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.
My 'google alert' for stuff regarding Galloway has been going off a lot more than usual in the last few days as this situation is discussed all over. Personally I find it pretty sad that an obviously internal document was released - but then, I've never had much time for the SWP so it wasn't a surprise.
News has just broken that long term SWP members Kevin Ovenden and Rob Hoverman, have been expelled from the party, along with Nick Wrack. Nick joined the SWP three years ago and was a former editor of the Militant newspaper, so he is also an experienced, long term socialist.
The expulsions followed an ultimatum to Nick that he should turn down the position of Respect national organiser or resign from the SWP. A similar ultimatum was given to Rob and Kev that they should stop working in George Galloway’s office, or leave the SWP.
These three comrades have been internally critical of the SWP Central Committee’s handling of Respect, but have been very disciplined by not airing that criticism outside the ranks of the SWP. There still remain critics of the CC’s position within the SWP, including some very well known comrades, but the expulsions are obvioulsy a shot over their bows as well.
The strategy towards Respect from the SWP is increasingly bizarre . On the one hand, they have been telling members this a left/right divide, that Galloway and Salma are pandering to communalism, are anti-trade union, etc. On the other hand, they have been desperate to avoid any public exchanges about these same issues.
At the last National Council of Respect the SWP were forced to concede to the feeling of the meeting that in order to rebuild trust in the workings of the National Officer (i.e. John Rees) Respect needed to appoint a national organiser. The suggestion from George Galloway and Victoria Brittain (who is not particularly close to George Galloway) was Nick Wrack. The feeling of the meeting was that Nick was a good compromise candidate as he was an SWP member with a high profile role, he has the necessary abilities, and there was general trust in him on all sides that he would play a constructive role. There was no suggestion in the meeting that John Rees’s position as National Secretary would be lessened in any way.
Most National Council members thought this was a positive way forward. But the SWP’s response was extraordinary. They give Nick an ultimatum - either he withdraw from accepting the post or resign from SWP. He then refused to do either and was expelled. This was followed by similar moves against Rob and Kev, who have both been extremely loyal long term members of the SWP
It is difficult to see the dynamic driving SWP as being anything other than protecting John Rees’s reputation inside the SWP itself (he can’t be seen to have messed up and even the mildest criticisms are apparently unacceptable.)
As Nick Bird recently reported about the Party Council, the SWP leadership are now involved in scare-mongering to their own membership about a left/right divide, and plots to ’subordinate’ the SWP inside Respect. For goodness sake, how can this be a left/right battle when the SWP are desperate to prevent one of their own members having the job?
Of course in reality the SWP’s behaviour is increasingly exposing that they are only interested in control, If they really thought this was a left/right battle for Respect then they would be openly arguing that positioon publicly and seeking to win the argument with Respect’s broader membership. But instead they are only arguing it internally within the SWP, and are using organisational rather than political means to try to maintain control.
It also shows that the SWP are not interested in a genuinely broad alliance. A majority of non-SWP members have now signed a letter supporting Nick Wrack (including Glyn Robbins who had earlier expressed interest in standing himself.) The fact that an SWP member of the standing of Jerry Hicks (a former Amicus convenor in Rolls Royce) is backing Nick disproves the argument put by John Rees argument to the SWP’s Party Council that George & Salma are isolated on the National Council.
How can any one take seriously the claim by the SWP that they are interested in Respect being part of a broader left realignment, if John Rees cannot even deal with long standing SWP members like Rob Ovenden, Kevin Ovenden, Nick Wrack and Ger Francis, without using disciplinary measures?
If the SWP cannot even tolerate the minor differences that they have with the most consistently anti-imperialist MP in the country and the most high profile left wing Muslim in country, then how can they work with any other activists who think for themselves?
With regard to Respect, the SWP exaggerates their own importance to the project. They are not indispensable. The organisation has built a genuine electoral base in a few places around the country, and the control culture of the SWP has actually held Respect back from growing, both politically and organisationally.
But there is another important issue. The SWP has now expelled three prominent internal critics in a purge in order to try to maintain the prestige of the Central Committee, and to prevent a real debate within the SWP about whether the CC’s line is correct. For those SWP members inclined to beleive the CC’s position, ask yourself that if Rob, Kev, Ger and Nick can be expelled for tactical differences, then how confident are you that in the future you won’t have tactical differences with the CC? Do you want to be part of an organisation where any questioning of the line is met by expulsions and purges?
The history of left politics is littered with failed projects where all-knowing and infallible leaderships have used bureaucratic means to discipline the members, and tell them what to think. But when debate and dissent is stopped then it allows the organisation to build a self-delusional understanding of the world. This is what happened to the WRP.
Unless the membership of the SWP tales responsibility and starts thinking for itself about the debates within Respect, then there is a real danger that the SWP will become a sect like organisation like the WRP, and may even share its fate.
The current line of the Central Committee is disastrous for Respect, and disastrous for the SWP, and seemingly is more motivated by maintaining the prestige of the CC than moving left politics forward.
I know very little about the exact relationship between Respect & the SWP, but in light of the donations that the SWP make to Respect (as detailed on the Electoral Commission Site), any problems could cause really major financial problems for Respect. It seems that Respect really need to work hard on not only increasing funds in general, but also enlarging the very small group that regularly provide funds; perhaps a campaign to try to secure some trade union funds by appealing directly to union members to switch their automatic subscriptions from Labour to Respect ?
Respect At The Crossroad
The following people have signed the statement below.
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
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 Committe 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.
Respect, the coalition which has won greater electoral success than any left alternative for decades, is facing a deep crisis. It is a political crisis about the direction of the left in Britain which requires an urgent response.
Socialist Worker has never been one of those papers obsessed with the manoeuvres of left groups. But the present division in Respect is so important it demands comment. We also have to speak out because Socialist Worker has been approached by two major news programmes who say they are going to broadcast allegations against the SWP over this affair.
Respect began as a radical product of the anti-war movement. Its name stood for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community and Trade unionism. It was clearly a left project and achieved success as such. We proudly situated Socialist Worker as the paper which carried the reports about Respect, organised supporters to push it forwards and celebrated its victories.
As part of this, Socialist Worker defended George Galloway against right wing attacks, even when it was unpopular. We researched and investigated to provide evidence of how material was forged against him over allegations of receiving oil gifts from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Socialist Worker supporters campaigned tirelessly to get Galloway elected in Bethnal Green & Bow in 2005. When the vast bulk of the media tore into Galloway during his appearance in Celebrity Big Brother, Socialist Worker did not join in, and pointed to his record as an anti-war campaigner.
Now, in a concerted push which should appal those who want to see a radical alternative to Labour, Galloway has begun to attack the core of the left in Respect. He has decided that the political vision which has sustained the project no longer fits. He denounces members of the SWP as unthinking “Leninists” who listen to nobody but their shadowy and unaccountable leadership – a classic right wing stereotype of revolutionaries.
Inside Respect a campaign has been launched against the SWP in an attempt to drive us out. In Tower Hamlets in east London two extremely unpleasant meetings have laid bare the methods at the heart of the present disputes. At a Respect members’ meeting there was an attempt to derail a constitutionally supplied list of delegates for the Respect annual conference. At a subsequent Tower Hamlets Respect committee meeting – after an initially calm beginning by other speakers – Galloway launched an assault on the SWP.
Elsewhere Galloway has announced that he does not want to speak at Respect meetings where SWP members are present, even though they are active members of Respect. Such tactics are not about honest debate inside a coalition. The SWP is not going to be driven out of Respect. We played an important part in creating Respect and have done as much as anyone to make the project work. We are also going to continue to stand up for Respect as a coalition that defends all working class people and tries to meet the urgent need for a left alternative to Labour.
We urge everyone to support our position that we need to defend Respect as a project that has socialism as a central part, that will not make endless concessions in order to win votes, and that stands up for democracy.
--------------------
This is the editorial from the new issue of Socialist Worker... I'm not entirely sure what it's intended to do though.
GEORGE Galloway's Respect party has been thrown into turmoil after four of his Tower Hamlets councillors resigned the whip to become independents. The four include Oliur Rahman, who became the Respect's first councillor in 2004. The others are Lutfa Begum, her daughter Rania Khan and Ahmed Hussain, one of the most talented of the group of 12 that were elected in May last year.
Respect's dozen "Bengali tigers", as Mr Galloway triumphantly described them 18 months ago, have now been whittled down to a rump of seven. Wais Islam defected to Labour earlier this year and although Shamim Cowdhury quit as a councillor in July, the party retained his seat at the Shadwell by-election. The four, who will remain party members, launched a stinging attack on group leader Abjol Miah.
The latest developments come just a couple of weeks after the move was predicted by the Advertiser. The decision by the gang of four-and more may follow-came after series of meetings, the latest on Wednesday night. The four have decided to remain as 'loyal' party members, but they are engaged in a battle for the soul of the party.
They are more closely aligned with the Socialist Workers Party wing of Respect which is on the brink of a split after lengthy rows with Mr Galloway and Tower Hamlets Respect group leader Cllr Abjol Miah. Oli Rahman failed to oust Cllr Miah as leader earlier this year; since then the two have barely talked.
In a statement last night (Wednesday), the four stated: "We have decided to resign the Respect group whip with immediate effect. We remain loyal Respect members and we will pursue in the council chambers and the community the original policies and principles on which Respect was founded. Cllr Abjol Miah has over an extended period now has failed to demonstrate the basic qualities and competencies essential for the post of group and Opposition leader. His approach and conduct have been detrimental to the spirit of a united coalition that brings together a range of group and individuals of different background and political persuasions."
In a separate statement, Cllr Rahman said: "It is particularly sad for me that after repeated attempt to find a reasonable way forward, our efforts have been treated with disdain. We regret that it has come to this stage where we feel compelled to resign the whip.
Galloway stokes internal row in anti-Iraq war Respect party
Ned Temko
Sunday October 28, 2007
The Observer
George Galloway's anti-Iraq war Respect party yesterday appeared to be descending into bloody political warfare reminiscent of Labour in the 1980s.
Galloway, the expelled former Labour member who is Respect's only MP, fired the opening salvo in a letter to its ruling national council last month, claiming that weaknesses in local organisation and central leadership risked the party's future.
Within days, the coalition of Muslim and far-left groups that formed Respect at the height of anti-war feeling in 2004 began to show signs of unravelling. Last week, a statement from Galloway and some of the top Muslim figures in Respect declared: 'The actions of the SWP leadership imperil the very existence of Respect as a broad, pluralistic and democratic left alternative to New Labour.'
By yesterday, the Socialist Workers Party - key in the original Respect alliance - was accusing Galloway of embarking on a campaign to 'drive us out'.
The dispute has increasingly centred on two Respect meetings in Galloway's east London constituency to decide the delegate list for the party's forthcoming conference. At one stage, tempers became so frayed that - according to one online account - Galloway told SWP supporters to 'fuck off, the lot of you'.
In the Socialist Worker, the tone was more restrained, but there was no hiding the split. Alluding to the Tower Hamlets showdown, the paper said Galloway had 'launched an assault on the SWP'.
With Galloway, by far the party's best-known national figure, allied with key Muslim members, Respect seems to be heading towards jettisoning the SWP in favour of a tighter alliance attacking British, American and 'Zionist' policies in the Middle East.
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: Rivalries on the left
Over the past while I've seen more and more of the pathetic whinging and infighting that's been going on within many left-wing groups and it's been pissing me right off. Since Tommy Sheridan was betrayed by his own party the knives seem to have been barely hidden on all sorts of levels.
The recent situation with Respect and the SWP is just fucking embarassing. I saw one comment on a blog about how it was reminiscent of the factions in Life of Brian fighting with each other. I'm sure that pointing this out will probably make me seem a SPLITTER!! to some reading this, but bollocks to you if that's the case!
I once joined the SNP as an ideallistic teenager, but since then I've refused to join any party because they all seem to be based on personalities rather than policies, until the SSP came along - I seriously considered joining them, but when all the destruction was done to them because of internal grievances I reverted back to a 'meh' voter.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
