbish they read in the Tory press.

I am in no position to 'refute' these allegations since I am not a member of the SWP. Nor do I know if this woman is a member of the SWP, or has been expelled, since that is an internal matter for the SWP.

What I do know is that I will never lend credence to reports in the Tory press about comrades in the SWP, or any other revolutionary party/tendency.

And I am angry at those comrades here who, for obvious sectarian reasons, think it clever to retail Tory smears at RevLeft.

And they never learn. They'll be at it again in a few weeks' time -- all the while bemoaning the fact that the left is so divided and impotent.

And, like several others here, you miss the point: it is not a matter of whether these smears are true or not, but the fact that several here automatically think they are true. They are happy to believe the worst about other comrades, independently of the harm this does to all of us.

They would be the first to complain if I automatically believed Tory smears about their tiny parties.

I'd accuse them of being idiots, but that would be to praise them far too highly.

[KC]

Ok, so if you don't know, then instead of going on a huge tirade about how leftists believe the Tory press, why don't you just say "I don't know"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


Ok, so if you don't know, then instead of going on a huge tirade about how leftists believe the Tory press, why don't you just say "I don't know"?

Once more, you miss the point of my "tirade": I am sick of comrades here who automatically believe any old rubbish they read about the SWP (or any other group they happen not to be a member of) in the Tory press.

They need slapping down, and I'm just the girl for that job.

[KC]

Ok but you could do that while at the same time telling us that you don't know.

[BOZG]

Any chance to try and score petty points off the SWP and the usual mob of sectarians on here jump on it.

It's interesting that sam takes the defensive "Poor aul' SWP, everyone's against us/They're all sectarians!" position when his initial post in this thread was to assert that this entire thread was some sort of CWI conspiracy against the SWP, even though only two CWI members actually made posts. And then proceeded to start attacking the CWI. Maybe if you want to start talking about petty sectarianism, you should take a look in the mirror. The same could be said about bobkindles who decided to use some questions about the SWP's internal structures (which he raised publically on this forum) as a platform to raise lies about the internal workings of the CWI which I'll point out that he hasn't retracted or cared to give proof to. It's particularly interesting that none of the questions raised where in anyway confrontational or aggressive towards the SWP but were merely inquisitive questions as to how the SWP works.



Let's get a sense of perspective. The Socialist Party originated from the Militant Tendency, which at one point took control of an entire local council in Liverpool as a faction working inside the Labour Party, and then accepted the government's demands for lower council spending by issuing redundancies to 30,000 local council workers. We need to be asking the question - what's worse, a single individual independently taking up an advisory role which could be used a platform to gain support for socialist ideas, or an entire party selling out a large group of workers during a period of economic hardship and popular discontent by trying to use the bourgeois state for their own misguided purposes?

The Militant Tendency never had any intention of sacking these workers and I'd like to see evidence that they were going to. The issuing of redundancy notices to council staff was always a tactical move. It was an attempt to rally working class people in Liverpool to struggle and to point out that unless the Liverpool City Council could defeat the Thatcher government over the Council budget that the only reality was that council workers would have to be sacked if the Council was to continue their current house building projects etc. It was a completely incorrect tactic that completely backfired. Nobody doubts that but to claim that Militant councillors and their comrades on the council were actually going to sack council workers is ridiculous. It is interesting though that rather than try and discuss, defend, refute or debate an allegation aimed at your own organisation that you use it as an attempt to smear another organisation.



Maybe all the CWI members here are getting all hot and bothered about this because the young woman in the article is a Muslim? Well, y'know, seeing as the CWI section in Scotland voted against an open-borders immigration policy because it ignored "the very real fears of the white working class"......

Well, let's step into the real world for a minute.The issue of immigration is a very serious issue in working class areas.Communities that already face massive underspending, massive under-investment and massive over-stretching of resources are afraid of further population increases and further pressure on public services, on healthcare and on education.Unfortunately, the right-wing media and the right-wing parties have been able to play on immigration and racist / prejudiced / bigotted opinions that some working class people hold and scapegoat immigrants as the cause or potential further cause of pressure on services.But it's also a case that even when the issue of race is removed, working class people are still concerned about massive population increases in their areas due to the development of huge numbers of houses without a matching increase in the development of amenities and services.And a slogan of "Open Borders" is absolutely irrelevant to those people without a realistic programme of development in infrastructure, in schools, in hospitals, in childcare facilties, in shopping facilities etc. It doesn't raise consciousness in anyway and in fact, because of the prejudices that the media, the establishment and the bourgeois parties have been successful in whipping up, it only alienates people.For what? The sake of slogans and revolutionary purity?The reality is that unless you can address the real issues that people feel and undermine the propaganda of the bourgeoisie by arguing for housing for all, for proper investment in developing services, amenties, healthcare and education for all, the slogan of "Open borders" is completely irrelevant. Now, you can feel prolier-than-thou for being purer-than-pure if you want, but I don't really give a fuck about you. I'm more interested in working class people.


I'm aware that none of this actually deals with the issue that this thread concerns but it's been a long night and I'd like some sleep. Depending on what time I surface in the morning, I'll try and make some points regarding the accusations and thread itself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


Ok but you could do that while at the same time telling us that you don't know.

Why should I begin with that if the main point is the empty headed sectarianism of far too many posting here?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BOZG:


Maybe if you want to start talking about petty sectarianism, you should take a look in the mirror. The same could be said about bobkindles who decided to use some questions about the SWP's internal structures (which he raised publically on this forum) as a platform to raise lies about the internal workings of the CWI which I'll point out that he hasn't retracted or cared to give proof to. It's particularly interesting that none of the questions raised where in anyway confrontational or aggressive towards the SWP but were merely inquisitive questions as to how the SWP works.

Sure, take that up with Sam and BK, but that does not excuse the knee-jerk sectarianism of comrades in this thread.

[Devrim]

Rosa has done a great job of diverting the discussion from the topic here.

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Q:



This is a purely internal SWP matter. Why should you expect to hear about it in public?
Because it is important for the working class to know what is going on?

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, I fully expected the answer to be something like "you are a sectarian." But it really just confirms all that I said in my last post, and for me that pretty much satisfies everyone's suspicions, no matter how much SWPers will scream and whine about "rumors."

Edit: I would like to note that counter to hysterical accusations of sectarianism, I merely asked for a confirmation or denial, to know whether or not Iqbal is still an SWP member:


Please answer the question - is she or is she not currently an SWP member? If not, then it's slander and those spreading it should be ashamed. If she is, then you are a liar. It's as simple as that.

There is no reason why this question would be so hard to answer unless those asked are [rightfully] ashamed of the truth.

[dez]

It's interesting that sam takes the defensive "Poor aul' SWP, everyone's against us/They're all sectarians!" position when his initial post in this thread was to assert that this entire thread was some sort of CWI conspiracy against the SWP, even though only two CWI members actually made posts. And then proceeded to start attacking the CWI. Maybe if you want to start talking about petty sectarianism, you should take a look in the mirror. The same could be said about bobkindles who decided to use some questions about the SWP's internal structures (which he raised publically on this forum) as a platform to raise lies about the internal workings of the CWI which I'll point out that he hasn't retracted or cared to give proof to. It's particularly interesting that none of the questions raised where in anyway confrontational or aggressive towards the SWP but were merely inquisitive questions as to how the SWP works.




The Militant Tendency never had any intention of sacking these workers and I'd like to see evidence that they were going to. The issuing of redundancy notices to council staff was always a tactical move. It was an attempt to rally working class people in Liverpool to struggle and to point out that unless the Liverpool City Council could defeat the Thatcher government over the Council budget that the only reality was that council workers would have to be sacked if the Council was to continue their current house building projects etc. It was a completely incorrect tactic that completely backfired. Nobody doubts that but to claim that Militant councillors and their comrades on the council were actually going to sack council workers is ridiculous. It is interesting though that rather than try and discuss, defend, refute or debate an allegation aimed at your own organisation that you use it as an attempt to smear another organisation.



[/b]
Well, let's step into the real world for a minute.The issue of immigration is a very serious issue in working class areas.Communities that already face massive underspending, massive under-investment and massive over-stretching of resources are afraid of further population increases and further pressure on public services, on healthcare and on education.Unfortunately, the right-wing media and the right-wing parties have been able to play on immigration and racist / prejudiced / bigotted opinions that some working class people hold and scapegoat immigrants as the cause or potential further cause of pressure on services.But it's also a case that even when the issue of race is removed, working class people are still concerned about massive population increases in their areas due to the development of huge numbers of houses without a matching increase in the development of amenities and services.And a slogan of "Open Borders" is absolutely irrelevant to those people without a realistic programme of development in infrastructure, in schools, in hospitals, in childcare facilties, in shopping facilities etc. It doesn't raise consciousness in anyway and in fact, because of the prejudices that the media, the establishment and the bourgeois parties have been successful in whipping up, it only alienates people.For what? The sake of slogans and revolutionary purity?The reality is that unless you can address the real issues that people feel and undermine the propaganda of the bourgeoisie by arguing for housing for all, for proper investment in developing services, amenties, healthcare and education for all, the slogan of "Open borders" is completely irrelevant. Now, you can feel prolier-than-thou for being purer-than-pure if you want, but I don't really give a fuck about you. I'm more interested in working class people.


I'm aware that none of this actually deals with the issue that this thread concerns but it's been a long night and I'd like some sleep. Depending on what time I surface in the morning, I'll try and make some points regarding the accusations and thread itself.

Sorry for derailing again... But do you care about the working class of a specific location or with the whole of the world's working class?

[zimmerwald1915]

Sorry for derailing again... But do you care about the working class of a specific location or with the whole of the world's working class?
...That's not a derail at all, and is in fact a very relevant and important question...

which I have done nothing to answer.

*shuts up*

[redarmyfaction38]

Forgive me for asking, but what is actually wrong with agreeing to take up a advisory post on a government committee? If the young comrade had taken up an executive post which involved the implementation of government policy then there might be grounds for opposition to her decision, but this position will be limited to giving the government advice on how they should engage with the Muslim community - hopefully Sabiha will be able to use her position to expose the failure of the government to treat Muslims with the respect they deserve and combat prejudice directed against Muslims.

Let's get a sense of perspective. The Socialist Party originated from the Militant Tendency, which at one point took control of an entire local council in Liverpool as a faction working inside the Labour Party, and then accepted the government's demands for lower council spending by issuing redundancies to 30,000 local council workers. We need to be asking the question - what's worse, a single individual independently taking up an advisory role which could be used a platform to gain support for socialist ideas, or an entire party selling out a large group of workers during a period of economic hardship and popular discontent by trying to use the bourgeois state for their own misguided purposes?
that comrade is the misrepresentation of liverpool city councils tactic pedalled by all the sectarians and right wingers.
the truth is, militants central committee was never asked for their opinion on the tactic, liverpool city council was not just militant members, labour party bosses agreed the tactic and then slated the liverpool councillors for carrying it out.
that's why militant and its supporters walked out of labour party conference.
as for the tactic itself, it was a mistaken one, it involved issuing redundancy notices to 3,000 workers in order to gain govt. funding for their wages to take them through to the next financial year when those notices would have been rescinded. it was not properly thought out, it relied on the support of trade union and labour leaders that had singularly failed to support any kind of fightback against thatcherism. it relied on the labour party leadership, that had consistently undermined the policies of liverpools "militant" council and tried to impose secret deals upon those elected members.
militant would never have made one worker redundant let alone 3,000.
liverpool city council never accepted the govts. demands for cuts, just looked for a way round them.
btw., redundancies in local govt. are funded by central govt. a minimum of 3 months wages.

[redarmyfaction38]

Maybe all the CWI members here are getting all hot and bothered about this because the young woman in the article is a Muslim? Well, y'know, seeing as the CWI section in Scotland voted against an open-borders immigration policy because it ignored "the very real fears of the white working class"......
are the white working class less worthy of consideration because they are white?
isn't that racism?

[redarmyfaction38]

Britain: Socialist Workers Party member becomes government adviser

By Chris Marsden
28 October 2008


It was a golden moment for the Conservative press and they made the most of it. The October 8 Mail on Sunday headlined its article, "Teenage Trotsky is Cabinet's new adviser on radical Islam."

The focus of the article was the nomination of 18-year-old Sabiha Iqbal to act as a consultant on the 22-strong Young Muslim Advisory Group.

The YMAG has been set up by the Brown government to advise it on how to combat the influence of Islamic extremism, especially on the Internet. It will also advise on "The development and delivery of faith projects, including addressing issues of theology" and "An examination of how best to boost the representation and participation of young Muslims in civic life such as becoming local councillors or school governors."

In addition to this core task, the "advisers" will work directly with Communities Secretary Hazel Blears, Families Secretary Ed Balls and other cabinet members to supposedly probe the "challenges they face as young Muslims and their vision for their future as British Muslims" and to "encourage active citizenship through increased volunteering."

What supposedly outraged the Mail on Sunday is that Sabiha Iqbal "belongs to the Socialist Workers Party, which is dedicated to the overthrow of parliament, the state and capitalism."

The Daily Express complained, in addition, that Iqbal was part of a group given "direct access to Cabinet Ministers in a £1.3 million ‘community cohesion' initiative." "The budget has doubled in a year and is expected to increase to £2 million in 2009," it added.

The Mail and the Express were keen to embarrass the Labour government by associating it with a supposed revolutionary and member of the SWP. However, the picture that emerges of Sabiha Iqbal is of someone far removed from socialist politics whose membership of the SWP testified only to its own political opportunism regarding a longstanding orientation to young people influenced by Islam.

Sabiha Iqbal is a respectable middle class girl, who no one within ruling circles--including, it should be stressed, the Mail and the Express--would find truly objectionable in her new role. She states that her religious views are paramount, while her politics can only be described as generally liberal rather than socialist.

Privately educated at the £10,500-a-year Bradford Grammar School for Girls and now a law student at Leeds University, Iqbal told the press that her religious beliefs were "the most important thing in my life." As to her politics, "I am left-wing about some things and right-wing about others."
She said of her appointment, "As a young, proud British Muslim ... I want to use my position in the YMAG to create achievement through understanding, acceptance through empathy and a balanced but diverse community which can evolve together for a stronger, more positive British society."

When asked about her membership of the SWP, she explained only that she appreciated "what the party is trying to do.... I agree with the equality ideas of socialism. Having a sense of equality is important."
Little wonder then that Hazel Blears was sanguine in the face of the feigned outrage of the Mail and the Express. "If you don't want to change the world at 17, that's a shame," she said. "This group (YMAG) is made up of people with a wide range of beliefs. Getting them around a table to talk is all about democracy in action."

Iqbal would become one of what Blears described as "the next generation of Muslim community leaders," acting as "role models by coaching and inspiring their peers to achieve their potential."
Labour is a government that has waged two wars that have provoked mass outrage in the working class, particularly amongst Muslim youth; has enacted anti-terror legislation that threatens fundamental democratic rights; and is responsible for a massive deterioration in the living standards of working people.

Iqbal's decision to become an adviser to Blears and Balls may be a question of extraordinary naiveté, a belief that she can help represent voiceless young Muslims. But for her to accept such a position certainly reflects negatively on her party, the SWP, which can have made no effort whatsoever to politically educate her.

It was for the SWP, when the invite was extended, to tell Iqbal that her responsibility as a member was to oppose all efforts to encourage illusions that Labour would be responsive to the needs of working people and youth, Muslim or otherwise, and to insist that she publicly reject the offer. It did no such thing.

Moreover, even after Iqbal's appointment was announced, the SWP leadership felt no obligation to distance itself from the actions of its young member, to remove her from membership and to make clear to those who look to it for leadership that collaboration with the government is impermissible.

After several days with no comment being made, this writer contacted the SWP and asked whether they had anything to say. A representative said no. When I asked whether Iqbal was still a member of the party, the SWP spokesperson replied that she did not know.
The SWP's silence betrays a complete disregard for political principle. Either it disagrees with Iqbal's actions, but would rather remain silent than explain how it is that one of its members took such a course--possibly for fear of alienating others it has recruited with a similar political and class outlook. Or, alternatively, silence denotes consent and the SWP has no objection to working with the government if the offer is made and the opportunity arises.

At any rate, the party obviously believes that it need make no account for the political fallout from its own rampant opportunism.
In the aftermath of the disintegration of Respect--the alliance between the SWP, George Galloway and various Muslim politicians--the party has lost hundreds of members, including several from its leadership who went with Galloway. It has also seen former councillors and SWP members desert to both the Labour Party--in the case of Waiseul Islam in Tower Hamlets--and to the Conservatives in the case of Ahmed Hussain. Now one of its members has joined a Labour think tank.

Having recruited broadly on the basis of religious identity politics and confused anti-war sentiment, it is certain that others will take a similar path towards the greener pastures of the "political mainstream."
as a worker, if the bosses offered you a big fat salary for being on one of its think tanks, would you turn it down?:D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Rosa has done a great job of diverting the discussion from the topic here.

On the contrary, the real topic is the craven attitude some comrades (like you) display toward allegations made in the Tory press about fellow socialists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rakunin:


Because it is important for the working class to know what is going on?

Yes, the massed ranks or the working class log on here, don't they?

[And we know why the stear clear of us: because of sectarian twerps like you.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


Well, I fully expected the answer to be something like "you are a sectarian." But it really just confirms all that I said in my last post, and for me that pretty much satisfies everyone's suspicions, no matter how much SWPers will scream and whine about "rumors."

Well at least you know you are a sectarian, who automatically believes what he reads in the Tory press about fellow Trotskyists.

And you are not going to get an answer as to whether this woman is or is not an SWP member, or has been expelled. That is an internal SWP matter.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Rosa, please stop spamming. You've repeated yourself enough. You don't need to quote and respond to each individual member just to call everyone who posted in this thread a 'sectarian.'

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

as a worker, if the bosses offered you a big fat salary for being on one of its think tanks, would you turn it down?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

As a communist, yes.

[Saorsa]

I was addressing Q's demand for an 'official' response, which he won't get, for if there is any truth in this, it will be an internal matter for the SWP, and not for public consumption.

Um... so if if the bourgeois media publicly proves how dodgy the SWP's members are politically, and how the SWP doesn't appear to do a good job of training it's members up ideologically, thereby dealing a bit of a blow to your organisation's credibility... there's no need to respond publicly? You're just going to lie low and hope it all goes away, pretending nothing happened? That's a piss poor approach.

Cue Rosa refusing to respond to what I or anyone else says and instead accusing me of being "sectarian".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CA:


Um... so if if the bourgeois media publicly proves how dodgy the SWP's members are politically, and how the SWP doesn't appear to do a good job of training it's members up ideologically, thereby dealing a bit of a blow to your organisation's credibility... there's no need to respond publicly? You're just going to lie low and hope it all goes away, pretending nothing happened? That's a piss poor approach.

Cue Rosa refusing to respond to what I or anyone else says and instead accusing me of being "sectarian".

Sorry to disappoint, but NHIA says I cannot accuse you of being a sec*arian, so all I can say is that you are without doubt the least sec*arian comrade in the entire universe, for all time -- and should thus automatically be taken to heaven, the sooner the better.

And, if the SWP is smeared in the Tory press, it is not the least bit comradely for alleged socialists to retail those smears here as if they were gospel truth -- which is the point you keep missing (probably deliberately, since you are a complete non-sec*arain, as we can all now see).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NHIA:


Rosa, please stop spamming. You've repeated yourself enough. You don't need to quote and respond to each individual member just to call everyone who posted in this thread a 'sectarian.'

Where have I called everyone who has posted here a "sec*arian"? I did not accsue BTB, RP, BK or SamB of this.

So, if you are going to try to bully me bureaucratically, at least try to get your facts right, Your Non-Sec*rainness.

[Yehuda Stern]

I can't know that I am a sectarian because one can generally not know that which is not true (that's not even a DM postulate, so you should be able to understand it). I do know, however, that when instead of answering a simple question, one instead rants hysterically about sectarianism, then one is hiding something, and that something is probably that the answer to the question is something embarrassing. You are still welcome to prove me wrong by answering my question, but as I guessed in my last two posts and as you said yourself, you're not going to. Therefore I believe I'm going to keep believing my conclusion to be correct.


all I can say is that you are without doubt the least sec*arian comrade in the entire universe, for all time -- and should thus automatically be taken to heaven, the sooner the better.

And, if the SWP is smeared in the Tory press, it is not the least bit comradely for alleged socialists to retail those smears here as if they were gospel truthIf "comradely" equals "covering up for the SWP's opportunism," then you SWPers here are the only real "comradely" people. Nice touch, though, on wishing for the death of someone who criticizes your organization - it proves that not only you are an honest person in general but that you are definitely not a sectarian yourself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS after he realised dropped a clanger:


I can't know that I am a sectarian because one can generally not know that which is not true (that's not even a DM postulate, so you should be able to understand it). I do know, however, that when instead of answering a simple question, one instead rants hysterically about sectarianism, then one is hiding something, and that something is probably that the answer to the question is something embarrassing. You are still welcome to prove me wrong by answering my question, but as I guessed in my last two posts and as you said yourself, you're not going to. Therefore I believe I'm going to keep believing my conclusion to be correct.

Before he realised it:


Well, I fully expected the answer to be something like "you are a sectarian." But it really just confirms all that I said in my last post, and for me that pretty much satisfies everyone's suspicions, no matter how much SWPers will scream and whine about "rumors."

And, as if to confirm his status as Sec*arian Extraordinaire (NHIA will not allow me to use the word "sec*arian"), he offers this as Exhibit A for the prosecution:


If "comradely" equals "covering up for the SWP's opportunism," then you SWPers here are the only real "comradely" people. Nice touch, though, on wishing for the death of someone who criticizes your organization - it proves that not only you are an honest person in general but that you are definitely not a sectarian yourself.

To cap it all, YS still refuses to apologise for believing all he reads in the Tory press.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rosa still refuses to answer my original question: whether or not Iqbal is an SWP member. Since she hasn't, that to me confirms that she is, and it confirms the nature of the SWP. The rest of Rosa's unclear mess of a post is irrelevant and is just another maneuver by someone seeking to hide from criticism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


Rosa still refuses to answer my original question: whether or not Iqbal is an SWP member. Since she hasn't, that to me confirms that she is, and it confirms the nature of the SWP. The rest of Rosa's unclear mess of a post is irrelevant and is just another maneuver by someone seeking to hide from criticism.

I have answered it in other threads.

And we are still waiting for a reason why you automatically believe the Tory press -- or at least for some sort of an apology for your knee-jerk sec*arian error.

[Led Zeppelin]

Ok look, Rosa has a point here, but so does the other side.

Bobkindles and Sam b decided to slander the CWI with no basis in fact just as the opposite side believed those claims about the SWP with no basis in fact (as far as we know, that is).

Wouldn't it be much more productive if we didn't believe petty gossip that is spread around by all kinds of people and just go with the facts? I know it's hard because in all parties there are people who thrive on gossip about other parties (I'm not even considering the external sources here), but it doesn't really serve a purpose besides making yourself feel better for "having made the right choice" by joining your particular party of preference.

That's the only positive thing that comes out of it, right? Now consider the negative; increased tensions between revolutionary leftists, which can run up outright hatred, and this in turn causes the left to become more fragmented and weaker in general as a result of the negative social relations between individuals and parties.

It's fucking ridiculous but sometimes (actually most of the time) it seems that revolutionary leftist parties hate each other more than they hate the class enemy.

It's not pointless to be a conciliator in times like these (in fact it is much more suitable than in Trotsky's time), because guess what; at the end there is only one tendency/movement which will prevail, and that is the workers' movement in general, not your sect of choice.

That is all I have to say about this.

[Q]

YS:
I have answered it in other threads.
But not inhere. Could you at least link to your answers in said threads?


And we are still waiting for a reason why you automatically believe the Tory press -- or at least for some sort of an apology for your knee-jerk sec*arian error.

Whether or not the Tory press is lieing about this or whether or not people are believe possible lies is irrelevant. The questions several people are raising here are: why isn't the SWP denouncing these lies or expelling the member? (the "this is an internal SWP matter" argument has been refuted, so instead actually answer the question for once) Why are several SWP'ers inhere saying "it is no big deal"? What does this tell about the SWP stance on these government positions? What does that tell about the SWP efforts to consolidate and educate members?

What I think it comes down to is: If the SWP is supporting these positions in an opportunist way, what is that telling us about them being a revolutionary organisation?

[Q]

Ok look, Rosa has a point here, but so does the other side.

Bobkindles and Sam b decided to slander the CWI with no basis in fact just as the opposite side believed those claims about the SWP with no basis in fact (as far as we know, that is).

Wouldn't it be much more productive if we didn't believe petty gossip that is spread around by all kinds of people and just go with the facts? I know it's hard because in all parties there are people who thrive on gossip about other parties (I'm not even considering the external sources here), but it doesn't really serve a purpose besides making yourself feel better for "having made the right choice" by joining your particular party of preference.

That's the only positive thing that comes out of it, right? Now consider the negative; increased tensions between revolutionary leftists, which can run up outright hatred, and this in turn causes the left to become more fragmented and weaker in general as a result of the negative social relations between individuals and parties.

It's fucking ridiculous but sometimes (actually most of the time) it seems that revolutionary leftist parties hate each other more than they hate the class enemy.

It's not pointless to be a conciliator in times like these (in fact it is much more suitable than in Trotsky's time), because guess what; at the end there is only one tendency/movement which will prevail, and that is the workers' movement in general, not your sect of choice.

That is all I have to say about this.
I agree wholeheartedly with the point you're making, however I disagree with the logical conclusion that flows from your think pattern: "let's not discuss about policies and stances organisations are making". I think it is quite important to always question our tactics and stances and see if they're still correct in the context we're living in.

What matters to me now is not so much whether or not the story about Iqbal is false or true (I really don't think Tory press can make that kind of lie though), but the stance several SWP'ers and one ex-SWP'er here are making. This reflects the internal party life. That is what I'm questioning here.

[Led Zeppelin]

"let's not discuss about policies and stances organisations are making". I think it is quite important to always question our tactics and stances and see if they're still correct in the context we're living in.

Sure, but what you just quoted was never said or hinted at by me.

I said this: "Wouldn't it be much more productive if we didn't believe petty gossip that is spread around by all kinds of people and just go with the facts?"

So I wasn't saying that questioning your tactics or stances is bad and should not be done, I just said that when you do so it's best to make sure you're doing it based on facts, not fiction.

That seems to make sense.


but the stance several SWP'ers and one ex-SWP'er here are making. This reflects the internal party life. That is what I'm questioning here.

Good, and you should continue to do so, just make sure that it's based on facts and not hearsay or gossip.

That's what I was saying, I wasn't saying that criticism is bad and should be avoided.

[Q]

Then we agree LZ, but then again there are only rare occasions where we don't :D

[Yehuda Stern]

1. Rosa, I did not instinctively believe what the paper had to say. I asked questions and got no answers and reached my conclusion.

2. LZ is certainly correct that it's better to make political criticism rather than criticism based on the actions of certain individuals. However, that doesn't mean that SWPers should be able to avoid criticism of their method of recruitment and cadre education (or lack thereof).

[Tower of Bebel]

Yes, the massed ranks or the working class log on here, don't they?

[And we know why the stear clear of us: because of sectarian twerps like you.]
As if that was what I meant.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R:


As if that was what I meant.

As if you know what you mean.

--------------------

YS:


1. Rosa, I did not instinctively believe what the paper had to say. I asked questions and got no answers and reached my conclusion.

2. LZ is certainly correct that it's better to make political criticism rather than criticism based on the actions of certain individuals. However, that doesn't mean that SWPers should be able to avoid criticism of their method of recruitment and cadre education (or lack thereof).

Already covered in earlier posts -- is your eyesight not too good?

--------------------------------

Q:


But not inhere. Could you at least link to your answers in said threads?

Sorry, I meant earlier posts in this thread.

And: find them yourself.


Whether or not the Tory press is lieing about this or whether or not people are believe possible lies is irrelevant. The questions several people are raising here are: why isn't the SWP denouncing these lies or expelling the member? (the "this is an internal SWP matter" argument has been refuted, so instead actually answer the question for once) Why are several SWP'ers inhere saying "it is no big deal"? What does this tell about the SWP stance on these government positions? What does that tell about the SWP efforts to consolidate and educate members?

What I think it comes down to is: If the SWP is supporting these positions in an opportunist way, what is that telling us about them being a revolutionary organisation?

Once more, this has already been dealt with.

Are you sec*arians suffering from collective blindness?

[Sam_b]

Well, let's step into the real world for a minute.The issue of immigration is a very serious issue in working class areas.Communities that already face massive underspending, massive under-investment and massive over-stretching of resources are afraid of further population increases and further pressure on public services, on healthcare and on education.Unfortunately, the right-wing media and the right-wing parties have been able to play on immigration and racist / prejudiced / bigotted opinions that some working class people hold and scapegoat immigrants as the cause or potential further cause of pressure on services.But it's also a case that even when the issue of race is removed, working class people are still concerned about massive population increases in their areas due to the development of huge numbers of houses without a matching increase in the development of amenities and services.And a slogan of "Open Borders" is absolutely irrelevant to those people without a realistic programme of development in infrastructure, in schools, in hospitals, in childcare facilties, in shopping facilities etc. It doesn't raise consciousness in anyway and in fact, because of the prejudices that the media, the establishment and the bourgeois parties have been successful in whipping up, it only alienates people.For what? The sake of slogans and revolutionary purity?The reality is that unless you can address the real issues that people feel and undermine the propaganda of the bourgeoisie by arguing for housing for all, for proper investment in developing services, amenties, healthcare and education for all, the slogan of "Open borders" is completely irrelevant. Now, you can feel prolier-than-thou for being purer-than-pure if you want, but I don't really give a fuck about you. I'm more interested in working class people.

So its OK to pander to petty racial stereotyping and the 'white working class' in particular? Give me a break. What you've said is all well and true, yet the right win media's shit-stirring about this being a racial problem is all but supported by the CWI when if they make comments about this. My loyalties lie with the working class, whatever ethnic background they come from. The CWI sections pathetic apologism as shown in my quote makes me unsure if they are too.

To address the post, anyway: No, the SWP is not immune from criticism at all, but all that is happening here is opportunist slander by comrades about our party to try and prove some sort of point, which ultimately, fails to do. I'm sure if this article was about another tendency this wouldn't happen, nor the complete avoidance of the obvious thing to do which would be to search a little deeper.

This sort of thing has happened before in the SWP and the press, and always because of incompetance on their side. Several times before they've not been able to distinguish a sign-up sheet (for more information, meetings coming up, paper sales....) with people who actually pay party subs and are activists. Personally i'd always count activists who pay subs as party members, and it isn't clear in the article that the young woman is a) actually a subs paying member, or b) a party activist.

Until such things are cleared up I think its ridiculous to slander the SWP in such a way.

[Devrim]

To address the post, anyway: No, the SWP is not immune from criticism at all, but all that is happening here is opportunist slander by comrades about our party to try and prove some sort of point, which ultimately, fails to do. I'm sure if this article was about another tendency this wouldn't happen, nor the complete avoidance of the obvious thing to do which would be to search a little deeper.

I think this verges on paranoia. Lots of tendencies are criticised on here. Nobody else comes out with this 'but they are all picking on us' line.

If it were actually true, I think it would actually be worse for you because it would only happen due to you completely alienating many people.

As for the actual point, the one that you refer to as 'some sort of point', it is quite obvious that it is that the SWP lets in anybody regardless of political opinion. I don't think that people need to prove it as everybody knows its true. I think people are just laughing when it is proven.


This sort of thing has happened before in the SWP and the press, and always because of incompetance on their side. Several times before they've not been able to distinguish a sign-up sheet (for more information, meetings coming up, paper sales....) with people who actually pay party subs and are activists. Personally i'd always count activists who pay subs as party members, and it isn't clear in the article that the young woman is a) actually a subs paying member, or b) a party activist.

Until such things are cleared up I think its ridiculous to slander the SWP in such a way.

It is not going to be cleared up, is it? So what you are saying is drop any criticism.

Nobody is denning that this article is basically true. Even Rosa's argument is you shouldn't believe the bourgeois press. She is not in anyway denying the truthfulness of the story.

Devrim

Edit: By the way I think that you are right on the CWI, but it comes across as they are having a go at us, so instead of responding to what they say, I will have a go at them on a completely unconnected issue.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


I think this verges on paranoia. Lots of tendencies are criticised on here. Nobody else comes out with this 'but they are all picking on us' line.

But, few comrades automatically believe the Tory press (like you do) on the way to such criticism -- unless you know differently, and can provide the links?


She is not in anyway denying the truthfulness of the story.

That suggests I might think it true, which is not the case. What I am doing is saying that we do not know the facts, so this story could be a load of rubbish.

My complaint is that far too many here are too quick to believe any old rubbish about other socialists, and in this case, on the basis of what could be a pack of lies in the Tory press.

[Junius]

Forgive me for asking, but what is actually wrong with agreeing to take up a advisory post on a government committee? If the young comrade had taken up an executive post which involved the implementation of government policy then there might be grounds for opposition to her decision, but this position will be limited to giving the government advice on how they should engage with the Muslim community - hopefully Sabiha will be able to use her position to expose the failure of the government to treat Muslims with the respect they deserve and combat prejudice directed against Muslims.

Let's get a sense of perspective. The Socialist Party originated from the Militant Tendency, which at one point took control of an entire local council in Liverpool as a faction working inside the Labour Party, and then accepted the government's demands for lower council spending by issuing redundancies to 30,000 local council workers. We need to be asking the question - what's worse, a single individual independently taking up an advisory role which could be used a platform to gain support for socialist ideas, or an entire party selling out a large group of workers during a period of economic hardship and popular discontent by trying to use the bourgeois state for their own misguided purposes?

This is ironic considering that in another thread you were extolling the virtues of democratic centralism and the importance of 'discipline', but then when it comes to its application in your own organization you are (un)suprisingly lenient. It appears that so long as you are willing to pay your dues that the SWP will accept you. Which goes to show: mere words are...mere words. This is not surprising coming from an organization which supported the Labour Party in '97 - votes count, after all.

[politics student]

Devrim:



But, few comrades automatically believe the Tory press (like you do) on the way to such criticism -- unless you know differently, and can provide the links?



That suggests I might think it true, which is not the case. What I am doing is saying that we do not know the facts, so this story could be a load of rubbish.

My complaint is that far too many here are too quick to believe any old rubbish about other socialists, and in this case, on the basis of what could be a pack of lies in the Tory press.

I don't think anyone believed the story in the paper but as you have gone on a 6 page rant attacking others in the left and claiming that all the main stream papers print lies. (most of the tabloids do print mostly lies) but you have offered nothing up to show that this is a lie except derail the topic from the orginal questions.

I consider the SWP to be in the same sad state as most the other left national parties. :thumbdown:

[Hit The North]

I consider the SWP to be in the same sad state as most the other left national parties. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/thumbdown.gif

And you'd be right. What you gonna do about it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pissmore:


I don't think anyone believed the story in the paper but as you have gone on a 6 page rant attacking others in the left and claiming that all the main stream papers print lies. (most of the tabloids do print mostly lies) but you have offered nothing up to show that this is a lie except derail the topic from the orginal questions.

All I have done is attack those who automatically believe the Tory press.

If that sets you off into a tantrum, too bad.

[politics student]

Pissmore:



All I have done is attack those who automatically believe the Tory press.

If that sets you off into a tantrum, too bad.

Just because its Tory press does not mean they always lie, perhaps misrepresent a lot of the time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pissmore:


Just because its Tory press does not mean they always lie, perhaps misrepresent a lot of the time.

We've already been over this. Once more: the point is not whether the Tory press is lying but that comrades here, who should know better, automatically believed the Tory press in their allegations against fellow socialists.

If you can see nothing wrong with that, then you belong to the wrong Forum.

Perhaps this one is more your home:

http://www.politic.co.uk/

Or maybe the Phora?

[Saorsa]

This thread gives me even more of a headache than all the other threads Rosa ever posts in. The issue at stake here is simple - the bourgeois media have published a story that alleges an SWP member is sitting on a govt advisory committee, and that this woman talks about being "right wing on some issues" and how "religion is the most important thing in [her] life".

So far, no SWP member has bothered to give a straight answer to our questions about how truthful this is. So I'm asking you all now - is this woman a member of the SWP? And if so, are you comfortable with someone like that being an SWP member and sitting on a govt advisory committee?

It'd be nice for you to answer these questions. And if you don't know, please be honest about that and if you can, find out.

I find it unlikely the bourgeois media would make something like this up. How is it in the capitalist's interests to make the SWP sound more mainstream and less radical than it actually is?

[Sam_b]

is this woman a member of the SWP? And if so, are you comfortable with someone like that being an SWP member and sitting on a govt advisory committee?


1. I don't think so.
2. No.

I would say that I could find out, but i'll be fucked if i'm going to do it to satify some people on a web forum. Nevertheless for SWP comrades on here i'll have a chat to some people and let you know, unless you find out first.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CA:


This thread gives me even more of a headache than all the other threads Rosa ever posts in. The issue at stake here is simple - the bourgeois media have published a story that alleges an SWP member is sitting on a govt advisory committee, and that this woman talks about being "right wing on some issues" and how "religion is the most important thing in [her] life".

The things that seem to exercise your ire have already been answered: we do not know if this woman is in the SWP or not, and we are not inclined to tell you even if we knew.

This is an internal SWP affair, and if that upsets you -- tough.

[benhur]

CA:



The things that seem to exercise your ire have already been answered: we do not know if this woman is in the SWP or not, and we are not inclined to tell you even if we knew.

This is an internal SWP affair, and if that upsets you -- tough.

With all due respect, how can it be an internal matter, when it concerns socialists worldwide?

[Q]

With all due respect, how can it be an internal matter, when it concerns socialists worldwide?

I would say it concerns all of the militant layer of the working class.

[RHIZOMES]

Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions

[Hit The North]

With all due respect, how can it be an internal matter, when it concerns socialists worldwide?


I would say it concerns all of the militant layer of the working class.

One individual (an 18 year old law student at Leeds Uni), who might or might not be a member of the SWP, decides to join an obscure advisory panel for the government without the formal support of the above mentioned party, and you two think it's a concern for the world wide movement? :laugh:

Get a sense of proportion!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


With all due respect, how can it be an internal matter, when it concerns socialists worldwide?

Do you suppose then that she is a member of every socialist party on the planet?

------------------

AB:


Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions
Cue Rosa calling everyone "sectarian"
Cue everyone else asking Rosa to answer their questions

Get your facts right; I haven't called BobKindles, BTB, Randon Precision or Sam B this.

And the 'questions' you refer to have been answered.

[Saorsa]

And the 'questions' you refer to have been answered.

You just said that if you knew the answer to our question ("is this woman in the SWP?") you wouldn't tell us anyway!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CA:


You just said that if you knew the answer to our question ("is this woman in the SWP?") you wouldn't tell us anyway!


That, too, is an answer -- you may not like it, but that's your problem.

[Yehuda Stern]

You just said that if you knew the answer to our question ("is this woman in the SWP?") you wouldn't tell us anyway!

But don't you get it? They gave you the answer that they're willing to give, and the only reason you complain instead of bowing down to their wisdom is because you're a sectarian and a Muslim hater.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


But don't you get it? They gave you the answer that they're willing to give, and the only reason you complain instead of bowing down to their wisdom is because you're a sectarian and a Muslim hater.

Where have I used the phrase 'Muslim hater'?

[Tower of Bebel]

One individual (an 18 year old law student at Leeds Uni), who might or might not be a member of the SWP, decides to join an obscure advisory panel for the government without the formal support of the above mentioned party, and you two think it's a concern for the world wide movement? :laugh:

Get a sense of proportion!
It depends on the formulation. I think it is important for the working class to know what is going on in party.

[Yehuda Stern]

Rosa: One of your pals said that criticism of Iqbal's appointment might very well be motivated by Islamophobia (Sam b, I think).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


Rosa: One of your pals said that criticism of Iqbal's appointment might very well be motivated by Islamophobia (Sam b, I think).

Do you mean this:


Maybe all the CWI members here are getting all hot and bothered about this because the young woman in the article is a Muslim? Well, y'know, seeing as the CWI section in Scotland voted against an open-borders immigration policy because it ignored "the very real fears of the white working class"......

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1273989&postcount=24

This is not an accusation of islamophobia, but an implied criticism that CWI comrades were tailing the 'white working class'.

------------------------


I think it is important for the working class to know what is going on in party.

Not on the basis of smears in the Tory press.

[Saorsa]

Not on the basis of smears in the Tory press.


Smears which are all too believable considering the SWP's dismal record.