WeeklyWorker

09.02.2006

Rough ride for Rees

SWP leader John Rees was only adopted as a Respect candidate after strong objections from a sizeable bloc of Bengali members. But the drive to turn him into a political celebrity is unmistakable. Dave Jacques reports

The Socialist Workers Party ran into an unexpected spot of bother on Wednesday February 1. Between 80 and 90 Respect members turned up to Kingsley Hall, east London; they were there supposedly to rubber-stamp a slate of candidates that the Tower Hamlets selection panel had decided were best suited to stand in each ward for the May elections. However, SWP leader John Rees was only adopted after strong objections from a sizeable bloc of Bengali members.

Respect had agreed to stand three candidates in every one of the borough's 17 wards - 51 in all - and, in its wisdom, the local leadership had decided that its recommended candidates should be put to the meeting on a 'take it or leave it' basis, in a "disciplined, open and democratic way", according to Tower Hamlets chair Glyn Robbins.

Comrade Robbins said that we were approaching a "new stage in our history" and that every time you see Michael Keith, Labour leader of Tower Hamlets council, "fear is written into his face". After his introductory remarks George Galloway gave a 10-minute speech. He began by saying it was "good to be back" - a reference to his controversial and unilateral decision to disappear from the scene in order to enter the Big brother house, having given his party just one day's advance notice. This remark was greeted by studied silence - not a cat's whisper in the room.

The previous day the religious hatred bill had been voted through, after being amended by the House of Lords, backed up by opposition parties and Labour rebels in the Commons. Disgracefully Respect, the SWP and Galloway backed New Labour's attack on free speech. Galloway, therefore complained about being "let down by one MP" - meaning Tony Blair. The chief whip, Hilary Armstrong, had miscalculated and the prime minister himself was absent for the division on the second government amendment, which was lost by a single vote.

Galloway stated that Blair had "let down the muslim people of this country", whereas he himself had "regarded going through the lobby as a three-line whip" (no, he did not say "feline whip"). Instead of trying to expose New Labour's crude attempt to win back the 'muslim vote' in places like Tower Hamlets with its assault on democratic rights in the name of 'defending religion', Galloway and the SWP can only offer more of the same - except that Respect would be more efficient at forcing through the clampdown on free speech.

Galloway reminded members that this "momentous meeting" was being held at a time when Respect had existed for less than two years "on god's earth", and yet it now had the opportunity to turf out people who were amongst the "most corrupt, least liked, most unpopular" councillors. In the face of this challenge, "Our candidates have to promise that they will not let the electorate and Respect down." (Of course, there are no constitutional mechanisms in place to ensure their accountability, should they themselves become corrupt, unliked and unpopular.)

Galloway combined his phrases about Respect as "history-makers", and how times were reminiscent of the days of George Lansbury, with a promise of his own: "Everyone will be famous who is involved in this election." There will be "names on plaques".

Comrade Rees, in his speech, stated that Respect's commitment to "women's equality and diversity" were not just words on paper - we mean it (he did not mention gay rights, however). He said it was important that the candidates chosen reflected that diversity - the other parties would try to persuade the electorate not to vote against war, against privatisation, against Crossrail, but instead to vote on the basis of a candidate's ethnicity. But Respect was not like the rest.

Unfortunately, however, it was ethnicity, not political difference, that lay behind the only opposition to the proposed slate as it stood. It came in a move from the floor to replace comrade Rees as one of the three candidates in Whitechapel ward (regarded as one of the best bets for Respect) with a local shopkeeper of Bengali origin. A young speaker claimed that "on a technical reason, setting John up in Whitechapel is suicide". In that ward, he said, it would be very difficult "if we don't have a Bengali candidate. From the ground level people will vote for a Bengali candidate "¦ I'm telling you, it is going to be difficult." The 'technicality' was that comrade Rees should stand in a different ward.

In similar vein was the intervention of another speaker: "Taking away a young person who's popular in that Whitechapel ward, bringing someone who is not known in that ward, I think is a big mistake." The young Bengali candidate proposed instead "will earn more respect than anyone else". There was no opposition to any other white candidate in any other ward.

Several SWP and International Socialist Group speakers spoke strongly in favour of ensuring that an authoritative national figure was elected to Tower Hamlets council - one SWP speaker said that it was important Respect was not perceived as "communalist". Galloway himself sang Rees's praises as a consistent fighter against racism and war. It was essential that Rees should contest Whitechapel - nowhere else - if he were to be elected. Galloway was scathing about the notion that people would vote on the grounds of ethnicity, rather than party.

But that did not apply to a section of this meeting. The Bengali membership was split down the middle on this question, while every non-Bengali who spoke was for the slate. In the end the proposal to switch comrade Rees to another seat received 28 votes, with 46 votes against this amendment and for the selection committee slate. The 49 candidates (two more are still to be selected) included Rees's SWP comrade Chris Nineham and a few other prominent local SWPers, as well as sitting councillor Oli Rahman and some ex-Labour members.

It is significant that the SWP should consider it so important that its leader, rather than some middle-ranking SWPer, should become a local councillor. Clearly the SWP central committee has decided to raise and raise again the national profile of John Rees.