SWP and the Respect Unity Coalition

by Boring Thu May 13, 2004 18:56

Please change the record. I have read Indymedia for quite a while now and this stuff is just boring at this stage. Have people nothing better to do than post this crap? No wonder the left can't get anywhere in Ireland with all this shit stirring.

by dessalines Thu May 13, 2004 19:52

this post comes very close to, or slips over the edge of, flagrant anti-muslim racism, not unlike the muslim-bashing that we hear regualrly in the press, from blunkett and blair, from the henry macdonalds and the nick cohens. it is 'sinful,' according to daedalus, that the left should make an attempt to reach out beyond its isolation and engage working class people who happen to be religious believers. pure shite. more sinful, especially, one gathers, because these believers are from that especially backward ('barbaric' is what rumsfeld calls them) islamic religion.

the swp is guilty of 'dissolution' because it has formed an alliance with a broad muslim organization, some of whose members have endorsed a local organization that (allegedly) has opposed gay-friendly instruction in schools. guilt by [distant] association; reeks of mccarthyism. pure shite, of the ultra-left, sectarian variety so common on indymedia.

finally, on the charge that all of this has led to the purging of women's rights issues from respect platform, the following two points from that platform call that into question, at least:

* Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship.
* The right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices.

go back to the back room of that dusty pub and mutter amongst yourselves about how thick the masses are for not signing up to the transitional program and following your enlightened leadership. but do us the favor of dropping the pretense that you are engaged in trying to change the world.

by Stephen Daedalus Fri May 14, 2004 12:01

dessalines: "...it is 'sinful,' according to daedalus, that the left should make an attempt to reach out beyond its isolation and engage working class people who happen to be religious believers..."

ME: "It can be understood if the SWP tailored the way they put forward demands to attract muslim anti-establishment youth. However they are not, rather they are orientating towards muslim leaders. "

I've no problem with the SWP not isolating themselves from those that still may believe in gods. HOWEVER I do have a BIG problem with socialists orientating to conservative muslim and Church of England LEADERS. 90+% of People in Southern Ireland are catholic. Does this mean the SWP will be going into an electoral alliance with Bishops, Priests and the Clergy?!

The PJP was not backed by "some" people in MAB. It was endorsed by Respect, on a Respect leaflet. Why are Respect/SWP supporting Ken Livingstone BLAIR's candidate for London Mayor by calling for transfers to him!

SWP members should wake up and ask questions of their support for Conservative Muslin and Christian Leaders, and their call for transfers to a New Labour candidate in London. What next calling for transfers to the Irish Labour Party!

by Pepsi Drinker Fri May 14, 2004 18:07

This should be made a feature. The SWP's alliance with conservative religious figure is a shocking disgrace. I think we should discuss this.

Make it a feature!

by tom smith Sat May 15, 2004 01:29

but on uk indymedia not the irish one.

by khalid Sun May 16, 2004 15:06

I think maybe it could be part of a feature. The SWP's tendency to set up phantom cover groups, act undemocratically in broad campaigns, pander to Islamisists, generally dumb down their politics and perform disastrously in elections are things that are common to the British and Irish SWP.

I think there should at least be a feature on the elections.

by curious Sun May 16, 2004 18:03

who is the church of england leader?

by Ray McInerney Sun May 16, 2004 19:29

The head of the Church of England is officially the reigning monarch who is the Supreme Governor, but its effective chief cleric remains the Archbishop of Canterbury. It has its own court system known as the Ecclesiastical courts.

by Tart Sun May 16, 2004 20:48

The Queen of England does not support the RESPECT coalition but there are many vicars that do. It is obvioulsy these vicars that are being refered to when the person talks of 'church of England' leaders.

by John Meehan Sun May 16, 2004 22:27

Real people may be interested in the news item below from across the water - and they might like to comment using their own names.




Electoral agreement in Greenwich and Lewisham
THE SOCIALIST PARTY has reached an electoral agreement for the 10 June Greater
London Assembly elections with the Respect - Unity Coalition, headed by the
anti-war MP, George Galloway.

In the Greenwich and Lewisham constituency London assembly seat Respect have
withdrawn in favour of the Socialist Party candidate, our Lewisham councillor
Ian Page.

Ian, in turn, is recommending a vote for the Respect candidates for the
London-wide members assembly seats and the London European parliament seats,
where voters have to select a party list.

In the London European seats, the Respect - Unity Coalition list is topped by
George Galloway, who last year was expelled from New Labour for opposing the
war.

The Socialist Party has not joined Respect because we have political differences
with this new formation and also differences on how a new left formation should
be built in England and Wales. But that does not prevent us reaching electoral
agreements where they are possible.

The original agreement between Respect and the Socialist Party was for Ian Page
to appear on the ballot paper purely as the Socialist Alternative candidate, the
electoral name the Socialist Party is obliged to use following a 1999 ruling by
the unelected Registrar of Political Parties that debarred us from standing
under our own name.

However, another unelected official, this time the BBC's chief political
adviser, David Jordan, ruled that this electoral agreement would disqualify
Respect from being allocated a regional TV and radio party election broadcast.

To qualify, Respect would have to contest every seat, or Ian Page would have to
describe himself as the Socialist Alternative/Respect candidate on the ballot
paper.

"It does not seem too much to ask", he wrote, in rejecting a joint appeal
against his decision.

The broadcasting authorities have 'discretionary powers' in allocating election
broadcasts and, in this case, parties could qualify without contesting every
seat if they could demonstrate 'electoral support'.

The fact that the Respect list is headed by a sitting MP didn't count for this
BBC dignitary because George Galloway "was elected on a Labour Party manifesto".


The fact that one of the parties to the electoral agreement, the Socialist
Party, has as much representation in Lewisham with two councillors as the Tory
Party has, didn't count either.

Respect made it clear that they would stand a candidate against Ian Page if it
was necessary for them to do so to get a broadcast.

Consequently, to enable Respect to get an election broadcast without standing
against us, we have agreed to amend the ballot paper party description to fit
the BBC dictate, while conducting the campaign in Greenwich and Lewisham as
originally agreed

by Patrick Mon May 17, 2004 11:36

I don't think the SP in that statement or in any of their material ever sows illusions in the Islamic rulers. RESPECT is being critically supported in the Euro elections by the SP. In many areas they have genuine lefts and trade unionists standing as candidates, it would be wrong and sectarian to simply ignore this fact.

John, have you heard the latest from your comrades in Brazil who are busy in government implementing Lula's attacks on the Brazillian working class? Or maybe your comrades in the Italian RC who are part of the bureaucratic leadership?

The reality is that the USFI have completely abandoned the working class and are in no position to critisise the CWI or any genuine lefts that orientate to the working class.

by John Meehan Mon May 17, 2004 22:20

"Patrick" - or Kevin/Stephen/Michael/Anne/Clare/Peter/Brian/Andy/Fionn/Oisín/Dave - whatever your name is : @ present you are an "anonymista/pseudonymista" -
I only respond to real identifiable authors on this site - a practice I recommend to others - if you return and reveal your real identity I will be happy to reply to the points you raise.

All the best.

by Patrick Mon May 17, 2004 23:33

My name actually is Patrick. I'm not anonymous.

by John Meehan Tue May 18, 2004 22:56

"Patrick" you are being economical with the truth here - anyone who signs themselves "John"/ "Patrick"/"Kevin"/"Peter"/"Clare"/"Dermot" is an "anonymista/pseudonymista"

On the other hand "Dermot Connolly" is a real person. Got the point?

by Indyfan Wed May 19, 2004 10:20

John, this is Indymedia not the Teacher's Club, your rules don't apply here.

by USFI critic Wed May 19, 2004 14:34

John why don't you answer the critisisms of the USFI. The facts are that the USFI have abandoned the working class and class struggle. Everywhere the USFI have sold out, in Brazil they are implementing Lula's cuts and in Italy they are part of the RC bureaucracy. Ireland is no different. The USFI in Ireland are completely divorced from the working class, John can you tell me one struggle, even a very localised one that the USFI in Ireland have been involved in? No, of course you can't. The USFI is dead in this country. Your members do nothing more then sit on the sidelines waiting for the next middle class liberal campaign for yourselves to dissolve yourselves into. Why is it the case in CARR that you are not arguing for class arguments instead of the awful liberal crap they're churning out?

by Phil M Wed May 19, 2004 15:25

As I understand it, John was expelled from the USFI grouplet in Ireland, so he can't really be blamed for them.

by feature Wed May 19, 2004 16:19

Are we going to have a feature on why John was expelled from the USFI? If not why not?

by chris brown Wed May 19, 2004 17:53

Dear internet debating-forum junkies,

You are manifest evidence of the innate flaws of the internet as a medium for any kind of productive organizing. Rather, as you demonstrate, the internet and sadly Indy Media, is a forum for individual demagoguery from the left, the right and those who are too cool to recognize either. Further, all of the assailants of the RESPECT coalition are finding unusual allies--the BNP also attacks RESPECT for the very same reasons as the purportedly enlightened diatribes of the internet activists--the SWP's involvment with RESPECT...

by ReSect watch Wed May 19, 2004 18:18

Top of the class. You must be learning from the master of the black arts, the one and only Kieran Allen. To him, any attack on the SWP is a form of McCarthyism. So now those who criticise the Respect coalition are bedfellows of the BNP. Tis a atrange world you inhabit. Get a grip!

by chris brown Wed May 19, 2004 19:19

I'm simply making an observation from afar. In fact, I'm in Canada. The reason why I take such an interest in RESPECT is that in the French-speaking province of Quebec we too are trying to break-out of the dead-lock of the tradiotional parties. We have been watching the formation of the Scottish Socialist Party, the Socialist Alliance and now RESPECT. 2 years ago we formed a new political party as an alternative to the neo-liberal parties; L'Union des Forces Progressites. I think it's safe to say that there's a new trend slowly beginning to emmerge, that of a large challenge on a broad base to hegemonic political institutions of capitalism. Of course there are debates and the future of the UFP is uncertain but, one thing I can say is that we ARE at a cross-roads, and those who refuse to constantly re-analyze the current political "enjeu" will be "relegated to (you guest it) the dust bin of history".

by ReSect watch Wed May 19, 2004 19:28

ReSect to all intensive purpose wound up the Socialist Alliance to suit the opportunism of the SWP.
May I respectfully suggest that you make deeper observations from afar.

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Fri May 28, 2004 16:14 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

For these ultra-left individuals the sins of the SWP include the fact that we will not declare a 1000 point Prooooooogramme.

The Proooooogramme is what all serious parties must produce!

And if it is written with sufficient skill and eye for detail ‘the werkers’ will seek out the people that wrote it and demand leadership.

And so it will come to pass that the handful of individuals who maintained revolutionary purity throughout the decades will be hoisted up to the head of the movement.

And behold, in a single bound they leapfrog all other organisations to assume leadership of the masses.

The sheer beauty of this is that it removes the need to actually do anything or relate to anyone in between writing the Proooooogramme and the day (!) of the revolution.

Of course there are some things to do in between to fill in the time.

The Prooooogramme can be measured against other organisations and, if found lacking, the impure organisation can be attacked in the hope of creating a split. Which can then be grafted onto the party of Prooooooogramme.

In this way the sect grows.

It’s the sort of stuff that has relegated every revolutionary organisation except the SWP to the dust-bin of British history.

Meanwhile we in the SWP will continue to lead with the impure such as George Galloway, Islamic clerics and other religious leaders, and the millions that look to them.

by Ray Fri May 28, 2004 17:42

At least I presume why the SWP member above has explained to everyone the importance of voting Labour in the upcoming elections.

by Kerry Gerry Fri May 28, 2004 18:17

Two things Michael:
1. This elongated ‘Prooooogramme’ makes no sense in Ireland cos we don’t talk like radio 4 presenters.
2. Does the SWP no longer subscribe to the age-old Lenist-Trotskyist notion of a programme? We’d love to know, cos I can find countless references in the work of your own dearly departed leader, Tony Cliff, to the importance of a programme in the revolutionary party. Or has the SWP completely detached itself from the revolutionary tradition in favour of the flavour of the month?

by Michael Douglas - SWP Mon May 31, 2004 02:40 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Jesus, here is me thinking that Galloway had been kicked out of New Labour. I guess I was wrong.

No you are right, we don't have a Programme in the SWP. Were just revolutionary socialist relating to events as they unfold in all their impurity.

When the working class has reached the critical level of purity for you guys I am sure they will give you both a call.

by Brian Boru Mon May 31, 2004 02:54

The whole basis of your sneer does not apply in Ireland. We do not have the multitude of Leninist sects that you seem to have over the water. The SWP's competition on the left comes from the SP, who in all their pureness have one MP and two councillers, and the libertarians who rarely if ever mention programmes and I really doubt if any of their criticism comes from envy. Few envy the Irish SWP.

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Thu Jun 03, 2004 14:43 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

If the SP in Ireland haz one MP and two councillors good luck to them because its three more reps than the Anarchists will ever have. xxx

by Ray Thu Jun 03, 2004 14:46

Anarchists really _are_ unlikely to get any TDs elected! Tell me, o wise one, where is it that bears shit?

by Zimbabwe Watch Thu Jun 03, 2004 14:47

Remember SWP's MP in Zimbabwe. They were part of the MDC and one of their members was elected as an MP. The MDC drifted to the right and kicked out the SWP. Their MP then had to recontest the seat. The man then got c 100 votes in the by-election. This is a disgrace for a sitting MP.

by Michael Douglas - SWP (uk) Fri Jun 04, 2004 17:10 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Is it Munyaradzi Gwisai you are trying to talk about?

Perhaps you could write him a letter about winning and loosing in Zimbabwean elections.

I am sure he would benefit from the knowledge you could impart on such a subject :-)

Then again, you might like to consult some of the correspondence between Gwisai and Callinicos on this topic and then contribute your wisdom...

by JRR Rowling Sat Jun 05, 2004 03:20

Another chance to see the SWP and the other wingnut fraggle parties get pissed on by the electorate. It's so life-affirming to know that the people of Ireland hold your conspiracy theory-led policies in such contempt.

Will any of you cross the 1% threshold this time??

by Michael Douglas - SWO (UK) Sat Jun 05, 2004 21:00 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Sectarians are amazing, yes?

They would prefer to see the only party standing in the UK elections calling for all troops to leave Iraq defeated, than for the SWP to be given any credit.

Like I said. Amazing.

Then again perhaps not, when you consider these are the same laptop activists that described the largest demonstration in UK history as an SWP front.

And the Spanish election was also an SWP front. The evidence is clear. There were SWP activisits on the demonstrations after the Madrid bombing.

The SWP must be stopped.

Before this, talk of liberation is futile. After this...talk will continue.

by Steve. Sat Jun 05, 2004 21:46

The person you are responding to is not a "sectarian", in the left sense of the term. She is clearly hostile to the left as a whole, so you can leave your martyr complex out of this..

You are incorrect, by the way, when you claim that RESPECT is the only party standing in the UK elections which calls for the US/UK forces to be pulled out of Iraq.

The Scottish Socialist Party, the Alliance for Green Socialism and the Socialist Environmental Alliance are all contesting European election constituencies and all make a similar call. The Socialist Party is contesting the London Assembly elections and makes such a call. It is also contesting the council elections, as are the Socialist Labour Party and those elements of the Socialist Alliance which refused to join RESPECT.

That makes RESPECT one of six parties making that call standing in the UK elections, just off the top of my head. There may be others, including perhaps Sinn Fein or Plaid Cymru.

Hope this helps.

by David Aaronovitch - Guardian Mon Jun 07, 2004 18:42

I chose at random, but I chose badly. The Respect website is full of reports of huge meetings comprising hundreds of cheering people, and yet I wound up in a pleasant community hall in north-east London with 25 Trots, some of their more sceptical mates and five or six Muslims. "It's been raining," explained one of the organisers, apologising for the delay in starting. "And George is on his way."

George Galloway looks a bit tired now. He is not simply the main attraction of the new Respect Coalition, but, as we shall see, he's the only attraction. Allowing for the weird celebrity of the former Express journalist Yvonne Ridley - the woman who liked the burka so much she bought the religion - Respect is short on stars, and very, very long on everything else. So Galloway is being worked extremely hard.

Still, when he finally arrives, and the Socialist Worker sellers outside put down their burdens and join the congregation, he gives it his best shot. "Chair," he booms, "brothers, comrades and friends, wa Salaam aleikum."

This is a deeply peculiar form of address because, although 15% of Waltham Forest's population may be Muslims (including Kurds, Turks and people from the far east), 15% of this audience are palpably not Arabs. So why not shalom aleichim for the local Jews? Or God bless for the Christians? Or greetings in Greek, Albanian or Mandarin? The effect of this very particular form of greeting is, paradoxically, to make one wonder what George has against everyone else. Why aren't the Hindus worth a hello?

Such a solecism is made slightly worse by his next words. "Up and down the country," he says, "thousands are responding to the central message that Britain is led by a liar whose nose gets ever longer and needs to be chopped off!" Whoa! Could this nose-chopping be, one wonders, an obscure Gallowegian interpretation of sharia law? Come to that, does everyone in this room know what he's talking about, given that the story of Pinocchio may not have quite the same role in Middle Eastern culture as it does for many Europeans.

Galloway was recently awarded the title of the most honest politician in Britain by the Muslim Association of Britain, so we must assume that he is telling the truth when he claims, to the palpable pleasure of his audience, that, "100 people a day are joining Respect." This is an amazing figure. If maintained Respect will have 40,000 members by the time of the next election.

By then, however, the Galloway plan may already have worked. As he explains it, it goes like this. A bad result for Labour next Thursday, and a good one for Respect, will lead automatically to Tony Blair's resignation. Blair's resignation will lead automatically to George Bush's defeat in November.

Therefore those in this room, and the electors of Walthamstow, have a chance to bring down the US president, and force Cherie to vacate Downing Street. "Can you imagine," demands Galloway, in one of his comprehensively rhetorical questions, "how they would cheer in Palestine and Iraq to see that removals van?"

Not easily, but I can imagine how they would cheer in Iraq to see one of Saddam's closest European pals elected to a seat in the European parliament. Which is to say, not much at all. The guy from Global Resistance, however, whose stunted mohican is nearly 20 years too young for him, seems to think this is a clincher. He gives it a big laugh and a big clap. So does the slim geordie tending the two tables at the back: one displays Respect literature and the other Socialist Workers party material.

Then Galloway leaves (to attend a meeting of Indian Muslims), as do most of the Asians, and all the charisma. What remains is the almost inconceivably tedious routine of the far-left political meeting.

There are two more speakers. Dean Ryan, a pleasant-looking guy from Hackney ("Salaam aleikum," he begins), sounds like a tube tannoy announcer given a 30-minute tract to read, but only 15 minutes to read it in. The other is Lindsey German, a veteran SWP activist and Respect London mayoral candidate.

German's harangue is seamless, encompassing everything. "The poor, the dispossessed, the students ..." The students? And, of course, the Muslims. How the South Africans would have loved to have had all those weapons the Israelis have. Why the Green position on the United Nations in Iraq is really a copout.

When German has encompassed the world, things are "thrown open to the floor", leftese for finally permitting someone else to speak, which - as ever - mostly means other members of the SWP. One woman begins: "I'm a teacher in Redbridge and daily I see cutbacks." Which is unlucky. So much extra dosh has been spent on schools, and none of it on hers. She is, however, also the woman who sold me my copy of Socialist Worker as I came in. Big clap from stunted mohican.

The chair then calls the "chap at the back", who is in fact the SWP stall tender, and who announces: "I am a university lecturer, and I've seen what top-up fees are doing." Given that top-up fees won't come in for at least a couple of years, this means he is also a clairvoyant.

What a weird alliance Respect is. In this year of tanned populists (everybody needs one, including Ukip), George Galloway - a sitting MP - is accorded the exaggerated regard by the Trots that New Labour used to give "entrepreneurs". That's why they always call him the Respect MP, despite the fact that not a single elector of Glasgow ever voted Respect.

They need him; he needs them. Their organisational and caucussing skills are considerable, though in the eyes of normal humans they are both potty and boring. But the really new element is the new added extra, Muslims, to whom these heretofore secular Leninists try to suck up by suddenly being fascinated by Kashmir and not caring about abortion and gay rights.

I give 'em a year.

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Tue Jun 08, 2004 17:35 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Yes I was at an SEA planning meeting in Derry a few weeks ago so its not news to me that they/we are calling for all troops out of Iraq. I am talking about parties in England and Wales where RESPECT is standing. Sorry if that was not clear. As for the Socialist Alliance, it turned out to be nothing without the SWP. Which is why we have moved on. I understand we have concluded several agreements with the Socialist Party regarding areas they are standing in. So far as the SSP is concerned, well, we are in it so there is no argument there either. (Apparently its another of our front organisations).

I do hope David Aaronovitch keeps writing about RESPECT. You cant buy publicity like this.

by Steve Tue Jun 08, 2004 19:00

So if you were aware of the existence of some of the other parties contesting the UK elections which make a call for troops out of Iraq, why did you claim that RESPECT are the only party to make such a call?

I has been assuming that you were just ignorant rather than deliberately attempting to mislead. Perhaps I was being too generous.

Your comments about the Socialist Alliance yet again leave me in a pickle. Are you displaying ignorance this time or are you again trying to mislead?

The problem with the Socialist Alliance was not that "without the SWP it was nothing". Far from it. The problem is that the SWP took over a promising development on the British left, turned it into a front and then strangled it. Your organisation then unceremoniously ditched the corpse for what it hopes will be another shortcut to the big time.

You are correct that the SSP is not a front for the SWP. One of the reasons for the success of the Scottish Socialists is that the SWP are contained within it, but have next to no influence over the actions of the party.

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Tue Jun 15, 2004 18:11 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Hi Steve

RESPECT was the only party in England and Wales calling for all troops out of Iraq.

The Socialist Party standing in a few local council elections is not serious. They do not enter onto my political radar nor that of the electorate outside those few seats. Same for the SLP. Are you deliberately trying to mislead us or are you just ignorant?

The Socliast Alliance is dead. Accept it. It only ever did anything good while the SWP was part of it (ie Paul Foot 17%, 1,200 delegates at rank and file conference etc). As for our bad influence, well, we are out now so it should take off, right?

Perhaps not.

by Catherine Zeta Jones Tue Jun 15, 2004 18:17

Aye, murdered by the SWP.
The Respect Coalition won't make it past Christmas.
Respect might have been the only party advocating troops out of Iraq but then it was the only party advocating Moslem values.
Down with Homosexuals, down with womens rights.
The SWP - the goldfish memory 'socialists'.

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Tue Jun 15, 2004 19:50 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

So what has happened to the theory that the Scottish Socialist Party has a magic wand when it comes to elections? These results are rather close.

If only we had another member arguing for building the movement every time we have, instead, had to listen to a sectarian wasting crying about how the SWP will never compare to the glory of the SSP electoral results.

Scottish Socialist Party
Regional vote average -

5.2%

RESPECT
London Assembly constituency elections -

4.6%

London Assembly list elections -

4.7%

European Parliament elections -

4.8%

...and where we stood locally in Preston Council elections -

Labour 39.9%
Respect 29.8%
Conservative 21.6%
Lib Dem 8.7%

by Badman Tue Jun 15, 2004 20:19

The ReSect vote in the Euro elections was overall (excl. Scot & NI) 1.65%

Broken down into regions, we can see a very poor performance in all areas except london.

European Elections:............Respect
Overall........................................1.65%
South East.................................0.61%
South West................................0.72%
Yorkshire & Humber................1.90%
North West.................................1.17%
Eastern.......................................0.92%
East Midlands...........................1.42%
West Midlands..........................2.41%
North East..................................1.11%
Wales..........................................0.59%
London.......................................4.79%

Even within these results, we can see that their london vote is concentrated in a small number of heavily muslim areas, which probably indicates a religious 'mosque vote' rather than having anything much to do with the SWP. Remember too that the candidate was Georgeous George, their one celebrity figure:

Euros: London details.
Overall.....................................4.79%

Broken down into areas
Newham.................................21.41%
Tower Hamlets......................20.36%
Hackney..................................9.66%
Waltham Forest.....................9.54%
Haringey..................................7.66%
Redbridge................................6.90%
Camden...................................6.37%
Islington...................................5.84%
Ealing.......................................5.45%
Brent.........................................5.42%
Lambeth..................................4.82%
Hounslow................................4.78%
Westminster...........................4.57%
Kensington & Chelsea.........4.17%
Wandsworth............................3.92%
Lewisham................................3.68%
City of London.........................3.66%
Enfield......................................3.50%
Southwark...............................3.47%
Hammersmith........................3.25%
Merton......................................3.07%
Harrow......................................3.02%
Barking......................................2.93%
Barnet.......................................2.82%
Greenwich...............................2.74%
Croydon....................................2.69%
Hillingdon.................................2.20%
Kingston-upon-Thames........1.84%
Richmond-upon-Thames.....1.46%
Sutton........................................1.24%
Bromley....................................1.08%
Bexley........................................0.83%
Havering....................................0.81%

Galloway predicted 1,000,000 votes, ReSect got a quarter of that. The SWP predicted 2+ Euro and GLA seats, they got none. A disasterous performance and ReSect will surely be put to bed before too long.

I'm looking forward to the headline in next weeks SW "Labour rocked by Respect Breakthrough" is my guess.

by IMC Reader Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:22

Here is the link:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/1906/IX.HTM

You'd expect that a party that failed to win a single seat in any local council throughout the country would admit that perhaps something went wrong. You'd expect that when the Government registers its lowest level of popularity in British history, and your party fails to capitalise on it, it might admit that it made some mistakes. You'd expect that when you said that you'd win 2+ seats in European elections and many more in local councils and you get NONE, you will concede that your predictions were not correct.

That's what would happen in the real world, but not in the SWP. According to the new edition of their paper it was a victory! Food rations are increasing and, of course, we have always eben at war with Eurasia!

by Peter Thatchell Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:27

The failure of Respect to make an electoral impact leaves just one credible left-wing alternative to Labour, writes Peter Tatchell

Tuesday June 15, 2004

For many people who are disillusioned with Labour's rightward lurch, the results of the European elections are a huge disappointment. The bid to create a successful party to the left of Labour in England has failed ... again.
Respect was trumpeted as the spearhead of the radical left's revival. It was to have mobilised the votes of the millions of people who opposed the Iraq war, and its leaders confidently boasted they would win seats and "give Blair a bloody nose" on June 10.

I wish. Labour got a deserved drubbing, but Respect got total humiliation. In the European elections, it averaged a mere 1.67% of the vote in the nine English regions. The other radical left party, the Greens, polled nearly four times more, notching up 6.19%.

As well as being annihilated by the big three parties, UKIP and the Greens, Respect was also eclipsed in the European ballot by a motley collection of minor fringe parties, including the BNP, English Democrats, Seniors, Independents and the Countryside Alliance.

Even in London, where it invested huge campaign resources and benefited from a high-profile, nationally-known candidate in George Galloway, Respect managed only 4.84% of the European vote.

In defiance of the result, Galloway claimed: "Tonight we were runners-up [sic], but in elections to come we will be the winners". If only.

Cooler heads on the left may prefer some serious reflection and soul-searching. This is, after all, the second time in the last decade there has been an attempt to forge an electoral force to the left of Labour in England. Respect's predecessor was the Socialist Alliance, which was, at least, a grassroots, democratic movement. But it, too, ended in failure. Isn't it time the left learned the lessons of these setbacks?

Whether we love or loathe Respect, its defeat is a wake up call to everyone on the left who is disillusioned with Labour. Two attempts to create a viable left-wing party - first the Socialist Alliance and now Respect - have now hit the buffers, and it is pointless deluding ourselves that the latter will come up trumps next time round. Get real. Respect is doomed, and it begs the question: what is to be done?

Part of me fantasises about an electoral pact between Respect and the Greens. In the PR list vote for the London assembly, the Green party won 8.57% and Respect 4.67%. Their combined vote was 13.24% - only three points behind the Lib Dems. A red-green alliance clearly has potential to be a significant player in London politics, and perhaps eventually elsewhere in England.

An electoral deal between the Greens and Respect would, however, be difficult to broker. In every region of England the Greens were way ahead of Respect in European election. In some regions, such as the south-east and the south-west, the Green's share of the vote was 10 times greater than that of Respect.

Why should a 30-year old party with a strong local presence and a record of significant electoral success stand aside for a new political force that has weak community links and has failed to win a single seat?

Equally problematic is the vanguardist, hegemonic and often sectarian politics of many Respect leaders. They have, in the past, been unwilling to broaden their socialist agenda and share power with other progressive forces outside the orbit of the orthodox left, such as the women's, black, disabled and gay movements. Not a good omen for red-green cooperation.

An alternative option for people disillusioned with Labour is to fight to recapture the party for socialism. This is the view espoused by Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone. They believe any attempt to create a new left-wing party is destined - like the Socialist Alliance - to end up on the political fringe.

Reclaiming Labour for socialism is a fine aspiration, but about as likely as winning the German SPD back to the Marxism it ditched in the 1950s.

Labour has lost its heart and soul. No longer committed to the redistribution of wealth and power, the party leadership has presided over a widening gap between rich and poor. Now to the right of the Liberal Democrats, it has pandered to prejudice on asylum, drugs, terrorism, Europe and crime. Restoring Labour's socialist ideals is impossible because internal party democracy has been gutted. Ordinary members have no say. Everything important is decided by the Dear Leader and his acolytes.

My conclusion? Labour is beyond reform and Respect is fated to remain in the political wilderness. For people who are fed up with Blairism, there is only one serious option remaining - the Green party. Unlike Respect and its forerunner, the Socialist Alliance, the Greens are winners. They have seats on local councils, the London assembly and in the Scottish and European parliaments. If left-wingers and progressive social movements united together in the Green party, it would become a hugely influential electoral force.

After three decades of moving from right to left, the Greens now occupy the progressive political space once held by Labour. They offer a clear alternative to Blair's pro-war, pro-big business and pro-Bush agenda.

The Green party's Manifesto for a Sustainable Society incorporates key socialist principles. It rejects privatisation, free market economics and globalisation, and includes commitments to public ownership, workers' rights, economic democracy, progressive taxation and the redistribution of wealth and power.

The Green's synthesis of ecology and socialism integrates policies for social justice and human rights with policies for tackling the life-threatening dangers posed by global warming, environmental pollution, resource depletion and species extinction.

Greens recognise that preventing environmental catastrophe requires constraints on the power of big corporations. Profiteering and free trade has to be subordinated to policies for the survival of humanity. Can any socialist disagree with that? If not, what are you waiting for? Come over to the Greens and help us secure a future where there is peace, justice and freedom for all the world's people.

· Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner, and recently joined the Green party

by No 6 Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:03

"In Ireland there was a massive vote for the left against the government," says Richard Boyd Barrett. "The leading right wing party Fianna Fail got hammered in the European and local elections. In Dublin the combined vote of Labour, the Greens, Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party was bigger than the two right wing parties. The main beneficiaries were Sinn Fein and the Labour Party. In the council elections four Socialist Party candidates won seats, and other socialists, including Socialist Workers Party members, just missed out in eight or nine wards."

You have to wonder what world that guy lives in..................

by Letter X Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:21

Although I'm not a great RBB fan, I would have to disagree with No. 6 on this occasion.
Perry, Maher, RBB, Dunne and Kenny were very close and Smith, Browne, O'Neill, Mooney and Greene did poll very well.

by No 6 Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:32

I'm refering to Richard's utter failure to mention anything about the woeful referendum and the fact that most of the candiates were standing on an anti bin tax platform, one which the SWP tried to sabotage, and hijack at the same time.

by Definer Wed Jun 16, 2004 14:42

I'm not sure why people think that RBB was very close to a seat. He was never in the running, although he did poll well.

Lefties who just missed out - Perry (Cabra), Maher (Dundrum), Dunne (Rathfarnham), Gallagher (Drogheda). You could possibly include Kenahan (Balbriggan Town) and Tynan (Cork North East), although I haven't seen their results and am just going on word of mouth there.

RBB was not close to a seat. Kenny was closer but it was still clear from the first count that he wasn't going to win. The SWP are so unused to getting a respectable vote that they seem to think that getting one means that they were in the running for the seat. It's not that simple. Good vote does not equal near a seat.

Perry, Maher, Gallagher lost by a few dozen votes on the final count. That means they were desperately unlucky. RBB etc got a very good vote but luck had nothing to do with their losses, they just weren't that close.

by Dave Wed Jun 16, 2004 14:57

If you fail to get a single seat in two elections in two country, when your party claims to be _the_ anti-war party, and the overwhelming majority of voters are anti-war, then you should ask yoursefl what went wrong (I mean seriously wrong). Shouldn't you? Especially if other parties with similar policies (Greens, SP, SSP) do very well. Yet, the SWP seems to believe that even if they didnt' get a single seat in the most favourable circumstances they are likely to encounter in the foreseable future, they did very well. Can someone explain this?

by Keano Wed Jun 16, 2004 15:58

RBB finished sixth in a six seater on first preferences. The candidate coming tenth won it on transfers. He was close.
Don't like the SWP but they did do well. Exceeded the expectations of most on the left I would say.
Just imagine what Joe might have got, with a bit of a concerted effort.
Fail to prepare - Prepare to fail.

by Ex-Cabra Trot Wed Jun 16, 2004 16:24

Richard Boyd Barrett’s delusions are incontestable, yet can be understood if we examine the programme of the SWP. Sure, the SWP did badly (he’s deluded if he thinks otherwise), but for the SWP, this is only step 1 (or perhaps step 2) of a god-knows-how-many-steps plan. Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party have shown that you just keep plugging away and seats will be yours. The SWP has been seduced by this apparent sure-fire road to success, but – typically – has put more effort into locating what it thinks are shortcuts. Nothing exemplifies its impatience as much as the performance of Richard Boyd Barrett. RBB was convinced that his continuous telecast would bring out the housewives. He felt sure that his surfing of the anti-war movement and the bin-tax resistance (not to mention his leading role in the Dun Laoghaire baths campaign) would secure for him the municipal seat he so obviously craves (personal ambition will be eating away at him as we speak – move over Roger Cole, Richard’s coming).

But the short-cut road to electoral success is no more a possibility than a by-road to socialism. The SWP – in common with its mother-and-father organisation in England (sorry, Britain), which hatched Respect a whopping 20 weeks before the elections and yet was wetting itself in anticipation of the success that, obvious even to the dogs in the street, was palpably not to be theirs – yes, as I was saying, the SWP in Dublin (sorry, Ireland) couldn’t be arsed spending thankless years on what it used to disdainfully (and correctly) refer to as clientelism even though it knows that this is precisely what allowed Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party to acquire what the SWP so desperately desires – SEATS.

But the SWP has never allowed facts to stand in the way of its interpretation of reality, and is renowned for bouncing back with an excuse before any reasonable person would have had time to even consider the problem, let alone arrive at an answer. Typically, a brave face is being put on it – not for the world, but for the SWP. The organisation has famously found it difficult to face up to its own marginal status, and is now driven by notions of municipal and parliamentary grandeur. The Walter Mitty road to electoral success has been fuelled by the likes of Roger Cole (ironically, as he effectively made a present to RBB of a handful of votes that he was counting on and was thus pipped by RBB) and Mick O’Reilly, who have bestowed upon the SWP through its front the IAWM the mantle of significance. This at a time when NO self-respecting socialist other than those under the whip of Kaiser Allen would have anything to do with the discredited IAWM (if Bush was only to delay his arrival by a few weeks, we’d see the same fate befall the Stop Bush Campaign, but no worry, it’s not here to stay).

So what do we know? The SWP lacks the patience for building up a vote. It is determined to make an electoral breakthrough. It will continue to seek shortcuts by piggy-backing on genuine attempts to improve things (anti-war, bin-tax). Its desperation will now see it attempt to launch – and dominate (manipulate) – Respect Ireland (name to be decided at the next meeting of the Political Committee). Everything thing it does is for its own ends and only its own ends. It will fail. Everybody will dislike it.

What to do? Genuine socialists in the SWP need to think long and hard about the behaviour of a party that has become a byword for opportunism. And then they should leave the SWP.

by Deaf Wed Jun 16, 2004 16:48

Will someone please tell Davy Carlin to shut up bragging about what a brilliant vote the SWP/SEA/RESPECT achieved on these islands through the bringing together of leading trade union activists, environmentalists, anti-war activists, bbla bla bla....???

Please, the silence is deafening!!!!!!

by blind he went blind - is there a single Irish Government sponsered "joyce/o'casey" eye health project? Wed Jun 16, 2004 21:13

A 15-year-old Muslim girl yesterday lost her high court battle for the right to wear strict Islamic dress to school.
read all at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1239746,00.html
Dr Nasim Butt, headmaster of a private Islamic school and co-author of a recent report which called for more faith schools, debates the issue via email with MP Andrew Bennett, chairman of a Commons committee which recently suggested that such a move could further entrench religious divides in society
http://education.guardian.co.uk/faithschools/story/0,13882,1240149,00.html

by khalid farouk Thu Jun 17, 2004 00:31

I am concerned that a socialist and anti bin tax activist like Richard Boyd Barrett seems to be giving the illusion that the Labour Party, the Greens and Sinn Fein are 'lefts'. None of these parties are working class parties, they are not part of the workers movement, Richard should not be fooling working class people that voted for him and his party into thinking that these parties are our allies. Mark my words these 3 'left wing' parties and their councillors will turn around and attack the working people of this city when some or all of them will sell out and implement non collection of bins. As a socialist Richard should be pointing out these facts and telling working people the limits of these parties.

by Dub SWP - SWP Thu Jun 17, 2004 00:57

Hi Ex Cabra trot.
I am sure your considered criticism of my party will have a huge influence on many of its members.
Your bile filled spurious rant against a dedicated and articulate socialist is sure to sway many who know the young man personally.
Your utter contempt for anything like a reasonable analysis of the election results will also aid many of us in making up our minds about the future of our party.

No doubt your helpful views have been listed here before ,under many changing names?. Prehaps it was you who predicted that outside of Brid Smith and RBB we would get laughable votes.?
You know F all about us.
We will be around for a lot longer than you and yours.
May you choke on your sectarianism my friend.
We had a good election, as did many of the anti bin tax candidates.the SP had a better one and SF had a great one.
The struggle will go on outside of elections and we will be there.

by f Thu Jun 17, 2004 01:28

I do hope the critisism i made of Richard's article will have some influence on your party's members. I am making these critisisms in a comradely way, I am not trying to stir 'sectarian bile', I want nothing more than to see the SWP adopt a correct approach to parties like Labour, SF and the Greens.

Do you not think it is one of the roles of socialists to explain the character of parties like Labour, SF and the Greens and not to sow illusions in these parties? In the absence of a mass working class party I can see how these parties will get support from many working people, a handful of good activists may even join these parties, however these parties are not parties of the working class, they will sell people out, they do not have socialist policies. My reading of richard's piece in the SW is that he seems to be portraying these parties as our allies - it simply lacks any neccesary critisism of them.

by BJ Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:42

“We had a good election, as did many of the anti bin tax candidates.the SP had a better one and SF had a great one” says Commander Wingnut (the young man reference was a real giveaway Kev).

Wrong on 3 counts. The SWP didnt have a good election, the SP had a miles better one and who gives a fuck about the great one SF had? You may as well add that FG had a brilliant one. Talk about appropriation. The SWP fell flat on its face and is dusting itself off with other parties votes. Face it Kev, the SWP have become Irelands Also-Rans.

by Andy newman - Socialsit Alliance national executive - England (personal capacity) Thu Jun 17, 2004 17:42

I find reading Michael Douglas’s remarks profoundly depressing.

I am a national executive member of the Socialist Alliance in England, and I resigned from the SWP this February – having been a member for 20 years out of the last 26 (with a break in the middle). I don’t recognise Michael’s description of events in England as having much basis in reality.

Indeed, Michael seems to have one of the most profoundly sectarian minds I have ever come across.

Firstly if you look at the far left local election results across England and Wales there are some successes, comparable to RESPECTs.
http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/reports/elections.htm
http://www.sademocracy.org.uk/local_results2.htm
The socialist party that he pooh-poohs got 8617 votes across Coventry and won two seats.
In Walsall, the Socialist Alliance stood in many seats, and got 32% in one ward.
The Independent Working Class Association won three seats in Oxford, and Forward Wales won a seat in Wrexham and came within a handful of votes of winning two more. Indeed Forward Wales are so irrelevant and beneath the radar as Michael would describe it that they have won a seat in the Welsh Assembly, and had former Labour Welsh Minister Ron Davies join them.

All of this was achieved without the SWP’s involvement. However as these facts are a little inconvenient for Michael it is best if he ignores them.

Also it is hard to explain the relative success of the SSP, if the only reason that the SA was sometimes successful was because the SWP did all the work. the SWP are only a small current within the SSP.

It is interesting that in Manchester the Lib Dem’s telephone canvassers picked up a detectable number of people intending to vote Socialist Alliance – but unfortunately the SWP and others had prevented that option being on the ballot paper.

Now the thing about Michael is he seems to have a very selective memory, and I want to take up this issue of the programme. One of the last initiatives that Cliff came up with was the “Action Programme”, in about 2000. This was a set of transitional demands that the SWP published as a glossy pamphlet. Now was this a pooogramme as Michael describes them? Well if it walks like a duck and quacks… …
Of course this was a failure and quickly forgotten.
But Michaels’ description of other left groups polishing their purity and waiting for the glorious day they will lead the masses to storm the palace, is exactly how the behaviour of the SWP comes across to many people outside the organisation.

On the issue of whether the Socialist Alliance was a failure – interesting that in Portugal the Left Bloc, exactly the same type of beast as the English SA won a Euro seat.

There is no doubt that in most of the country RESPECT’s vote was extremely poor indeed. Less than 1% in 4 regions, less than 2% in another 4 regions, and interestingly in some regions got less votes than Scargill’s Socialist labour party did in 1999 – but RESPECT did much more campaigning. For all the brave talk RESPECT didn’t win anything.

Now that is not to say that RESPECT is a failure overall, the results in Preston, London, Birmingham were good. But there is no future for the organisation if people like Michael are blind to the facts, and refuse to discuss in a sensible way what went badly as well as what went well.

And walking round saying that the 1500 members of the SWP are responsible for every good thing that happens on the British left reminds me of the parable Cliff used to tell about the fly sitting on the Ox’s head. At the end of the day the fly says “my, what a lot of ploughing we did today”

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:51 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Hi Andy (personal capacity)
This is Michael (personal capacity)

Now that we have that sorted, lets us begin.

Various parties on the left have stood in local elections for decades in the UK.
Some do OK, others not.
Some pick up a few seats here are there. Others not.
It’s a timeless affair. We can see it repeated in the election results you quote.

The point of the Socialist Alliance was to try and break out of this ghetto. It had some successes because it involved the combined weight of some of the left groups.

But sadly the Socialist Alliance never went much further than those groups.
To me It has always had the flavour of left re-groupment. Nothing wrong with that so long as it relates to forces beyond it.

But the fact is it has not done very well puling in forces to its right. I believe this is because many of those involved do not understand how to relate to reformism. They believe doctrinal purity and polished Programmes can achieve this.

RESPECT did better in many areas because it did not adopt a sectarian view about purity. Whether it is a vehicle that will endure remains to be seen. I hope it does but I don’t have any special attachment to the name or the symbols. I will support any socialist initiative that is serious about relating to forces to its right. The SA, sadly, has degenerated and splintered. I compare SA internal culture with that of RESPECT. It’s like oil and water. Its like comparing the dead with the living.

The majority of your post is yet more slagging of the SWP which says more about you than it does about our organisation and its activists. SA results achieved without SWP involvement?! Come off it. This rewrites history.

You talk about the Action Programme we produced and conclude it was a failure. What makes you say this? Because we have not got it published on the front of our paper each week like a stopped clock? Because it did not form part of the platform of the Stop The War Coalition, like some groups insisted should be the case so we could tick off all the things people must agree with before they can march. Everything we said in that leaflet we still believe in and argue for. What do you argue for comrade? I suspect a significant proportion of your time is spent penning the ‘crimes’ of the SWP

Who exactly is refusing to discuss the strength and weakness of RESEPCT? You are constructing straw men. What I am doing here is defending RESPECT against some sectarians who hate anything the SWP is involved in by definition, including the Stop the War Coalition which lead the largest movement in UK history. Read the bile that has been spewed at the SWP and RESPECT on this thread and you might choose to take up some issues with people other than me.

I suspect this will not happen because as an embittered ex-SWP member you now have but one dominant principle in your political outlook.

What a waste.

by Mark Thomas Fri Jun 18, 2004 13:12

Dear Michael,

please reread your first post, the one in which you write about "millions" of supporter for Respect. What happened to them last week? Were they all sick?

Come off it. Respect predicted 1 million votes, got a quarter of that and failed to win A SINGLE SEAT. Parties that you had dismissed as irrelevant won seats. Now you say some win seats, some don't, it's all the same. Sorry, mate, it isn't.

by nostradamus very huggy but not really sexual Fri Jun 18, 2004 13:27

ought leave the prophecy bit alone.
Comrades, today is the anniversary of J18.
Big day. my fax is fucked. But still a big day.
And we worked together, and have sort of worked and played together since, but one thing I have noticed in the last few years is the appaling and alarming tendancy you hve to "predict" massive mobilisations, and then get it completely wrong.
Especially in IReland.
"oh we'll have one million there, twothousand there, fifty thousand up the swords road by tea time".

Stop it.
you're giving us all a new age reputation.

by Murray Mint Fri Jun 18, 2004 13:43

[Extract]
"Respect will be contesting not only the European elections but also the elections for the London Assembly. It was in fact on the occasion of the previous, first, elections for this body in 2000 that things began to move on the left in England. What produced the change was the newly affirmed readiness of the SWP to work with other forces. This led to the reinvigoration of the London Socialist Alliance. The results of the London election were encouraging. Socialist Alliances were revived or established across the country and stood about 100 candidates in the 2001 Westminster election. Unfortunately the Socialist Party, which had originally initiated the Alliances in the 90s but left them in limbo, ended up pulling out. But there was room for optimism as to the future of the Socialist Alliance.

Unfortunately this optimism was to be disappointed. The SWP saw the Alliance as a “united front of a special kind” to be wheeled out only for elections. In fact, the SA had some modest successes on the electoral level. But since its main component had no intention of building it into a serious political force, involved in mass campaigning outside election times, its prospects were limited. This was graphically illustrated in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. As Bush and Blair prepared for war, the task of socialists was clearly to build a mass anti-war movement. The SWP took up the challenge. In September 2002 an internal circular informed its members that the task of the hour was “Stop the War, Build the Party”.

No one would deny that the SWP threw all its forces into the building of a mass anti-war movement, the Stop the War coalition. Of course the massive demonstrations that took place didn’t stop the war. But the anti-war movement and the mass opposition to Bush and Blair that it expresses became and remain an important factor in British politics. They have powerfully contributed to the way that the war and its aftermath still haunt Blair and may ultimately be his downfall.

As for building the party, no doubt the SWP won some recruits through the anti-war movement. But the indications are that Greg Tucker is right to note that “In Britain, even with two million anti-war demonstrators on the streets no revolutionary organisation has grown significantly” (3). Except that he should have said “in England”, because in Scotland the SSP, (which does not of course proclaim itself a “revolutionary organisation” but is nevertheless a class-struggle socialist party) did grow significantly, in terms of members, electoral results and now trade union affiliation.

The fact that the Socialist Alliance failed to develop via the anti-war movement was the result of a conscious political choice by the SWP. In the above-mentioned circular the words “Socialist Alliance” do not appear once, and in the SWP’s perspectives the two dimensions of its action were to build the mass antiwar movement and to recruit to the SWP. The Alliance was put on the back burner from day one. This was an application of fairly classical far-left tactics – build the mass movement and the revolutionary organisation, with nothing in between, in particular no conception of building a party other than by recruitment to the SWP.

This was a lost opportunity. The anti-war movement could have been the occasion for building the Socialist Alliance in a non-electoral, mass campaigning context. That would have represented a real step forward on the road to building a broad socialist party in England. The consequences of this failure were seen in the May 2003 elections. In Scotland there was a credible socialist alternative on offer. The success of the SSP in the Holyrood elections was of course not only attributable to its opposition to the war. But in Scotland it was identified with the anti-war movement. In the local elections held in England on the same day, in the same context of mass opposition to the war, the Socialist Alliance, in spite of some local successes, in particular the election of Michael Lavalette in Preston, had no national profile. The contrast with the BNP is striking. Although the BNP did not present candidates everywhere it came across as a national political force. "

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Fri Jun 18, 2004 14:29 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Sadly the SSP vote went down this time in Scotland.

You make a critique of the SWP role in the anti-war movement and counterpose it with...nothing. You have no organisational means of doing anything because you are an individual. Build something in the real world and then lace on some boots and run on the field and we will see how many goals you score. Until then you’re just another heckler from the terraces.

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Fri Jun 18, 2004 14:49 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Dear Mark

Lets warm up with something simple.

About 35% turnout for the election.
About a quarter of a million votes for RESPECT
Ergo, 1 million people supporting RESPECT seems entirely realistic.

Now getting them out given a virtual media blackout compared to UKIP and the Greens (who we beat in some contests) won’t be easy but rest assured we will throw ourselves into it for upcoming by-elections. Can you spare some time away from here to help out?

by Murray Mint Fri Jun 18, 2004 14:49

The SSP vote for the European elections actually went UP 1.2%.

The above piece is an extract from the longer article attached. Its written by Murray Smith who is involved with both the SSP and LCR.
Hardly a heckler from the terrace.

by Mark Thomas Fri Jun 18, 2004 15:15

and applying your own method of analysis, how many millions of supporters can the tories claim? Or, imagine if Tony Blair added to its own party the votes of those who stayed at home.

But tell me something, Mr SWP man, you say, in a previous posting, that a few seats don't make any difference. The fact is that your party hasn't even managed to win those few seats that don't make a difference.
Wouldn't be better if you disbanded and gave your support to those parties/groups which have at least won a few seats, such as the socialist party? With your support maybe they could win many seats. They certainly seem better placed to win many seats than Respect, which hasn't won any.

by Analyst Fri Jun 18, 2004 15:44

The reason the SWp never succeed electorally, in Ireland or Britain is quite simple. The SWP continually flit from issue to issue in an attempt to 'hit an issue while its hot', in a misinformed belief that in this way they can maximise their recruitment and paper sales. This type of approach does not lend itslef to electoral success. There is no easy route to electoral success, it requires a party to throw themsleves into working class communities and be there for the thankless and endless work of building campaigns. The bin tax is one example, id is no mistake that those candidates and parties that did well in the recent elections are the same ones who spent night after night organising non-payment through organising meetings and building membership. On the whole the SWP did not do this as there was always a more glamorous issue to attract them, as a result they failed to win any respect in working class communities and it is this reason they did poorly in the elections. Possible exceptions might lie in RBB and Smith.

Another reason for their poor success is their tendency to believe their own hype. OK, all parties hype up their chances in an election in order to be see as contenders. But the SWP seem to believe their own hype and the hype generated by their various members. In the recent election, realistically the SWP had chances in Ballyfermot and Dun Laoghaire. However the SWP leadership instead of targetting these areas, they set about standing candidates all over the place that had no hope of being elected, at one point they even thought there were 2 anti bin tax seats in Dundrum! This approach harmed their election as resources were not concentrated were they were needed. Who knows what would have happened if the resources that went into O'Donohoes campaign went into Smiths or if the resources going into Lordan's went into RBB's?

by Michael Douglas - SWP (UK) Fri Jun 18, 2004 16:28 douglas111 at hotmail dot com

Here is the 'disaster' that a handful of professional sectarians were praying for on their knees every single night since the election began...

"We polled over a quarter of a million votes. In the elections for the European Parliament Respect polled 252,216 votes, a remarkable achievement for a party that did not exist just 20 weeks ago. Although this amounts to only 1.7% of the vote across England and Wales the votes in individual towns, cities and boroughs represented a
significant breakthrough for Respect.

In less than five months Respect has established itself on the political map.
The results in the European and Greater London Assembly elections were very
good, with us narrowly missing out on getting Lindsey German elected to the
London Assembly and George Galloway elected to the European Parliament.


*** European Elections ***

In London, in the European elections, we obtained some massive votes.

In the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Respect not only won a magnificent 10,611
votes (20.36%) but beat every other party standing. Labour got 19.39%, the
Tories 18.28% and the Liberal Democrats 16.37%. On this result Respect is
already in a position to challenge seriously in the parliamentary constituencies
of Bethnal Green and Bow and Poplar and Canning Town at the next General
Election.

In the London Borough of Newham, Respect won 11,784 votes (21.41%), in Hackney
4,026 votes (9.66%), in Waltham Forest 5,468 votes (9.54%), in Haringey 4046
votes (7.66%), Redbridge 4824 votes (6.9%) and in Camden 3,185 (6.37%). In a
number of other London boroughs we polled over 5%.

Elsewhere in the European elections there were similar huge votes in specific
areas.

In the West Midlands constituency Respect polled 34,704 votes (2.4%). But across
Birmingham our vote averaged 7.4%. In ten Birmingham inner-city wards Respect
polled between 18% - 39% of the vote. The average in these ten wards was 24%.

Respect came first in both Bordsley Green and Sparkhill wards. In Sparkbrook
ward and in Nechells ward Respect came second. In both Aston and Washwood Heath
we came third.

In the East Midlands constituency Respect polled 20,009 votes (1.4%). But in
Leicester Respect’s vote was 9.2%.

In the North West constituency Respect’s vote was 24,636 (1.2%). In Preston,
Respect also stood in five council elections and polled an average 30%.

In the Eastern Region Respect’s vote was (0.9%). In Luton we polled 2,347 (6.2%)
and in Peterborough we polled 2,119 (4.7%).

Even in the South East Region, where we only polled 0.6% (13,426 votes), we won
5.8% of the vote in Slough with 1,688 votes.


*** London Assembly ***

In the elections for the GLA, Respect polled just under 5%, narrowly missing out
on getting a candidate elected to the London Assembly. Lindsey German came 5th
in the London Mayoral election, beating the Greens and the nazi BNP.

Respect polled 87,533 votes in the London-wide Assembly ballot, 4.57% of the
total votes cast. Lindsey German narrowly missed out on getting elected to the
London Assembly. Another 6,126 votes would have been enough. These are
marvellous results for a party standing for the first time.

Respects’ best result was the magnificent 21,795 (15%) polled in the City & East
constituency for the London-wide Assembly election. Olliur Rahman received
19,675 (13.5%) in the election for the constituency Assembly member, coming
third, in front of the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and UKIP.

All of these results show that in inner-city, working-class areas and those with
large minority communities Respect polled extremely well. Labour will look at
our results in these areas and worry. Many ex-Labour voters came over to Respect
as well as many first time voters.

We are now preparing to stand in a council by-election in Tower Hamlets and are
discussing our plans for the parliamentary by-election in Leicester South.

In less than 5 months Respect has managed to make huge strides forward. We have
won support from trade union branches as well as the London Region of the FBU
and the North West Region of the RMT. We have made significant gains amongst
minority ethnic communities.

We also have to recognise that in many areas, however, we did not do as well as
we could have done. This is for a number of different reasons - both objective
and subjective. We need to discuss the results and the campaign we waged in
every area so that we can learn the lessons for the next election campaign.

But, of course, we cannot just wait for the General Election. We need to be
organising branch meetings in every part of the country. We should discuss what
issues we should campaign on and how best to relate to groups of workers and the
local community. We want to establish a real presence for Respect in every area.

All over England and Wales there should be meetings for Respect supporters to
discuss the election campaign and the results and to plan the way forward. If
you want to know where your local meeting will be please get in touch. Everyone
should try to attend and contribute to the discussions. Everybody’s input is
valuable.

A fuller analysis of the election campaign and the results will be sent out
soon. If you have any comments about any aspect of the campaign or the results
then please send them to office@respectcoalition.org


And lastly, as ever…

We have managed to raise a huge amount of money to pay for the election
campaign. In total we raised about £350,000 nationally, in addition to the money
we raised in each region and London constituency. Incredibly, we only have debts
of £40,000 at the national office. But we need to raise the £40,000 urgently. A
short while ago I sent out an appeal for a further £20 from every supporter. We
have had an extremely good response but I have to ask once again for everyone to
see if they can dig a little deeper in order to clear our debts.

This is a link to a standing order form which I hope you will download, fill out
and send off, even if it is only for a small monthly amount:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/pdf/dec2pp.pdf

Respect has only existed for less than six months. We have already made an
impact. Let’s build on that and see Respect gather new support in every area
over the summer.

Thanks again for all your hard work.

Yours in solidarity,

Nick Wrack,
Respect National Chair
nick@respectcoalition.org"

by Ray Fri Jun 18, 2004 16:36

Couldn't be bothered writing an article about Respect's showing in the elections, so they dug up an old article about the Socialist Alliance's showing in the elections and did a 'Find & Replace'.

by Mark Thomas Fri Jun 18, 2004 16:48

Brilliant, amazing: how to turn a humiliating defeat into a victory. So where are those millions of supporters? Why the report doesn't mention that you have lost your only local council seat in Preston? Why doesn't it say that the Socialist Party and Indipendent Working Class Alliance won more seats than Respect (with far less resources)?

by Dub SWP - SWP Fri Jun 18, 2004 22:49 Dublin

This is an old song, and a false one. Go back to school and take up maths. R Brown and G Kenny came closer to taking sets than either B Smith or RBB. All came close and got great votes.
I understand that this does not fit into the "oh they dont know how to work in WC communities" shit you keep peddleing, but do try to keep up. No one , even in the ivory towers of cybor sectarianists can still believe that stuff.
And lastly, all of the above stood not just as anti bin tax but as open revolutionary socialists who argued for a No vote in the referendum.
If your critiera is correct for success in elections then both SF and Labor are gonna change the world and bring us all closer to nirvana. And hey wherent FF a great representative of the irish WC for years?
Sing a new song for fucks sake.How about "Oh I was a SWP member but now I realise how evil they are......"
That always good for a laugh.

by Analyst Mon Jun 21, 2004 00:53

You don't seem to be taking on board my critisisms of the SWP. I am not saying that electoral success = correctness of programme. this is not the case at all. Neither is it the case that doing badly in elections is proof of revolutionary credentials. The fact is that for most voters their was very little difference between the SP and the SWP, both are anti bin tax, both are anti referendum both describe themselves as socialist... yet the SP have done far better than the SWP in the recent elections and in all previous elections. This is despite both parties having roughly the same number of members. So why are you not asking why this is the case? The reason is because the SWP have utterly failed to lay any roots into the working class, this is in my opinion because of the tendency for the SWP to flit from campaign to campaign.

by Observer Mon Jun 21, 2004 13:02

Poor old analyst, it must be hard for you to orientate towards the real enemy. Tonight the Labour Party (that party so much loved by the luvvies) is going to go into coalition with Fine Gael and the Green Party (remember their role in the bin tax struggle?) to run Dublin City Council . And what is analyst doing - yes you guessed it, taking pot shots at those closest to him/her.
Best of luck in the struggle analyst - with friends like you.....................

by A Looney Lefty Mon Jun 21, 2004 18:28

Labour may be doing a deal with FG and Greens to run council Wouldn't expect much more from them

But there will come a time when there will be a vote on non-collection and/or on bin tax. Labour's stated position in Dublin City Council is to oppose bin tax, same for Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein also. So on that given vote how will Labour vote? How will Sinn Fein vote? I'm sure some in Labour will wish they won a few less seats.

by Mystic Mark Mon Jun 21, 2004 19:11

It will certainly be interesting. There will have to be decisions made on non-collection and on next year's budget. Both Labour and Sinn Fein have been at least in name opposed to the tax and to non-collection, although in some places both parties have voted for the tax.

There are a number of possibilities here -

1 - They find some way to palm the decision off on council officials, the county manager etc.

2 - The other parties push the vote through with SF and Labour voting against. The Labour vote against would be purely an arse-covering device because they would continue to jointly run the council with Fine Gael and the Greens regardless. This one relies on the other parties being willing to help Labour our of a sticky situation.

3 - They try to pull off another version of the confusion tactics of a few years ago with councillors from each party voting in different ways, to avoid blame attaching itself to one part too strongly.

4 - Labour extract some bogus "concession", like the introduction of pay-by-weight schemes and then rolls over, legs in the air. At this stage maybe the most likely scenario.

by Andy newman Wed Jun 23, 2004 00:34

Michael,
In a reply to my earlier post you suggest that I am an embittered has-been who doesn't do anything excect moan about the SWP.

Well people can google my name and check that I am very much active, and still work constructively with the SWP and other socialists.

Funnily enough when I google your name Michael nothing comes up. Are you a troll, or are you just all talk?

However, it is clearly convenient for you to believe that any criticism must be due to a personality failure of the people who disagree with you.

You also say that much of this thread is sectrain criticiusm of RESPECT and the SWP. Well some of it may be - but some of the most sectarian stuff on here is what you have written.

Readers of this thread may like to know that I privately wrote to Michael and asked some questions to check that he really was an SWP member and not a troll, and ask what his prersonal experience was that led him to make these claims about other sociailists being failures, and generally be so negative about other activists.

Michael refuused to answer and replied threatening to call the police if I wrote to him again. Bless.

Either he is only pretending to be an SWP member, or he is very young and inexperienced.
Most of what he has written is foolishness, and to be honest is not a reflection of the SWP - who thank god are not all like Michael.

Apart from anything else he should know it is a breach of SWP discipline to intervene in a debate in a foreign country (assuming he really is from the UK), as all such should go through the central office.

by English SP Wed Jun 23, 2004 17:11

Respect - the Unity Coalition was formed by George Galloway MP and the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) at the beginning of the year. It stood for the first time on June 10.

Hannah Sell, Socialist Party, England and Wales
The Socialist Party took part in discussions with Respect during the first three months of this year. However, in the event we concluded that we were unable to join Respect at that point as we had a number of disagreements with the approach Respect was taking, both on programme and democracy. However, we hoped that our concerns would prove unfounded and that Respect would develop positively.

Unfortunately, the European election campaign confirmed our worst fears about the political direction of Respect. The vote Respect received was good in some areas, particularly Galloway’s 91,175 votes (4.84%) in the London Euro seat. Nationally their vote in the European elections averaged 1.7%, or just over 250,000 votes. This undoubtedly disappointed the leadership of Respect, who exaggerated their electoral potential. For us, however, the issue is not the vote as much as the means by which Respect achieved it. For socialists the programme we put forward should always be aimed at raising the confidence and level of understanding of the working class. This means doing everything possible to encourage the unity of the working class. That is why our sister organisation in Northern Ireland has always fought for unity of the Catholic and Protestant working class. In Britain today, the reactionary policies of Blair and New Labour are fostering division. Respect’s intention may not have been to exacerbate those divisions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Respect’s average vote disguised low results in many parts of the country, which were combined with several notable votes in inner-city areas with large Muslim populations. In the City and East London constituency, an area with the highest concentration of Muslims in the country, Respect polled 15.03%. Across Birmingham the average vote was 7.4%. These votes were mainly based on large sections of the Muslim communities in those areas voting for Respect.

Working-class appeal
If this had been achieved by appealing to working-class Muslims on a class basis, it would be a very important positive achievement. There is no doubt that on this basis Respect could have won the support of significant section of Muslims who had been radicalised by the war on Iraq and the anti-war movement but also, as one of the poorest and most oppressed sections of the working class, by their conditions of life under the New Labour government. For example, according to the 2001 census, the unemployment rate of Muslims is more than three times that of the general population and is the highest of all faith groups. One in 7 of economically active Muslims are unemployed, compared with 1 in 20 for the wider population.

However, Respect made an opportunist, rather than a class, appeal to Muslims. A specific leaflet aimed at Muslims was produced which described Respect as "the party for Muslims". Under the headline ‘George Galloway – fighter for Muslims’ it said:

"Married to a Palestinian doctor, teetotal, he has strong religious principles about fighting injustice. He was expelled by Blair because he refused to apologise for his anti-war stance. Our Muslim MPs stayed silent or supported the war. Who do you want to be our voice?"

While it is right to advertise Galloway’s undoubted anti-war credentials and to attack Muslim MPs for failing to oppose the war (although he seems to have excused Mohammed Sawar, MP for Glasgow Govan, saying he won’t stand against him in the next election because he is a Muslim), the rest of this statement is a highly opportunist attempt to appeal to Muslims on the basis of their religion. While socialists defend the right of all to practise any religion they wish, or to practise none, without suffering discrimination or oppression, that does not mean we stand in political solidarity with all Muslims. Does Respect consider itself the party for 5,400 Muslim millionaires in Britain, many of whom made their money by exploiting other Muslims? Or for Mohammed Al Fayed, the billionaire owner of Harrods?

George Galloway himself compounded Respect’s mistakes when he stated his personal views on the question of abortion, saying that: "I’m strongly against abortion. I believe life begins at conception." And that because he believed "in God. [He had] to believe that the collection of cells has a soul." Immediately afterwards these comments were enthusiastically welcomed by the Muslim Association of Britain (which backed Respect in several areas of the country).

George Galloway has every right to a personal opinion on the question of abortion. However, given the lack of any Respect policy on the issue, and the failure of the SWP members who were Respect candidates to publicly put their own opinion on the issue (they claim to support, in our opinion correctly, a woman’s right to choose when and whether to have children) the effect of George Galloway expressing his personal opinion was to give the impression that Respect opposes abortion in all circumstances. While this may have increased Respect’s vote amongst a section of Muslim voters, it will have also repelled many women that Respect should have been aiming to attract.

Potentially dangerous
The vote-winning strategy adopted by Respect is potentially very dangerous. The Socialist Party has long argued that New Labour today is another party of big-business, no different in essence to the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. We campaign for the building of a new party – that brings together forces such as socialists, trade unionists and the anti-war movement – and puts forward a socialist programme. The recent decision of the FBU to stop funding New Labour shows the potential for trade unionists to begin building such a party. A formation led by George Galloway, particularly if it had been launched from the platform of 15 February, when two million marched against the war, could have been an important step in the direction of such a party.

However, Respect, formed after the high point of the anti-war movement, has so far not brought a new workers’ party any closer. At the founding convention of Respect, Lindsey German of the SWP argued that the Socialist Alliance had failed because it was too explicitly socialist and that Respect would succeed for the converse reason. This argument was mistaken, as the Socialist Party was able to demonstrate in the Euro election in Dublin, Ireland - where Joe Higgins received 5.5% of the first preference vote on a socialist programme. We were able to do the same in Coventry where we contested fourteen council seats and received an average of 16%.

In fact, far from broadening Respect’s appeal, its leadership’s approach narrowed it. A new mass left formation cannot be built on one issue, or by appealing to just one section of the population. While Respect’s formal programme did include demands against NHS privatisation, tuition fees and on other issues, the material they put out in the election concentrated almost exclusively on the occupation of Iraq.

Iraq was undoubtedly a key issue in this election, but for the majority of working-class voters it was not the only issue. Rather Blair’s lies to justify the brutal war on Iraq acted as a lightening rod for all the other crimes of New Labour. Important sections of working people, who could have been attracted to a new left alternative which both fought against the occupation of Iraq and on other issues like tuition fees, privatisation and cuts, were simply not touched by Respect’s approach. In most areas, outside of their increased support in some Muslim communities, their vote was even lower than the high water mark of Respect’s predecessor organisation, the Socialist Alliance.

If Respect follows the same strategy in future elections it could foster dangerous divisions within the working class between Muslim and other communities. If Respect gains by being seen as a Muslim party, which does not address the needs of other sections of the working class, it could push other sections of the working class away and reinforce racist and divisive ideas. By contrast a sizeable new workers’ party which both campaigned in a class way on both the general issues and against racism and Islamaphobia could begin to cut across racism and prejudice.

However, it is not clear what Respect’s future will be, or even if it’s leaders see it as a permanent formation. George Galloway has mistakenly raised the prospect of Respect possibly playing a part in a process of "reclaiming" the Labour Party and has called for the trade unions to play a "central role" in this process, indicating that he may see Respect as a temporary means to try and push New Labour left.

'Not as left wing as you think'
And while George has undoubtedly taken a principled stand on the war, he is, on a whole number of issues, in his own words, "not as left wing as you think". This is demonstrated graphically in his recent autobiography where he describes both Tony Benn’s Labour leadership challenge in 1981 and the heroic struggle of Liverpool City council 1983 - 1987 as ‘ultra-left’. He also argues that MPs should be paid twice as much as their existing salaries of £47,000 per year, plus expenses. While we disagree with George on these and other issues, this does not mean we opposed taking part in an electoral formation with him. On the contrary, we would have been happy to do so in the case of Respect, provided it was based on appealing to broad layers of trade unionists, anti-capitalists and the anti-war movement, and had a democratic structure which allowed open and honest discussion with the freedom for ourselves and others to argue for our own programme. Unfortunately, this is not the road Respect seems to be on. Unless Respect changes direction, it will not play a positive role on the journey to a new workers’ party.

by Iqbal - Bangladeshi Cultural Forum Wed Aug 18, 2004 19:35 iqbalahmed007 at hotmail dot com

I'd just like to point out that not all Muslims are as fiercely opposed to the (admittedly self serving) actions of Britain and the US in Iraq. The war was necessary in order to remove Saddam.

Muslim groups like the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Muslim Council of Great Britain (MCB) are respresentative of the more politically active younger student Muslims and not of the more traditional Muslim majority living in Britain. For the latter, matters such as discrimination, unemployment and inadequate housing are issues of immediate concern.