SWP ditches Respect and Galloway?

[conspiracy analyst]

Fighting over the corpse
It is now only a matter of weeks, if not days, before there is a national parting of the ways. Peter Manson reports on the imminent demise of Respect
Fighting fund
Simple matter

Open and ever intensifying warfare has engulfed Respect from top to bottom. Beyond a shadow of doubt the death of the ‘unity coalition’ is not far off. And only a few weeks ago Chris Bambery was assuring readers of Socialist Worker that there was no crisis in Respect (September 29). No wonder his paper has the same reputation as Pravda for telling the truth.

The final battle in the Respect popular front is being fought out by two very different armies. The Socialist Workers Party now stands virtually alone. Though still a formidable force, under the brilliant John Rees the SWP has managed to lose virtually all of its allies. Pitted against him and the SWP is more or less everything else left in Respect. The muslim businessmen’s wing, the International Socialist Group, the independent soft lefts, etc. Headed by George Galloway, Linda Smith, the national chair, and Salma Yaqoob, vice chair, they want the SWP to go its own way and leave Respect to them.

The two sides are now so busy hurling polemical tirades against each other that little matters such as updating the website and preparing for the November 17-18 annual conference have virtually been abandoned. In fact it is now almost certain that the conference itself will be abandoned. That, or it will be a purely SWP affair.

A boycott by the Galloway camp now seems likely. In one of a series of emails to members signed by Galloway, Smith and their allies on the national council, the anti-SWP camp declares: “We no longer have confidence that the conference called for November 17-18 will be validly constituted” (October 29).

Tactically that is a mistaken approach. The Galloway wing has nothing to lose by fighting it out politically with the SWP at conference. The Rees army could buckle and even crack. But the Galloway wing in an eclectic hodge podge politically … and is obviously incapable of anything more than backroom deals, organisational manoeuvres and constitutional protests.
Tower Hamlets split

The split in Respect is more than symbolised by Tower Hamlets. Four of the 11 councillors announced on October 26 that they had resigned the Respect whip and formed the Respect (Independent) group on the council. Two of them - Lufta Begum and Ahmed Hussain - are SWP members, while the other two - Oli Rahman and Rania Khan - are firmly in the SWP camp. In fact their non-membership seems to be for purely diplomatic reasons.

In a deliberate move to ensure that the Tower Hamlets split had the maximum impact, comrade Rees (backed up by fellow SWP leader Lindsey German) actually spoke at the October 29 press conference called by the breakaway councillors. Claiming he was only attending to discuss national matters, he tried to make out that the Tower Hamlets splinter was purely a matter for the four councillors concerned. In a display of blatant hypocrisy he played the ‘responsible leader’ and denied a split in Respect was on the cards.

In fact, as revealed by Linda Smith, secret negotiations have been going on (circular, October 31). There were two meetings between the warring sides - on October 25 and 28. The aim was to agree an “amicable” separation. The principal stumbling block appeared to be who would get the Respect name. Then came the Tower Hamlets breakaway and press conference.

Comrade Rees now calculates that the SWP will have a majority of conference delegates. How secure they would actually be in battle is another matter. But, in the meantime, in order to maintain his control over the SWP rank and file, to close down political debate and to limit organisational damage, he is doing everything he can to provoke the other side into walking away and leave him able to claim victory - no matter how pyhrric.

The four breakaway councillors bizarrely pretend that their resignation was purely a local affair precipitated by internal events in Tower Hamlets mainly concerning councillor Abjol Miah, leader of the Respect group, who is a close ally of Galloway and among the most vociferous opponents of the SWP on Respect’s national council.

Talking to the Weekly Worker, comrade Rahman stated: “I’ve never been a member of the SWP, although I do work closely with various people. I just wanted to put that straight through your paper.” Asked whether the four had consulted with anybody before making their move, he said: “I had a meeting with George and a meeting with John about various things, but we did not discuss whether I should resign the whip or not. That was purely our decision and our decision alone.”

He added: “This was not a national issue nor was it a Tower Hamlets Respect issue. It was an issue for our group of councillors. It was an issue for us to deal with, nobody else.” As far as comrades Begum and Hussain were concerned, “they made their own minds up. Certainly for myself and councillor Khan, we did not take instructions from anybody.”

It is, of course, difficult to accept that comrade Rahman is so naive as to believe their action is not a “national issue”, let alone one for Tower Hamlets Respect. Comrade Rahman tries to reduce the whole question down to personality: “We feel our current leader is lacking in experience. Under his leadership we have lost two councillors, and he hasn’t taken any steps to unite people from all different organisations, backgrounds and race.”

But the problem with Respect was obvious from the beginning. Respect is a popular front taken to party form. The organisation unites and was designed to unite different class forces. Something which necessitates the left, the radical wing, politically subordinating itself to the conservative wing, no matter how small or marginal it happened to be.

Rahman now seems to be dimly aware of this. “The current leader clearly does not work to the principles and values of Respect. He says he values trade unionism, but he still hasn’t joined a union.” What a surprise. He has the same political outlook and uses the same political methods as the Bengali bourgeoisie.

When pressed, comrade Rahman added: “Abjol has one vision of politics and so do we. He is a very nice and talented person in his own way. People know that I come from a trade union background and I know how politics work. I always believed in the values and principles of socialism. I class myself as socialist, muslim, trade unionist and someone from the Bengali community.” But, as for Miah’s own “vision of politics”, comrade Rahman declined to venture an opinion.

The four Respect ‘Independents’ say they were outraged at the behaviour of the businessmen’s wing of Tower Hamlets Respect from where Miah draws his support (although he himself does not run a business). They are incensed by the practice of signing up blocks of what they refer to as “pocket members” immediately prior to key meetings: “There are a lot of talented people who want to make a contribution, but because they haven’t got two grand to make a load of pocket members, they can’t stand for a post. This is not the kind of coalition I want to belong to.” So why did the SWP establish Respect as a popular front and why did Rahman operate as an uncritical loyalist? Why has there been no class struggle politics waged in Tower Hamlets designed to split the Bengali ‘community’?

Instead the SWP has relied on deals and where that has failed has pitted its bureaucratic sect against the patriarchal politics of the Bengali businessmen. But in Tower Hamlets the SWP was always going to lose, and lose badly.

Comrade Rahman described the October 25 members meeting in Tower Hamlets as “chaos”. After endless bickering it started an hour late but ended shortly afterwards. Prominent businessman and Tower Hamlets joint chair Azmal Hussain quickly curtailed debate and called for a vote on the businessmen’s slate of 56 conference delegates proposed by himself. As soon as those in favour had raised their hands he declared the vote carried and closed the meeting - even though, in the confusion, only a minority had voted and he had not even asked for those against.

Rahman states: “People were rude, they were screaming and shouting - this is not the Respect I want to be part of, nor do my three colleagues. After that we were pretty much clear what we wanted to do.”

Comrade Rahman went on: “Since our resignation things have taken a very ugly turn. My window was smashed during the early hours of Saturday morning. The day before that someone knocked on the door and said to my mum - who is very old and not very well - ‘* bitch, open the door!’ She was so scared. Then I get abusive, disgusting phone calls - it shows how low some people are willing to go.”

While Rahman is at pains to emphasise that he is not referring to Abjol Miah or any of the other councillors, he admits: “Certainly there are businessmen who are looking to promote themselves. I cannot accept a millionaire leading Respect - when I represent some of the poorest people in the country what do I say to them when some of the people leading Tower Hamlets Respect have a whole load of money in their bank account? I don’t have a problem with such people joining Respect, but they have to go along with the founding principles. Now we have many people who don’t even understand the founding declaration.
‘My councillors’

Not surprisingly, the smooth-talking and self-important Abjol Miah takes a rather different view. While he is “proud to be someone on the left” and continually refers to Respect as a leftwing party, he is also more than happy with the contribution made by businessmen.

“In Tower Hamlets we have the biggest restaurant/catering industry in the whole of the UK,” he told me. “These are not multi-million-pound businesses. We don’t have a Murdoch in our organisation. Where is it in our constitution that a small, corner-shop businessman can’t join Respect? If a businessman comes into Respect and donates to help the poor and the pensioners, give money to the post workers or provides them with curry … can’t a small businessman do that? Small businesses have been outflanked and used by big, big companies. They are part and parcel of the community.”

As for the allegation about “pocket members”, Miah says: “If I pay for my wife or my dad am I committing a crime? One minute you’re telling us you want more members, the next … They should be proud more people are joining.” The new members can be explained by a “recruitment drive” and the block applications by the fact that “elderly people who cannot come all the way down to Club Row” (where the Respect office is situated) have “given their form to their councillor”.

Like the Respect Independents, Miah makes allegations of incompetence against his ex-colleagues: “My councillors who decided to withdraw from the whip have made their own conscious decision.” However, it has to said that “Oli has been very ineffective.” His case work record is very poor and there have been “numerous complaints from residents”.

Miah stated that these are “petty things which I’m ashamed to say publicly, but we’re in a situation where they’re going around slandering me”. However, he soon moved on to more serious allegations: “Four of my councillors have been very problematic” - not only were they “inactive” with a record of “poor attendance at group meetings”. They were also “disruptive” and “destructive”. What is more, “As soon as there’s a position on a council committee, where there’s some financial incentive, there are problems.” They eventually attempted “a coup” against him by proposing he resigned.

However, Miah’s main fire is reserved for the SWP: “One section of the coalition has been managing the whole organisation with an iron fist. I myself have been isolated. On the one side you have all the national leaders and on the other side the SWP.” But now, with the influx of new members (which Miah believes is taking place all over the country) the SWP can no longer control the party - “something it had not calculated”.

But he is pleased to say that, whereas previously “people had been fighting the SWP on an individual basis, now many people, including grassroots members, are saying. ‘Enough is enough’”. He believes, not without reason, that the SWP is now looking for “an exit strategy”. Which is why it has been “orchestrating a problem” and claiming “Abjol Miah is the devil”.

Nevertheless, with the split imminent, Miah sees a “fantastic future” for Respect. Soon there will be “three or four MPs” and Respect will “take over two local councils”. In Miah’s view Respect is the new “old Labour”.

I put it to him that the situation he is familiar with in Tower Hamlets is hardly typical. In most parts of the country branches are tiny by comparison and meet infrequently. The SWP usually runs the show, treating Respect as one of its on-off ‘united fronts’. When the SWP pulls out, surely such branches will just disappear altogether? He replied: “Do you know how many towns and cities where I’ve got friends and contacts? Other people are the same.” What is more, “The SWP did not make one single white working class recruit in Tower Hamlets. I’ve made a lot, although some of them left because they didn’t like the SWP. I’ve got influence over 500 youth in Tower Hamlets, at least. I see the SWP as baggage, a blockage.”

However, he has reassuring words and profound advice about the post-SWP future: “When you’re in the sea you’re going to face storms. Don’t jump off the boat and don’t be blown away. I say to all my membership, ‘Hold on tight - it’s a rough storm. As soon as we get to the other side it’s going to be calm and we’ll see the horizon.’”

Abjol Miah, like Oli Rahman, is concerned about violence from his opponents - he claims that at some meetings councillors have been “taking their shoes off and threatening people”.

And now he is “taking legal action for libel” against one of his fellow councillors, Rania Khan - “My solicitor’s already made contact with her.” I understand this is over her reported statement about Miah in the Respect Independents’ October 25 press release: “His lack of leadership has led us to lose two councillors and his inappropriate behaviour to women councillors in the group is disgraceful. Councillor Miah has failed to accept the basic [sic] of the party’s principle of a coalition to work with all groups.”

The current degree of animosity is partly why Miah says he wants the November 17-18 conference called off: “How can you have a national conference when we’ve got this level of explosion taking place?”

However, what he really fears is “filling up the whole conference with SWP members”. Unlike in Tower Hamlets, where the delegate selection procedure was carried out in such an exemplary fashion, elsewhere he demands “reassurances” and calls for “all the processes” to be checked.
Email wars

Fear of an SWP majority is the real reason why Galloway, Smith and co want the conference ‘suspended’. Obviously, the SWP is bent on provoking a split and would be delighted if the Galloway camp walked out, leaving it free to close down what it now regards as a dead end. This would be the SWP’s preference, although one suspects that bureaucratic moves initiated against it by the Galloway majority on the NC would be regarded as equally useful in helping to keep the SWP rank and file behind the leadership and allowing it to retreat in more or less good order.

That is why Rees, German and co have been making absurd claims about a “witch-hunt” and mobilising their cadre on this basis. Their ‘An appeal to Respect members’ now has 900 signatures - almost without exception from SWPers, of course. In fact, here we have a roll call of the SWP’s real membership.

Comrades Galloway and Smith were up in arms when Rees used Respect’s own email address to distribute this document throughout the organisation on October 26. Not only that, but they headed the email ‘Respect appeal against witch-hunting’, which the Galloway wing alleges gave the impression that it was an official Respect document.

The appeal claims “overwhelming evidence” that the “democratic structures of Respect are being circumvented and marginalised” and that “Some national officers are attempting to … witch-hunt socialists, including the SWP.” Furthermore, there has been a “campaign of vilification of the left”, which “can only result in Respect’s destruction as a serious leftwing force”.

This appeal was sent out almost simultaneously with a document produced by the NC majority, ‘Respect at the crossroads’, which alleged an SWP attempted coup: passwords to the membership database and office email had been changed “and the national chair has not been given access to them”.

On October 29, comrade Smith, now able to access the Respect email once again, sent out another anti-SWP letter signed by the NC majority. This furiously declared claimed that the SWP’s ‘Respect appeal against witch-hunting’ “has never been agreed at either the national executive or the national council. It is not a ‘Respect appeal’.”

Clearly, the SWP leadership is “orchestrating a campaign of misinformation against George Galloway and others of us who disagree with them”. Further, SWP control over student delegates meant that “We no longer have confidence that the conference called for November 17-18 will be validly constituted.”

Later that day the majority, in another email to members, announced: ‘SWP leadership splitting from Respect’ (October 29). This put its own spin on the press conference called by the Tower Hamlets breakaway. “They announced that they had resigned the Respect whip on the council and were forming a Respect (Independent) party. This is a clear split from Respect.” Furthermore, John Rees “expressed his support for the four breakaway councillors ... he said that Respect (Independent) candidates could be standing against Respect candidates in elections.”

This was incorrect. The four declared they remained “loyal members of Respect” and there was no talk of standing rival candidates.

The email continued: “No party could be expected to tolerate its purported national secretary colluding with those who have split from the organisation and discussing standing candidates against it. By this action he has betrayed the members of Respect and the party he is supposed to advocate, defend and build. He has forfeited his position as national secretary and as a member of the national council. He has clearly indicated that he and the leadership of the Socialist Workers Party are splitting from Respect.

“Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the duplicitous behaviour of the SWP leadership, which has been asking for support for its petition against ‘witch-hunts’ whilst preparing its forces for a split from Respect.”

Despite the inaccuracies (deliberate or otherwise), this statement is spot on when it comes to the SWP’s “duplicitous behaviour”. And, true to form, the SWP hit back in an email sent from the same address and headed ‘There is no split: let the members decide’: “The Socialist Workers Party has no intention of leaving Respect and will not be ‘splitting’ from the coalition it helped create and to which it has been so central.” This was signed by John Rees, Lindsey German, Chris Bambery and Elaine Graham Leigh.

Rather laughably, SWP national organiser Martin Smith joined in the email war in an internal posting to his own members, which revealed that the “shocking email” sent by Smith et al alleging an SWP split had been sent “without consultation”. Of course, comrade Rees always gets the go-ahead from the NC before using Respect’s mailout facilities for his latest factional document.

After repeating that “the SWP is not and has no intention of splitting from Respect”, comrade Smith declared: “George Galloway and his supporters have made it clear that they do not want to have a Respect conference in less than three weeks time. Instead of allowing the Respect membership to decide the way forward, they are trying to ratchet up the pressure and make it appear that it is the SWP that wants to split from Respect.”

The “increasingly hysterical” statements from Linda Smith and George Galloway were “designed to confuse and disorientate Respect members and supporters who are opposed to the witch-hunt” (October 29).

However, I am not so sure that the SWP was so confident about its ability to win the vote at conference. True, even without the student delegation it would almost certainly have had a formal majority. But how reliable would it have been? Faced with virtually unanimous opposition from all the other delegates - surely almost all of the ‘neutrals’ would end up siding with Galloway - the less cynical SWP comrades, many of whom were won to the previous pro-Respect, pro-Galloway line, might well have succumbed to the temptation to break ranks.

They would have been called on to do just that by its own former comrades, such as Nick Wrack, Rob Hoveman and Kevin Ovenden, who were recently expelled for siding with Galloway. They have now been joined by NC member Jerry Hicks, who has resigned from the SWP. In a statement that reflects the feelings of a substantial SWP minority comrade Hicks writes: “To describe Galloway as rightwing is farcical. To vilify him and demonise him as the enemy beggars belief.”

He goes on: “… the SWP leadership rallied its membership to emergency party councils and road shows, seeking votes of endorsements predicated on half truths and contorted facts to justify their position, in a dishonest and degrading manner.”

Faced with sentiments such as these from within its own ranks, the SWP leadership will not be too disappointed if, as seems certain, the conference will not take place. That is why John Rees has been happy to stoke up the fires, all the while preparing his membership for the inevitable split.

The next day, on October 30, he was complaining about the fact that “some national officers have issued statements which amount to a coup against the elected national secretary and an attempt to depose the properly selected GLA mayoral candidate Lindsey German” (Galloway had said that she had disqualified herself).

“We call on the members of Respect to defend the democratic structures of Respect. We call on all members to refuse to be bludgeoned into submission by these unilaterally issued dictates telling us who will be or will not be officers or candidates for Respect.” This was also signed by Rees, German, Bambery and Graham Leigh.

In the meantime, those members and branches that are not firmly in one camp or the other have been making forlorn calls for calm and unity. The most prominent of these has come from the large Newham branch, which urges all sides to “pause and refrain from any move to divide us” (October 27).

Similarly Lewisham and Greenwich have called on the national council to take sensible steps to sort things out by allowing neutral branches to oversee “whatever checks are necessary” on conference delegates and ensure there is “an open and transparent nomination process” for the national council election”.

In a prime example of the SWP’s “duplicitous behaviour” its members in both branches put their name to these abject appeals.

[numeral]

Link to the above article from Weekly Worker 695

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/695/respect.htm

[karlos]

As happened previously to the Scottish Socialists and to UKIP it appears that these splits are manufactured.
The SWP are mere tools for MI5 and seem to have pulled the rug from under Respect at a time when Respect looked likely to make a wider electoral breakthrough.
it is blatantly obvious that the SWP are Labour in disguise.
In Scotland the SSP had 15% of Scttish assembly seats which for a small party gives them alot of influence. Ofcourse a vote for the SSP was a vote lost by Labour. So the SSP fell on its's sword and now is no more.
In the UKIP situation in Euro elections UKIP had outvoted Labour and the Liberals and so was on course to make a real breakthrough until it was infiltrated by the ex Labour MP Robert Kilroy Silk who proceeded to split the party and virtually destroy it.
Now Respect which has one MP and a number of councillors and certainly would have probably had more MPs and councillors in the future was highjacked by the SWP with the clear aim of not campaigning too strongly in case it took vote away from Labour.
Hence recently in the Southall byelection Respect only got 4% of the votes.
A shockingly low number for tha particular seat.

The SWP are MI5 tools and Respect hopefully will recover and hopefully continue to take votes away from Labour.

[ian neal]

The current spilts in Respect to me illustrate the dangers of forming political parties to represent broad, nebulous movements and especially of forming close working alliances with the likes of Respect's leadership. This was a marriage of convenience that was always headed for the divorce courts.

Forming broad campaigning coalitions to unite on common ground will always need to be balanced with the need of the independent organisations and activists that make up these coalitions to be free to speak their own truth and follow their own campaigning strategies. Forming political parties is a recipe for stiffling this independence and watering down the message to the least common denominator.

Witness the repeated failure of the leadership of Respect and their close cousin the STWC to support 9/11 truth and their frequent attacks upon 'us', despite the considerable support the 9/11 truth movement can count on from grassroots supporters of respect and STW.

I'm all for the British 9/11 truth campaign forming alliances with other campaigns that share similar aims such as J7 and those campaigning on civil liberties, extraordinary rendition and so forth. But such coalitions should avoid the centralised control that is obligatory for any political party. One reason the PTB so love heirarchal, centrally controlled organisations especially amongst the system's discontents is that they are so much easier to control/influence or failing this divide and rule.

May the truth movement watch and learn.

[karlos]

Actually the split within respect teaches us one very important lesson.
We need a membership and an agreed constitution and for every paid up member to abide by it.
Respect was a loose collective and as a result was highjacked by the SWP who then when the moment came pulled the rug out.
The UK truth movement needs to learn and become more rigid and more organised. At the moment our loose structure is not working.
How many column inches did we get?
How many minutes on tv did we achieve?
this month - none, last month - none.
William and Calum have appeared on the Radio several times but we never appear to build up any momentum.
The amount of infighting we have in our group makes SWP/ respect look like a tea party.

[ian neal]

The campaign has a constitution and within its limited resources and capacity is organised. Could we have done more with the publicity Willy and others generated. Quite possibly, but we are always open to well thought out, costed proposals on how we could do what we do better.

Whilst there are undeniably disagreements within the movement, there are remarkably few within the campaign itself. You should not confuse web-based arguments between a handful of protagonists with real divisions amongst real campaigners. Given the potential to fall out, my experience is that we are actually a fairly harmonious and cooperative campaign and movement as demonstrated by the atmosphere at the various national gatherings that there have been, including last weekends.

Of course there is nothing stopping anyone forming a membership based organisation, but I would warn against this. In the past (if I remember correctly) you have called for both David Shayler and Peter Tatchell to be thrown out of the campaign (which predictably further fuelled disagreements). Fortunately this was not necessary since the campaign has never had a membership or endorsed either David or Peter. They have always been acting independently. Whilst we welcome their support for 9/11 truth and we support their right to speak their own truth, the campaign does not endorse their views.

In essence what both Peter and David demonstrate is that you will always have tensions arising from forthright outspoken people, such as David and Peter, doing their own thing. How would a membership system have changed any of this?

What a membership system could result in is endless angst ridden arguments over (1) who is and is not suitable for membership, (2) what criteria to apply and (3) who should makes these decisions.

Still if you feel the constitution could be improved or if you want to propose an alternative, the committee will be happy to consider it. Alternatively, establish the alternative yourself. The proof of whether you are right or not lies in the doing. We can all imagine a more professional effective campaign. But imagining is one thing, making it happen is another.

[conspiracy analyst]

If I recall correctly Respect was created after the Socialist Alliance was disbanded which was a broad coalition of all the British left groups. The SWP controlled Respect from the outset and George used them to get elected on an anti-war platform. He originally announced this would be his last election but seeing he can make some money in London he launched himself into a media career directly after appearing in the Senate hearings.

Taking into account he used to be a personal adviser to Kinnock in the 1980's the man is an operator par excellence despite his pro-Arab stance. The issue is that his Big Brother appearance alienated him to his constituency and in order to regain condfidence he has to ingratiate himself with the local powerb rokers in Brick Lane after he announce he was standing again. This obviously put him at odds with the SWP which sought to place their own candidates in positions where they can be elected.

His loudmouthed consistency and insistence that 9/11 is an Al Queda job only shows that he puts his personal career against the truth and social justice. Like every Labour politician. This is a spat between personalities. I dont think it has any political content. The SWP do not differ in their politics with George.