Respect in crisis

[Editor]

George Galloway’s letter to Respect’s National Council, August 2007
 
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

The Shadwell by-election victory has stunned the New Labour establishment, turned the tide in Tower Hamlets and opened up the real possibility of winning two parliamentary seats in East London which, together with the potential gain in Birmingham, would make us the most successful left-wing party in British history.
New Labour’s decision to try to rehabilitate Michael Keith – the former leader of Tower Hamlets council who we first defeated last year – raised the stakes in this election enormously. A victory for him in a ward where we had all three councillors would have thrown us into a grave crisis. Instead, it is Labour that is suffering shattering demoralisation and we are enjoying a post-Shadwell bounce.

Ealing Southall, on the other hand, just a few weeks before, marked the lowest point in Respect’s three-year history. The failure to harvest even the vote we had secured in just one ward of the constituency in the local elections 12 months earlier was a sharp reminder that what goes up can come down and should shatter any complacency about the London elections next May.

It is clear to everyone, if we are honest, that Respect is not punching its weight in British politics and has not fulfilled its potential either in terms of votes consistently gained, members recruited or fighting funds raised.

The primary reasons for this are not objective circumstances, but internal problems of our own making.

The conditions for Respect to grow strongly obtain in just the same way as they did when we first launched the organisation and had our historic breakthrough in 2005.
Anyone who was at the 1000-strong street celebration after the victory in Shadwell will attest that the idea of Respect remains very much alive and, as Jim Fitzpatrick MP said in Tribune, it’s clear that ‘the Iraq war hasn’t gone away’.

Michael Lavalette’s advancing position in Preston shows what can be done with imaginative and dedicated work. In Bristol, around Jerry Hicks, and in Sheffield around Maxine Bowler, we have placed ourselves in pole position to enter the council chamber. But to achieve that we must recognise our serious internal weaknesses which are becoming more apparent and which threaten to derail the whole project.

Membership

Despite being a rather well known political brand our membership has not grown. And in some areas it has gone into a steep decline. Whole areas of the country are effectively moribund as far as Respect activity is concerned. In some weeks there is not a single Respect activity anywhere in the country advertised in our media. No systematic effort has been able to be mounted - in fact, a major effort had to be launched to get back to the levels of membership we had, despite electoral successes, widespread publicity and the continuing absence of any serious rival on the left. This has left a small core of activists to shoulder burden after burden without much in the way of support from the centre, leading to exhaustion and enervation.

Fundraising

This is all but non-existent. We have stumbled from one financial crisis to another. And with the prospect of an early general election we are simply unable to challenge the major parties in our key constituencies. None of the Respect staff appears to have been tasked with either membership or fundraising responsibilities. Or if they have it isn’t working. There is a deep-seated culture of amateurism and irresponsibility on the question of money. Activities are not properly budgeted and even where budgets are set they are not adhered to. Take, for example, the Fighting Unions Conference which was full to the rafters but still managed to lose £5000. The intervention at Pride, where we gave away merchandise rather than sold it, lost £2000.

It is a moot point whether the turn to building Fighting Unions which occupied the National Office for four months was the correct prioritisation of slender resources, following our breakthroughs at the local elections last year. What is not moot is that mismanagement turned an event which ought to have been a money-spinner into a money-loser.

Equally the Pride intervention, which occupied a great deal of the organisation’s time (I personally was telephoned three times to be asked if I would make it, and others report similar pressure) can be compared to the total lack of a presence at the Barking Mela last weekend - the biggest in Europe - or the minimal campaigning presence at the recent London Latin American festival. Again, while it is arguable that Pride was the priority, what is not arguable is that fundraising at it should have been included in the plan.

Further, what ought to have been the unalloyed success of the Pride intervention was seriously marred. Instead of a simple encouragement for members to attend – with a logical emphasis on LGBT members and young people – several members in elected office were subjected to a high-handed “instruction” from the national office to take part. It appeared to them to be some kind of misplaced test of their commitment to the equality programme of the organisation. This is frankly absurd. There are LGBT people who don’t feel comfortable being on a float on a parade. It would be a serious mistake to read off someone’s commitment to equality from their willingness to be dancing on the back of a truck on the Pride parade.

Having done that and spent £2,000 there was no effort to publicise our intervention externally by ensuring that all the relevant media and organisations were made aware that we were the only political party to have a float on the parade.

Staffing

This is a mystery to me and others. People pop up as staff members in jobs which have not been advertised, for which there have been no interviews and whose job descriptions are unclear and certainly unpublished. One staff member was appointed at a meeting at which that same staff member was present, making it obviously embarrassing for anyone to query whether they were the right person for the job, whether they could be afforded or why the job should go to them rather than someone else. This unnecessarily poor management leads to tensions, even animosity and the suspicion that staff are recruited for their political opinions on internal matters rather than on a proper basis. Sometimes the conduct of some staff buttresses this suspicion.

For example, at the selection meeting for our Shadwell candidate two members of staff were openly proselytising for one candidate and against another - including heckling - and even after the decision had been taken. This undoubtedly contributed to the exceedingly poor involvement of the wider membership in the subsequent election. No paid member of staff attended the Shadwell victory celebrations and when I asked one of them if they would be attending I was told ‘no, I will be watching the football’. This was noticed widely by the activists who were present at the celebration and commented upon. It is again bad management to allow such culture and practices to proliferate.
 
Internal relations

There is a custom of anathematisation in the organisation which is deeply unhealthy and has been the ruin of many a left-wing group before us. This began with Salma Yaqoob, once one of our star turns, promoted on virtually every platform, and who is responsible for some of the greatest election victories (and near misses) during our era.

Now she has been airbrushed from our history at just the time when she is becoming a regular feature on the national media and her impact on the politics of Britain’s second city has never been higher.

There appears to be no plan to rescue her from this perdition, indeed every sign that her internal exile is a fixture. This is intolerable and must end now. Whatever personal differences may exist between leading members the rest of us cannot allow Respect to be hobbled in this way. We are not over-endowed with national figures.

Decision making and implementation

There is a marked tendency for decisions made at the national council or avenues signposted for exploration to be left to wither on the vine if they are not deemed to meet priorities (which themselves are not agreed). For example, there was a very useful discussion at the last national council on what initiatives we should explore following Brown’s succession and the then anticipated failure of the McDonnell campaign to get out of the starting gate.

Among the varied suggestions were seeking to cohere wider progressive opinion around a minimal five point programme; approaching McDonnell to organise an open meeting in Parliament; seeking a joint conference with the RMT, CPB, Labour left and others; and organising a people’s march to London as an agitational vehicle for rallying forces and struggles against the Brown government. None of these have been seriously followed up. The overall emphasis – that the departure of Blair and the failure of the Labour left’s strategy opened up possibilities for us both to build Respect directly and to place it at the centre of a progressive realignment – was allowed to run into the ground.

Building the organisation

We must be much more systematic in building Respect’s profile in the wider arenas our members are active in. There is no question that struggles such as Stop the War, Defend Council Housing, anti-racist campaigns, activity around trade union disputes and so on are the lifeblood of a progressive political force such as ourselves. But the great lesson of the Stop the War movement in 2003 was that these movements do not automatically give rise to a force that can punch through on the political scene. That requires – as it did when we founded Respect – patient, detailed work and single-mindedness about ensuring that Respect grows out of the wider radical milieu.
 
Two of our outstanding members are at the helm of Defend Council Housing; many of our members are active in it in their localities. Yet as an organisation we have done far too little to raise the Respect banner inside the campaign and, to put it bluntly, cash in on the work our activists have put in and the turmoil the campaign has caused among disaffected Labour councillors and Labour-supporting tenants and trade unionists.

At the successful Stop the War demonstration outside the Labour Party conference in Manchester in September last year the nationally produced propaganda was for the Fighting Unions conference. It was thanks only to the Manchester comrades that we had a tabloid promoting Respect as a political formation. It was again thanks to the Manchester comrades that we had such a publication for the protest outside Brown’s coronation.

In every area of activity we need to encourage in our members a focus on recruitment, fundraising, establishing the profile of our candidates and unashamedly promoting Respect as the critical force in the wider reconstitution of the progressive and socialist movement.

Internal selections

Then there is the practice of the creation of false dichotomies between candidates for internal elections. Neither Oliur Rahman nor Abjul Miah nor Haroon Miah is Karl Liebknecht. And Sultana Begum is not Rosa Luxemburg. Yet in internal election contests these four contested in Tower Hamlets the divisions between them were deliberately and artificially exaggerated and members mobilised about “principles” which never were. This has led to deep and lasting divisions which show no signs of healing in the current atmosphere. So we must make a new atmosphere. If we are to rally to win the prize of a seat on the GLA, and three members of parliament, we must start right now.

Relations between leading figures in Respect are at an all-time low and this must be addressed. I have proposals to make which are not aimed at a change of political line, still less an attack on any organisation or section within Respect. They are aimed at placing us on an election war-footing, closing the chasm which has been caused to develop between leading members, together with an emergency fundraising and membership drive to facilitate our forthcoming electoral challenges.  Business as usual will not do and everyone in their heart knows this.

The crossroads at which we now stand can take us either down the Shadwell route or the road to Southall.

Instead of three MPs and a presence on the GLA we could have no MPs and no one on the GLA by this time next year. A few honest moments thoughts should suffice to calibrate where that would leave us. Oblivion.

I cannot imagine that any member of the National Council wants to see us arrive at the destination where now lies the wreck of left-wing politics in Scotland and so I hope that these proposals will be considered with the best interests of the Respect project uppermost in our minds.

A way forward

It is abundantly clear for a variety of reasons that the leadership team must be strengthened and all talents mustered. I therefore propose the creation of a new high-powered elections committee whose task would be to rapidly evaluate our election strengths and weaknesses, proposed target seats, supervise the selection of candidates - national and local - and to spearhead a national membership and fundraising drive.

This committee must comprise the leading members of Respect, including Salma, Linda Smith, Yvonne Ridley, Abjol Miah (as the leader of our 11 councillors in the central election battleground of Tower Hamlets), me, Lindsey German, Alan Thornett, Nick Wrack as well as the National Secretary.

I also propose a crucial new post of National Organiser, preferably full-time, whose task would be the aforementioned re-organisation and re-energising of the key clusters of Respect support and the encouragement of members everywhere. This position would sit alongside the position of National Secretary. It must be advertised and subject to competitive interview overseen by the elections committee.

While this document may seem stark in black and white it reflects a widespread feeling which has surfaced in various ways - including at the National Council - and it is clear that the status quo, or minor tinkering, are not options. Time is short, renovation is urgently required and we must start the process now.

George Galloway MP

[Editor]

Respect vice chair Salma Yaqoob's response is available here:

http://blog.redpepper.org.uk/hilary/files/2007/09/challenges-for-respect.pdf

[Oscar]

It is reported on some blogs that Respect National Council which met over the weekend approved Galloway's organisational changes. Can anyone confirm? and where does this leave the SWP? and John Rees? (The appropriate answer to this last question might well be: 'who the hell is John Rees')

[Sacco]

This is the Respect National Council's official statement after their meeting on Saturday 22 September 2007

This National Council reaffirms the principles of pluralism and inclusivity enshrined in the founding of Respect and in our constitution:

"The aim of Respect is to build a broad-based and inclusive alternative to the parties of privatisation, war and occupation. We will do this by intervening in elections at national, local and European level, building Respect as a campaigning organisation, involved in trade union and workplace struggle, and by building local branches of Respect which are rooted in local campaigns and in the local labour movement."

We recognise that we continue to enjoy favourable conditions to strengthen and broaden our coalition and our support. To make the most of these conditions in the run-up to the London and council elections next May - and with the possibility of a general election in the next 12 months - we resolve to:

a) Launch an immediate membership and fundraising from the national conference. For conference prepare a fundraising goal for each branch and work with the branches to appoint a fundraising officer. Announce at conference a series of recruitment rallies addressed by the MP, local councillors and other leading figures in Respect.

b) Take a positive and collaborative approach to wider developments on the left, such as Bob Wareing's decision to stand in West Derby, and the discussion on electoral strategy inside the RMT and among other significant forces in the movement.

c) Take urgent steps to ensure that the Executive Committee, which comprises the officers and others, is a balanced reflection of the organisation, including, if necessary, by expanding its numbers though election at this meeting.

d) Instruct the Executive Committee to prioritise the inclusion of all its members through the prior circulation of agendas and papers for consultation, the varying of the date and venue of meetings to maximise participation, and the use of new technologies.

e) Improve urgently internal communication and accountability at all levels.

f) Overhaul our procedures for recruiting to paid posts in the organisation so that all posts are advertised within Respect, appointed through a shortlisting and interview process overseen by a panel approved by the National Council, meet our equal opportunities aims, and are compatible with the best employment practice.

g) Immediately establish a commission to draw up democratic and inclusive alternatives to the slate system for elections. The commission is to report its suggested replacement(s) to the slate system at conference 2007 and propose any necessary constitutional amendments.

h) Review progress on these action points at the next National Council meeting.

i) All elected representatives of Respect should give regular reports to the local Respect branch, and the National Council of Respect. All major initiatives should be discussed with the appropriate local and national committees of Respect.

The National Council encourages all branches and members to seize the growing opportunities we believe exist for building Respect and the wider movement. It is with that sense of urgency in mind that the National Council adopts these proposals, subject, of course, to ratification by the National Conference.

[Oscar]

So they patched things up. Mind you, Abramovich and Mourinho patched things up and look what happened there...

> c) Take urgent steps to ensure that the Executive Committee, which comprises the officers and others, is a balanced reflection of the organisation, including, if necessary, by expanding its numbers though election at this meeting.

I wonder who decides 'if necessary'... and what happened to Galloway's National Organiser proposal?

[Clive Searle]

It is down to the National Council of Respect to elect the National Officers and the Executive Committee - and to expand them "if necessary". The Council on the 22nd September ran out of time and will re-convene on the 29th. One of the issues for discussion will be the scope and remit of the proposed post of National Organiser.

[Brian]

It is no surprise that Respect is going through a crisis of internecine squabbling,and that what seems to be the common denominator is the sectarian position-play of the SWP and the feeeling that the SWP just wants Respect as a front ,just like the previous Socialist Alliance,to be activated only at election times.

I had hoped that ,being at the forefront of a large mass mvt like STW and a wide political alliance like Respect, would have a positive effect on the SWP,causing it to leave behind the sectarian opportunism etc of the ultra-left.

So no surprises there then.You cannot make a leopard change it's spots.Those in my party who opposed joining Respect have been proved right.

Galloway and Yaqoob are right.


bp

[Editor]

Respect member Mark Perryman writes on the importance of Respect, the SWP and the prospects for a new pluralist politics to the left of Labour:

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article522.html

[rob9443]

The SWP ultra left fundies will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Seriously they're a menace. They wrecked the Socialist Alliance and now they're threatening to do the same to Respect. The whole point of Respect was to be a loose alliance of people with one common cause (opposition to US imperialism abroad and attacks on civil liberties and the Muslim community at home) but who had significant differences on other matters. Winning over Muslims to socialism is a long term process, never mind converting them all to the late Tony Cliff's cult.

If we ever do get PR for Westminster and those to the left of Labour have a chance of getting elected as a serious presence you can bet your life that the SWP will be playing the same wrecking game.

[Brian]

Well-said Rob!

Yes it does seem the SWP are now having the same effect on Respect that they had on the SA.But Respect is a lot bigger than the SA, so it could be a lot more damaging for the SWP if they don't grow up and learn a new approach.

If Salma Yaqoob was being air-brushed out of an alliance led by Communists, the ultra-left ,such as the SWP, would be the first to shout 'Stalinists!'.Yaqoob must now know how Trotsky felt!

Just how far was the pitch to the unions on the basis of them working together to oust new Labour, or at least to try to do so?

It is not a case of a simple either/or between fighting in the Labour Party and setting up a new formation in the vast prairies to new Labour's left.The best way to build the unity that will be needed as foundation for such a formation is through united struggle.
The alternative to this is to see the Labour Party fracture into a hundred pieces,from which only the ruling class will benefit.The City and the Establishment has looked to new Labour to complete the Thatcherite counter-revolution by restoring the old capitalist political system, with the TU mvt and it's allies left out in the cold and the main political parties funded almost entirely by big business.

This is why the Communist Party maintains it's position of trying to unite the labour mvt and defeat new labour as the necessary pre-condition for the formation of a new party or re-establishment of the Labour Party.

All those - especially the ultra-left - whose main tactic seems to consist in just running a red flag up the flagpole and telling people and unions 'isn't new labour awful? ,come and join us and everything will be fine in the socialist revolutionary garden!' are doing nothing but the dirty work of big business.

We should not ,and I hope will not, jump on any political souffle bandwagon that plays straight into the hands of the ruling class by obediently playing tug-of-war with the labour party,with new labour at one end and the ultra-left, and other Establishment dupes, at the other,leading to a labour movement shattered into a thousand impotent pieces.


yours,

Brian Precious

[Sacco]

Socialist Unity is running the following report from Nick Bird, an SWP member of 17 years on its blog at http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=778

Some reports of the Respect National Council meeting on 29 September suggest that an amicable compromise was agreed and that all is well. That was not the impression given at the SWP’s Party Council meeting held the following day.

Over 200 delegates gathered in central London for the meeting, the core of the SWP’s cadre from across the country. On arrival we received a document containing all the main documents so far published in the Respect debate – from the SWP Central Committee, John Rees/Elaine Graham Leigh, George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and Alan Thornett/John Lister, plus (for good measure) a view from the SWP in Ireland (an uncontroversial piece agreeing with the British leadership). This was the first time the party had circulated the non-SWP documents, though clearly many members would have seen them on various left websites.

Unfortunately it quickly became clear that this was not a meeting for examining the complexities of this debate. It was a case of: which side are you on? (I believe Chris Harman put it in those exact terms). Pat Stack announced from the chair that after the debate, the meeting would vote on the CC and Rees/Graham Leigh documents. No amendments would be accepted. (And clearly no alternative documents could be heard, since no agenda had been issued and no call for such alternatives had been made.) As usual, the CC speaker who introduced the debate (Rees) had twenty-five minutes to elaborate the CC’s position, while everyone else had four minutes, making it difficult to present a coherent case.

However, there certainly was a debate. It lasted over three hours and a number of long standing members opposed the CC position in forceful terms. The CC line amounted to this: Galloway had launched an attack on the SWP and attempted to split it. There was a left/right battle being fought out in Respect and on the right were Galloway and his allies, some of whom were in danger of succumbing to communal politics. The electoral achievements of Respect had led to these pressures and dangers and the SWP had to counteract them and defend the idea of Respect as a “united front of a special type”.

Now this is a remarkable turnaround. In the first years of Respect, the SWP leadership would countenance no public criticism of Galloway. Indeed, at meetings on Respect at the Marxism event, John Rees introduced Galloway in such terms that I half expected him to descend from heaven rather than walk in the door. But now it is open season – every long suppressed criticism is coming out and being used to justify the CC’s new line. Equally, if anyone used the term “communalism” in relation to Respect a few years ago, they were denounced as sectarians and Islamophobes. Now the CC itself is using the term to attack its opponents in the coalition.

The truth of course is that there has been no sudden lurch in Galloway’s politics. He has always been in some senses a contradictory figure for the radical left. He was not an angel when we agreed to form Respect with him and he is not a devil now that the SWP has fallen out with him. He remains a consistent opponent of war, imperialism and racism yet I still scream inwardly (to avoid people staring) when he defends his appearance on Big Brother.

The reason that the SWP lurches from one extreme position to another is rooted, I believe, in its method of work; in a lack of openness and a stunted democratic structure within the party. The (lack of) coverage of this debate in Socialist Worker is one example. To date, there has been one wholly inadequate report following the Respect NC statement which mentioned that some people were ready to write Respect’s obituary but failed to make any reference to the participants in, or terms of, the debate. Anyone whose only source of information on the subject was SW must surely have been rather confused.

When the whole future of Respect is at stake, surely that is worth mentioning in Socialist Worker? The debate about what type (special or otherwise) of party or coalition we need is not one to conduct behind the backs of SW readers, Respect members or potential members. Nor, within the SWP, can the debate be properly held when only the CC documents are put to a national meeting on a “take it or leave it” basis. When Gordon Brown says the only vote Labour members will have is to say yes or no to the manifesto before an election, we do not accept that it is an adequate expression of democracy in the Labour Party, and we should not accept it in our own organisation. Had other documents been invited, we could have heard the alternative view at greater length, and I got the feeling there was much more that could have been said by those opposing the CC position.

The SWP will not split over this. Some of the members – well known cadre, I might add - who were arguing against the CC were criticised in very strong terms and I can only guess what their intentions might be. Despite the chair saying that everyone who opposed the CC line would be called to speak, at least a couple of us were not, but that would not have altered the overall balance in the debate. The bulk of SWP members seem happy to go along with the view that this is a left/right battle and they know which side they’re on. There is a tendency for dubious contentions to be seized upon and repeated until you believe them. The SWP’s style of polemic is not its finest feature.

As for my intentions, I have been an SWP member for 17 years, but frankly I’ve had enough. This is a bit of a wrench for me, since I feel that I learnt the core political ideas and principles that I hold from the SWP. But for some years I have felt my belief in the good things that the party does being qualified by frustrations at its practises and methods. I agreed with many of the points made by John Molyneux when he challenged the CC at conference a couple of years ago (and was disappointed to see him backing the leadership so fulsomely at the weekend), but his words went unheeded. I have come to realise that without a more open and democratic approach, it will never be the party it wants to be; the party the radical left needs. I will stay in Respect and align myself with those who want an inclusive, democratic party that fights for peace, justice, equality and socialism.

[rob9443]

Shades of the Judean People's Front yet again. What is it with the left?

[Shoegazer]

In response to the Nick Bird statement (posted by Sacco), I left the SWP recently after more than 20 years active service. I simply could not justify to myself, or anyone else, why I should remain in such an organisation. I joined because they were a relatively large party and I genuinely believed that it would be possible to grow as a result of class struggle during the Thatcher years. However, it became more apparent year by year that this was not going to happen in my lifetime, despite being told repeatedly that 'there is a lot of anger about', and 'there's never been a more exciting time to be a socialist'.
It is my belief that sections of the current leadership have little concept of the reality of the situation the left are finding themseves in at present. The same old culture continues, in spite of local branches falling apart at the seams. This is not the party I joined and I don't feel it's worth staying in any longer.  I just drifted out rather than leaving dramatically over a particular issue, but the root of my disillusionment goes back to the SWPs wrecking of the Socialist Alliance in return for a bit of reflected glory from George Galloway's inflated Stalinist ego.
As I said in anoher posting, my problem is now finding a way to keep involved in the struggle for socialism. I definitely don't intend to join a smaller sect! The Green Party sometimes look appealing, and some of them are are trying to establish a Left group within it. Any thoughts / comments on this?

[Mike777]

Shoegazer,

I am an ecosocialsit and a member of the England and Wales Green party. A little over a year ago members of the party formed Green Left, an anti capitalist group within the organisation. The aim was to act as an outreach to socialists and leftists and to help the party realise its radical policies through green socialism. We are inspired by writers such as William Morris, Joel Kovel, Maria Mies, Mary Mellor and Michael O'Connor to name just a few. Peter Tatchell is also one of our members. You can contact us through the webpage http://www.greenleft.org.uk/. It needs updating, but we are still active. Also useful blogs by GL members http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/ & http://greenmansoccasional.blogspot.com/

Mike Shaughnessy

[rob9443]

Socialism under the green flag certainly seems a more realistic prospect than latter day Leninist visions at the SWP. I submit that the key is technology - the same green technologies, such as solar panels, that will be vital to avert catastrophic global warming also threaten corporate control over the economy. The utility companies are allergic to a system that would enable ordinary householders to produce their own energy and sell it to the National Grid.

By midcentury a combination of nanotechnoloy, open source and solar power might make much of corporate capitalism redundant. The elite will fight to retain dinosaur industries such as oil for political reasons. Its not just the carbon club that is the problem.

It might be an idea for the green left to argue that it is championing a genuine free market against the dead hand of corporatism and to highlight the relationship between Big Business and Big Government. We could then accuse the reactionaries of practicing a perverted form of socialism by subsidizing dead industries at the taxpayers' expense.

[Brian]

It certainly does seem that now the SWP is up to the same tricks with Respect as with the SA.

In retrospect, those in the Party ,who argued against the SWP overtures to join Respect,have been proved right.

The Party is still absolutely tiny, and though it is growing and recovering from the 1980s debacle,and the Morning Star goes from strength to strength, this growth is slow.This is a shame , as the party has a much more mature approach than the sectarian adventurism of the ultra-left.

A few years ago I was told, by somebody who is in a position to know these things,that Respect is a shabby deal between Galloway and the SWP.So I am not surprised that it is starting to fall apart - and not too sad after learning that German is standing for London Mayor next time!

While the Party remains as emaciated as it is, I do hope that the proposed Green left can show a greater maturity towards the TU mvt  -especially towards winning over unions TOGETHER,if this becomes necessary,rather than as part of a huge exercise in fragmentation.
The latter will only realise a long-standing ruling-class wet dream:the exclusion of the TU mvt from Parliament and the monopolisation of the mainstream political system by big business.


yours,

Brian Precious

[Mike777]

The Latest from Socialist Unity http://socialistunity.com/ looks like the end of Respect as we know it.

The following document has been sent by National Chair of Respect, Linda Smith, to the Respect office in order for it to be circulated to all Respect National Council members.

RESPECT AT THE CROSSROADS
A very serious situation has developed inside Respect, in particular over the past two months. It comes at a time when the need for a broad pluralist organisation of the left has never been greater. The political conditions facing Respect today are even more favourable than when we launched the Coalition in January 2004. Millions remain opposed to the war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Brown has tried to present a different face from Blair, but his support for Bush remains.

Trade union members in key unions like the CWU postal workers union are disgusted with the government. Union members are openly campaigning for the political fund no longer to go to the Labour Party. Where the RMT and the FBU led, other unions will inevitably follow. The RMT are discussing forming their own party and standing their own candidates in the GLA elections next May.

Across the country young people attend political events on issues such as the war, climate change, the arms trade and racism in their thousands. Muslim communities continue to face the lash of popular prejudice. All of these people need a political party, to draw together the growing discontent with the political establishment and especially with New Labour.

Unfortunately, the good work undertaken and achieved by Respect over the last three and a half years is now in danger of being completely undermined by the behaviour of the leadership of the SWP.

On the ground many SWP members have worked alongside other members of Respect to great effect.

However, it has become clear over the last two months, and the last two weeks in particular, that the actions of the SWP leadership imperil the very existence of Respect as a broad, pluralistic and democratic left alternative to New Labour. Since the letter from George Galloway, which echoed some of the criticisms others had been making earlier, was sent to the members of the National Council on August 23, the SWP leadership have demonstrated that they are incapable of engaging in open and frank discussion with those who have disagreements with them.

The chain of events in this crisis is contrary to the ethos which Respect has been seeking to develop and which is reflected in its constitution: “Respect is a broad, open and inclusive organisation… It is politically pluralistic and will encourage all its members to participate in its campaigns and activities”.

George Galloway’s letter criticised aspects of the way Respect has been run, and proposed some changes, in particular the appointment of a new post of national organiser to work alongside John Rees, the National Secretary. Behind the national organiser proposal was an attempt to bring more diversity to Respect and to start to restore confidence in the way the national office functioned. This proposal - and indeed the letter itself - was responded to with great hostility by John Rees and the leadership of the SWP, who characterised this as a part of a right wing attack on the left in Respect. Salma Yaqoob’s document “Challenges for Respect” refuted this and the outrageous allegations of communalism, which the SWP leadership had raised.

In fact, the real issue is whether Respect develops as a pluralist organisation in which no single component part dominates or controls.

The National Council on September 22 unanimously reaffirmed the principle of accountability throughout the organisation, including the elected leadership and elected representatives. The National Organiser issue was debated for several hours by the NC on September 22, adjourned to September 29, where agreement was eventually reached that the post would be of equal status and there was consensus that Nick Wrack take up the post on a temporary basis, if he could.

Following the circulation of an email by John Rees calling for suggestions about the National Organiser’s position Alan Thornett added his support to the proposals from Victoria Brittain and George Galloway that Nick take up the post until conference. Nick was instructed by the SWP Central Committee to withdraw his name. When he refused he was expelled from the SWP. At the same time Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoveman were instructed by the SWP Central Committee to resign their full-time employment with George Galloway’s office. Had they resigned it would have seriously disrupted the work of our only MP’s office. When they refused they were also expelled. from the SWP.

On Monday October 15 a national officers meeting with a built-in SWP majority voted against Nick taking up the National Organiser’s post and set aside the issue until conference. The same meeting voted against appointing Ian Donovan and Ghada Razuki to the Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC). The following night Tuesday October 16 there was a meeting of the (CAC), at which Linda Smith, the national chair of Respect, raised the issue of the constitutionality of the CAC itself (which has never been endorsed by the NC).

She also asked for the membership and financial records of the student members. She was unable to get such records or resolve the problem of the CAC itself. The same night, October 16, there was a major dispute in Tower Hamlets Respect branch at which the business of the meeting could not be concluded. Most of the 110 members present on the night left the meeting believing that the issues were to be resolved at a committee meeting to be held two days later. SWP members and a few others stayed behind and purported to vote through a completely unrepresentative list of delegates to the national conference.

At the committee meeting two days later the committee voted to reconvene the all members meeting to settle the delegate question. The SWP’s 10 committee members opposed this and when defeated walked out. Astonishingly, a letter was sent out from the Respect national office at 1.35am that night containing a “transcript” of the committee meeting with a subject line containing obscenities.

On Friday October 19 attempts were made by the SWP to block the election of delegates in Birmingham. Meanwhile the SWP has sent out a circular instructing its members to get delegated to conference.

The passwords to the membership database and office email have been changed and the National Chair has not been given access to them.

All these actions have struck a huge blow at the unity of Respect and put a legitimate conference in jeopardy.

We are appealing to members of Respect to support us in defending the coalition’s plurality. We can no longer allow Respect to be jeopardised by one section.

SIGNATORIES
Linda Smith, National Chair
Cllr Salma Yaqoob, National Vice-Chair
Ken Loach, National Council
Victoria Brittain, National Council
Yvonne Ridley, National Council
Abdurahman Jafar - Muslim Council of Britain
Abdul Khaliq Mian - National Council Member Newham
Clive Searle - National Council Member Manchester
Mobeen Azhar - National Council Member Manchester
Berny Parkes – National Council Member Dorset
John Lister - National Council Member
Nick Wrack, National Council Memberr
Cllr Abjol Miah, National Council and leader Respect group Tower Hamlets council
Alan Thornett, National Council London
Rita Carter, National Council London
Dr Mohammed Naseem, National Council Member Birmigham
Ger Francis, National Council Member Birmingham
Ayesha Bajwa, National Council Tower Hamlets
George Galloway MP, National Council
Abdul Karim Sheik - Leader of Respect Group of Councillors Newham
Hanif - Newham Councillor
Mamun Rashid - Tower Hamlets Councillor
Abdul Munim – Tower Hamlets Councillor
Dulal Miah - Tower Hamlets Councillor
Haroun Miah - Tower Hamlets Councillor
Fuzol Miah - Tower Hamlets Councillor
Mohammed Ishtiaq - Birmingham Councillor

[nittynora]

I recieved 2 emails last night from RESPECT including the one in the previous post and this....

An Appeal to Respect members

There is a crisis in Respect and we are appealing to you to help us resolve it. Please read this appeal and show your support by signing it.

There is now overwhelming evidence that the democratic structures of Respect are being circumvented and marginalised. Some national officers are attempting to unilaterally by-pass the existing democratic structures of Respect and to witch-hunt socialists including the SWP.

In order to justify this, accusations are being made that the national officers group is dominated by the SWP when only 7 of its 16 members are in the SWP. It should be also be noted that the National Council of Respect is composed of 50 members only a minority of whom are members of the SWP.

There are attempts being made by some national officers to refuse Student Respect groups any representation at the national conference on the same basis as they were elected last year despite the decision by the national officers earlier this year that Student Respect groups would be allowed to elect delegates to conference.

In Tower Hamlets hundreds of new members have been registered in the last month, many of them in huge batches brought to office by a small number of individuals and virtually all at the concessionary membership rate. The decisions of a properly constituted branch meeting has been overturned by a margin of just one vote on the Tower Hamlets committee, attempts have been made to dismiss elected officers and a witch hunt of the left has begun.

In other places members meetings are being called without informing the existing officers and SWP members are being excluded from them.

Even more seriously there is a campaign of vilification of the left in Respect that can only result in Respect's destruction as a serious left wing force.

We call on Respect members to demand that the forthcoming national conference call a halt to this camapign and re-establish the democratic culture of Respect. We call on all members to stand together in defence of Respect as a democratic, radical left wing project capable of mounting a principled challenge to New Labour.


Councillor Oli Rahman (Tower Hamlets), Councillor Rania Khan (Tower Hamlets), Councillor Lutfa Begum (Tower Hamlets), Councillor Ahmed Hussain (Tower Hamlets), Councillor Michael Lavalette (Preston), Councillor Ray Holmes (Bolsover), Elaine Graham Leigh (National Treasurer), John Rees (National Secretary), Sait Akgul (National Officer), Helen Salmon (National Council member), Jackie Turner (National Council member), Dominic Alexander (Tottenham Respect), Lindsey German (Respect Mayoral candidate), Chris Bambery (National Council member), Jeannie Robinson (National Council, Chesterfield), Tony Dowling (National Council, Newcastle), Paul Fredericks (GLA candidate), Carmel Brown (National Committee, Liverpool), Mehdi Hassan (National Council, Tower Hamlets), Maxine Bowler (National Council, Sheffield).

To add your name reply to: respectappeal@gmail.com

a list of 552 names

[steve p]

For those of us on the outside, the detailed issues are almost irrelevant - this is all too depressingly familiar. What is it about the left and its historical inability to find common ground (other than, it seems, at the point of a gun)?

[nittynora]

Email received Oct 29th 2007 at 4pm from Respect Coalition...... (A Busted Flush...)

Our answer to the alleged “witch hunt” in Respect

Last Friday 26 October a letter titled “Respect Appeal against the witch hunt” went out to all members from the Respect National Office.

We deplore the fact that the letter, which has been circulating through non-Respect channels for a week by the SWP, is titled “Respect appeal against witch-hunting” as though it had some kind of official sanction. It has never been agreed at either the National Executive or the National Council. It is not a “Respect Appeal”.

We, as members of the Respect National Council who are not members of the Socialist Workers Party, wish to answer this petition.

There is no witch-hunt against “socialists including the SWP” in Respect.

The letter claims there “is now overwhelming evidence that the democratic structures of Respect are being circumvented and marginalized” and that “some national officers are attempting to unilaterally by-pass the existing democratic structures of Respect and to witch-hunt socialists including the SWP.”

No evidence is provided to substantiate these or any of the other claims in the letter.

Unfortunately, it is the SWP leadership which is orchestrating a campaign of misinformation against George Galloway and others of us who disagree with them.

The SWP leadership carried an editorial in last week’s edition of their paper Socialist Worker, publicly attacking George Galloway: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13331

At no time has George Galloway or any one of us attacked the SWP in the national media. Regrettably, as a result of the SW editorial an article about divisions within Respect appeared in yesterday’s Observer.

We reject the other accusations made in the letter:

The SWP leadership is attempting to delegate students to the Respect conference where there is no entitlement to these delegates. We have no objection at all to student delegates properly elected according to the constitution.

We completely disagree with the interpretation of events in Tower Hamlets. SWP members there prevented a members’ meeting from electing delegates and then purported to elect an unrepresentative list of delegates at an unconstitutional meeting held when the overwhelming majority of members had left.

We no longer have confidence that the conference called for 17/18 November will be validly constituted.

We are shocked that access to the Respect database and therefore communication to Respect members was denied to the chair, Linda Smith, and the vice-chair, Salma Yacoob, when the access codes were changed unilaterally by the SWP leadership. Only under pressure has that information been released.

We further deplore the fact that four councillors in Tower Hamlets split from Respect on Thursday evening, a fact they announced in a widely circulated press release. The four include two members of the SWP and two close allies. They are, in fact, the first four signatories to the SWP’s ‘Respect Appeal against the witch hunt”.

Instead of deploring the split by these councillors and asking them to rejoin Respect, SWP members in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere are supporting this step.

We, however, remain absolutely committed to the principles and policies of Respect as contained in our founding statement, subsequent manifestos and conference decisions: Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unions.

Yours in solidarity,

Linda Smith, National Chair
Salma Yaqoob, National Vice Chair

Mobeen Azhar, National Council
Ayesha Bajwa, National Council
Victoria Brittain, National Council
Rita Carter, National Council
Ger Francis, National Council
George Galloway MP, National Council
Jerry Hicks, National Council
Abdurahman Jafar, National Council
Abdul Khaliq, National Council
John Lister, National Council
Ken Loach, National Council
Abjol Miah, National Council, Leader of Tower Hamlets Respect Councillors Group
Bernie Parkes, National Council
Yvonne Ridley, National Council
Clive Searle, National Council
Alan Thornett, National Council
Nick Wrack, National Council

For more information contact nick.wrack@tooks.co.uk; lindablackpool@hotmail.com; kevin.ovenden@gmail.com; robhoveman@yahoo.co.uk.

See also the letter sent out to all members on 26 October titled “Statement from elected representatives and National Council members - Respect at the Crossroads”.