Scottish left hook up with George Galloway

Submitted by cathy n on 13 March, 2011 - 10:23

And so, after weeks of negotiations behind closed doors the dirty deed has now been done.

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Socialist Party Scotland (SPS) have thrown in their lot with George Galloway in order to create a new electoral bloc for this year’s Holyrood elections.

Fortunately, there is a Holyrood election rule which limits the name of political parties to six words. Otherwise, the bloc’s title would have been even more cumbersome than its chosen name: “George Galloway (Respect) – Coalition Against Cuts” (most easily referred to as: Galloway and Co.).

An alliance between the SWP, the SPS and Galloway? You’d really need to go back to 1305, when John de Menteith betrayed William Wallace to the English, to find a comparable abandonment of political principle in Scotland.

Galloway and Co. is no more than a mechanism to try to get Galloway into Holyrood: the only candidate with even a half-realistic chance of being elected is whoever stands as number one on its list for the Glasgow regional seat – and that candidate will be Galloway himself.

The SWP and SPS, in other words, have signed up to be Galloway’s foot soldiers in this endeavour. Although this will be a new experience for SPS members, the SWP already has form when it comes to this kind of thing. They must be gluttons for punishment.

(From 2004 until 2007 the SWP acted as Galloway’s bag-carriers and played a politically invisible role in Respect. But in 2007 Galloway decided that he had had enough of the SWP, split the party, and walked away with the right to use of the party’s name, two SWP full-timers and a number of other SWP members.)

The only question left unanswered by the creation of Galloway and Co. is when it will fall apart.

One of its candidates will be SPS member and anti-cuts activist Brian Smith. Anyone who has heard him speak knows that he makes great play of the need for Labour councillors to fight the Con-Dem cuts by following in the footsteps of the Militant-controlled Liverpool City Council of the 1980s which, he claims (albeit falsely), defied the Tory government of Margaret Thatcher.

Galloway has a rather different line on the record of the Militant-led Liverpool City Council.

In his autohagiography “I’m Not The Only One” he describes the Militant councillors as “Trotskyist entrists working parasitically within the Labour Party” who pursued “gesture politics” and “kamikaze acts such as refusing to set a municipal rate or otherwise breaking the law” on the basis of their “starry-eyed, far-out, far-left fantasies.”

The alternative recommended by Galloway was “a posture of militant opposition but stopping short of political suicide in order to live to fight another day.”

And these people call themselves “Coalition Against Cuts”???

Then there is the question of fighting the Con-Dem programme of privatisation. The SPS and SWP, of course, are solidly against any and all privatisations. Galloway’s position, on the other hand, might most charitably be described as confused.

In a recent interview with the “Arabian Business” magazine, Galloway said: “I think the best outcome for the Arab world would be to follow the path blazed by Erdogan in Turkey. ... It (the Erdogan government) is Islamic in character, modern in outlook, moderate in disposition, and self-respecting and therefore demanding of respect.”

But the same Erdogan government is pursuing a privatisation programme which would be the envy of the Con-Dems. The Turkish government’s privatisation website explains:

“Fifteen years ago it was just a controversial idea. Now it is a national policy, implemented by every government and supported by public opinion. Total income from privatisation implementations is over US $10 billions. Every step brings us closer to a stronger and more competitive economy. That why we call it very important privatisation.”

Then there is the very contemporary topic of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt.

In a recent debate in the pages of the “Guardian” Galloway again hailed the prospect of Erdogan-type governments in these countries: “I welcome the imminent victory of the Islamic movements in Egypt and Tunisia, which I think will provide very good government on the Turkish model.”

Do the SPS and SWP share Galloway’s enthusiasm for a victory of the Islamic movements in Egypt and Tunisia? (Unfortunately, in the case of the SWP, the answer might well be: yes.)

It’s not surprising the title of the Galloway and Co electoral bloc does not contain the words “socialist” or “workers”. (And what a mockery that makes of the Socialist Party’s earlier criticisms of Respect for not being left-wing enough, and for hiding socialist policies in order to maximise its vote!)

As for the traditional socialist demand for a workers’ MP on a worker’s wage – let’s not even go there!

In an interview in the “Scotsman” at the turn of the year Galloway was complaining that even an income of around £500,000 a year was not enough for him. And in the above-mentioned “Arabian Business” interview, Galloway boasted of the £2.6 millions he won from newspapers which alleged that he had taken money from Saddam Hussein.

And anyone who can afford to holiday, as Galloway recently did, in the “One and Only Royal Mirage Hotel” in Dubai certainly isn’t stuck for the odd bob or two.

The Socialist Party used to call for a new workers party for the millions not the millionaires. Perhaps its sister-party in Scotland is now having second thoughts about the wisdom of that slogan.

Galloway and Co. have yet to produce their election manifesto. When it does appear, then as far as the SPS and SWP in Scotland are concerned, it may well turn out to be the mostpolitically incoherent suicide note in history.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.