Galloway and SWP fall out?

Submitted by martin on 31 August, 2007 - 8:39

In a letter to the national committee of the Respect coalition, which the SWP launched with him as front man in 2004, George Galloway MP declares that "relations between leading figures in Respect are at an all-time low", that the group's membership "has not grown... in some areas it has gone into a steep decline", and that it could easily face "oblivion" within the next year.

Under the puffy, jack-on-stilts style of Galloway's letter, two main issues appear.

One, Galloway wants a sharper focus on election foot-soldiering, and resents the SWP's attempts to make Respect a better vehicle for SWP recruitment and retention through a union-friendly face ("Organising for Fighting Unions") and a liberation-friendly face (big presence at Pride).

Two, Galloway wants more organisational control, through a National Organiser close to him, and resents having SWPers "pop up as staff members" of Respect.

Is Galloway using "reasonable" grievances to separate himself from the SWP?

He had already announced (10 August) that he will stand at the next general election not in Bethnal Green and Bow (where he might have a chance of keeping his seat), but in Poplar and Canning Town, where in 2005 Respect thought it had done well to get 16.9% as against Labour's 40.1%.

He faces an 18-day suspension from Parliament, due to start on 8 October, after a report by the House of Commons committee on standards and privileges.

Fortunately for Galloway, newspaper accounts of the committee report - like the one in the Guardian, 24 July - glossed over the detail of that report. But he may be thinking that his luck cannot last forever. There may well be further investigations of his links with the Saddam regime.

Disgracefully, none of this - no aspect of the undeniedly close relations between Galloway and one of the most intensely fascistic dictatorships of recent decades - is even marginally an issue in the conflict between him and the SWP.

Unless Galloway has decided that time is up for him in British parliamentary politics, and has another career option secured, plain common sense would compel (and enable) Galloway and SWP to smooth over the tactical disputes listed in Galloway's letter.

But when "relations between leading figures... are at an all-time low", sometimes even the most smoothable disputes cannot be smoothed. Will Galloway read the SWP's decision to respond by mobilising its members through special SWP meetings across the country as an attempt to "mob" him?

We don't know. What we do know is that the break-up of Respect would be a step forward - removing something which discredits the left - and could jolt large numbers of committed and good-hearted socialists in the SWP to a rethink on the whole sorry direction that brought them into this sleazy alliance.

More information at the Socialist Unity blog. For convenience, below are the two main documents.


Submitted by martin on Sun, 02/09/2007 - 22:46

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.

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.

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.


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.
George Galloway MP


Submitted by martin on Sun, 02/09/2007 - 22:47

Sadly, last week George sent out an eight page document to all members of the Respect National Committee outlining major concerns about the direction Respect is going in. George’s document also makes a number of criticisms about the way the Respect Office operates.

The SWP disagree with George’s claims and we have sent a letter to the 14 SWP members on the Respect National Committee refuting the technical issues George has raised.

Obviously the situation is very serious for Respect. The SWP is 100% committed to the Respect project and is currently doing everything it can to keep the show on the road. Next week a meeting will take place between George and the SWP to attempt to resolve the issues he raises. We will be holding a members meeting for all SWP London members to discuss the outcome of the above meeting. We will also be holding meetings for members outside London soon.

Submitted by martin on Sat, 08/09/2007 - 21:30

Alan Thornett, an "insider" since he is a member of the Respect National Council, has written a comment on the crisis.

In it he declares: "Respect has to operate within a consistent socialist framework. The current leaflet for the GLA campaign, for example, is politically bland ­ and does not mention socialism at all! Almost all of it (apart from anti-privatisation) would be acceptable to a Lib Dem, and all of it would be acceptable to the Greens... we have to be politically distinct from the Greens -­ otherwise what is the point..."

Well, indeed. Only Respect is politically distinct from the Greens in that it has as its figurehead George Galloway, whose main political activity for the decade before 2003 was links with Saddam Hussein's, and who since then has reworked himself as a "fighter for Muslims" and apologist for political Islam. The Greens have no such discrediting associations.

Thornett also says that the membership of Respect is declining, rather than just "failing to grow" as Galloway alleges.

Despite his desire for some socialist words, Thornett seems on the whole to side with Galloway as against the SWP. He thinks that Galloway can give Respect a political profile to the left of the Greens? Why?

Thornett, once a Trotskyist, now belongs to the ISG, a tiny group which has done almost nothing for many years now except act as a submissive (very) junior sidekick to the SWP. And now he rebels against the SWP - to support Galloway?

Submitted by martin on Sun, 09/09/2007 - 21:09

It's not just Alan Thornett. I've noticed that many other leftists, on the Socialist Unity blog for example, tend to side with Galloway in this row, even if with massive qualifications. SWP-ophobia can be a powerful force.
I don't agree. Plainly, we don't have a vote inside Respect, and it is not for us to take sides in any active sense.
But Galloway states fairly plainly that his objection to the SWP is that they push Respect too much towards a focus on trade union struggles and invested too much in a Respect presence at Pride. He objects to what is (very relatively) good about the SWP, not to what is bad about it.
That's the politics of it. Galloway's organisational complaints against the SWP are petty. Yes, I know about the SWP's ways of, for example, letting "decisions" which they don't like, but don't want to argue against, go through committees, and then "losing" them: I saw it close up, for three years, in the Socialist Alliance. But all that is small beer.
After all, the SWP provide almost all the foot-soldiers for Respect: why shouldn't they dominate the staff? Respect National Secretary and SWPer John Rees might decide it is politic to share the central job with a Galloway sidekick, but it can't reasonably be held that he has a democratic obligation to do so. Anyway, Galloway is the last person to give anyone, even the SWP, lessons on democracy.
The SWP's Organising For Fighting Unions is a miserable affair. But the people who want to do something like that - even if they make a poor job of it - are certainly not worse than Galloway.

Add new comment

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.