SWP and George Galloway on a Collision Course?

[conspiracy analyst]

George Galloway
demands the scalp of
John Rees - so do we
Following the failure of the SWP to reach an accommodation with George Galloway, is John Rees now preparing for a final showdown at Respect’s annual conference in November? Peter Manson reports on the latest developments
Fighting fund
What a difference

After last week’s - shall we say - slow start our September fighting fund has at last begun to pick up steam.

Pride of place among this week’s donors is comrade JK, who contributed a greatly appreciated £50. Just behind him in the generosity stakes is GH, who stumped up £40 using her credit card. She was just one of 30,646 visitors who read us online last week.

Mention must also go to BV (£25), HF and SM (£20 each), together with JH, DR and TU, who all contributed a tenner. All of which adds up to a pretty useful £185. And our total so far for the month? Strangely enough, also £185. What a difference a week makes.

OK, so we have done well, but our monthly target is £500 - a target that allows us to do no more than meet our running costs - and almost half the month has already gone. The same sort of mailbag for the next two weeks would please me no end - as would a good few more gifts using our PayPal facility.

Thanks to all who donated this week. Who can help emulate them?

Robbie Rix

Click here to download a standing order form - regular income is particular important in order to plan ahead. Even £5/month can help!
Send cheques, payable to Weekly Worker, BCM Box 928, London WC1N 3XX
Donate online:

Last week’s emergency meeting between the Socialist Workers Party’s top leaders and George Galloway did nothing to stop the brewing civil war inside Respect nor resolve the crisis afflicting the SWP itself.

John Rees, Alex Callinicos, Chris Bambery, Chris Harman, Lindsey German and Linda Smith met with Galloway on Tuesday September 4. But instead of relations being patched up things have gone from bad to worse. Far from reaching some amicable agreement, the meeting ended sourly with Galloway insisting that John Rees must be junked. He wants him replaced as Respect national secretary forthwith. Indeed Galloway spent most of his time railing against Rees: his arrogance, his blunders, his despicable treatment of fellow Respect members, etc. So, yes, this is personal - very personal. Galloway loathes the SWP chief with a rare passion.

But now the SWP political committee is hitting back against Galloway and his loose factional grouping. Members are being readied for what looks like a final showdown at Respect’s annual conference in two months time. Expect revelations. Expect bureaucratic manoeuvring. Expect fireworks. Expect walkouts.

The SWP requested the meeting with Galloway following the circulation (and widespread publication on the web) of his document, ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times’. Here Galloway blamed the “steep decline” in Respect membership squarely on the SWP. He pointedly listed the crimes and misdemeanours of the SWP (without naming it directly):

l not following through national council decisions when they did not coincide with SWP priorities;

l appointing its own people to staff the Respect office without any “proper basis”;

l being responsible for the “anathematisation” of those like Salma Yaqoob who have criticised SWP practice.

Not that Galloway is a democrat or that he favours accountability and open debate. In fact he proposes a shift in control away from the elected national committee with its effective SWP majority. He demands a “new, high-powered elections committee”, where he and his current allies - Yaqoob, Yvonne Ridley, Alan Thornett of the International Socialist Group and Abjol Miah, leader of Tower Hamlets Respect councillors - would call the shots. Whereas the SWP would be allowed four seats on this august body, they could always be countered and trumped by Galloway’s five-strong, islamist-left reformist-Trotskyite alliance.
Rees counterattack

Following the failed SWP-Galloway meeting the SWP began its series of pre-arranged members’ aggregates so as to prepare its counterattack. The first took place in the University of London’s Manning Hall on Friday September 7. Officially it holds 300, but it was packed to overflowing. Many inactive members, often deeply disillusioned by the whole Respect popular-frontist turn, emerged from the woodwork. They were somewhat resentfully welcomed by Chris Bambery.

Starting at 6pm, the whole thing lasted for just on four hours - revealingly long for the SWP. There were two introductory speeches. Comrade Rees dealt with the political differences with Galloway and the Tower Hamlets councillors. Comrade Callinicos dealt with the breakdown in personal relations - George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob are virtually on non-speaking terms with John Rees. Galloway was lambasted as a being a law unto himself. Yaqoob was dismissed as a self-seeking careerist.

Of course, once John and George appeared almost inseparable. Galloway travelled in Rees’s SWP car to rallies and meetings where they were booked as joint speakers. Now George says he will work with any other SWP leader, but not him. And if Rees is not replaced Galloway is threatening to bypass him through the appointment of a national organiser, answerable to his proposed elections committee, not the NC.

Much of what Rees and Callinicos said has already been in the public domain due to the Weekly Worker: Galloway goes off and does his own thing without informing his party, the Big brother episode being the most obvious example; he has sided with the businessmen’s wing of Respect in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham instead of lining up with the SWP to defend Respect’s left populist, anti-war, anti-privatisation programme.

Also, according to comrade Rees, Galloway is focussing too much on a possible early general election, instead of concentrating on getting Lindsey German elected to the Greater London Assembly next May - after all, a general election need not happen till 2010.
Divergent interests

From Galloway’s point of view, however, the general election is the priority - what if Brown decides on this autumn or next spring? This is particularly pertinent since Galloway announced his decision to stand again for Westminster, ending all speculation about the Scottish or European parliaments, or about concentrating on his media career.

He announced on his Talk Sport radio show the day after Respect’s victory in the August 9 Shadwell by-election that he wants to challenge Labour’s Jim Fitzpatrick for the Poplar and Limehouse seat, adjacent to Bethnal Green and Bow (Shadwell ward is now part of the Limehouse constituency, following boundary changes). Or rather he is to “seek the nomination” for the seat.

To get elected in Poplar and Limehouse Galloway will once more need the support of the Bengali businessmen and ‘community leaders’ who helped him win in Bethnal Green. Remember, before the 2005 general election he began his preparations for the contest by winning support from leading politicians in Bangladesh itself. That is why he has no thought of alienating their supporters by backing the SWP in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham. What does it matter if Bengali businessmen, shopkeepers and localists get elected for Respect? Think of George’s career.

It is this tension that lies at the heart of Respect’s crisis - and that of the SWP. Chris Bambery railed against Galloway for allowing a situation where earlier this year Respect in Birmingham selected “seven Asian men” and not one SWPer for the local elections - Helen Salmon was outvoted by the supporters of businessman Yasir Idris, who was selected ahead of her as candidate for Moseley and Kings Heath ward. It was this incident that led to the first public murmurings of discontent by the SWP leadership (in the form of a Socialist Worker report). And this is what triggered the bitter falling out with Salma Yaqoob.

Other SWP leaders who addressed the London aggregate contrasted Respect’s good internal relations in Preston and elsewhere with those in Birmingham and London’s East End in particular. Paul McGarr bitterly complained about how terrible things have become - yes, councillors Ahmed Hussain and Lufta Begum have joined the SWP. However, most of the others just do their own thing. Newly elected Harun Miah - the businessman who secured the nomination for Shadwell in preference to the SWP-backed Sultana Begum - has yet to make an appearance in the council chamber. One month after his election.

Rank and file members too recounted their horror stories, Alex Callinicos sat with his head in his hands, through most of this. John Rees stared stony-faced. Many spoke about the need to “draw a line in the sand” against those referred to by one angry SWP comrade as the “reactionary elements” in Respect. There had been too many compromises. Far too many. One comrade said that, apart from the tiny pro-SWP minority, the only thing Respect councillors were prepared to do for striking postal workers was give them free curries! Another complained of the connections of Respect group leader Abjol Miah with Islamic Forum Europe - an islamist organisation and hardly left-moving.
* or bust

The November 17-18 Respect conference will be, in the words of Chris Bambery, “* or bust”. Members were told in no uncertain terms that the SWP must have a large and solid majority. In previous years, the effective SWP majority has been clear enough, but the organisation has facilitated the sizable presence of ‘on message’ independents. This year the fear is that even previously ‘reliable’ non-SWPers might overwhelmingly side with Galloway if push comes to shove.

In itself, securing the majority it wants should not be a problem, since, apart from in east London and Birmingham, there is no major branch where the SWP is not in charge. However, a block of delegates (one for every 10 members) from those two areas, plus independents elected from other branches, might lead to an embarrassingly large pro-Galloway showing.

However, if Rees does go for overwhelmingly SWP-dominated delegations, that will have its cost in terms of further resignations and desertions. Already what is left of the non-SWP activists are frustrated by the on-off nature of the so-called ‘unity coalition’ - in many areas Respect effectively closes down in between elections.

Comrade Rees also stands to lose a section of his own cadre which has been ‘going native’. Rob Hoveman, a former SWP full-timer who now works in Respect’s national office, defended Galloway at the aggregate. He suggested that the central committee was overreacting, and exaggerating difficulties. Knowing Hoveman as we do, he will stay loyal to the SWP machine. He is not an independent thinker or a likely defector in the mould of Ger Francis in Birmingham.

For many rank-and-filers, however, it was a strange experience to hear first-hand, from their own leaders, about the scandals, the rotten compromises, the alien class influences they have read about only in the Weekly Worker. ‘So it’s all true’ was the conclusion many were reluctantly coming to. They know now that they have been systematically and deliberately lied to. After all, Bambery’s Socialist Worker has fed them an endless diet of Respect’s successes.

Nevertheless, sadly, the majority of the rank and file remain content to act as parrots. Clearly any effective revolt must begin above. The most frequent phrase of the night was taken directly from Party notes, the SWP’s internal bulletin compiled by the loathsome national organiser, Martin Smith. “Keep the show on the road” was the oft repeated trope. But this only serves to highlight the crisis confronting Respect. You get the feeling that not at few amongst the SWP leadership are itching to ditch Respect - there is vague talk of another, bigger, project.

Up until now the SWP political committee has seemed ready to sacrifice almost anything in its desperate attempt to get a few of its own comrades elected into positions of influence. Rees ordered his comrades to vote down women’s and gay rights, republicanism, open borders, workers’ representatives on a worker’s wage, proletarian socialism, etc. All in the name of “making a difference” and getting councillors, GLA members, MPs and MEPs.

The inevitable result is ideological crisis - not only in Respect, but the SWP too. We in the CPGB call upon Respect to rid itself of its islamist, businessmen’s, patriarchal wing. November must see the expulsion of all those who refuse to accept secularism, democracy, proletarian socialism and women’s and gay rights. But we go further. The SWP must expel all the political committee advocates of Respect as a popular front.

Therefore, we too demand the scalp of John Rees - the Tony Blair of the SWP

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/688/respect.htm

[conspiracy analyst]

Galloway on tv horseing around ...literally with the unemployed parasites of a previous era.

Hes definitely on the make as he is going to stand as an MP again despite announcing last time he was resigning...

[conspiracy analyst]

The Debate in Respect: The SWP Response


The SWP is deeply committed to the Respect project. If a snap general election was called next month we would throw our all into campaigning to secure the election of every and all Respect candidates. We will be working to build up our campaigns for next years GLA and local elections.

We share a sense of pride, along with all those in Respect’s ranks, to have one of the youngest councillors in Britain, a Bengali woman, and a pensioner representing a Derbyshire council seat whose name resonates with a history of working class struggle.

So it is with a deep sense of regret that we have to address differences which have emerged between the way George Galloway sees Respect developing and the way we see it, following the sending of a document by George to members of Respect’s National Council.

The enemies of Respect have, unfortunately seized on this, with the ‘East London Advertiser’ reporting this as an attack on the SWP claiming:
‘He [George Galloway] is believed to want to move Respect away from the Socialist Workers Party groupings that have been upsetting Muslim supporters who he needs in order to maintain his Westminster career.’
George has since then issued a rebuttal saying his document is not “an attack on any organisation or section within Respect”.

Regarding the three points with which George concludes his document – the strengthening of the Respect national office by the appointment of a national organiser, the creation of an elections committee and an end to the supposed ‘anathematisation’ of Salma Yaqoob - we hope that it will be possible to come to agreement around the three proposals raised by George and have made it clear we are happy to discuss these. But, tragically, the argument has been pushed beyond that and beyond this simply being a discussion of how to improve and strengthen Respect.
A Record of Success

The success that followed the launch of Respect was staggering. In the June 2004 GLA and European elections George Galloway got 91,175 votes for the European Parliament in London while the Respect list polled 87,533 in the Greater London Assembly (which meant Lindsey German came just short of the 5% needed to win a seat) while Respect got 20% of the vote in East London in the GLA elections. In Birmingham Respect averaged 7.4% and in Leicester 10% in the Euro elections.

In the June 2004 Leicester South and Birmingham Hodge Hill parliamentary by-elections Respect candidates Yvonne Ridley and John Rees polled 12.4% and 6.4% respectively.

In Tower Hamlets Oliur Rahman won our first council seat in August 2004 and a month later Paul McGarr polled 635 votes in Tower Hamlets Millwall ward, coming second behind the Tory winner who gained 828 votes, and pushing New Labour into third place.

Then in the 2005 general election not only did George Galloway secure a truly historic victory in Bethnal Green and Bow but it was accompanied by strong votes in Birmingham Sparkbrook, both Newham seats and in Canning Town and Poplar.

In May last year success followed with councillors elected in Tower Hamlets, where we are the second biggest party, Newham and Birmingham. That was followed this year with Michael Lavalette storming home to win an overall majority in his ward, another councillor elected in Birmingham to join Salma Yaqoob and Ray Holmes winning Shirebrook North West on Bolsover council. Significant advances were made elsewhere from Bristol to Cambridge to Sheffield.

Then in August a tremendous effort ensured we held the Shadwell council seat in a by-election caused by the defection of one our councillors to New Labour. That made up for much of the disappointment of the Southall parliamentary by-election where the established parties squeezed us in a snap poll following Gordon Brown’s anointment as Labour leader.
The Nature of Respect

Respect was conceived as a pluralistic coalition and therefore has always been based on compromises among its main constituent parts. The SWP has made plenty of compromises and is ready to make more in the future. But we fear that what is being demanded of us now would amount to the subordination of the socialist left within Respect and would therefore drastically undermine Respect’s nature as a genuine coalition.

Respect grew from the coalition of forces at the centre of the great anti-war movement, which organised Britain’s biggest ever demonstration against the invasion of Iraq – and so much more. Naturally not everyone in the Stop the War Coalition was prepared to take the step of joining the new coalition but many of the leading figures in the movement did take that step.

Unfortunately Labour has not suffered the kind of mass defection which took place in Germany with trade union leaders and prominent members of the SPD breaking away to create the new Left Party. Rather, New Labour has seen a haemorrhaging of its membership and support with people leaving individually.

Respect was thrown out of balance from the start by the failure of other leading figures on the Labour left to take the kind of principled stand that George did and break with New Labour. This made Respect disproportionately dependent on the excellent support it won from Muslims, as became particularly clear in last year’s London elections. It is the effort of the SWP, in response to this weakness, to widen and diversify Respect’s working-class support that George and his allies have been attacking.
Respect and the Remaking of the Left & the Working Class

For the SWP it was vital Respect broke the pattern of left wing candidates securing one or two percent of the vote. That meant concentrating forces in our strongest areas to guarantee success. After this year’s elections we argued at the Respect National Council we now had to move beyond that to ensure we developed into a truly national force.

Yet Respect was for us something else:

We have always understood the deep Labourist tradition within the British working class will not just be swept away with one blow. Respect has the potential to become a long term home for traditional Labour supporters who are in revolt against their leadership’s pro-war and neo-liberal policies.
.
For us the coalition was premised on it bringing together the dynamic forces at the heart of the anti-war movement, forces which also represented a potential new tide of class fighters. These forces were caricatured from the start by the B-52 left as being a Muslim-Trotskyist alliance. Yet the lists which contested the 2004 Euro and GLA elections brought together much more – experienced trade union activists, African-Caribbean figures, candidates from the Turkish & Kurdish community, women and LGBT activists, pensions fighters and student campaigners.
A Fight Not of Our Choice

This is a fight the SWP did not choose. We chose not to rush into print with a reply to George and approached George on a number of occasions to secure a meeting with him to try to discuss the issues raised.

Eventually a meeting was held on 4 September between SWP representatives (John Rees, Lindsey German, Alex Callinicos & Chris Bambery), George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob, Ger Francis, Abjol Miah, Linda Smith and Glyn Robbins.

It is important to say that at this meeting we made it clear we were happy to discuss and come to consensus on the three proposals George concludes his letter with – and that remains the case.

That, however, was not what the meeting centred on. This was not an argument or discussion about how best to build Respect. In a 30 minute introduction George discussed his proposals for five minutes and then the rest on attacking John Rees.

The main plank of this was an attack on us for ‘endangering the whole project’ by our actions in Shadwell, in particular by our support at the selection meeting for a young woman Bengali candidate rather than the eventual winner, Harun Miah. This was true but it should of course be added that it did not stop us throwing everything we could into support for Councillor Miah, a fact demonstrated by the thanks we received afterwards from both him and Abjol Miah.

In the discussion that followed George’s introduction both Salma and Abjol called for John Rees to resign with Abjol calling for ‘a complete change of leadership.’

The SWP representatives made clear they were happy to discuss George’s three proposals but were not prepared to swallow demands for John Rees’s resignation.

This is not just a question of loyalty to a comrade who has pursued a strategy on which the SWP is in agreement. The attack is not on John but on the SWP - as the emphasis on Shadwell indicates.

If, say, we were prepared to accept this demand any replacement National Secretary could face a similar ultimatum in event of future disagreements.
So what is at stake here?

In Preston and Newham in particular Respect has built itself into a force representing that original vision of Respect. Michael Lavalette has acted as a real ‘tribune of the oppressed’ organising locally in defence of the NHS, in opposition to the invasion of Lebanon and over a host of local issues. Recently he helped organise an OFFU social which drew 70 local trade union representatives. That model is in the process of being repeated in areas where Respect has a strong possibility of getting councillors elected following advances in this year’s local elections – Bristol, Cambridge and Sheffield are among them.

We all shared a vision of Respect as being a broad coalition. It is our enemies who are so intent as portraying it as an ‘Islamo-Trot’ marriage of convenience. What we fear is a withdrawal into the electoral common sense that only particular ‘community leaders’ can win in certain areas.

In Tower Hamlets it was important Respect had councillors elected from the Muslim community – representatives of the most oppressed community in Britain – but it would have been good to have returned other candidates too, who reflected the totality of the working class in the East End.

In Birmingham in the seven target seats in May’s local elections, those with the greatest chance of achieving election, the candidates selected were all men from the Pakistani community. Helen Salmon was voted out of being the candidate for Moseley & Kings Heath ward. (See Socialist Worker 3 February 2007, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=10591)

That is something we opposed but when we lost we accepted the result and continued to strive to build Respect locally.

At the recent meeting with George and others we were told by Abjol that a white candidate would not be able to win a seat in Whitechapel for ten years. We were put under pressure to support Abjol’s nomination for the Bethnal Green & Bow seat being vacated by George. At least two other challengers are in the ring, one the young Bengali woman councillor previously mentioned and the other a long time Bengali Labour activist. It is perfectly acceptable for us or anyone else in Respect to vote for one candidate and if they are unsuccessful to then campaign loyally whoever wins the nomination.
What’s Changed, What’s not Changed

In his document George argues:
‘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.’

Well the answer is yes and no. The war remains central but other issues have gained in importance. Blair has gone to be replaced by Brown and while we dismiss the hype about the ‘Brown bounce,’ the replacement of Blair has had a certain impact, in particular rallying dissident union leaders.

We face the strong possibility of there being a general election between now and next spring but that was not at the centre of the 4 September meeting.

In the Muslim community the battery of security laws has helped intimidate people while Brown and Livingstone have consciously attempted to co-opt Muslim leaders in a way Blair never could.

On the plus side there is growing unrest over pay, with Brown trying to police his public sector pay limit. On the post and Metronet picket lines we saw the wider politicisation filtering down as activists were open to the need to mount a radical challenge to New Labour in a way that wasn’t true two or three years ago.

George’s document makes considerable criticism of the Organising for Fighting Unions initiative, although this was decided upon by Respect’s highest bodies. Yet the whole initiative was premised on the need to expand Respect’s base of support within the organised working class and to re-connect with a layer of trade unionists who are not yet ready to embrace Respect.

Similarly the criticism of Respect’s intervention on this year’s Pride seems strange given that since the SWP started going on Pride two decades and more ago Labour, the Lib-Dems and major trade unions have been consistently represented on it. The criticism is even stranger given the slander constantly thrown at Respect by our enemies that because of Respect’s support in the Muslim community it is somehow soft on homophobia.

That need to extend Respect’s base of support is something SWP members believe is vital. That’s why we encouraged the local meetings on gun crime, which drew a good response from the African-Caribbean community and beyond.

The original vision of Respect lay behind the whole selection procedure for the GLA that has seen a list of candidates that reflect fully the London working class. A retreat into a party whose elected representatives are overwhelmingly male and Muslim would be to retreat into the caricature of us drawn by our opponents. It would be also unacceptable not just for socialists but for so many who come from the trade unions, from Labour backgrounds and from the anti-war, women’s and so many other movements.

We want to fight for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, Trade Unionism.

The Central Committee

[PaulStott]

There's only two outcomes to this:

1. The SWP climbing down and accepting the direction GG has been taking Respect in

2. The SWP losing and walking.

George can more than outdo the SWP in an internal fight.

If it comes down to meetings, GG and the Asian businessmen around him can pack a meeting far more easily than the SWP.

Anyone who has been involved in the left for any amount of time (as I have) is loving the irony of the SWP complaining about meetings being "packed" and seeing a danger in supporting "community leaders'..... oh the irony!

[conspiracy analyst]