Cliffism

NUS to support a new war in Georgia?

2008-08-15T11:12:00.002+01:00

In an internal debate Tom Stubbs and Dave Lewis of the NUS National executive are arguing for NUS to call for NATO troops to occupy South Ossetia. Yes NUS really seems to want to call for a war between NATO and Russia - what a good idea. Obviously I can't post their internal emails so here is my response:

Their position flys in the face of the facts as everyone bar George Bush and david Milliband understands them (what do they teach in schools these days...) No one is denying Russia was and is an imperialist force that occupyied what was refered to rather grotesquely as the "USSR" or that it repressed both Georgia and South Ossetia. Unfortunately Georgia is so bad to its national minorites they were one of the only groups to vote to try and stay in the USSR as an alternative to georgian nationalism in 1991.

To finish your analysis here however is to pretend the following 15 years have not happened. The Caucasus (a bit like the Balkans but to a lesser degree) is made of many minorites but with a much less bitter history of conflict between them. South Ossetia is one such area and has always tryed to have a degree of autonomy (as is pointed out by some more shrewed commentators its economy is not strong enough to become truely independant. Georgian governments over the last few years have pursued two interlinked stratergies 1) attempt to enter NATO to increase its own power in the region (and be sure of military support in any conflict with Russia), it is no secret that Georgia is viewed as the most pro western country in the region, the 3 most important oil pipelines run through it (and on a side point the main road from its airport is named George Bush avenue.) 2) repressing the rights of minorities within its borders.

For this reason the majorty of people in South Ossetia have in recent years not simply overwhelmingly supported some form of independance but have repreated expressed a desire to more closer to Russia. South Ossetia has been effectively autonomous from Tbilisi since the easly 90's and Abkhazia actually voted to remain in the USSR in 91 because they knew they would get less autonomy under a "historic Georgia." This is the "historical" context of the on going border clash but does not explain why it has split into a hot war in recent years. Why did Georgia decide now to launch a military attack on it's minority risking escalation it could not match from Russia? It can't be simply read as the government continuing its stated project of recreating a historic Georgia...

The answer is the Georgian government miscalculated. It read the escalation of US aggression in the middle east and its bullish stance against Russia and China as an oppotunity. It thought it was as good as in Nato and it thought Russian imperialism would not risk challenging a US ally. In other words NATO expansion gave the Georgian government the confidence to militarily repress a seperatist minority movement on it Russian border (military repression is a bad thing Tom.) The Georgian Government had been given the greenlight to test how far NATO could push into the Caucasus and the US helped the Georgian army in trying to destroy the autonomy of South Ossetia to see if they could risk trying it in the more significant area of Abkhazia. This was a conflict driven by the compertition between NATO (lead by the US super power) seeing how far it could spread its influence to hem in Russia as a lesser (but still 'great' power.) What started the current conflict was The expansion of the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty orgainsation into the Caucasus. If Georgia had been in NATO formally the US and UK would have been bound by treaty to declare war on Russia.

If we call for Nato intervention we will be both siding against minority rights in Georgia (for the sole reason that Georgia is a Nato ally) and more inportantly calling for our government to escalate conflict with Russia. Does NUS want to call for a new cold war between Russia and NATO? Because that is what your position would amount to. Oh and what right do we have to talk about not invading a soverign nation? I wonder where Russia got its justification from...

All troops out of South Ossetia
No to NATO expansion

Solidarity with Turkey's first Students' Union

2008-07-23T16:05:00.000+01:00

GENC-SEN, Turkey’s first and only students’ union was founded in December 2007 to defend students and fight for their demands on a national level. Starting as a small concern GENC-SEN has grown to over 1500 members and 27 university and college branches with backing from a national trade union federation. GENC- SEN branches have run a range of progressive campaigns that would be familiar to many student activists and officers in Britain.

However since its foundation their branches were targeted by the government one by one. Branch meetings were unlawfully barred posters and leaflets confiscated. Some state officials have arbitrarily declared some branches “illegal”. Now such attacks have become nation with the Governorship of Istanbul on behalf of the ministry of the interior taking a court case against the union. They are claiming that the “Trade Union Act no.2821 does not provide for the freedom of association for students.” The case has been pushed back to the 27th of July and may continue for some time.

NUS have sent messages of protest and support as well as raising the matter with members of the government. Our Turkish comrades have asked for unions and activists to fax messages of protests to:

Ministry of Interior, Fax: 0090 3124181795
Governorship of Istanbul, fax: +90 212 512 20 86

Messages of solidarity should be sent to: gencsen@disk.org.tr

NUS saved from the brink of destruction

2008-04-06T16:41:00.010+01:00

"This conference will go down as the year Student Respect arrived as the official opposition”
Wes Streeting (National President-elect & Labour Students leader)

NUS Conference 2008 saw the defeat of 20 years of democratic cuts by Labour students. It saw NUS elect anti-war campaigner Rose Gentle as its honorary Vice President, vote to support occupations in the event of any attack on Iran, student respect emerge as the official opposition in the fulltime elections and get elected 1st and 3rd onto the national executive “block of 12.”

Conference started with the Save NUS Democracy campaign, lead by Student Respect and the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), defeating the right wing’s “review”. Against all odds we mobilised 355 delegates to stop the leadership gaining the two thirds needed to destroy NUS democracy forever. Defeat caused the leadership lose the plot with vile denunciations of those opposed to the review and abuse directed at leftwing speakers explaining where the union should go next. Policy debate for the next two days was marked by red-baiting against free education and campaign orientated motions. The leadership cheered as speakers said we had to drive “Bolsheviks” out of our union and “stop the NUS being a Marxist debating club on wheels” in response to a motion calling for joint work with the lecturers union UCU.

Conference shifted left under the combination of the debate around Darfur (when a respect speaker from Sudan rocked conference with a speech against intervention) and our spectacular full time election results. Where our decision to contest elections as “Student Respect (Save NUS Democracy)” paid off; Hind Hassan came second with 379 (39%) for VP Welfare and Rob Owen second for VP (Higher Education) with 201 (27%). The highest votes for any left candidates won through our intervention around Save NUS Democracy and strong left speeches. The left then passed motions opposing military recruitment and calling for college occupations against any attack on Iran with the right unwilling to speak in defence of the government.

The most impressive result of conference was Student Respects showing in the “block of 12” elections where our candidates came in 1st with 94 votes and 3rd with 73. This is the strongest showing for any left faction in recent NUS history. Unfortunately both the Galloway backed Student Broad Left (33 votes) and the Alliance for Workers Liberty (44 votes) failed to get re-elected onto the national executive. This leaves a National Executive of 27 with only 4 clearly opposed to the attacks on democracy and 16 in open support.

Having mobilised over 100 delegates and won strong presence on the national executive Student Respect can now take the lead in rebuilding a student movement to fight for free education and against racism & war. Recent results at Essex and Goldsmiths have shown we can win leadership of Unions when we are leading left wing campaigns and able to win a wider layer of activists to standing on a united and principled platform.

Respect Councillor joins Tory Party

2008-02-15T14:53:00.003Z

Although no one could have guessed Cllr Ahmed would have gone to the right he was always the loose cannon, the councillor who described Galloway as a "mad dog" and the least solid of the four Respect councillors. The group was very much driven by Oli, Lutfa and Rania who have a clear political direction. They managed to bring one councillor with them and seemed close to pulling one more from renewal.

In a way it symbolic of the recent crisis in Respect that the SWP have been fighting so hard to counteract. The Tower Hamlets councillors group was to politically weak to resist becoming sucked into the mainstream world of electorialism and town hall politics. Galloway was able to exploit the pull on the councillors and the figure of Abjol Miah to isolate the left and move renewal further into electorialism.

Since the split the alliance of Abjol, Galloway and Yacoob has been enough to stem defections to labour from renewals council group which has done little to pull away from the comfort zone of council politics. Unfortunately the move of respect towards Trade Union activists and the social movements on radical politics broke one of the councillors who came over with us. In doing so he has radically broken with the politics he was elected on, crossing class lines, and should resign his seat to fight re-election as a tory.

Do I thing the defection proves Respect was wrong? Not exactly. I think it does prove that radical left formations need a clear anti-capitalist current in them which can pull others to them.

The problem in Tower Hamlets was that to much was compromised over the selection of candidates and the council group had a marginal left within it. This was proved when only one councillor came over with Oli, Rania and Lutfa the fact he eventually left progressive politics altogether is more damaging but less relevant. Even communists and anarchists renouncing their radicalism is not unheard of after all.

The general point it proves is not controversial - That when the left is moving forwards confidently it pulls around it other forces which are attracted to its ideas. In these scenarios it is possible to pull together broader coalitions over various points of program. When a crisis hits (Brown bounce, economics crisis, new movements etc) the degree to which they hold together depends on the strength of the organised left within them. That’s doubly true in representative chambers like council or parliament where politics is "the distorted echo" or real life politics and the radical left is one step removed from the everyday politics whish give movements strength.

The renewal councillors adapted by accommodating themselves to electoral labourism and ours by radically distancing themselves from labour. As part of a small group excluded from the "official life" of the council Cllr Ahmed clearly became demoralised with the project and lost his tie to leftwing politics in the process while maintaining his hatred of the war and new labour. As such he broke both with the radicalism of respect and the labourism of renewal and went to the other side which seemed to offer support in the chamber and a new base for some form of "community" politics. Respect's offical statement

Bhutto & Pakistani politics

2007-12-29T22:25:00.000Z

Linked is a response to Benziar Bhutto’s assassination from the International Socialists in Pakistan. It stands out from most reports of both the left and the mainstream in focusing on how it will effect the movement against the dictatorship. It also explains the dubious role both Benziar and the Pakistan Peoples Party have played in the recent period.

Despite the neo-liberal policies she implemented and continues to support she was closely associated with opposition to the dictatorship. Her death will be seen as a direct blow against the movement and an attempt to drive politics off the streets. The left faces the difficult task of responding to the assassination without being co-opted by liberal imperialist opinion.

Here is a background piece by Chris Harmen

5 days to save NUS democracy?

2007-07-25T12:18:00.000+01:00

All our best interests drive us away from discussing the running of NUS and the left has distinguished itself building campaigns for peace, justice and equality when many student officers shy away from “politics.” Monday’s “governance consultation” revealed the flip side of that coin with a discussion removed from a debate on the type of movement we need to build to win.

Business Speak
Substituting “mission statements” for real political vision is a symptom of a bigger problem - NUS is turning itself away from a mass campaigning federation into a centralised professional lobby group. Staff are more central to a conception of campaigning based on tinkering within the limits set by parliamentary committees rather than ideologically opposing the government’s marketisation of education. With this mindset, NUS conference is an unwieldy, expensive bolt on to the process of creating specific campaigns to be “actioned” by the national office; The National Executive (NEC) is “too diverse, large and political;” and matters of finance, accounting and process are the determining factor in deciding a new structure for the organisation.

The proposals appear to be:
-A cut down conference with reduced powers over setting campaigns
-A cut back, less political, sabbatical led NEC with no “policy setting powers.”
-An expanded National Council which would meet a few times a year and contain the token “political diversity.”
-A bigger separation between areas of NUS work
-Liberation campaigns regulated by the “financial side” of the central organisation.

A political NUS
To rebuild NUS we need to start from the sort of campaigning and vision we need to win and then work out how to pay for it. NUS’ central role most be pulling together the widest number and range of students to discuss their experience and build up an understanding of our education and the world around it. Only then can we start discussing how best to campaign effectively. To move NUS forwards we need to be working out ways to re-engage activists on the ground and politically debate the way to lay a base for our campaigns. To do this we need at least,
-A large as possible conference focused on debating our experiences and political understanding of events of developments.
-A broad, diverse National Executive representing political experience and range of student opinion (containing some form of block of 12.)
-To put liberation campaigns at the heart of NUS campaigning
-Supported local campaign groups/areas to link our debates and decisions to our activists on the ground.

We have until the end of this month to get our ideas thrown into the mix, simply rocking up at conference and hoping for the best will be too late. To organise to make sure a vision of a democratic campaigning Union is widely discussed among activists we need to start now. Email ways to expand NUS’ campaigning and democracy from your union, campaign group, society or labour club to elaine.bruce@nus.org.uk and CC rob.owen@nus.org.uk before the end of the month.

Lets unite for a political, democratic and campaigning NUS.

Pride in politics

2007-06-30T21:15:00.001+01:00

5 hours at London Pride was enough to leave anyone tired, wet through and confused as to why the yearly marches seem to be the lgbt movements’ only public expression. 10’s of stalls for every variety of lgbt campaign and organisation sided Trafalgar square representing their own niche campaign (or more normally caucus) but only Pride seems to bring them together. The international scope of the movement is ever present but it seems like the movement has lost its edge at home, solidarity with Pride’s abroad has to be built on struggle at home as well. The domestic tone of pride has to much focus on community issues like drug deaths with a minority openly taking up issues such as real inequality at home. The multitude of “gay businesses” on display helped depoliticise the event combined with cheese on the stage interspersed with appeals for the pink pound to support gay companies in what became an increasingly naked marketing opportunity.

For all that Pride still retains an inspiring sense of liberation contrasting so starkly to the oppressively homophobic atmosphere the remains in much of the UK. Pride remains and should always remain of central importance but the movement deserves a liberation campaign that can really start to push beyond the limits of the commercialisation. The response to political intervention stood in marked contrast to the indifference to the multitude of dating/club/corporate rubbish that was being distributed as proof that people do and always will see pride as political.

Chavez - a debate on revolution

2007-06-22T12:15:00.000+01:00

Latin American revolutionary processes are easy to get excited about. Venezuela, Bolivia and a host of other countries have had massive popular mobalisations with a growing significance coupled with the resistance in the Middle East and the approaching defeat of American imperialism. An interesting contribution on the Chavista craze sweaping the far left can be found here.

Fatah doing Israels dirty work

2007-06-15T13:49:00.000+01:00

After weeks of fighting Hamas have retaken control of Gaza. Their fighters have seized key Fatah posts and arresting opposition military leaders bringing calm to the area and allowing life to recommence. Reading the western press you’d think this is the biggest disaster to hit the Palestinians since the nakba but even a glance over the facts discounts this analysis.

Hamas are not only the democratically elected Government with an overwhelming support in Gaza but have won that support by being the most consistent wing of the national liberation struggle. While Fatah are discredited by years of fruitless compromise Hamas alone had a dynamic response to the Oslo accords and selling out of the first intifada. There are those on the left as well as the right for whom this is an uncomfortable truth; who reject the “Islamism” of Hamas in favour of the “secular” forces of the PLO and the 1^st intifada but to cling on to such analysis is to deny history. The PLO as a progressive social force in the occupied territories is all but dead since Fatah’s capitulation to western capitalism through the Oslo accords and all other forces in the PLO have been rendered immobile by this betrayal. The second largest force in the PLO, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), formerly denounced Oslo but was unable to offer an alternative to the demobilisation of the 1^st intifada – rejecting the strategy of suicide bombings and in practice recognising the cease fire. The smaller forces from the democratic front (DFLP) to the Stalinist ‘Peoples Party’ have lead themselves into the wilderness through a combination of sectarianism and an orientation on the PFLP and Fatah.

Recent developments have speed up the political decay of the PLO with the PFLP giving tactic support to Hamas and collaborating in certain elections while Fatah in turn moves more and more to being an agent of western interests within the Palestinian movement. The PFLP boycotted the presidential elections (inline with Hamas) and then declared in support of a centre left candidate against Fatah. Developments in Gaza can only bring the left of the PLO (represented by the PFLP and its satellites) closer to the unity government. Fatah on the other hand has strengthened its dependence on western support and that of the collaborationist regimes in the Middle East. Egypt has not once in the last few years allowed supplied to enter Gaza across its borders but gave safe passage to 100 Fatah fighters to join in the fighting against Hamas. Fatah has also been encouraged to break the unity government by the pressure of western boycotts of the Palestinian Authority – ensuring Hamas didn’t stand against Abbas and saving Fatah’s position in Government. The failure of the attempt at Civil War is now being used by Abbas and his allies to close down the PA in the hope that war weariness and the promise of western aid will be enough to defeat Hamas in the coming elections.

Every progressive should support the victory of Hamas in the Gaza and condemn the moves by President Abbas to dissolve the unity Government. It is a cynical move to strangle the national liberation movement in the name of compromise and a better deal for the petit bourgeois Fatah leadership. The civil war was a disaster brought on by the wests determination to break Hamas and the damage it has and will cause the Palestinian people must be placed clearly at with our governments. The only hope for the Palestinians is for closer collaboration between the PFLP and Hamas in uniting with the resistance in Egypt, Jordon and Lebanon and a defeat for the US/UK occupation of Iraq. The best we can do is build an understanding of the situation in Palestine with close links to the intifada and campaign for a defeat for our government in Iraq.

Oh my good god...

2007-05-23T15:58:00.000+01:00

NUS' 5 challenges just keep getting worse... and just to twist the knife our fulltime officers haven't even submitted a motion on it to the next national executive - so much for being accountable.

There are however two motions highlighting the continuing crisis in Iraq that is dogging Brown and has been on the front of the Guardian since his corronation was pushed into the middle pages - Iraq. Both the Stop the War Coalition motion to support the protest on the 24th June and the national petition and neo-liberal restructuring of the oil industry driven by the US/UK occupation.

Other motions include supporting the UCU action at Harlow college and supporting Ken livingstones plans to increase the London living wage by 15p and to promote it in the run up to the GLA elections next year. The motion on supporting a miliant campaign driven by UCU left members should be particularly important - standing in stark contrast to the sentiments expressed by other "independant" NEC members with their 5 sops from a Brown government plea.

Motions for the NEC

2007-05-21T14:51:00.000+01:00

Two motions for the next NEC meeting on the question of Gordon Brown and the devastation Blair has left behind. One to support the Stop the War demonstration on June 24th in Manchester alongside StWc 100 days to get the troops out petition and one for a real 5 demands on Brown.

Here is the second motion:

NEC Believes:

That the immediate period is dominated by the change of Prime Minister and speculation on how different Brown will be to Blair. The media is full of opinions and speculation of what Brown will do in government.
That the failure of the Labour Party to field a second candidate will be used to try and lessen debate about what a new government will actually do while in power.
That both Stop the War and the Public and Civil Service Union (PCS) have launched major campaigns to ensure the debate around war and the future of the public sector are central to the government changing policy not just its leader.
Unions like the CWU, NUT, UCU and Unison are looking likely to campaign against the government’s plans for further cuts and privatisations joining a growing public opposition.
That the NUS also published 5 “demands” on a new Prime Minister on Monday 14^th:

· Health - NUS calls for prescriptions, dental care and eye test exemptions to be extended to cover all students.

· Travel - NUS calls for a commitment to ensure concessionary bus travel for all students.

· Debt - NUS calls for the current interest rate on student loans to remain linked to inflation.

· Skills - NUS calls for the extension of free entitlement to level 3 qualifications to all adults.

· Work - NUS calls for an equal minimum wage to protect our most vulnerable workers and give them a fair and equal position in the workplace

NEC Further Believes:

That NUS should support the initiatives from Stop the War and PCS while agitating for activists to raise 5 student demands on the new prime minister to unite all those opposed to Blair’s neo-liberal vision of society and campaign to make sure it prioritises supporting students, workers and the oppressed over pandering to business interests and privatisation.
That Blair left early because of the pressure of mass opposition to his policies. NUS and the wider movement must capitalise on this opportunity by uniting students in and out of the Labour party around a different vision of society.
NUS’ current demands amount to a call for little more then a milder version of New Labours attacks and will cut us off from students expecting a more bold campaign and a Trade Union movement starting to challenge the government.

NUS NEC Resolves:

To adopt the following 5 demands:

Education for all - Reverse the attacks on Higher Education, the privatisation of FE and city academies. An education for social benefit not the market.
For a Living Wage – For a living minimum wage for all and extended Trade Union rights for casual workers to protect students and insecure work forces. End the public service pay freeze.
Racism – Stop the attacks on Asian and Muslim students. For a progressive policy to counteract the discrimination of black students in education.
Welfare – stop the privatisation of the welfare state. Bring back all benefits, accessible public health and local support for students and the wider community.
Environment – Major investment in renewable energy research in our Universities. Tax companies which pollute our cities and environment.

To produce an open letter for Student Unions and activists to sign on our website and circulate a hard copy to all student Unions, education unions and campaign groups.
To produce leaflets to put out at all Brown’s speaking dates and at his coronation on the 24^th of June in Manchester both on the protests and inside.

The key still remains orientating on the wider Stop the War campaign to nail Brown down to the demand to get the troops out now and the PCS' Union campaign to defend the public sector.

Brown Bounce

2007-05-18T16:21:00.000+01:00

With McDonnell’s failure to get on the ballot just reaching the ears of leftwing students the Brownite leadership of NUS had already released 5 “demands” on the new Prime Minister. Demands that fail to mention the small questions of fees, war, racism let alone free education…

· Health - NUS calls for prescriptions, dental care and eye test exemptions to be extended to cover all students.

· Travel - NUS calls for a commitment to ensure concessionary bus travel for all students.

· Debt - NUS calls for the current interest rate on student loans to remain linked to inflation.

· Skills - NUS calls for the extension of free entitlement to level 3 qualifications to all adults.

· Work - NUS calls for an equal minimum wage to protect our most vulnerable workers and give them a fair and equal position in the workplace.

With no left candidate on the ballot paper the debate on what a new Government should do will be silenced as the “legacy” of Blairism is passed on. What will be presented as a defeat for the whole left should be seen clearly for what it is – the death of any attempt to reclaim Labour. That McDonnell could only scrap 29 nominations (with another 13 left MPs stepping down at the next election) is a sad testament to the state of the labour left. NUS’ intervention in no small way demonstrates the capitalisation rightwing leaderships will make of it to push forwards a New Labour agenda that the left needs to be prepared to fight.

If we’re not to be marginalised during the “Brown Bounce” we need to fight for our own 5 demands and attempt to reorganise those who could have looked to a left challenge on the need for a struggle from bellow.

War – Bring the Troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; stop the Imperialist disaster that is Blair’s “war on terror.”
Education – Reverse New Labour attacks on education. No fees, privatisation or city academies. Bring back Free Education.
Work – Break the public sector pay freeze; invest in our teachers, nurses, civil servants and firefighters. For a living minimum wage.
Racism – Stop the vilification of Black, Asian and Muslim communities stop the demonisation of asylum seekers.
Welfare – stop the privatisation of the welfare state bring back benefits, accessible public health and local support.

What ever the demands the student left adopt the focus will have to be the stop the war protests attempting to force Brown to abandon Britain’s imperial ambitions in the Middle East by putting the question of war centre stage. But within these mobilisations a more subtle debate needs to be waged with those who look to the labour left on the class nature of the Labour party and the historic role of its leftwing. Labourism retains a working class base and has always been committed to managing the capitalist system but its commitment to neo-liberalism is straining at this contradiction. The acceptance of neo-liberalism of has almost completely marginalised a left inside the party committed to a slightly milder program (represented by Meacher) and almost destroyed the campaign group opening a real space to the left of labour. Respect must try and play the role john4leader could have played in debating a real alternative for labour representation as well as building a popular organisation outside the labour party. Building on the logic of the stop war mobilisations we can put forwards a series of demands that can unite those outside Labour and appeal to those that committed their hopes to McDonnell.

A tale of two conferences...

2007-03-30T18:00:00.000+01:00

The monster Labour Students have created has eaten them. Right Wing anti-NUS independents dominated the floor with NOLS leader Wes Streeting rallying the crowd till near the end of conference. NOLS exec member Stephen Findlay bitterly accused the left of “losing Labour VP welfare and creating an NEC that will leave the “Independents” to destroy national conference” in the undemocratic governance review. But is it any surprise to Labour that the left has lost all confidence in them to defend democracy when they have sold out the principles of free education, Anti-racism and Internationalism and voted for the review? Independents took almost all the full time positions with even the factional Organised Independents failing to win in the block elections getting just one on in last place. Conference passed policy declaring support for Free Education damages NUS and should be abandoned, cutting democracy, supporting the commercialisation of Student Unions and declaring opposition to Israel anti-Semitic (for which you can be No-Platformed.) The left with loyalty to the Labour Party and winning “the better Labour Indies” was crushed under the left baiting and deserted the motions debate for all but profiling opportunities. A Tory coming 5 votes short of a fulltime position should shake the complacency even the most rightwing NOLSie in the direction they are taking NUS.

Respect carried a principled argument in all areas. We submitted and spoke for policy building an NUS on the basis Free Education, anti-Neoliberal, Anti-Racist and Anti-war campaigning and opposed the right wing attempts to create little more then a New Labour ginger group. Respect took the platform repeatedly at conference and spearheaded all opposition to the leadership putting forwards a clear alternative platform for a fighting Union. Assed Baig scoring 193 against Stephen Brown in Respects highest ever vote and Siobhan Brown getting 23% and joint 2^nd for VP FE (in a race where we had few delegates) was incredible. Respect also took 3rd place out of 5 on the NUS Steering committee and was 20 votes off a second block candidate, increasing our overall vote from last year. The rest of the left either collapsed or spent the entire conference simply shoring up a vote for the Part-Time exec abandoning the battles on conference floor and the task of outlining a different vision of NUS. In a conference with both the left and right compromised by loyalty to Labour Respect stood out as the only real alternative. Our young delegation held together and came out tougher more politically experienced and prepared for a fight to rebuild the left on our campuses. Another Education is Possible – Another NUS is needed.

Rob Owen – elected to national Executive
Rob Owen – 115 for National President (2^nd)
Assed Baig – 193 for National Secretary (2^nd)
Claire Solomen -72 for VP Welfare (4^th)
Siobhan Brown -23 for VP Further Education (=2^nd)
Assed Baig – 14^th for Block of 12
Dan Swain – Elected to National Steering Committee

A fighting NUS

2007-03-25T20:41:00.000+01:00

At this year’s NUS conference marks a major break through for student RESPECT – we have a larger organisation, a national structure and elected officers across in Manchester, Leeds, London, Portsmouth, Plymouth and Newcastle. More over we have been key to Stop the War, UAF and free education campaigning across the country and turned a loose coalition into a radical campaigning movement on campuses.

Conference will reflect little of the politics, frustration and radicalisation of our campuses but for the first time we will be represented by a serious left in the NUS. Student RESPECT will be bringing by far the largest delegation on the left, have policy motions high on the agenda and be making a real challenge for a number of positions. None of this would be possible if hundreds of activists hadn’t devoted shit loads of time and energy campaigning for peace, justice and socialism. NUS conference may or may not be full of rightwing careerists and labour party hacks this year but the momentum we have built up means we’ll just come back bigger and stronger next year.

Student RESPECT are standing:

Rob Owen – National President
Assed Baig – National Secretary
Claire Solomon – VP Welfare
Siobhan Brown – VP Further Education

Rob Owen & Assed Baig – Block of 12

UMSU elections results!

2007-03-19T13:29:00.000Z

RESPECT and the left have for the second year running claimed key executive positions in our Student elections by a large margin. In what was traditionally a Labour Student Union for the left to have come through so strongly is remarkable. Unfortunately the turn out of the blocks Islamic soc/organised left vs Organised right/Jewish Soc was strongly against us and reflected in the loss of many student council positions. The independent left however turned out in force and ensured Cunningham, Skinner and Castro were in by a large margin and Shabnam, Haroon and Sohaib were safely elected to exec.

Campaigns:
Andy Cunningham (Respect) 1314 -----Elected
Adele Douglas (Students 1st/ CF) 1008

Communications:
Alex Castro (Latin American Soc/Respect) 1116 -----Elected
Robbie Gillet (Indy Green /Anarchist) 731
Matt Strong (NOLS/Students 1st) 711
(Castro wins off Strongs transfers by several hundred votes)

General Secretary:
Tom Skinner (Respect/Fair Trade) 1303 ------ Elected
Barney Guiton (Students 1st) 839
Jon Lewis (Indy) 434

Academic Affairs:
Vicky Araj (Respect) 1097 (after transfers)
Jeff Meddemmen (Independent)1184 (after Transfers)----Elected
Tom Miller 499 (Nols/Students 1st)

Paper Editor:
Dom Koole (students 1st) 1142 ------Elected
T Khan (Isoc) 845

Welfare:
Bev Craig (Indy/LGBT) 1377 ------Elected
Rubbia Ullah (Respect) 972

Student Activities:
Emily Randall (Indy) 1250 --------Elected
Anton Benson (Indy) 941

Womens:
Sommerville (Indy) 715 -----------Elected
Amy Pettitt (Respect) 520

Non Sabb Exec:
PostGrad - Asim ISoc
International - Lamia (Isoc/Respect)
Medical - Shabnam (Isoc)
Humanities - Haroon Ahmed (Isoc)
EPS - Sohaib (Isoc)
Life Sciences - Chris Jenkins (Students 1st/LDYS)

Which Gives the campaigning left (Respect/Isoc/Latin American Soc)Coalition 3 key Sabbs and 8 exec. The Indy left have 2 with Jeff and Emily (plus Bev and Sommervillie), Students 1st get just two. Matt Strong finishing 3rd for Comms as a leading NOLSies was a shock result with Gillet doing exceptionally well for a candidate with no real backing.

Labour students support invasion of Somalia

2007-01-10T15:02:00.000Z

I hope Miller is eating his words with shame now US planes have helped in the bombing of Somalia.

The level of what is in essence Labours youth wing is becoming a cruel sham. Coalitions with the Young Conservatives and support for US Republican backed invasions of developing countries. Out of interest Labour now rank lower then the Tories on "who will best defend the NHS." Now that is something even Miller could be ashamed of...

My five for the year.

2006-12-27T22:58:00.000Z

It has long been a tradition to pick 5 people you would like to see pop it in the new year for vaguely prinicpled reasons. The more go the more points you get, but picking nice people who happen to be old or ill is distinctly against the spirit of the game. I've decided to rule out Aston Cull (head of Manchester Conservative Future) on the grounds he isn't famous to avoid the moral dilema of wishing death on a person who I sort of know. So heres five for 2007:

1. Bono - After providing some sort of ethical sheen to Blair and Bush "for Africa man" in exchange for a knighthood he deserves to die by crashing his personal jet. Oh and U2 are shite and the single Vertigo is a carbon copy of Sonic Youth's Dirty a musical crime punishable by death. What did Sonic Youth fans do to deserve this?
2. Thatcher - A golden oldie, here because I need one point this year and if she doesn't go of natural causes someone might pop her off at Pinocet's funeral.
3. Noel Edmonds - I hate this man with a passion matched only by a random comedian i saw once in Pleasure. He even has a fucking "offical fan site" that looks like its trying to sell you a new telephone line.
4. Bill Rammell - Because he's a stereotypical Blairite thug and the only one to have insulted me in person. I may or may not have had "an agenda" but at least mine wasn't printed up and distributed as a factual way of fighting "terrorism" on campuses. Also because he is a brilliant example of whats wrong with General Managers in Students' Unions and AMSU in general.
5. Christopher Hitchens - Because he's a Shachtmanite tosser who gives a left gloss to imperialism (and his drink problem might give me a second point.)

Any suggestions or improvements - I might edit until the end of January.

Labour Student/Tory coalition

2006-12-26T18:03:00.000Z

Its seems our favourite renegades from Social Democracy Manchester Labour Students have decided to throw their lot in with Thatcher’s men. At a debate between the “big three” (in front of 100 students) Matt Strong (chair of the Labour club) stood up to announce that the Lib Dems, Conservative and Labour clubs will be running a joint slate in this years Union elections. The amazing lack of principle in the move is only the thin edge of the wedge...

What wasn’t announced is that the bandwagon “students first” is in fact the brain child of young Ashton Cull the Chair of conservative future around his motion banning campaigning and politics from the Union. The fact that Jon Newton (Debating Union) is chairing the campaign as a co-proposer and figure close to Ashton reflects this sad fact. No open CFer is a public officer of the group made up of Jon Newton, Matt Strong (Labour) and Owen Griffiths (LibDems) and is probably testimony to the embarrassment of the National Organisation of Labour Students at the politic wheeling and dealing. The appeal of such a coalition is unity against the left and our vision of a political Union that campaigns for change. What Students First offers is a Union without collectivism, without an exec and a reduction of the democratic process to bar prices and crime. They will undeniably bring around some rightwing “independents” (and former officers) to stand alongside them creating a stronger “book and beer coalition” but it is a unity that will again be broken by rightwing independents with personal ambition.

As a left it is encouraging that our activity has been enough to provoke this response but our lack of collective direction and energy has lead to complacency. The response of many on the left has been to draw one of two opposite conclusions that both lead to dead ends. One is to exaggerate the strength and mobilising capacity of the right and argue that the left needs to bog itself down in getting the message out and survey students “on what they want” without giving a lead. The other is to generalise from our best experience and assume that our coalition strength can pull us through. Both are based on surface impressions and neither gets to grips with where we have failed and where we need to go forwards. Part of that is accepting that the situation we find our selves in today is only very slightly different then that of last year

We need to really set the agenda next term. If we are to prove political Unionism works then we need to create the activists around global justice and anti-racism campaigns to demonstrate how a campaigning Union can work. As Student Respect last (academic) year we set the agenda initiating broad campaigns around war, racism and climate change and we must do this again. We have hit the ground running with action Palestine but need to create a layer of activists out of it who can help launch a broader set of campaigns. On a broader level the exec needs to get out the message of all the boring stuff we have done to undercut students first. The reality is we do representation well in many ways and actually won more then when the exec was meeker in previous years. A formalistic approach leaves an impression of weakness in comparison which doesn’t reflect some quite real victories.

On the campaigning work the left needs to sort out a real Stop the War group urgently that can address the fight against imperialism, against the racist backlash and solidarity with the Military families’ campaign. So much of our work could be focused through this lens and help to rebuild our coalition. The only think that has linked together our allies in the past is a collective fight against war and racism and this is what will pull together the global justice movement, Respect, the Islamic society and the national societies again.

We also need to start looking urgently at our own base. We are numerically larger but relating to far fewer people then we did last year. This is partly down to losing the focus on campaign coalition building we had through running Union campaigns last year but more because we are starting to substitute our activity to that of the offices we hold. The left collectively needs to divide up some key campaigns and start recruiting a committee to them be that around Respect (as a front campaign of sorts) or around a genuine united front on the model of Action Palestine. The existence of campaigns based around Student Respect is what enabled us to shift wider forces and it is this link that is missing. Smaller more radical campaigns like Palestine need to be supplemented with anti-racism, climate and global justice campaigning. It is only through this sort of work we can build up a real SR activist base.

The idea behind the exec getting the message out is a vital one. Our lines of communication to members have been whittled down to networks which relate primarily to each other. If the work we have done is to get out we do need to take the exec’s work out into the halls and departments and that means newsletters and walking the halls, departments and bars of the Uni. Open door hours and Union stalls would also be a good idea provided it doesn’t become something else that simply falls to the left to staff.

Only once we have addressed these issues can we come on to the question of elections, coalitions and the next year. The lefts traditional alliance with the Islamic Society and the national societies has been one developed since the Iraq war based on opposition to War and Racism and this will continue. We need a political response to Students First and that means campaigning openly on our beliefs and principles not sinking to the lowest common denominator of our opposition. Student Respect must stand its own candidates openly on our own politics and program but recognise that we must stand alongside groups with a common interest in defending political Unionism. If we are to do this we need to agree (and soon) to a common position and coalition that allows us the freedom to advance our own politics and party affiliation while influencing each others campaigns. A common slogan which marks us as the progressive political candidates and one catchier then “for a campaigning Union.” Avanti – the second term is ours.

Tackling the racist backlash?

2006-12-20T15:02:00.000Z

NUS have failed to address the issue of rising Islamophobia through the dramatic move of banning the vast majority of motions on the issue from even reaching conference. The Steering committee ( a group of 7 tasked with overseeing the running of conference) has ruled out all 9 student Respect motions on the subject as well several “left” motions relating to either Islamophobia, anti-racism or the war. Just to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the decision NUS has decided to allow a debate based on the “all party committee on anti-Semitism” to go into the “welfare zone” from which it has banned all discussion of Islamophobia.

Little of this should come as any surprise to people versed in the recent (and less recent) practice of NUS conferences where the left is increasingly told to “shut up and forget” the loss of democratic structures in our national union. What is more surprising is the blatant fashion in which the powerful alliance of convenience between the rightwing Labour Students, Organised Independents and UJS using their strength on the ‘apolitical’ steering committee to remove motions which they politically oppose. Demonstrating both the abuse to which the new policy of zoning motions is open to if steering committee remains unchecked and the depths the mainstream in NUS is prepared to sink to ensure Islamophobia isn’t discussed in any meaningful form at conference. It has become an established truism to state that NUS has the most rightwing policy on free education of any national union but it is on racism and imperialism where NUS really takes the biscuit. Anyway here is the statement Student Respect has been getting people to sign:

The NUS steering committee has ruled out of order nine motions submitted by Student Respect to be discussed at NUS Conference 2007.

The motion, passed in various forms by nine student unions, appears in its original form below. It describes the climate of Islamophobia that currently exists in Britain and especially in universities, supports the right of women to wear the hijab and niqab, and aims to strengthen the current anti-fascist stance of the NUS. It was passed by the student unions at: Portsmouth, UWE, Manchester, University of the Arts, SOAS, Swansea, Leicester, Cambridge and Sussex.

The motions have apparently been ruled out of order on the basis that they were submitted into the wrong zone (they were submitted for discussion in the Welfare debate, the other three zones being Strong and Active Unions, Society and Citizenship and Education).

The decision by the steering committee is being challenged on the following grounds:

The issues addressed in the motion, racism and Islamophobia in general and the "no platform" policy in particular, are very much issues that concern students' welfare. No other zone fits this discussion better. The welfare zone contains other motions on racism that have been accepted.
At last year's conference, Student Respect and other organisations and individuals submitted very similar policy (on Islamophobia and the no platform policy) to the Welfare zone, which was accepted without being questioned. There was absolutely no indication that any changes had been made to the process this year that would result in these motions now being applicable to a different zone.
One of the motions submitted and accepted in the Welfare zone, whilst coming at the issue from a completely different angle, is very similar in terms of its context. Motion 703, entitled "Anti-Semitism: A Definition", refers to a general context of anti-semitism and goes on to talk about the NUS's no platform policy. While we disagree with aspects of this motion, we agree with the steering committee that it should be discussed in the Welfare debate, and that therefore so should the Student Respect motions.
The fact that this motion was passed by nine student unions (more than any other single motion that has been submitted) show there is a strong desire amongst NUS's membership to debate these issues in the Welfare zone. Ruling them out of order is therefore a large attack on democracy (as was another decision by the steering committee which has meant that there will be no debate at all on international students).
The recent change in the method of submitting motions to conference has not been accompanied by any changes to the NUS constitution and standing orders, and as such relies on a large amount of interpretation and therefore subjectivity from the steering committee. The inconsistency highlighted in the above points does nothing to instill confidence among students fighting to get their voices heard.

Student RESPECT conference

2006-12-03T21:42:00.000Z

Student RESPECT conference today saw over 100 delegates come together to discuss how to fight against, war, racism, climate change and neo-liberalism in education for the first time. Not only were all the workshops full but the make up of the conference was much wider then the membership of SR’s founding organisations like SWSS. Respect’s work in both the “activist field” of campaigns like Stop the War and the work our militants did in shaping a sizeable chunk of the NUS education campaign has started to show through. For the first time SR is starting to live up to its stated aim of being an activist organisation that can make the leap to providing a viable alternative leadership to the student movement. The work of building SR and the NUS education campaign has placed us in genuinely new territory.

The conference was particularly clear (unsurprisingly perhaps) on the issue of the racist backlash on our campuses. Universities are feeling the brunt of the government’s ideological offensive against Muslim groups as the “enemy within” and to resist it we need to sharpen up a wider section of the anti-war movement to win the key arguments. Our general meeting of up to 500 on the issue in Manchester is probably only the first arena where the arguments will be had out in NUS. Key debates in this years conference are shaping up to be Islamophobia (through the issue of Hizb ut-tahir), politicising the education campaign, and the right attempting to reform politics out of NUS. With the a-political/ rightwing shambles that is NUS – the activist lead Student Respect conference was a pleasant change of scene.

Pictures from the Education not War demo

2006-09-29T11:25:00.000+01:00

Liverpool students Join with Lancaster on the demo
Man Met join the front of the demo at Allsaints
Manchester students talking to the streets as over 300 students leave Manchester Students Union to join the demo.

Kicking into Freshers Week

2006-09-15T19:03:00.000+01:00

The next two weeks see 70'000 students settle into Manchester and two (hopefully massive) demonstrations against the war and for a free education. For more information visit here and check out UMSU's new website on line shortly.

23rd Sept - students assemble 12 noon Students' Union - Tell Blair its time to go.

27th Sept - assemble 5pm UMSU - Education Not War, Unite for a Free Education!

And here is a plug for a good blog

A spine in the TUC?

2006-09-12T17:48:00.000+01:00

Shockingly the TUC discover some backbone when Blair's almost finished. If our Union leadership had a real determination to back their policy and members they'd be campaigning for Mcdonnell alongside the NUJ.

John McDonnell's Manchester campaign launch was an interesting affair for the faces it brought together; including our own labour Students, the Bennitte left and older Trotskyists. McDonnells only hope is playing to the younger generations in the social movements if he hopes to gain any public momentum seeing as half his campaign is outside the Labour party these days.

The sight of the Labour left brushing itself off and going up against the New Labour machine was almost to much to Blair. One thing you can say for the Labour left is that they're all extremely nice...

Tackling the Racist backlash

2006-09-01T11:48:00.000+01:00

The issue of racism is raising its head again in the student movement. The two Manchester students removed from a plane at gun point for flying with dark skin are unlikely to be the only ones to feel its effect. Already the government is putting pressure on NUS to line up with it in “facing down extremism on our campuses” a sign that its war on “terrorism” abroad is coming home in a big way. The signs are that NUS is willing to accept the framework of Bush and Blair’s rhetoric and from there the only way is down. Gemma Tumelty’s guardian article is a case in point.

After the NUS fiasco over Lebanon it’s record on opposing the Bush/Blair “war on terror” is already poor and we could be about to see that translate into a failure for our students at home. What is needed now more then ever is an organised force within the student movement that can put forwards an alternative strategy on fighting the racist backlash against our students. We need a response based on an understanding that imperialism is creating an “enemy at home” and raising racial tensions as a result. If we are to successfully break the backlash we need a united campaign against racism which rejects that framework of “terrorism and civilisation” and stands clear on the point that the issue is racism.

The starting point must be a campaign based on radical students in the anti-war movement, Muslim communities and the NUS. A starting point that lines us up against Bush and Blair’s wars at home and abroad.

Backing John MDonnell

2006-08-18T16:27:00.000+01:00

With the left increasing its influence in the social movements and the working class movement elements of the permanent Labour left have decided to take a stand. With Labour now further to the right then it has ever been John McDonnell has launched his campaign for the Labour leadership. Despite the fact that the meagre forces of the Socialist Campaign Group will not be enough to get him on the ballot it is a campaign that aim’s to re-engage the traditional left with the new movements. John’s campaign wants to hold meetings and events for the grass roots across the country over the tasks of the political left along the model of the stop the war movement.

Although the campaign is doomed to failure it (along with the election of Walter Wolfgang on to the Labour NEC) should provide encouragement to the whole left and be a boost to forces like Respect who want to work with and grow from the remains of left reformism within the Labour Party.

The description of the campaign on his website:

John's campaign will be a direct challenge to the current political consensus. Millions of people are yearning for an alternative to the policies of war and privatisation promoted by the three major political parties. For the first time in years, they no longer have a political voice.

Over the coming weeks and months, John will be convening a series of meetings across the country which will discuss and flesh out the policy programme of a real Labour government.

Below are some of the policies that John will be campaigning for:

· Support for public services. Against the continued privatisation and marketisation of our public services.

· Support for free and comprehensive education. Against trust schools, rich donors and tuition fees.

· Support for alternative green power sources, conservation and clean British coal. Against the costs and risk of nuclear power.

· Support for civil liberties and trade union rights. Against reactionary incursions into the rights of free speech, assembly and trial.

· Support for a Government committed to peace, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and nuclear disamarmant. Against support for more of Bush's wars and wasting £24 billion on nuclear weapons.

· Support for increasing the basic state pension and immediately restoring the link to earnings. Against forcing more people on to the means test.

Nasrallah Speaks

2006-08-17T09:51:00.000+01:00

"Peace cannot be unilateral. So long as there is imperialism in the world, a permanent peace is impossible. This war will not come to an end as long as there are occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. "

Eyewitness from Lebanon

Omar Nacabe – senior Journalist Beirut Newspaper, Al-Akhbar Eyewitness to Israeli attacks on South Lebanon

Chris Nineham Stop the War Coalition

Monday 21^st August @7pm Central Hall, Oldham St Manchester City Centre

The Politics of Hezbollah

2006-08-17T01:12:00.000+01:00

Israel and the Arab world

It is Impossible to understand Hezbollah with out first going over what it sets itself against – The nature of the Israeli State and its relationship to the Arab world.

Israel was created by the growing Zionist movement – born in the anti-Jewish Pogrom’s in Russia and massively strengthened by the defeat of the left and the rise of Nazism in Germany. Zionism is and was a reaction to anti-Semitism which says that “Jew’s can’t rely on anyone but ourselves.” When arriving in Palestine Zionism continued to emphasise its separateness from the Palestinian majority systematically discriminating against Arab workers. Culminating in the 1948 nakbah and the creation of the Israeli state through a campaign of terror by the fascist Ur Gunn (an organisation later to become Sharon’s Likud Party) and the Zionist leadership, expelling 750’000 Palestinian’s in a policy of ethnic cleansing (1/2 the Palestinian population.) The War of 1967 was a second attempt to expel the remaining Palestinian population and occupy the last 20% of Palestine. 67 Also saw the rise of the PLO which although not strong enough to force Israel back made it next to impossible to eliminate or expel the remaining Palestinian population.

The central Question of Israeli society since has always been the danger of the Palestinian population and the need to maintain a “Jewish State.” Zionism being the framework the entire political framework still exists within. The question becomes how best to control/contain the Palestinian population in the reservations of the west bank and Gaza while rejecting the repatriation of Palestinian refugees. The differences between left and right over the issue only being over strategy and tactics.

History of Lebanese Resistance

The relationship of the creation of Israel to Lebanon starts early on with 10’000’s of Palestinians fleeing to Lebanon in the 1948 Nakbah. In fact one of the worst Israeli war crimes the Shabra - Shatila massacre , a massacre of up to 3’500 Palestinian refugees.

Lebanon itself has a history of French colonialism which shaped the nature of the resistance to Israel and the alliances Palestinians have made in Lebanon. French divide and rule left a significant minority, Lebanon’s Shia population, oppressed and without political representation. As a result by the 70’s Shias made up the majority of Lebanon’s Communist party and the various left nationalist groups which were the leadership of Lebanon’s rising workers movement. The connection between this force in Lebanon’s society and the Palestinian resistance launching attacks in northern occupied Palestine created a natural alliance.

Israel reprisals against Lebanon’s civilians, and the lack of action by the Lebanese state provoked a massive surge of support for the left resulting in a civil war which by 1975 that the left seemed set to win. The US unable to allow a left victory in the Lebanon encouraged Syria to invade defeating the left and isolating the Palestinians in the camps.

Eventually Israel unable to tolerate the remaining legacy of resistance in Lebanon stepped up its cross border attacks eventually invading in 1982 to remove any Organised Palestinian presence north of its border. 14’000 Lebanese and Palestinian’s died in the resulting conflict. Israel laid siege to Beirut before striking a deal with the PLO that in exchange for a PLO evacuation if the city Israel would not enter the Palestinian refugee camps. The IDF then gave the green light to it’s allies the Christian Phalangist militias to enter the camp massacring the 1000’s of those left behind – primarily women, children and the elderly.

Development of Hezbollah

With the defeat of the communist party and the Stalinist influenced groups a vacuum was left around the leadership of the resistance. The influence of state capitalist nationalism and Stalinism was generally on the decline and across the Arab world the influence of Islamic organisations was beginning to increase. Lebanon was no exception with both amal and Hezbollah competing for influence within the resistance movement.

Hezbollah was formed around a narrow Islamist platform inherited from the Iranian revolution of 1979 as a breakaway from Amal. Starting with a call for an Islamic state along the lines of Iran Hezbollah’s experience of fighting the Zionist occupation of 1982 started to transform the organisation. The reality of Lebanon’s diverse social and religious make up and taking on significant numbers of former CP members undermining Hezbollah’s tactic of appealing solely to South Lebanon’s Shia community. However the excluded Shia minority and the poverty stricken areas of south Beirut (known as the belt of misery) remains Hezbollah’s main power base and Hezbollah retains its support for an Iranian style society within the Shia community.

The pivotal moment in Hezbollah’s history was the Israel assassination of Hezbollah’s original leader Abbas Musawi in 1992 clearing the way for a new young leadership under Hassan Nasrallah to take control of the organisation. This new Leadership had been shaped directly by the Israeli occupation and re-orientated Hezbollah towards a broad non-sectarian appeal. This, coinciding roughly with the collapse of the USSR meant Hezbollah was now in a position to absorb the layers of the CP which had previously been at the fore of the resistance. The other significant part of Hezbollah’s appeal came from a rejection of corrupt Lebanese politics and the adoption of social programs from the old left parties. Hezbollah launching welfare programs, schools and hospitals consolidated its status as social movement with deep roots in the poor Shia areas.

Proving perhaps that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it the Isreali atrocity that finally established Hezbollah’s hegemony over the leadership of the resistance was an Israeli attack on Qana in 1996 which killed over 100 civilians. The wave of popular anger that followed allowing Hezbollah to capitalise on its position and swell its ranks. From this base Hezbollah was able to build a network of Guerillas capable of forcing Israel out of Lebanon in 2000.

Politics and Nature of Hezbollah Today

Robert Pape in the New York Times commented that the reason Israel can never wipe out Hezbollah is that it misunderstands the basic nature of the organisation. Claiming that it is neither principally a political party nor a Islamic militia but a broad movement of resistance. He describes it as a umbrella movement that “tactically coordinates the resistance operations of a variety of groups with a range of secular and religious aims.” Justifying this he quotes his study of 38 suicide attacks from Hezbollah in the 80’s. Of the 38 - 27 were leftists in or close to the CP / Arab Socialist Union, 3 were Christian and only 8 were Islamists. While not rejecting this we should be careful to judge the extent to which this characterisation is true and we should be wary of “lending resistance movements a communist colouration” as Lenin said.

What is fact though is that Hezbollah exists as a state within a state providing an extensive welfare system and running popular TV and radio stations as well as having a political wing 23 MP’s, Ministers in the Government and links to the Syrian and Iranian regimes. Hezbollah’s support is based on strong anti-imperialism, Nasrallah condemned 9/11 referring to a US based on two nations (one rich, one poor) and called Hugo Chavez “A Brother in Struggle.” But there are contradictions within Hezbollah’s politics based on Islamist ideas which in the highly pressurised world of Middle Eastern politics can lead to major compromises by the Hezbollah leadership. Its popularity was dented when it demonstrated in favour of a Syrian presence in Lebanon and its position in the government has left Hezbollah supporting neo-liberal economic attacks which hurt their supporters in the deprived areas of Lebanon. Popularity it has only regained by standing up to Israeli aggression.

The Ceasefire

Facing a defeat at the hands of a Hezbollah lead resistance the Israeli government has been forced gain through the UN what it couldn’t achieve though force. This humiliation of the IDF has sent ructions though Israeli society with Olmert getting attacked from the right and left and the IDF claiming it could have continued fighting if not for this “political” decision.

The UN resolution itself is heavily weighted towards Israel with the US finally giving the green light to text which might help Israel get what it couldn’t take militarily. It demands the “cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks”, but only an end to “offensive military operations” by Israel who have always claimed its assaults are “defensive.” It calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers whose capture formed the pretext for the invasion of Lebanon while Israel is only “encouraged” to reconsider the fate of the Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Such a ceasefire can never be the basis for a lasting peace in Lebanon as it leaves unchecked the Israeli expansionist project and its attitude to the human rights of Palestinians. Of more immediate significance it makes no call for Israeli to leave Lebanon immediately and Hezbollah have vowed to continue to defend south Lebanon from further attacks. Hezbollah claim victory and this is certainly echoed around the Arab world as they have survived the onslaught and made an ongoing Israeli occupation impossible. The overwhelming feeling across the worlds media is that this is a temporary peace with the US and Israel unable to let this humiliation remain and the resistance across the region strengthened.

Marxist Position on Resistance

But for us our support for Hezbollah is not based on its political ideology, whether it is predominately nationalist or Islamist is of only secondary significance. The question is where Hezbollah fits into the totality of imperialism and resistance in the Middle East. Lukac argued that in the modern world we need to judge movements for national liberation not on their surface politics but on “their historical significance” or “on what concrete part they play in the concrete whole.” Meaning we have to assess each anti-imperialist struggle from the standpoint of the whole contemporary alignment of forces in the imperialist system. To judge whether each particular struggle weakens the hold of the world capitalism and provides a chance to generalise the struggle for a fight against inequality and oppression.

We have to be clear that whatever groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are doing today the only consistent enemies of imperialism are the working class and poor of the region which are constantly under attack by the poverty and insecurity imperialism brings. The Middle East like the rest of the world is divided not just by imperialism and the clash between states but also by class. Groupings like Hezbollah can be the force that resists attacks on a country like Lebanon but can also join state governments make compromises sanctioning neo-liberal policies against their populations at home. Saying this means recognising that the weight of US imperialism is a force that weighs down on people of the entire region. Therefore a defeat for it weakens imperialism internationally and strengthens the resistance to it and the fight for a better world.

It is because of this understanding we raise the slogan of unconditional but critical support. Because unlike the mass of workers and the oppressed in Lebanon who are the consistent enemies of imperialism Hezbollah contains contradictions which can lead it to make peace with the capitalist system and take a role in running its own part of it. Evidence of groups which have done this are strewn across the Middle East and Africa running regional capitalisms. Lukac again put it like this,

“Forces that work towards revolution today may well operate in the reverse direction tomorrow. And it is vital to note these changes… are determined decisively by the constantly changing relations of the totality of the historical situation and the social forces at work.”

So for example the Islamist grouping of Hamas can be working on the side of the oppressed against capital and imperialism while Lula’s PT in Brazil notionally a workers Party can be working for imperialism against the interests of its ownworking class and oppressed.

Lebanon’s Left Today

What is needed in Lebanon as in so much of the world is a left capable of consistently leading the working class against imperialism and in a struggle for a better world. In Lebanon there is still a significant left both in the form of the old communist party and within the new movements rising against imperialism in the Middle East. The relief efforts pulled together significant sections of Lebanese society across sectarian divides and the communist party is still a significant force which fought alongside Hezbollah in the resistance. These new forces coming out of the grass roots could form the basis of a new political leadership if more of the left could grasp the scale of the defeat for imperialism across the region and the need to form a clear political leadership to exploit weakness of the existing Arab client states.

Resistance across the Arab World

The reaction to the invasion across the Middle East is a demonstration of Lukacs analysis of imperialism and national liberation. Protests in support of Hezbollah and the resistance have occurred everywhere. 5’000 marched in Cairo (the political centre of the Middle East) and 3’000 in Alexandria while the Egyptian government condemned Hezbollah’s “adventures” alongside the Saudi royal family. Saudi Arabia has incidentally been awarded 6 billion in arms by the US for its loyalty. Protests also took place in Kuwait, 10’000 Shia and Sunni marched in Bahrain and 1000’s more demonstrated across the Middle East.

After the ceasefire reports have come in from across the region of people celebrating Israel’s defeat and looking to Hezbollah and Nasrallah as an example of a force capable of defeating the US and its regional allies.

Solution to Palestine – The Political Leadership Needed.

While Hezbollah’s conception of a struggle between oppressed and oppressor and its recognition of the reactionary nature of the Israeli state resonates in the Middle East it can never successfully liberate Palestine. What Hezbollah lacks is the ability to reach out to the strongest force in the Middle East – The Arab working class. The rise of Kifaya (“enough”) in Egypt, its alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood and independent calls on Egyptian oil workers to stop supplying Israel with energy for its attack on Lebanon point the way forwards. Here is a organisation which is both part of the movement and capable of giving an independent argument about the way forwards.

Across the Middle East movements are growing in resistance to the new imperialism which are radicalising millions and providing a powerful new audience for the left. In Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq the left needs to be a part of these movements, supporting the struggle for national liberation, while building organisations that can unite the struggles and draw in the force that can liberate Palestine and the Middle East– A united Arab working class using its control over the regions resources to shake of the US multinationals and end the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Will the ceasefire hold?

2006-08-16T10:41:00.000+01:00

Will the ceasefire hold? Somehow I suspect a solution based on a French army returning to a former colony is going to end in tears. A better question is why Hezbollah accepted a ceasefire on terms that have enabled the IDF to stay when Israeli politics were in collapse and Hezbollah seemed to be gaining the upper hand? A good chance to find out what is happening will be this Monday:

NUS

The Stop the War Coalition has released a motion for all Student Union’s to put their name to. Please show your support.

This union notes:

That the disaster and chaos of the so-called “war on terror” continues to devastate the Middle East. The death toll in Iraq is well over 100,000 and thousands more have lost their lives in Afghanistan. After several years of occupation primarily by US and UK forces, the situation in these countries continues to deteriorate.
The increasingly aggressive rhetoric from George Bush and Tony Blair directed at other powers in the region, in what Blair refers to as an “arc of extremism”, particularly Iran.
The recent Israeli attack on and invasion of Lebanon in which over 1,100 people were killed and one million displaced (with children constituting a third of these figures), and the position taken by the NUS NEC meeting of 3 August which backed up Bush and Blair’s position in refusing to call for an immediate unconditional ceasefire.
The ‘Time to go’ demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition outside the Labour party’s annual conference on 23 September, calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, against an attack on Iran, and against replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons programme.

This union believes:

The so-called “war on terror” has been a disaster for the people of the Middle East and for the world in general, and has created immense hostility towards the imperialist occupying powers.
The threats towards Iran, and possible military intervention, follow directly in this vein: the need to control oil, and the need to maintain control in the face of a possible alliance between Iran and Shia forces in Iraq.
Israel’s assault on Lebanon was inexorably linked to the “war on terror”.
The position taken by the NUS on Lebanon, and more particularly its refusal to support the 23 September demonstration was not only a huge mistake, but also cuts directly against the mood of the anti-war movement which represents a majority of people in the country, including a majority of students.

This union resolves:

To support, publicise and send transport to the Stop the War Coalition’s ‘Time to go’ demonstration (detailed in ‘notes 4’).
To also give this level of support to any emergency demonstrations organised by the Stop the War Coalition in response to the current crisis, and to future events.

NUS disgrace - Victory to the resistance

2006-08-10T16:34:00.000+01:00

Netanyahu has described Blair as bravely standing up for his convictions on the Middle East. Remembering this is a man who leads Israeli semi-fascist Likund Party this is some praise. An accolade to be added to his close friendship with the (semi-fascist) Berlusconi and “Labour friendly” Rupert Murdoch – As my Granddad says you can judge a man from the company he keeps. Sadly this is now an accolade that can be extended to the NUS which has bravely stood up for “brave little Israeli” joining the worlds biggest military powers, the CIA, the British government and the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal.

The NEC meeting last weak decided to reject even the semi-racist AWL’s motion on the crisis (a motion event he most blood thirsty B52 liberal would be happy with) in favour of a motion that condemned Hezbollah as racist and as equally to blame for the crisis as the IDF. To add insult to injury the NUS also refused to call for an immediate ceasefire instead lining up with George bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, people who think Israel has the right to destroy Lebanon until it decides to stop. The Independent’s front cover showing the flags of countries calling (and not calling) for an immediate ceasefire can now add the NUS’ logo to the box containing only the US, UK and Israeli flags.

After adding Insult to injury the NUS (not yet satisfied) decided to jump up and down on the head of the principle of internationalism it claim’s to hold dear. Yes not content with giving the green light to Israeli war crimes the NUS decided to go out of its way to attack the UK anti-war movement it supposedly supports. So instead of using its voice to urge the government to stop Israel’s policy of collective punishment (ie mass murder of innocents) it decided to write to the Respect Coalition about its support for the resistance to mass murder in Lebanon. Words can’t express the contemptible level Gemma Tumelty’s organised Independents and the National Organisation of Labour Students have sunk to.

Perhaps to continue the NUS’ long march to the right it should now support Israel’s land invasion of Lebanon. I wait with baited breath but until then in the real world the resistance continues to build in Manchester as it does across the Middle East,

Mass Vigil and Demonstration 1pm Piccadilly Gardens.

Saturday 12^th August.

Hezbollah takes a stand...

2006-08-10T16:27:00.000+01:00

Until I can find the response from the lebanonese communist Party Nasrallah's words will have to surfice. Perhap's reading his actual words as opposed to the Zionist interpretation will cause some to question their assumptions...

I address you anew as we approach the end of the first month of this barbaric and aggressive war which the Zionists imposed on Lebanon and on every human being, stone, location, and symbol in Lebanon...

When the prime minister presented the seven-point plan and was discussed in the government, we dealt positively with this plan... The Lebanese Government proposed a seven-point plan, but the Americans and the French responded with the draft resolution that has been submitted to the Security Council.

The least that can be said about this draft resolution is that it is unfair and unjust and gives the Israelis more than what they wanted or asked for... this draft resolution in essence wanted to give the Israelis through politics and international pressures what they failed to obtain through fighting.

The government's decision on its preparedness to send 15,000 soldiers from the Lebanese Army to be deployed in all this area will greatly help Lebanon and its friends to press for amending the draft resolution, which is being prepared and debated at the Security Council, and will open the way for an appropriate political treatment that can lead to halting the aggression against Lebanon.

... This [planned deployment] is, in our opinion, an honourable, national solution because it is the national army that will be deployed on the border, and not invading forces, mercenary forces, or forces that take orders from the enemies, but the national army that takes orders from the elected Lebanese Government - in this sense, as a solution, we accept it...

The deployment of the Lebanese Army will help preserve sovereignty and independence. This is a better and a more appropriate alternative to the deployment of international forces, especially since we do not know which orders they follow or what their mission or duty will be.

Here, I come to the field developments in the ongoing war. In the last televised speech, I said that the enemy will resort to, in light of the continued military failures, further attacks against the infrastructure, civilian installations, and civilians. This is exactly what has been taking place; namely, more massacres...

The killing of civilians, including men, women, and children, is taking place deliberately since it is the only painful method available to this military helpless and bloodthirsty enemy to put pressure on the Lebanese, the resistance, and the state.

In addition, there is continued targeting of residential places and systematic destruction of houses and buildings in the southern suburb. For instance, there are vacant buildings, but everyday they come to demolish a number of these buildings. Are these not war crimes? Is not the killing of children and women a war crime? Is not the demolition of vacant buildings that are distant from the battlefield and that are not used in any way and have nothing to do with Hezbollah's leaders and fighters considered a war crime? This is in addition to the continued destruction of what remains of the Lebanese infrastructure.

Does anyone believe that all these bridges, roads, and infrastructure were destroyed only to cut off the resistance's supply lines? Is this a logical and reasonable matter or the goal is to destroy the infrastructure to exercise pressure on the Lebanese? The killing of civilians aims to put pressure on the Lebanese and the destruction of houses aims to put pressure on the Lebanese so as to surrender, yield to, and accept the Israeli conditions on the basis of which the war was originally waged.

As a matter of fact, it is very regrettable and unsurprising that the Security Council's draft resolutions hold no blame for the Zionists over all their war crimes, massacres, acts of genocide in Lebanon, and systematic destruction of Lebanon. The capture of two Israeli soldiers in a purely military operation deserves all this condemnation and denunciation by the international community, whereas the response which destroyed buildings, killed people, and violated all laws and norms does not deserve any blame.

... We are still holding fast in the field. We are still strong and capable. This, in itself, is a great achievement for the resistance and a big failure for the enemy in achieving the targets they announced with regard to the resistance. We are still fighting in the front villages and frontline. Although, we do not intend to retain territory, the hero and valiant resistance men insist on continuing to fight until the last bullet.

Imagine that fighting is continuing in the border town of Ait al-Shaab until this minute. The same thing is happening in other border towns. Your sons and brothers among the mujahideen of the Islamic Resistance are in fact making miracles there and setting an example of heroic and brave jihad that is unprecedented in history.

So far, a large number of Merkava tanks have been destroyed. This point is important. Over 60 Merkava tanks and a large number, scores of military bulldozers and scores of military personnel carriers have been destroyed so far. More than 100 tanks, armoured personnel carriers, and military bulldozers have been destroyed until this hour.

I will not speak about the killed and wounded among the settlers [Israelis], but I will speak about the officers and soldiers. So far, more than 100 officers and soldiers have been killed and more than 400 officers and soldiers have been wounded in the confrontations, dozens of them are in critical condition, as admitted by the enemy itself. This concerns the ground confrontation.

As for the rocket bombardment, the activity of the resistance is still the way it was in the first days. When Olmert said that Hezbollah was no longer the way it was, your sons and brothers, the mujahideen of the resistance, answered him by 350 rockets, which fell on various Zionist military bases and colonies in northern occupied Palestine [Israel].

Until this moment, the enemy has failed to reduce or weaken this rocket capability that is available to Hezbollah and the resistance. Consequently, the residents of these areas have remained in shelters and a large number of them have left. This is in addition to significant economic, material, financial, and human losses, which the enemy is still hiding.

Notice that throughout the previous Arab wars, the Israelis used to declare their losses, while the Arabs used to hide them. But today, when Lebanon is bombed, buildings are destroyed, martyrs fall, massacres are committed, despite the negative psychological impact of these scenes sometimes, everything is declared. The Zionists, meanwhile, are hiding everything. Where do hundreds of rockets fall? So far, they have spoken about more than 3,000 rockets that have fallen on them. We assert to you that these rockets are guided by God and are guided technically and are not fired indiscriminately.

In all events, the Israelis have so far not managed to control the border strip, which they said they want to go back to, as the case was previously¿ Nonetheless, I tell the Zionists: You can come to any place; you can stage an incursion; land your airborne troops; and enter this village or that point.

However, all of this will cost you a great deal. You will not be able to stay on our land. If you enter it, we will drive you out by force. We will turn the land of our precious south into a graveyard for the Zionist invaders.

To the Arabs of Haifa I have a special message. I say that we have been pained and are still pained for the loss of your martyrs and for your wounded. I urge you, I appeal to you to leave this city. I hope you would do that. In the past, your presence there and what happened to you has made us hesitate in attacking this city... Please spare us this hesitation and spare your blood, which is our blood, and leave this city.

Victory to the Resistance

2006-08-07T15:14:00.000+01:00

The national demonstration for an immediate ceasefire in the Lebanon and Israel out of Palestine was amazing. Over 100’000 people at very short notice. The over whelming mood was solidarity with the Lebanese people. The slogan “We are all Hezbollah” and the SWP slogan’s of “Victory to the Resistance” cutting with the crowd.

This is very short as I’m in a café and generally have no internet until the 15th but need to make a quick announcement.

Manchester Vigil/demo for Lebanon and Palestine.
1pm Piccadilly Gardens this Saturday.

Make sure you’re there

The Lebanese Communist Party hails the heroic resistance fighters and calls for opposing the entry of NATO forces

2006-07-27T15:24:00.000+01:00

Statement of the Lebanese CP from Lenin's Tomb

23 July 2006

The Political Bureau of the Lebanese Communist Party reviewed the dangerous repercussions of the Zionist aggression against Lebanon and its people that has continued for 12 days and noted the following:

First: The Political Bureau hails the noble resistance heroes in the ranks of the patriotic and Islamic resistance who are writing with their blood the most splendid pages in the history of our people and our Arab Nation. It sees in their heroism the rays of a new dawn of freedom for all the peoples of the region suffering under the yoke of the United States and Israel at a time when the Arab regimes have abandoned their places to link themselves entirely with America's plans.

Second: The plans for a solution proposed by the George Bush administration, in particular the "New Middle East," and the drive to introduce NATO troops into our south are plans aimed, not only at protecting the borders of Israel and liquidating our people's resistance and ability to reject the surrender settlements that it aims to impose on our region, but opens the way before the Zionists to wipe out the Palestine issue displacing its people once again and pushing he Arabs into a maelstrom of partition and endless conflicts.

Condoleezza Rice's trip to the region is only for the purpose of marketing this plan, which we reject in whole and in part. We demand that the Lebanese government take a resolute stand rejecting the entry into our south of forces from the western alliances – forces with which we had bitter experiences during the Israeli aggression of 1982 and the events that followed it. We also demand that the government call for a comprehensive national meeting to lay out plans for putting an end to the aggression and for dealing with the internal problems in a way that preserves Lebanon and its people, not one based on the interests of the aggressors.

Third: It will not be possible to confront the new stage in the Zionist-American plan in an effective and comprehensive way if we fail to pay adequate attention to those who have been displaced by the aggressive war and thrown once again on the roads of exile. It is the duty of the state, as represented by the Supreme Relief Council and all the service ministries to guarantee appropriate dwellings for those now sleeping on the sidewalks, in addition to insuring that food, medicine, and medical care be provided them and all those who still live in the areas exposed to daily bombardment by the Zionist forces.

Fourth: The Political Bureau of the Lebanese Communist Party calls on all leftist, progressive, and democratic forces in the world to broaden the scope of their solidarity activity with Lebanon, not only by organizing demonstrations and protests in front of the embassies of the United States and Israel in their countries, but by sending delegations and committees to Lebanon to investigate the facts and to see up close the crimes that Israel is committing against the Lebanese people, beginning with its massacres of peaceful residential districts and up to its use of internationally prohibited weapons (including poison gas; phosphorous bombs; cluster, fragmentation, and vacuum bombs; as well as depleted uranium).

The Politbureau also calls on the Arab peoples to press their governments to take real action in support of Lebanon, and calls on the peoples of Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco to close the embassies of Israel in their countries.

Eternal glory to the resistance fighters and the heroic martyrs!

Lebanon will triumph over the aggressors!

Beirut, 23 July 2006.

The Political Bureau of the Lebanese Communist Party.

Get yer Independant only 70p

2006-07-26T14:16:00.000+01:00

With most of the press so far up Israel’s propaganda machine its made the history of Palestine invisible Oren Ben-Dor’s article really stood out as telling it like it is. With so few voices speaking out for Lebanon and Palestine in the press lets celebrate the few we have…

“What exactly is being defended by the violence in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state? I suggest the latter. Israel's statehood is based on an unjust ideology which causes indignity and suffering for those who are classified as non-Jewish by either a religious or ethnic test. To hide this primordial immorality, Israel fosters an image of victimhood. Provoking violence, consciously or unconsciously, against which one must defend oneself is a key feature of the victim-mentality. By perpetuating such a tragic cycle, Israel is a terrorist state like no other.”

And in the same issue the always brilliant Mark Steel,

“But this is the fault of Hizbollah, for using the rabbits as shields of fur. You tell me how we are supposed to distinguish between civilian rabbits and terrorist rabbits. Let me show you evidence of terrorists being hidden in safe hutches.”

And a front page on why we should celebrate immigration. If it wasn’t for the bit on fish it’d almost be a socialist paper.

Spirit of the che..

2006-07-23T13:11:00.000+01:00

Well the demonstrations are over according to the police estimate over 1000 pro-Palestinians marched in Manchester yesterday, reports say 20’000 in London and I don’t know how many in Scotland. The Manchester demonstration was greeted by a Zionist demonstration of about 30 slightly worrying individuals who went on to film demonstrators in a way I’ve only previously seen by BNP thugs.

Most importantly though it was on of the most impassioned demo’s I’ve seen in a long time due to the large numbers from the General Union of Palestinian Students. Large numbers also marched from the Stop the War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity campaign, Respect, University of Manchester and the Palestine Forum (an organisation connected to the Mosques.) As one speaker commented their were more Jewish people on our march then the Zionist counter demo showing the moral bankruptcy of the Zionist movement which once exercised more or less total hegemony in the Jewish community.

Increased awareness of issues in the Middle East from resistance to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has created far greater popular awareness of Israel’s crimes. However much propaganda the UK media throws down painting the invasion of Lebanon as at worst a war against “mad mullahs” (copy right the Sun) or as a “plague on both your houses” from the liberal press it doesn’t wash. The Zionist movement is so disconnected from society in general the mass of pro-Israeli coverage simply doesn’t connect with what is in peoples heads – people, as during the attack on Iraq, can see through the bullshit. This is doubly true for people coming out of education whose entire political awareness has been shaped by western lies and wars in the Middle East.

The strength of the protests was that it brought back into contact the genuine but disconnected forces doing solidarity and campaigning work for Palestine. Popular opinion is consistently moving in our direction but our networks are patching and disconnected making it difficult for us to carry the arguments in wider society effectively. Especially when the Zionists are considerably better organised (and in the student world better funded.) The path from here must lead through the 23rd of September in Manchester but it must also contain the pulling together of our movement for a Free Palestine with a series of jointly called meetings vigils and demos. Without a united movement we will be unable to challenge UK support for Israel’s mass murder in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.

For Peace in the Middle East...

2006-07-20T15:56:00.000+01:00

Lebanon’s government has referred to the Israeli offensive as a massacre today as Israeli troops cross the boarder and Lebanese causalities reach over 300. Half a million Lebanese have been displaced and God knows how many injured. Compare this to the 15 Israeli civilians and 14 soldiers killed then British press coverage looks more and more scandalous. Foreign nationals have been evacuated in their 10’s of thousands but the British government still hasn’t called on Israel to stop its invasion instead calling for a “UN force” to be sent to the region, giving Israel a green light to continue while their war crimes mount. Even the UN is forced to admit their response is disproportionate and the Lebanese President saying,
"Israel is bombing everything, even little streets, even ambulances, even lorries which are taking the food supplies,"
Israel hasn’t behaved like this since the 70’s and surely can’t get away with it when awareness about the Middle East is as high as it is today. Global opinion seems to be gradually turning against Israel as its actions are demonstratively racist. No amount of media coverage can cover up that this is an immensely one sided “war.”

That aside it has to be remembered that Hezbollah are the only army to inflict a defeat on the IDF and are anything but a push over as well as Israeli actions nullifying any Lebanese resistance to Hezbollah’s presence. Israel has in effect shot itself in the foot. Attempts by the US and UK to draw in Syria and Iran also seem to be flawed as Israel simply can’t risk wider involvement. The number of questions raised by the situation is simply immense and the cost in lives of the region being on a knife edge even bigger.

It’s easy to forget that this whole situation was started by Israel holding Gaza and 1/3^rd of the Palestinian Government hostage. The issue of a free Palestine and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon are intimately linked. For this reason the question of solidarity in the UK is key for us and the mantra of keeping the movement broad and radical is essential. The Palestinian solidarity movement must unite and march as one on Saturday. If we are to end this crisis one step closer to a free Palestine it means inflicting a political defeat on Israel. The blame for this invasion must lie with Israel for its actions in Gaza and the West Bank and for its disproportionate use of force in Lebanon.

March with us on the 22^nd in Manchester, London and Edinburgh.

Class War in the Commons?

2006-07-14T14:03:00.000+01:00

After talking about this the other day with students involved in the Babar Ahmed must stay campaign. The fact that it takes 3 bankers (no euphemism intended) getting extradited to make this a public issue is a disgrace. I can’t confirm this but apparently this is the first emergency parliamentary session of this sort not to do with declaring war. Anyway here is Galloway’s response in the commons,

“The country will not have missed the fact that Ministers, who a couple of weeks ago were wrapping themselves in the flag, are, on this occasion, wrapping themselves in quite a different flag—a point to which I shall come. The class warrior clothes no longer fit Ministers and they should not attempt to adopt them.

Equally hard to take was the contribution from one Conservative Member of Parliament—not others—who said that he had supported the unequal treaty because he thought that it was all about terrorists. He did not know that bankers, rich people, upper-class people, and white people might be caught up in this unequal relationship.

British citizens accused of terrorist crimes are entitled to exactly the same protection and standards of justice as British citizens accused of white-collar crimes—not least because the reason why the Senate has not ratified, and I predict will never ratify, the treaty is because of the power of the lobby in the United States, in a state of perpetual election and re-election, in relation to the supporters of Irish republicanism in the United States of America.

Of course, as has been asked many times, why will the Senate have to ratify the treaty if we are already operating our half of it? Can the Minister not see that the absolutely logical conclusion from the national concern about these matters is to withdraw temporarily from our obligations under the treaty by whatever measures can be taken until the Senate has ratified it and we have reciprocity—it will be of an unequal kind, but at least reciprocity in that America will have signed the treaty and not just us.

That is clear to everyone in the country except those on the Treasury Bench. It is clear to every newspaper and it is made clear on every radio phone-in show. It is clear in every one of our inboxes and postbags, and everyone in the House knows it—only those on the Treasury Bench resist it.

The most revealing thing of all in this whole debate was the near apoplexy of the Solicitor-General at the very idea that anyone in the House would suggest abrogating a treaty with the United States. He almost had a seizure. He asked the Conservatives to repeat the statement slowly so that people could hear it. The very idea that we would abrogate a treaty with the United States was quite beyond his ken, and that is the problem.

We all want a special relationship with the United States. I am the great-grandson of probably the only woman in the entire 19th century who emigrated from the United States to Scotland. She may have got on the wrong boat, but that was what she did—[Hon. Members: “Send him back.”] I am probably theonly man who will not be asked back to the United States, because the last time I went there I gave them a bloody good hiding.

All we want is a special relationship that does not resemble that between Miss Lewinsky and a former United States President: unequal, disreputable and with the junior partner always on their knees. That is not the kind of special relationship that we want, but as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) powerfully made clear, it is exactly the kind of special relationship that most people in Britain think that we have with the United States of America, whether that is true or not.

What does the Minister think that the public deduce when they hear that a treaty was agreed between British Ministers and the Government of George Bush in secret? What does he think that the British public think when they hear that the agreement that was secretly reached between George Bush’s Government and new Labour was then passed on the royal prerogative without debate in this House?

Does he think that the British people regard that as their Government standing up for them, or does he think that the British people imagine that that is just another example of the obeisance of the Government when it comes to the United States of America? I am absolutely sure what public opinion is on this matter and that the Government are absolutely isolated on it.

Had I been able to talk about other cases, as the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) was, I would have gone much further down this road, but in view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot. However, I say this: we are talking about sending our citizens—these three and two others, McKinnon and Babar Ahmad—into the maw of a US justice system that stands condemned around the entire world. There is no point in soft-soaping this.

One cannot separate the facts of Guantanamo Bay, orange jump suits, cages in the tropics, people being hooded, manacled and forcibly injected with drugs, Abu Ghraib, Bagram air base and extraordinary rendition—by which people are flown around the world to be tortured by the United States Government, although we do not even know who those people are, or the jails in which they are hanging upside down, being water boarded and tortured—from the proposal to send our citizens casually into that maw. The British people do not separate them. Last night, the other place spoke for Britain. Would it not be good if this place could speak for Britain on this, too?”

Five days, two conferences...

2006-07-12T11:05:00.000+01:00

It’s looking like a good year for the younger part of the SWP based on this years Marxism. I’ve never seen such a high percentage of young people at the event (or such a small percentage of bald/grey heads.) Which I happy to say isn’t because the old guard didn’t turn up but because over 1700 students were registered (i.e. had paid 25 quid) to attend. What a stark contrast to the big parties with a declining and ageing membership base.

Somewhat frustratingly my choice of meetings seemed to appeal more to me then the newer people attending but I suppose that’s to be expected. When I did make the effort to attend with new comrades the meetings were completely transformed on the simple basis that people knew they were speaking to a new audience. The best meetings by far (for me anyway) were the meetings on France and Bloody Sunday. Eamonn McCann is simply brilliant and the meeting on France was made by the interventions of French comrades from the floor. Talking to people at the event was an experience in itself with the level of theory far higher then when I became involved a few years ago and the non-members attending from Uni’s seemed to be significant people we'd pulled closer with our new strategy. It hit home when one of the non-members we had brought down from Manchester commented after the SWSS organising meeting (well over 100 people) that he already knew our strategy from last year.

Three people warrant particular mention for their appearance the most surprising being Gemma Tumelty the NUS National President but also Dan Glass Sussex SU President and Brian Duggan President Warwick Union (and newly elected chair of the Aldwych group.)

Straight after Marxism was Aldwych’s hand over and first meeting. Aldwych for the uninitiated (almost everyone) are the “Student Unions of the Russell group” which are the 19 leading research universities in the UK. Fascinating stuff you might well think… To be honest having next to no knowledge of Aldwych before going my preconception was that it was. 1) A ladder for Labour Students to climb onto the NUS NEC. 2) An old boys club for the top Unions to push their weight about in NUS 3) A gathering point for Unions like Southampton who would happily smash our national Union. It is too early to be proved entirely wrong on any of these but the meeting did at least have some pointers in the other direction. Primarily as unlike at certain NUS events the officers attending seemed to have some desire to fight for free education and a reasonable level of competence. Competence in the student movement is something it is almost impossible to assume even across entire executives it seems… Anyway before I end up naming names (and not even names from the Aldwych meeting) I have to say that a reasonable amount of discussion went into the education campaign.

The suggestion to link the question of funding/free education to University Research and investment went down well as did the question of discussing Nuclear Research and the CAAT campaigns more generally. The idea of mass campaigns seemed a bit distant from a lot of the discussion but amongst a group of sabbaticals (full time union officers) this is essentially par for the course. However, some genuinely new and innovative ideas for campaigning were raised by individuals that could well help the campaign take off. Significantly the group selected Brian Duggan from Warwick as its chair who seems to be both quite dynamic and to have a good grounding in socialist politics. The officer from Bristol elected Media Officer and Vice chair and Glasgow got Secretary; neither gave away a great deal about their politics from their speeches. An officer called Helen (from Oxford or Cardiff I think?) stood for Vice-chair on what seemed to be good politics but with 5/6 candidates lost out. Gemma and Wes Streeting (VP Education – Labour Student) also made an appearance on behalf of NUS. It’s too early to venture any solid opinions online or impressions of what other people seemed to think as the meeting went on but its is safe to say the group does at least seem to have both a point and a direction.

A fight for free education

2006-06-29T21:26:00.000+01:00

Looks like the North West is gearing up for a fight over free education! At a regional NUS event of all places we seem to have worked out a reasonable strategy for building up to the National demonstration on the 29^th of October. Local demos, regional actions and reasonable buy in from Student Unions – I’m simply shocked.

The background to this is the NUS’ priority campaign over coalition 2010 (an alliance of Teaching Unions, MPs and NUS over not lifting the Cap on Fees.) The upshot of this is that the student movement actually has something to rally around to put our vision of education on the map and a chance to revitalise our movement. The need to broaden out the campaign to the question of what higher education should be about is undeniable as are the limitations of 2010 but here is what we have agreed:

Wednesday 27^th September – NW regional demo in Manchester to end at the Labour Party conference. A chance at the start of term to mobilize the North West against a tangible target. Also an opportunity to draw in support from local Unions and political figures.

Wednesday 13^th October – NW mass lobbies of local MP’s. A half way point to the national demo drawing together activists and win support for our action.

Sunday 29^th October – National Demonstration in London.

All that is left is to organise the events and get as much buy in as is possible. Approaching FE’s, tying in with the national Anti War demo (in Manchester) on the 23^rd September and blitzing our own students when they get back.

Waking up bit by bit...

2006-06-27T22:48:00.000+01:00

I haven’t posted in a while because the world of student politics seems to have entered a lull. But seeing as I just missed the only thing NUS are doing at this moment I thought this momentous day shouldn’t go unmarked. Because today on the same day as NUS and the teaching unions launch their “Public Services Not Private Profit” campaign Blair has decided to come clean as being a Tory all along. Worshiping the right of the Individual to get rich and highlighting the privatising agenda in Secondary education. Is there any more obvious way to slap us and the Unions in the face?

At a speech to the British Society of Magazine Editors which must have been happening just as NUT reps from across the country filing into Westminster Blair outlined his agenda for business friendly secondary schools based on New Labours “choice agenda.” One of the most sickening things (as History is dropped to “an option” in the secondary curriculum) is the comment that,
"One of the things we are doing with specialist schools and trust schools is have schools where enterprise and business becomes very much a greater part of what kids are taught from an early age.”
Echoing horribly the comments at the launch of a recent University of Manchester project about “providing a generation of professionals capable of bring private enterprise to the public sector.” The gearing of the entire sector has been gathering pace for a while with the gradual erosion of “soft” subjects such as art, drama and history but this seems to mark a turning point with Labour determined after ramming through the Education and Inspections bill through the commons. The whole fiasco has been labelled by the press as Blair encouraging entrepreneurialism which is in itself sickening without Labour is dismantling the remaining legacies of comprehensive education. Brown is getting in on the act as well with his summer schools for entrepreneurs as part of “enterprise week” - no I’m not making this up. Even when you expect it you still want to weep for their unashamed worship of the market and business. Apparently Brown is proud to say that at the 97 election 5% of schools offered education on business matters and this has now increased to 50% as business courses at Universities swelled.

The only reason I’m going on about this other then missing the lobby is the horrible parallels between this and what is happening in Manchester. Privatisation or more accurately the “modernisation agenda” has slowly dominated our University while the left was distracted and while the leadership of our Students Union was dining with the Vice Chancellor. The Universities 2015 agenda is solely based on the premise of providing “centres of excellence” to industry. The nuclear research based Dalton Institute being only one among many examples of a project where the education of students was considered as an after thought to the needs of the North West’s least pleasant industry.

Things have been picking up with the Campaign Against the Arms Trade disinvestments campaign opening up a series of debates in the student population about how our University is funded. Similar campaigns against Halls sell offs and Nuclear research have started to merge in a way which is generalising out when the lecturers strike brought the question of education funding to a head. I almost started this earlier with a moan about predicting the moment when things will kick off again in the student movement but realised that we don’t have much in the way of reasons to complain. We still have an active anti-war movement and the combination of privatisation starting to pinch and the Labour Party conference up the road could be just one of many sparks creating a real campaign for education.

Solidarity for........

2006-04-26T16:30:00.000+01:00

I wanted to write a long piece about Marxism and Faith Schools after this debate in Socialist Teacher but events closer to home have taken over. The last few weeks have demonstrated to me the near total bankruptcy of elements of the Student movement and it can’t go unmentioned. The state of the NUS and Student Unions should have been a clue but its ability to be so damaging is a new one to me.

The background is the AUT and Natfhe strike for a pay increase as lecturers have seen their pay decrease 20% in real terms. It started with a one day strike was widely supported but the action short of strike (a marking boycott) seems to have brought the right on to the streets. Leading the charge is Essex university SU which you can only assume (as it is joined by Bristol & Nottingham) is either Tory or indistinguishable from them. They have managed to gather together 20 unions (or sabbaticals) to sign a letter to the national press and the AUT condemning the action and claiming to speak for the majority of students. It has been covered in the Guardian but most notably in the Independent’s “Students used as pawns” article and used as proof that the NUS support was nothing more then posing lefties - UCEA and the government must be laughing all the way to the bank. A response was quickly gathered together by 30 Union’s lead by Kat Stark (Warwick SU) supporting the AUT and defending unity and a properly funded education system. But as with all delayed reactions it was predictably given anywhere near as much publicity and the damage had been done.

The danger has not been so much in the shift in student opinion of which there is very little evidence but in the reaction of the rest of student officialdom. Ordinary students are for the most part still very open to arguments about why we should support the action but Unions are completely alien to the concept of taking a lead. The NUS which has by and large taken a good position of solidarity (but not active solidarity) has started to cave in with the slightest bit of pressure from the right. Its leadership, so divorced from any social base, has already (one week after standing firm) condemned the AUT for refusing to set exams. This is so clearly an attempt to appease the anti-NUS right it’s laughable. Even bits of the “left” like the AWL front “Education Not for Sale” are talking of a “ground swell of anti-AUT feeling” buying into what is little more then rightwing hot air and spin. The problem as always in these cases is the inability of the Student Unions to carry and argument within the student population by reacting too late and tailing whatever seems the most uncontroversial option.

My own Union has organised an event with the AUT but has been handicapped by infighting and the distance to the exam period. The AUT action here is simply not biting as the Universities sympathetic attitude to the AUT’s demands has removed the sting from some of its less active members and meant many students haven’t really noticed the action. What will happen at the thing itself is a matter of speculation but I suspect the right will mobilize better then the left as they are the ones with an impetus to change our policy. As a side note the political fall out (from elections) within the Union has reached such a point where it is difficult for the organisation to carry out all its functions. Our Student Council (with a fragile attendance at best this late in the year) is being boycotted by sections who will lose their seats and can’t function. This means constitutional changes will go unscrutinised and the officers can do what ever the hell they like. With one thing and another it is becoming an unpleasant place to work and I’m looking forwards to either the new exec or sorting out our problems like grown ups. Sadly the former option looks like it will come first.

Hopefully the next blog can poke its head out of the Student Bubble.
Cliffite

Roll on may 4th

2006-04-19T17:53:00.000+01:00

“It was beautiful” bizarrely used to describe NUS conference at the Opposite of Apathy but perfect for a weekend spent in the People’s Republic of East London. On Saturday about 20 SWSSlettes descended on the Respect campaign in Tower Hamlets and Newham. The idea was to get a feel of how RESPECT can feel when it is really rooted in the local community and it worked. In Tower Hamlets particularly the mood has swung away from Labour to what can be a real alternative.

Canvassing the estates the responses towards what RESPECT had done were consistently positive with Labour’s main Issues of crime and ASBO’s looking like a dead weight around their necks. People who have seen youth facilities gradually disappear might have welcomed a respite from youths hanging around and given ASBO’s a chance aren’t so keen on them when they start to know children who have been served with them or similar schemes. Even those who haven’t experienced the injustice of them 1st hand were more open to RESPECT’s position of increased community facilities. It was a new experience to be in as a socialist where we’d been given half a chance and started to really show people we can make a difference. What also came through was the marked increase in support amongst the white working class in the area. The materials put out by Respect over housing and poverty really cut the false racial divide and the rewards of challenging Labour’s agenda and building our base in the area are starting to pay off. It would be foolish to deny our main base isn’t in the Bengali community but if we could win control and show that “our administration is different from a newLabour/Tory/Liberal administration” we could really start to take off to paraphrase a famous councilor. We should stand to win a large group on both councils, talk of winning out right is premature but we are clearly on our way.

But the overwhelming theme is clearly the implosion of New Labour. It could not be worse for Tower Hamlets Labour group to have the cash for coronets scandal just as they are mired in their own sleaze up to the neck. Labour’s credibility as an organisation for council tenants or working people has simply disappeared and their vote is in melt down. Everywhere we canvassed it was the first time a party had bothered since us in the General Election (and we were the only people they’d seen in between.) Labour’s vote maybe in meltdown across the country because of its attacks on pensions, schools and Iraq but East London will be the only place it will benefit the left. I challenge anyone on the left to attack that when Margaret Hodge so stupidly inflames the possibility of labour’s failure benefiting the Nazi’s.

This really is the final thing I want to cover because despite its obvious opportunism it contains in it a seed of truth. The failure of Social Democracy really has left some of its traditional support vulnerable to the BNP. Even in Bethnal Green where it is being undercut by the left you can sometimes sense it. Older Labour voters who have worked for 50 years to retire in dignity left with no one to repair their council house and no one to hold accountable. You can recognise it from outside houses, where no maintenance has been done for years because of poverty and old age and on the doorstep. With the turn to the politics of management politicians and local councils have retreated from ordinary people. Political parties don’t come round, tenants Associations collapsed and community organisations have disappeared leaving people with little more then a sense of betrayal. Saying these people are all going to vote BNP is dangerous and stupid but not as worrying as senior Labour movement figures ignoring the problem.

Can't complain

2006-03-26T23:59:00.000+01:00

Thursday saw the election results come out for the UMSU executive. By what must be one of the narrowest margins ever we have a left dominated executive and a socialist general Secretary! Our Exec is:

Full Timers

Gen Sec - Rob Owen (SWP/student RESPECT)
Academic Affairs - Mohammad Yakman Khair (I-Soc)
Student Activities - Elliott Woods (3rd Eye)
Welfare - Mina Mo (student RESPECT/Independent)
Campaigns - Patrick Smith (student RESPECT/3rd eye)
Student Direct (Newspaper) - Sajid Rafiq (Independent)
Communications – Maadh Alhadithi (I-Soc)
Women's - Karla Jayne Thomas (3rd eye)

Part Timers

Int Officer - Karolina Kopiec (Book & Beer Coalition)
Postgrad Officer- Wajid Usman (Pakistani Student Association)
Humanities Officer - Rumanna Habeeb (I-Soc)
Life Sciences Officer - Corrinne Broomfield (Independent)
Engineering Officer - Ejaz (I-Soc)
Medical - Farrah Rana (I-Soc)

We won the General Secretary position by 1283 to 1279 (the first count had a 1279 -1279 draw) against the current Welfare Officer. The most satisfying part was that the BNP Youth leader got a miserable 100 odd votes and looked close to tears when we won with a real Bethnal Green moment. Most other positions were less close with the Labour Student lead “Book and Beer coalition” facing a backlash against their negative campaigning/ red baiting. The tides seem to be turning from when softer left candidates a few years ago lost lower profile elections with similar slate support. SOAS also elected a Socialist President and Respect is going into NUS conference with over 60 delegates. What a change from last year where we were wiped out in Manchester and only got a place on NUS “block of 12” through transfers from other groups. Next year we should actually be in a position where Socialists can show how we would run the student movement.

But it gets better last week a Union meeting of 450 discussed our “Another Education is Possible” motion to twin with Nablus and the Bolivarian Uni Of Venezuela. We lost a few early votes that gutted the motion (thanks to a very well organised opposition) but started to consistently win key votes about the nature of Israel on the floor. By the end we had enough influence to call for and win a position to vote down our own gutted and inverted motion. It is hard to explain what a victory it felt like having won a majority of fair trade activists to a pro-Palestinian position.

All that is left is to show that the left can run the Union in a principled and political way while bringing in more Union activists.

NUS to take on Blair?

2006-02-26T21:43:00.000Z

Oh NUS is a hell of a laugh isn’t it? Not only do they fail miserably to put on a workable education campaign but then there is the nightmare of ensuring the left gets a voice at Conference.

This week is going to be the miss named “week of action” to stop the government lifting the cap on fees. Blair must be bricking himself as we speak, wondering if he’ll survive with his job. The only national part of the campaign will be the Mass(?) lobby of parliament this Wednesday. Even the demo called beforehand by a handful of left Unions and student campaigning groups isn’t really enough to spark life into the event and mobilise new activists. If the NUS had called a rally before hand they could’ve made it a slightly more student friendly event. But why bother if you can go through the motions. The most frustrating bit still has to go to the conference delegate elections. It is only through trying to get people to vote that the shocking irrelevance of the organisation hits home. How can you tell people to vote for a real national education campaign when most students have never seen even a pretend one?

Since the demise of labour students NUS has stopped even pretending to be a campaigning organisation concentrating on selling naff discounts to unsuspecting first years (and shopping data to multi-nationals.) The stark comparison to this is other national organisations like Unite against Fascism and the Stop the War coalition actually have far more direct student involvement and interest. Thank fuck we don’t have to rely on our National Union eh? So the slogan has to be: Come to the club nights. Come to the demo’s and try not to fall asleep at national conference.

BNP outnumbered and depressed

2006-01-17T17:43:00.000Z

The UAF counterdemo in Leeds was a huge success. Despite worries that exams would reduce the student turn out (it did) the trade Union delegations more then made up the numbers. More satisfying was the fact that our side was lively bouncing and loud while the master race were a depressed looking bunch of middle aged white men. Reasonable student delegations attended from Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and leeds despite the cold and wet so the demonstration was still much much younger then the Nazi effort. The PCS came out of it particularly well having organised transport from some cities and bring a lot of its members for a working day.

The whole day seemed to highlight the fact that things don't seem to be looking good for Britains Nazis despite over a decade of "building" and some success in local elections. The fact that they can only mobalise 15o people to defend their leader is nothing short of laughable. The fact that their membership (despite claims from various "youth leader") is overwhelmingly old is also selfevident. With Griffen looking like he is going down an effective UAF campaign in the May elections really could force them back quite a way. Worth a day in the cold and wet by any accounts.

Pav declares for President

2006-01-10T22:02:00.000Z

Pav (current NUS Black Students Officer and Student Broad Left Ally) has announced that he is standing for NUS president. The background he stands against is one of years of Labour Party domination broken by the left group Campaign for Free Education’s candidate Kat Fletcher only 2 years ago who has proudly carried the flame for the err Labour Party ever since. After leaving CfE Kat has steadily taken NUS in a steadily a-political direction under the banner of “reform” cutting democracy and blunting the education campaign. As a result the NUS is less connected with its members then ever and its campaigns have largely disappeared from view (with the exception of a pointless and very expensive “launch.”) The NUS has infact degenerated so much it is trialling a two tier membership, one paid for with perks and one for democracy only, in the North West.

The question is what would Pav do to NUS and how should the left treat his candidacy? Would he take the Union in a progressive direction reconnecting the membership through mass campaigns and standing up to the government or give us more of the same. As an activist Pav has a very good record in terms of supporting progressive campaigns and has quietly stood up against the reform agenda. But when it comes to the crunch about what politics he will stand on it all becomes a bit hazy. To the outside observer Pav seems to move between Labour Students Proper and the politically much better Student Broad Left with out ever coming down clearly with one or the other. If Mel Ward (National Organisation of Labour Students) stands it will become more clear cut but if a deal is struck with NOLS it could throw everything up into the air. Personally I’m a fan of Pav’s but the personal isn’t always the political.

“I write to let you know that I will be standing to be the next NationalPresident of NUS at Annual Conference in March. I hope you will support me. NUS must be a powerful voice defending students' interests nationally, supporting students' unions to represent their members locally, and shapingthe world in which students live, work and study.

As NUS President, I will give a lead on strengthening student representation in FE colleges, universities and to the government. Only by increasing theinvolvement of all sections of our membership will we create successful NUS campaigns and build a relevant movement that will help to secure NUS'long-term stability.

I want to see an influential NUS. Whether campaigning to prevent further fee increases and for free education; for more resources for local students'unions or joining demands for trade justice, peace and equality that many students support, we are most effective when we are an active, inclusive and visible movement. The breadth of my experiences as NUS Black Student's Officer, and previously as students' union president of Cambridge University and Runshaw FE College, ensure that I will act on the diverse needs students' unions have from NUS.

I have shown that improving student's experiences of NUS is possible. In the past two years, I have led a transformation in the NUS BlackStudents' Campaign, creating a highly successful movement by dramaticallyincreasing participation, building powerful links within the student movement and with external organisations, and raising tens of thousands of pounds through initiatives like the NUS Black Students' handbook. I believe that I am best placed to deliver the kind of NUS that students need. ”

Big Brother - Oh dear me

2006-01-05T20:14:00.000Z

It seems that its true.

Big Brother really will be hosting our very own GG.

I'm lost for words what does Galloway think he can gain from this? Won't it hammer Respects credibility further or is it a cunning plan to profile us for the May council elections.

MCB and Gay Rights

2006-01-05T14:39:00.000Z

A debate has opened up on ednet around the comments of Sir Iqbal Sacranie head of the MCB about gay marriage (sorry civil partnership) in the UK. I’ll try and reproduce one thread of the argument bellow.

“If Islam condemns homosexuality -like other 'Abrahamic' religions- then surely what you would actually mean is 'Should we nominate Islam for a Homophobia award?' ”

CNS: “Or, alternatively, you can do what I do for Christianity, Judaism, and pretty much every religion in the world, and try to take it into context. All major religious works were written over a thousand years ago, when all sort of prejudices went unchallenged. So if you follow one of these religions, you can either accept that what was relevant to a society then isn't necessarily applicable to society today, or rigidly stick to all the prejudices under the excuse that your religions says so. Seeing as most Christians in the UK seem to have had little trouble shaking off the bigotry that used to be stuck with the religions (unlike the Bible Belt lot in the US), I don't see what trouble Muslims should have.
Sorry, but I do not accept what Mr. Galloway wants us to believe that anyone who does not turn a blind eye to homophobia in the name of Islam is an Islamophobe.”

Rob: “That’s skating over a key difference between British Christianity and mainstream religion. British Christianity is more and more disconnected from the formal institutions of the church, fewer people go and in a dominantly liberal Christian country most Christians interpret their religion as a belief in "god" tied to whatever views they generally hold. The picture is different if you look at either the Church as an institution or church going Christians as a group. I do accept however that the CofE has stretched its image and utterings more and more to reach out to the majority of non-church going Christians.
You also seem to forget that there is an incredible amount of non-religious homophobia in British society generally. Main stream Islam like mainstream Christianity, Hinduism etc in the main reproduces the homophobia of society generally.
The final point (not at CNS) is that despite Tatchell's suggestion there is no automatic "unity of the oppressed." In fact the general reaction to oppression is one of powerlessness lending itself to kicking out at those worse off and trying to relate to those above in society. It is a much more typical for someone to think "I have a rough time because I'm black but at least I'm not Muslim/ I have a rough time as a Muslim but at least I'm not gay/ I have a rough time because I'm gay but at least I'm not Muslim" then for people to think "we're all oppressed lets smash up news international."
It is therefore not surprising that there is homophobia within the Muslim community and that it is voiced by "community leaders" any more then it is surprising that the same is true of LGBT community in relation to Islam. It would be disappointing to see activists fall into the trap of highlighting homophobia/Islamophobia within minority communities and be distracted from the root cause of mainstream homophobia/Islamophobia.”

A: “So it seems that you're suggesting that we can't protest homophobia if it’s done in the name of Islam, as it’s not homophobia because of Islam, but because of general homophobia expressed by Islamic "leaders".
It’s a nice idea theoretically but I'm sorry, it doesn't wash, you can't have it both ways - when Islamic clerics say they oppose terrorism you're the first to use this as evidence that Muslims in general denounce terrorism. And also I don't think your analysis of the psychology of oppressed groups is quite correct,
"I have a rough time because I'm black but at least I'm not Muslim/ I have a rough time as a Muslim but at least I'm not gay/ I have a rough time because I'm gay but at least I'm not Muslim"
Oppressed groups lash out at those they see oppressing them surely? I accept your point about conflict between different ethnic minority groups, but not between ethnic minority groups and the gay community, not when the homophobia is being preached from above as accepted wisdom and teaching by the people a lot of Muslims see as the only ones who are capable of giving them a voice in society, when was the last time a Muslim cleric said that being black was a disease?!?”

Rob: “I wasn't saying there is no Homophobia within the Muslim community - quite the opposite. I was explaining why Muslims as an oppressed group living in a homophobic society were likely to accept homophobic ideas. The fact that this is replicated at the top of the "Muslim community" is also unsurprising.
"Oppressed groups lash out at those they see oppressing them surely? I accept your point about conflict between different ethnic minority groups, but not between ethnic minority groups and the gay community..."
You miss the point that oppression doesn't effect people as a group it effects them individually as part of society. Which is one of the key reasons that oppression tends to produce (note tends not results in) a feeling of powerlessness in the face of it. So members of the oppressed group are likely to buy into other oppressive ideas within society as a way of asserting the fact that there are people worse off.
People (even religious people) aren't empty vessels that clerics or newspapers can simply pour prejudice into. Social experience can make people susceptible to certain ideas, oppression makes elements of the Muslim community susceptible to homophobia with a religious tint just as poverty and social neglect make some w/c communities susceptible to racism etc. It doesn't make homophobia acceptable when put forwards by a cleric but it does identify the root problem as the homophobia endemic in society not as a product of one particular religion over another. “

SP: “"It doesn't make homophobia acceptable when put forwards by a cleric but it does identify the root problem as the homophobia endemic in society not as a product of one particular religion over another."
So it’s ok to protest over this kind of homophobia (as outrage! and others do) or not?
Also, is it ok to protest against Islamophobia from LGBT people or do we just recognise the root problem being the Islamophobia in society?”

Rob: “Surely the problem is the disproportionate focus on homophobia within the Muslim community something I'm not alone in thinking Outrage! has been guilty of. The fact that it is not particularly surprising (automatic unity of the oppressed etc) doesn't make it defensible. Just as the head of MCB's comments aren't defensible but do gain disproportionate amount of attention because of the depth of Islamophobia in society post 9/11.”

B: “How is it a disproportionate amount of attention when the head of the major Muslim body in this country makes comments like that. If the MCB does, as it suggests, represent most comments then I’d argue that these comments haven't received enough attention (probably due to fear of fanning the flames of Islamaphobia in society). How is the head of the MCB decided? Is it elected, nominated, appointed?
Outrage! focus on homophobia within religious communities because there it seems to be more acceptable to society then from the far right, whereas Judaism, Islam, Christianity and the rest should not be free from criticism when they promote views modern society finds unacceptable. I don't think that Outrage! focus on all Muslims but those who do hold similar views expressed by the head of the MCB (a major rep) or worse nor do they focus on all Jews but those who hold views they find unacceptable on LGBT issues or all Christians but again those groups within Christianity who oppose gay rights. That's not racism.”

Rob : “Needless to say I haven't called Tatchell racist and have qualified every statement I have made about Outrage! public statements. I think there is a difference between personally being Islamophobic and unconsciously accepting the framework of British societies Islamophobia. Much the same as the difference between racism and racial prejudice. Look at how much of Peter Tatchell's website is directed against Islam in the middle east. Isn't it disproportionate? And to qualify again I don't think the Iranian regime is defensible (and the same with many others.) But is this not a left echo of Bush/Blair’s "clash of civilisations" gibberish? After all there are just as many other worthy targets without so much as a mention. Tatchell has bought into some of the "humanitarian war" justifications of intervention in the middle east even while rejecting the legitimacy of the Iraq war itself. The focus on Muslim communities at home follows on from this. Again not denying the reality of homophobia within the Muslim community or justifying it through religious exceptionalism as you seem to imply. However the fact remains that the majority of homophobic attacks/incidents are by white men etc etc.”

A Marxist analysis of oppression can be found here by a Mr T. Cliff

Chomskyite lickspittles

2005-12-22T19:38:00.000Z

“Anti-political” political activists have always been something of a mystery to me. Not so much because of the fact that they have chosen not to read Marx or Lenin but because of the passion with which they attack those who do. One particular quirk of such people is to dismiss currents of critical thought as theologies whose key figures are deified by those who follow them. Something that is always difficult to defend against because of the habit of so many Marxists to squabble by throwing quotes around as “proof” of ideological correctness. What is always shocking though is the standardisation of response to key (and not so key) questions in arguments about Marxism and political theory. On the coach back from the International Peace Conference, when the now traditional argument was set off between the Socialist Worker’s and some independent lefties this raised its head again. These debates had been going on for several years with various individuals but never with both at once and it ended as all well rehearsed arguments do in frustration.

While complaining bitterly about the baseless ness of the retorts (particularly the “you should rename Marxism I mean you don’t get newtonianism”) I started to wonder exactly why these, not especially rational ideas were emerging from people I knew to be both rational and well informed in exactly the same way. The only obvious connection being a affection for a Mr Noam Chomsky and a recommendation of his book “understanding POWER.”I had forgotten about it until today when I picked up said book and flicked through it over a coffee. Attracting strange glances for giggling uncontrollably is nothing new for me, but doing it by reading Chomsky was odd. It was not simply the fact that this is clearly the source of all the responses but how (as the text is speech rather then a book in the traditional sense) they were in fact word for word quotes. As a self defined Marxist I have little problem with this (hardly unusual amongst the left) other then the self apparent hypocrisy of the attacks on people identifying with theoretical writers. The psychology of this trend of identifying with “new” ideas and rejecting out of date ideologies is probably nothing new but it is a debate that has not been this relevant since the peak of the anti-war movement around the 15th February demo.

The argument that will no doubt be offered is that Chomsky is non-theoretical, that he simply researches and reports on the world around him but in the case of this book that can hardly be the case? He offers his own (unsubstantiated, because of the nature of the book) analysis of movements and tactics for changing society. He also does a surprisingly weak hatchet job of Leninism and Marxist dialectics which these two at least have absorbed wholesale. Chomsky himself would no doubt deny this (as would his “fellow travellers”) and say he is merely articulating truisms and “riding the crest of the wave of the movement.” The argument however, becomes frustratingly circular on this level as most of the criticism of Marxism still holds as much water as a kind of tautology. One side of the revelation is that these previously mythical activists influenced by such people (who we were supposed to be engaging with) actually existed and the other was the illogical extreme they took their dislike of our ideology to. Logical arguments about how it is more democratic to be in an organisation where you can debate with the figures like Chomsky who you agree with are powerless in response to the flat denial that there is an ideology attached to the ideas. Arguments however well constructed about the practical utility of Marxism are even more powerless in the face of people more concerned with the use of the word ‘Marxism’ then the ideas it represents. I challenge anyone to argue coherently for more then an hour with an ideological trend which states that “more people would come to your Marxist Forums if you added we might be Marxists but we don’t agree with everything he said.”