The Socialist Party (Scotland) has finally published an article – of considerable length – to try to justify its electoral alliance with George Galloway for the Glasgow regional ‘list’ in the Scottish Parliament elections which take place on 5th May.
The SPS argument runs as follows.
The Con-Dem public spending cuts are the main issue in the election: “This election is taking place at a time of unprecedented cuts.” The opposition parties (Labour and the SNP) are failing to fight the cuts: “A whole book could be written cataloguing the spinelessness of the ironically termed ‘opposition’ parties.”
This creates an opening for the Left: “Trade unionists and wider sections of working-class communities will be looking for a political alternative to the parties of cuts and privatization.”
The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) cannot provide that alternative.
This is because of “the political mistakes and degeneration of its leadership” which resulted in “the effective collapse of the SSP in 2006.” The SSP leadership is also “widely perceived as having played the central role in the conviction and subsequent jailing of Tommy Sheridan on charges of perjury in January (2011).”
The Scottish Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (STUSC) cannot provide that alternative either. This is because it consists of no more than “the forces around Solidarity (the 2006 breakaway from the SSP), one branch of the RMT, and the Lanarkshire Socialist Alliance.”
But in Glasgow the SPS and “others in Solidarity” (the SWP and some non-aligned individuals) have reached “a short-term electoral agreement” with George Galloway: George Galloway (Respect) – Coalition Against Cuts.
This electoral alliance will not be a re-run of the Respect Party which the SWP launched with Galloway in 2004. Politically, Respect was “an unprincipled lash-up”. Organisationally, Respect was undemocratic as it was “dominated by the SWP and George Galloway.”
By contrast, the SPS-SWP-Galloway electoral alliance is based on “a clear and principled anti-cuts programme.” This includes “opposition to all cuts, and support for needs budgets.”
The SPS’s alliance with Galloway is a tactic which will “help strengthen the independent interests and voice of the working class – as a step towards building a new mass workers’ party.”
The election of Galloway to Holyrood, or even just “a good vote for the Coalition Against Cuts list”, would be “a major boost for the anti-cuts movement in the city and across Scotland.”
It would also “prepare for a much wider anti-cuts challenge in (the local elections in) 2012”, which the SPS hopes to contest “as part of the STUSC.”
“Nothing that may transpire subsequently (i.e. after this ‘good vote’ for the Coalition in the pending elections),” the SPS assures its readers, “would negate the fact that the vote achieved in Glasgow was because of the principled position on the cuts and a fighting left programme.”
Leaving aside the initial statement of the obvious – that the major issue in the election will be the Con-Dem cuts, and that neither Labour nor the SNP are mounting effective opposition to those cuts – the SPS article is vacuous nonsense.
The SPS argues that their electoral alliance with Galloway will not repeat the mistakes of Respect, which was “dominated by the SWP and George Galloway”.
The SWP’s role in the electoral bloc, it is true, will be far less than that which they played in Respect (notwithstanding the fact that an SWP member is number two on the bloc’s list of candidates).
But it is already clear that Galloway has effective control of the electoral alliance, and that the alliance’s only real purpose is to secure his election to Holyrood:
- The name of the website of ‘George Galloway (Respect) – Coalition Against Cuts’ is “votegeorgegalloway”.
- The video-clips on the site focus solely on a vote for Galloway as an individual.
- The e-mail address of the alliance is “george4glasgow”.
- Its financial appeal is entitled “George Galloway Election Fund” (“…I would be very grateful if you could see your way to making a donation to help me win …”).
- Its election agent is Ron McKay.
(McKay – variously described as Galloway’s aide, press officer, oldest friend, press adviser, business partner, sidekick, spokesperson and political assistant – has been Galloway’s Mr. Fixit since 1977.
McKay was – and is – Galloway’s business partner in the “Friction” publishing company. He was also a business partner of Fawaz Zureikat (the Jordanian businessman who was chairperson of Galloway’s “Mariam Appeal) in the short-lived “Arab TV” company – with set-up costs of £4 millions and projected annual running costs of £10 millions.)
The full title of the electoral bloc which the SPS/SWP have formed with Galloway is: The Respect Party George Galloway (Respect) – Coalition Against the Cuts. That is the name that has been registered with the Returning Officer in Glasgow. And it is the name that will therefore appear on ballot papers on 5th May.
The flyer distributed for the electoral alliance’s public launch on 6th April summed up the ‘balance of forces’ in the alliance. It carried the imprint: “Published and printed by Ron McKay, on behalf of the Respect Party.” The “Coalition Against Cuts” did not receive even a passing mention in the flyer.
In terms of electoral law, the Respect Party – already registered as a political party – is the ‘owner’ of the SPS-SWP-Galloway electoral alliance. The SPS and the SWP, in other words, have not entered into a “short-term electoral agreement” with Galloway. They have signed up to be foot-soldiers for Galloway and Respect.
(And apart from a few isolated individuals, the only forces involved in the “Coalition Against Cuts” element of the electoral alliance are the SPS and the SWP. In other words, “Coalition Against Cuts” is not a genuine broad-based coalition but simply another flag of convenience for the dwindling remnants of Solidarity.)
The fact that the electoral bloc is the ‘property’ of the Respect Party and thereby of Galloway himself – even the SPS acknowledges that Galloway dominates Respect – also makes a mockery of the SPS’s claim that their electoral alliance is based on “a clear and principled anti-cuts programme” rather than being “an unprincipled lash-up”.
What Galloway and Respect are saying in the Holyrood elections about fighting the Con-Dem cuts is inconsistent with what Respect councillors are actually doing about (not) fighting the same cuts in England.
In the Tower Hamlets mayoral elections of 2010 Respect and Galloway chose not to stand a candidate of their own but to back Labour’s Lutfur Rahman for mayor. This was because of the latter’s stated commitment to fighting cuts in public spending.
A statement issued by Respect at the time explained: “We give notice that we will be voting for Lutfur on the basis that he leads the fight against the Con-Dem cuts. If he fails in that duty to the people of Tower Hamlets, we will be his fiercest critics.”
Just five months after his election as mayor Rahman tabled a budget including £56 millions worth of cuts. The Respect councilors did not propose an alternative needs budget. Instead, they merely backed a minor amendment from the Lib-Dems. That was the full extent of their ‘opposition’ to the mayor’s budget cuts.
A statement subsequently issued by Respect defended the councillors’ (lack of) action:
“The demand to set an illegal budget was an unreasonable demand to make of the mayor and his team. Instead, we successfully passed a motion demanding that the budget be set according to the fairest criteria possible, in the circumstances. … In these circumstances our councilors had no hesitation in siding with the mayor.”
(Should anyone bother to write a book cataloguing the spinelessness of ‘opposition’ parties in town halls, the Respect Party would merit a small chapter of its own.)
In the fantasy world inhabited by the SPS, Galloway’s attacks on the Con-Dem cuts are a boost to anti-cuts campaigning in Glasgow and Scotland. In the real world, as evidenced by the behavior of Galloway’s fellow Respect members in Tower Hamlets, they are a vote-grabbing exercise in hypocrisy.
In any case, Galloway’s attacks on the Con-Dem cuts have so far been thin on the ground. The anti-cuts fightback was certainly a theme at the Respect rally of 6th April. But the “votegeorgegalloway” website has so far carried little by way of attacks on the Con-Dem cuts.
On the other hand, the website administrator has found it useful to post up the following:
- George Galloway’s open letter to the Strathclyde police about their alleged failure to provide effective protection for Celtic manager Neil Lennon (i.e. Celtic fans: please vote for Galloway).
- A recording of a speech made by Galloway in 1990(!) in opposition to the Indian occupation of Kashmir (i.e. Glaswegians of Pakistani descent: please vote for Galloway).
- Links to numerous articles and interviews in which Galloway attacks the bombing of Libya by Western countries (i.e. confused ‘anti-imperialists’ of Glasgow: please vote for Galloway).
Moreover, the “Policies for a Fairer Society” webpage to which “votegeorgegalloway” currently provides a link carries the policies of Respect – not the anti-cuts policies on which the electoral bloc is supposedly going to contest the Holyrood election.
So far, then, little or no sign on the campaign website of the ““clear and principled anti-cuts programme” which the SPS claims will be the basis of the election campaign.
As the campaign develops, more anti-cuts material will doubtless appear on the campaign website (and in Respect election literature). But this will be a decision for Galloway and Ron McKay: the “votegeorgegalloway” website is Galloway’s personal page on the Respect Party website, and McKay, as already noted, is the Respect Party election agent.
If the SPS is deluding itself in claiming that their alliance with Galloway is anything other than a repeat of Respect Mark 1 (“an unprincipled lash-up … dominated by George Galloway”), their portrayal of the alliance as “a step towards building a new mass workers’ party” is positively criminal.
The SPS must know of Galloway’s record in relation to Saddam Hussein and Uday Hussein, his words of praise for Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad, his support for the Pakistani military coup of 1999, and his public defence of Iranian ‘democracy’.
They must know of his declared support for a victory of the Islamist movements in the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, his admiration of Erdogan’s pro-privatisation AKP government in Turkey, his contempt for the policy of ‘a workers’ MP on a worker’s wage’, and his claimed difficulties of having an income of ‘only’ nearly £500,000 a year.
(The Socialist Party previously attacked the SWP and the Respect Party for not adopting the policy of ‘a workers’ MP on a workers’ wage’, and for not even allowing the policy to be discussed. But in the SPS statement explaining their lash-up with Galloway the policy is diplomatically not even mentioned!)
They must know of Galloway’s description of himself as “a real Labour man, (of) the John Smith Labour Party” and as “not as left-wing as you think”, his dismissal of “Tommy and his friends” (i.e. Solidarity) as “a bit far out for me”, his hostility towards Trotskyist organizations and politics, and the communalist nature of his earlier electioneering in London.
(According to Respect Party leaflets issued in the Euro-elections of 2004, for example: “George Galloway – a fighter for Muslims … recognized by the Muslim world for his 30 years of struggle for the people of Palestine, Iraq and Pakistan. Married to a Palestinian doctor, he is a deeply religious person, teetotal and principled in his fight against oppression.”)
They will know that that Galloway was a director of Asian Voice Ltd. when it was paid £300,000 by the Bhutto government in Pakistan to launch a pro-Bhutto newspaper, and that Galloway’s “Mariam Appeal” received funding of £500,000 from the Emir of the United Arab Emirates, £375,000 from the Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, and £150,000 from the king of Saudi Arabia.
And yet, despite all this, the SPS presents their alliance with Galloway (i.e. the Respect Party) as a tactic which helps give expression to independent working-class interests, and which represents a step towards a new workers party!
According to the SPS, “trade unionists and wider sections of working-class communities” are looking for a political alternative to the mainstream pro-cuts parties. But the best that the SPS can come up with in Glasgow by way of a political alternative is – George Galloway!
In fact, the politics represented by Galloway are precisely the politics which need to be challenged and overcome in the process of “building a new mass workers’ party.”
Demagogy, Poujadist populism, Islamist communalism, electoral opportunism, fat-cat salaries for elected ‘representatives’, and a Stalinist pseudo-anti-imperialism (which ends up as an apology for ‘Third World’ anti-working-class dictatorships) are no foundation for a political party committed to working-class self-emancipation.
The SPS’s vision of their alliance with Galloway leading to a STUSC challenge in next year’s council elections, and then, at some undefined point in the future, culminating in the emergence of a new mass workers party is a self-deluding fantasy.
(And one which the SPS itself is not entirely confident will actually come about. Hence the sentence in the SPS article that “nothing that may transpire subsequently” to this year’s elections would negate the usefulness of the electoral alliance as a boost to anti-cuts campaigning.
In other words: Galloway might well ditch the SPS after the elections, just as he ditched the SWP after the 2005 General Election. But even if he did do that, an electoral alliance with him would supposedly still have been justified.)
But the delusions from which the SPS suffers involve more than just the make-believe results of its electoral bloc with Galloway. They relate also to the question of how the SPS has ended up in that bloc in the first place. And the answer to that question lies in the 2006 split in the SSP.
In 2004 the ‘News of the World’ published reports that Tommy Sheridan had visited a swingers’ club. Although this was true, Sheridan decided to sue the newspaper. In 2006 Sheridan won his libel action. He then split from the SSP and formed Solidarity, backed by the SPS and the SWP.
The SPS (and the SWP) were wrong to back Sheridan in his desire to take legal action against the ‘News of the World’. The only issue at stake in that legal action was Sheridan’s personal desire to maintain his ‘Mr. Clean’ image.
The SPS (and the SWP) were also wrong to split from the SSP in 2006. Although the SSP never amounted to much in terms of political thinking and clarity, it had brought together the bulk of the Scottish left. That unity was destroyed by the Sheridan-SPS-SWP walkout.
And the folly of the SPS’s post-2006 forays into electoral politics – variously under the banner of Solidarity, ‘No to the EU, Yes to Democracy’ and the STUSC – is reflected in the steadily diminishing returns which they have produced, and in the sorry state of the STUSC.
But in place of any political accounting for events since 2006, the SPS has resorted to increasingly hysterical attacks on the SSP.
Hence the SPS’s references to the “degeneration” of the SSP leadership in 2006, the SSP’s “perceived central role” in Sheridan’s imprisonment, and the “unholy alliance of the SSP leadership, the police, the legal establishment and the Murdoch Empire.”
Galloway has also helped whip up the anti-SSP hysteria. When he spoke at a Defend Tommy Sheridan meeting in Glasgow earlier this year, he described SSP members who had testified in court against Sheridan (i.e. told the truth) as “flea-infested rats.”
(If SPS and SWP members had any integrity left, they might reflect on what kind of political traditions have dehumanized their political opponents and re-defined them as vermin. Galloway’s good friend and the late Saddam Hussein’s right-hand man Tariq Aziz, for example, used to speak of “Persians, Jews and other insects.”)
The SPS’s bluff-and-bluster about its current electoral alliance with Galloway and Respect is only the latest stage in its ongoing refusal to confront reality.
Looking backwards, it attempts to scapegoat the SSP for the split of 2006 and Sheridan’s eventual imprisonment (instead of looking at its own actions and those of Sheridan).
Right now it pretends that its alliance with Galloway – under the banner of the Respect Party! – is an alliance of equals and a boost to anti-cuts campaigning (instead of drawing conclusions from Galloway’s previous electioneering, and measuring his anti-cuts rhetoric against the actions of Respect councillors).
Looking forwards, the SPS fantasizes about its alliance with Galloway giving rise to a new mass workers party – rather like the medieval alchemists who believed that base lead could be transformed into gold, and with the same likelihood of success.
When Galloway decided to dump the SWP in 2007 he literally told them to fuck off. As the “Guardian” reported at the time: “At one stage tempers became so frayed that, according to one on-line account, Galloway told SWP supporters to ‘fuck off, the lot of you’.”
If – or, more likely, when – Galloway metes out the same treatment to the SPS (and, yet again, to the SWP), it will be no more than what they deserve.
The SPS article can be found at:
http://socialistpartyscotland.org.uk/news-a-analysis/scottish-politics/…