07.02.2008

Lies and more lies

Misleaders of the SWP continue to try to deceive its members, writes Jim Moody

The Socialist Workers Party continues to mislead its own members, not to mention the working class, about its Respect rump. Last Thursday (January 31) Respect-SWP held a selection conference for the Greater London Authority elections, but SWP leaders failed to point out that standing under the Respect name is going to be impossible. Rallying the troops was never more mendacious nor, as it happened, more unsuccessful.

Indeed, it seemed very much that SWP honchos were going through the motions of formal democracy. The object of the rally/meeting was merely to approve eight new names for the GLA elections to replace those who were now with the Respect-Galloway wing, Respect Renewal. Despite attempts by John Rees, Lindsey German and others to beat the drum for the election campaign, embarrassed silences frequently followed the occasional single, over-excited whoop, underlining how little enthusiasm there is about the project.

Facing us at the back of the stage was a massive projection of the new Respect Channel on YouTube (youtube.com/respectcoalition), which John Rees, as animatedly as he could, announced as a major initiative to win hearts and minds, a new “campaigning tool”. Comrade Rees’s hype over this was somewhat contradicted by his assertion that it is not media publicity that counts, but word-of-mouth recommendation. Just as Hollywood movies start to gain meaningful audiences after the first week, so Respect-SWP could expect to become a big hit only when its activists begin putting out the message.

Election agent Shaun Doherty was at pains to be equally upbeat. He managed to portray the likely loss of thousands of votes in east London, compared to when Respect stood in the 2004 GLA elections, as a positive opportunity. He did not admit that the mainly Asian vote in Tower Hamlets and Newham that had been mobilised with the help of the mosque and muslim establishment in support of George Galloway would not be forthcoming this time round (was it fear of being labelled islamophobic?).

Indeed the uninitiated must have wondered what he was talking about when he declared that the two thirds of the Respect vote that came from outside east London in 2004 provided a magnificent base to build on: “We should get away from the idea that Respect had areas where it was strong.” Yes, Shaun, better to ignore truths than deal with them, if you use the method of the SWP. He even got cheered for this inanity.

When she spoke to the meeting, Respect-SWP’s candidate for mayor of London, Lindsey German, reiterated what was carried on the back page of Socialist Worker (‘Respect’s fight for Londoners’, February 2). Comrade German countered George Galloway’s criticism that splitting the left vote by opposing Labour’s Ken Livingstone was “a luxury we can’t afford” by asserting that by standing for mayor she will in fact be helping Livingstone because of the STV system being used: “We will gain votes for Ken.” Although she criticised Livingstone’s support for privatisation of the East London line and his stand against the RMT, she called for those voting for her to give their second preferences to him: “We should vote for Ken if it comes to a run-off with a Tory.” Of course, as comrade German pointed out, up to a few months ago Galloway was not calling for a straight vote for Livingstone - in fact in 2004 he fought for Lindsey as Respect’s candidate for mayor.

Comrade German then led her members up the garden path. While all indicators - and, in particular, the Respect Renewal leaders - suggest that Respect-SWP will be unable to use the Respect name in the GLA elections, she feigned confidence in the opposing view - since the electoral commission is “not taking a position” on the question of who can or cannot use the name, there was no reason why an agreement could not be reached with Galloway. Why not let him stand as ‘Respect Renewal’, leaving the SWP to use something like ‘Respect - People Before Profit’ in the elections?

A slight problem, Lindsey: the electoral commission also confirmed that ownership of the name is registered with Linda Smith of Respect Renewal, and why on earth would she or Galloway help get the SWP out of a hole by letting it use the name? Especially as he will be trying to maximise support for his own GLA slate.

As Galloway writes in the current issue of Respect Renewal’s paper, “I’m currently involved in trying to put together a progressive list for the May elections to renew London’s democracy. I will be a candidate somewhere on that list myself!” (Respect February). The article is headlined: ‘Support Red Ken - elect a progressive list for London!’

With the Respect name, the SWP’s vote would be bad enough. Without it, it will hardly register. But comrade German blithely assured her audience, all this is “not a barrier”. However, Carole Vincent, who is standing for Respect-SWP in a Waltham Forest council by-election on February 14, seems to think it is. Apparently she had seriously considered changing her name by deed poll to ‘Carole Respect Vincent’ to get round Linda Smith’s refusal to allow the title to be used.

New candidates selected at the meeting to stand for the Respect-SWP slate were Rania Khan, Carole Vincent, Kumar Murshid, Glyn Robbins, Tansy Hoskins, Nuruzzaman Mukul Hira, Sultana Begum, and Mujgan Kazeroonian. They join Lindsey German, Oliur Rahman, Salvinder Dhillon, Sait Akgul, Elaine Graham-Leigh, Berlyne Hamilton, Kat Young, Paul Fredericks, Pat McManus and Pat Stack to make up a new slate of 18 candidates.

But no voting figures were announced, nor are any given on the Respect-SWP website (www.respectco alition.org). Hardly surprising, though, given the low attendance on the evening. Conway Hall’s ground floor, which has a capacity of 240, was hardly half full at the start of the meeting, and attendance grew to a maximum of 150 (in my estimation all but a couple of dozen were SWP comrades).

I suspect that the release of the voting figures would have given the lie to Socialist Worker’s claim that “over 200” were at the meeting (February 9). Even if that figure were accurate, it would still point to the SWP’s inability to mobilise its membership. It is only to be expected that SWP members are jaded and dispirited with a leadership that has marched them uphill and downhill - into the Socialist Alliance, then Respect - only to end worse off in terms of both numbers and influence than when they started. And to cap it all, SWPers in Respect had to vote against their own principles and against what Lindsey German termed the “shibboleths” of women’s and gay rights. Now these shibboleths are back on again, just like that, without rhyme nor reason given by the SWP’s misleaders.

Despicable behaviour by supposed revolutionaries, and it is not surprising that SWP members feel soiled by the experience.