You can download the PDF of the Socialist Resistance leaflet that will be distributed outside the House of Commons tomorrow here.
Abortion – a Woman's Right to Choose!
You can download the PDF of the Socialist Resistance leaflet that will be distributed outside the House of Commons tomorrow here.
1–2 minutes
90 responses to “Abortion – a Woman's Right to Choose!”
-
COMMENT DELETED. SEE POLICY.
LikeLike
-
The above comment, if said by anyone of significance, would be a prime candidate for Islamophobia Watch. I don’t agree with George’s views on abortion or embryology, but they do not derive from any putative ‘Islamist’ elements in Respect, but rather from his own convictions as a left-wing Catholic. How come George’s Catholicism is not mentioned in the above comment? Muslim-baiters, like Jew-baiters of old, never miss an opportunity, it seems.
LikeLike
-
I think it makes clear what Galloway views are, he expressed them clearly in his column.
Its just that he daren’t vote in the House.LikeLike
-
Ian, but how come respect’s only mp does not vote in line with party policy in such crucial votes? For all purposes respect acts in parliament as an anti-abortion party. LIke a broken record your response to this is to accuse people of islamophobia
LikeLike
-
Liam how does this line in your leaflet “By taking part in these actions to defend women’s abortion rights, women and men are making it clear that we want our representatives in parliament to support the right of women to control their own bodies.” square with the fact that Socialist Resistence have not done one single thing to ensure that galloway votes to support the right of women to control their own bodies
LikeLike
-
COMMENT DELETED. SEE POLICY.
LikeLike
-
it would appear that GG will vote how he feels and not how the membership of RR want him to vote. The question of GG’s unaccountability is there for all to see.
LikeLike
-
It’s nonsense to suggest that Galloway refrained from voting on the basis of maintaining Muslim support and an offense to many Muslims to suggest that this issue would trump, for example, Galloway’s anti-imperialism and lead people who support him now to depart.
Whilst that might be a response to the Islamophobic arguments, it’s no response to Galloway’s awful personal/religious objection to the policy and he should be ashamed of himself for not supporting this bill, as should the rest of his organisation. I really hope he votes to support a woman’s right to choose tonight, though I don’t hold out much hope.
LikeLike
-
SENTENCE DELETED – LIAM
GG’s views on this question are derived from Catholicism, not Islam, but Islam, not Catholicism rates a mention in the original comment. Still, I’m not surprised that this doesn’t mean anything to people who made a point of honour of publishing the Danish cartoons, among other egregious actions. Life is full of contradictions – a militant anti-imperialist MP has misguided, conservative views on abortion.
Then again, some who presently claim to be outspoken supporters of abortion rights are soft on imperialism and tacticly support occupations such as that of Iraq in the Middle East. If only everyone had a perfect position on everything there would be no need for polemic, debate and the like.
Incidentally, I dont remember some on the left who were once known for promoting the likes of Lech Walesa in Poland, making a big fuss about abortion then. This wasn’t so long ago in the scheme of things. When Solidarnosc came to power, one of its first acts was to ban abortion. That didn’t stop quite a few of those now denouncing GG from putting Solidarnosc representatives on tour around the UK, and generally promoting them as liberators.
Whether they were right or wrong to do this is a moot point, but I don’t remember them making a big fuss about Catholic anti-abortion views then (come to think of it, they aren’t doing that now, just trying to use this to attack Muslims). Incidentally, another irony is that GG would have almost certainly have found himself supporting the Polish Stalinist regime against Solidarnosc. The regime that allowed legal abortion.
Of course, as a genuinely broad left party, Respect includes people on both sides of that debate and others, and people with a wide variety of views on a lot of questions. If you want a real broad left party, you’ll have to get used to that.
Respect is not a democratic centralist organisation and cannot force people to vote in a particular way on anything. GG has indicated he will vote in line with Respect policy on this, and I hope he will, but ‘accountability’ does not mean that people can be hauled over the coals for their views, particularly when the issues and contradictions are well known in advance. Even if he did not, he would still be superior to much of the licksplittle British left in terms of his outspoken opposition to imperialism.
James Connolly was a militant revolutionary fighter, who had traditional Catholic views on divorce, but was still superior to most of his ‘left’ detractors in his day. GG is not a revolutionary but a very militant left reformist, but he is still superior to most of his detractors on the left today – despite this flaw.
LikeLike
-
This issue really is simple.
Respect – like all other parties with parliamentary representtaion – accepts that over matters of religious conscience, that MPs do not have to follow party policy.
we only have one MP, so the issue looks more personal than it is.
It is interesting that there is so much attention given to Galloway’s voting record on this, but David Drew, a supporter of the labour Representatiopn Committe, is never mentioned.
LikeLike
-
“Respect is not a democratic centralist organisation and cannot force people to vote in a particular way on anything”
but surely when we make policy at respect conference this must be made to be accountable for the MP even more importantly if he is the only one. The issue is not GG’s private thoughts but what level of accountability he is going to show. It seems this leaves Respect pro choice policy but whose MP will not abide by that decision. This to me is exrtemely worrying. That socialists can argue that its ok because its religious views seems again to be against the whole tradition of the left on such questions particularly on abortion rights and labour MP’s. What about Gay rights? divorce? gambling casino’s, War, private property, are these reliogious questions or social questions?? this is a complete fudge by Mr Newman and Mr Donovan. I am gobsmacked… to be honest this could be me and my partners exit from RR looking at the justification of our MP backing bigots.
LikeLike
-
To Andy Newman
Could you let me know when respect policy to allow a free vote on abortion rights was made? As a member I am not aware of having been consulted and not aware what body took this decision. It hasn’t been in the respect newspaper (What has happend to that?). Was this policy introduced with a discussion.. did Thornett agree? what about other leading members? Did this position become formulated at the national executive?LikeLike
-
“Alan ” says:
“That socialists can argue that its ok because its religious views seems again to be against the whole tradition of the left on such questions particularly on abortion rights and labour MP’s.”
Well the Labour Party has always allowed a free vote on abortion, so i have no idea what you mean by this sentence.
It is impossible to contemplate that any broad based party culd be built that didn’t allow people to follow their religious convictions.
LikeLike
-
Particularly if it contained a significant component which wanted to institute God’s Rule On Earth.
LikeLike
-
jj – you may be right. I may be a moron and everything you disagree with might be shit but you were warned about the level of abuse in your comments. That’s why you are no longer welcome here. Most other people don’t find the comments policy that complicated and I’m pretty ecumenical so long as people are civil. Try it one day.
LikeLike
-
(MARTIN PLEASE DON’T OBLIGE ME TO EDIT YOUR REMARKS – LIAM) Ian – your debating style is fantastic, you try to suggest that I only claim be an “outspoken supporter of abortion rights” and this is somehow undermined by your fabrication that I support the occupation of Iraq. I’m both an outspoken supporter of abortion rights and against the occupation of iraq. Try as you might to drag down the debate to bickering it won’t work.
The question is though -what is the point of a ‘left of labour’ party if elected representatives cannot be held to account. It’s likely that the votes tonight will be very close, perhaps a small number of votes will decide whether the tories and anti-women mps win. If that is the case and your only mp does not support your party policy then what do you intend to do about it -nothing it seems to me.
“Ohr wouldn’t recognise Islamophobia if it hit him in the face.” I think there is probably more chance of you hitting me in the face but I probably wouldn’t recognise you either
LikeLike
-
liam ?
LikeLike
-
in any event the pro-choice campaign has done enough to hold off this latest assault; 22 weeks was lost by 71 votes, but it doesn’t bode well if we get a tory government in 2 years time, but galloway will be long gone replaced by a labour mp presumably.
LikeLike
-
“Well the Labour Party has always allowed a free vote on abortion, so i have no idea what you mean by this sentence.”
And this is what is absolutely disgraceful about the Labour Party. They claim to support equality for women and a womans right to choose and then allow MP’s to vote against this.
The fact that you are using this to justify Galloway’s religious convictions regarding this issue is astounding. Respect has always supported a womans right to choose and its MP’s should support this as well. As we are building a left alternative to Labour this is a fundamental right and an integral part of our policy without exception.
LikeLike
-
Martin Ohr
“I’m both an outspoken supporter of abortion rights”
Except in Poland, of course
“and against the occupation of iraq.”
In your own mind, perhaps. In the real world, the AWL opposes calling for immediate withdrawal because then in its view Islamists would win and it prefers the occupation to that. There is a left-wing minority in the AWL that does oppose the occupation of Iraq. If the majority opposed it also that minority would have no reason to exist, and would not exist. Everyone knows this. Just as everyone can see, from this contribution and others, that truth matters not one iota to Martin Ohr.
LikeLike
-
Ian Donovan,
SENTENCE DELETED – LIAM
you seem unable to debate without project false positions onto other peoples arguments. I’m completely opposes to the occupation or iraq as I’ve written in many places and in many ‘debates’ with you on the socialist unity blog yet you still falsely claim that my position is the opposite. Likewise on abortion rights in Poland, no idea where you get the impression that I don’t support them, because the forerunner of the awl did something 20 years ago.
All the while the ‘party’ you are the election agent for falsely stands candidates on a pro-choice manifesto and then completely ignores it.
LikeLike
-
The issue of Galloway and accountability is a serious one which should be dealt with. I am in RR and will continue to be so but have worries about his voting or lack of it on this issue. Also no mention on the website over this issue and demo. I also worry that GG appears to have single handedly picked the election slate with no selection meeting. These are not the rantings of a sectarian but genuine worries. I would appreciate anyone telling me what methods there are for making policy and making sure that they are held by those elected. I see that Salma who I have a lot of time for has become a government advisor and feel this is more than a problem. Andy above argues that it is respect policy to allow elected representatives to vote as they wish. I share the above contributors concerns and am not aware when this was made policy. I haven’t seen the respect newspaper for months and was under the impression this was going to be a monthly paper to develop the organisation. Sorry if I sound negative but the above raises real concerns for me as a socialist and simply telling people who raise them that they are a sectarian is not productive. Peoples thoughts would be apppreciated.
LikeLike
-
Is Martin Ohr suggesting that Daniel Randall and David Broder are hallucinating when they criticise the AWL for refusing to call for Troops Out of Iraq now, and argue that it should do so?
All the rest is just bluster and feeble lies from Martin Ohr. He can’t deny ‘what the AWL did 20 years ago’ was back and uncritically promote, well beyond the call of duty of any socialist in terms of the need to oppose Stalinist repression, a movement that outlawed abortion in Poland. This is something that defined the AWL’s politics then just as its Islamophobia does today.
Just as the AWL supported the Afghan mujahedin against the USSR with the same vehemence. But perish the thought that it should give any support to Muslim peoples resisting US or British imperialism.
Its all rubbish. Eric Heffer had similar views to George Galloway on abortion. Yet when he died in 1991 Socialist Organiser (forerunner of the AWL) said he was “the closest thing in existence to a Socialist Organiser MP”.
Why didn’t they wage a hate campaign against Eric Heffer for his views on abortion? Answer: because they don’t care two hoots about abortion. What they care about is vilifying Galloway for his steadfast opposition to imperialism. Because they are pro-imperialist witchhunters, lackeys of the neocons and enemies of the genuine left.
LikeLike
-
The last issue of Respect paper came out on 15th March. The next is in preparation as we speak. The election campaign meant an issue was skipped as we didn’t have the resources to do both. A strict monthly schedule is now planned and was circulated at the NC last weekend.
LikeLike
-
Interesting that three out of none LRC supporting MPs voted for 22 weeks, and one of the LRC MPs voted for 12 weeks.
From the ultra lefts – we hear not a squeak about this.
Where is the outrage, the demands that the LRC steering committe mandates its MPs, etc etc.
SENTENCE DELETED – HAVE THAT ROW ELSEWHERE.
LikeLike
-
Martin’s personalised attacks on Ian are appalling. They demonstrate the nasty side of the AWL method of argument.
That said, Ian should expect that the public representatives of Respect vote in such a way as upholds its policies.
It is quite hypocritical of the SWP, however, to suddenly start criticising Galloway for his stance on abortion.
LikeLike
-
Ian your rhetoric is laughable, you don’t even get the quote from socialist organiser correct re Heffer, in fact we did criticise his stance on abortion, in the very obit that your misquote come from.
You claim that I cannot support abortion rights because the fore-runner to the awl critically supported Solidarnosc; it’s hard to argue with anyone who can maintain this bizarre logic.
We don’t vilify “Galloway for his steadfast opposition to imperialism”, if he steadfastly opposed imperialism it would be worthy of praise, in fact it is the opposite of what he does, the fact that you are so gullible to believe that he is any sort of anti-imperialist sad for everyone on the left but is symptomatic of your past an attack dog of the sparts: “pro-imperialist witchhunters, lackeys of the neocons and enemies of the genuine left” at least made me laugh, it’s on a par with “tony benn, cnd, fascist tools of the bourgoisie” chant from the first gulf war. Your descent into stalinophilia is entirely predicatable.
I hope people here have the sense to believe me when I say that I oppose the occupation of Iraq, I can’t get any clearer than that, if you can find anywhere that I have written differently please let me know.
More lies: “Just as the AWL supported the Afghan mujahedin against the USSR with the same vehemence” we didn’t support either side; unlike most of the left who did support the USSR including your supposed anti-imperialist Galloway.
AWL comrades played a huge part in ensuring victory in the votes last night, I’m proud to belong to an organisation which is unbending in its support for a womans right to choose. It’s a shame that you can’t say the same thing.
LikeLike
-
Cameron, I my ‘attacks’ on Donovan are personal and nasty, then I apologise, I find it hard to understand why you think it is acceptable to mis-represent your opponents’ position and denounce them as a racist and a fraud as Ian has done, but unacceptable to highlight a sorry incident from your opponents history.
LikeLike
-
Andy,
I think you are confused, the LRC isn’t any sort of political party yet so mandating anything wouldn’t really have any effect, those LRC supporting MPs should indeed be criticised and I expect that they will be, activists spend quite some time over the weekend lobbying them by phone.
It’s also worth remembering that the LRC NC met to discuss this and put out short statement to the press and on their website “The LRC supports the right for a woman to choose a free and safe abortion within the 24 week time limit. We urge MPs tomorrow to vote against the amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which attempt to reduce the time limit for abortion”
Meanwhile the RR website said nothing about this.
LikeLike
-
A couple of contributors to this discussion are sailing very close to the banned list which is why I suspended the discussion until I could get near a computer.
1 Confine your points to the politics.
2 For known contributors use their preferred name.
3 There is no need for biographical information about contributors.
4 Refer to contributors by their first name or full name. For those of us who didn’t go to public school use of surnames comes over as rude and aggressive.
5 Try and pretend that you are talking to real people.
6 Don’t copy the drunk at the bus stop in your debating style.LikeLike
-
liam, but telling lies and calling your opponents racists still ok O take it?
LikeLike
-
Martin as far as I can see no one called anyone racist and you can’t expect me to trawl through every single comment on every single post. If there is anything offensive you can contact me to point it out and I’m willing to remove it at the earliest opportunity.
It would be helpful if contributors try to keep the polemical temperature down.
LikeLike
-
“It is quite hypocritical of the SWP, however, to suddenly start criticising Galloway for his stance on abortion.”
Interesting comment. When have the SWP formally attacked Galloway over his abstention? It would be pretty imaginative to say the least to describe the SWP’s support for a woman’s right to choose as abstentionist.
Respect has always supported the right to abortion and it’s elected representatives do not have the right to abstain on this issue. If we’re going to build a left alternative organisation elected representatives can’t pick and choose which policies to support.
LikeLike
-
Martin Ohr is so desperate to slander everyone and anyone he disagrees with that he appears to attribute to the Spartacists the slogan:
“tony benn, cnd, fascist tools of the bourgoisie”
I yield to no one in my dislike of the Spartacists, but even they are not (quite) crazed enough to call Tony Benn and CND ‘fascist’. Probably the only ‘left’ group mad enough to do this are the British supporters of Sendero Luminoso, who I recall once mouthing off something along these lines (though I can’t remember the exact wording).
The Sparts did, however, once use the slogan “Tony Benn, CND, pacifist lackeys of the bourgeoisie”, which is certainly sectarian and denunciatory, but does not call Benn or CND ‘fascist’. Evidently Martin Ohr is distorting this slogan in his characteristically dishonest manner, the manner that pervades virtually everything he writes.
It just goes to show that this personalised method of argument has its own logic, and renders accurate political characterisations and rational debate impossible. Its quite an acheivement to both slander the Spartacists and come across as even more irrational than they do, but Martin Ohr has managed it in this thread. His personalised rants do not damage me; they do however expose him perfectly.
The AWL/SO’s hero-worship for Eric Heffer notwithstanding his anti-abortionism, their excessive enthusiasm for Solidarnosc despite the virulent right-wing Catholicism and hostility to reproductive rights that pervaded it, and their vicarious support for the Afghan mujahedin’s guerilla war against the USSR in the 1980s are too well known and documented for Ohr to be able to deny it. His denials have no credibility.
And Martin Ohr can accuse me of being akin to Hannibal Lecter himself till he is blue in the face. It won’t help him to disprove what I’m saying. It doesn’t refute anything I say politically. Personal attacks never do. The type Martin indulges in are a sign of desperation and chronic political weakness, not of strength.
LikeLike
-
Ian / Martin – it might be best if you two have this conversation somewhere else because I’m stopping it here.
LikeLike
-
it is a bit surreal, for all of the talk of Left unity and how it is critically needed in this difficult time, with the potential rise of the far right, attacks on the working class and a [hopefully not] Tory Government, what happens?
a slanging match and point scoring over the issue of women’s rights
if people can’t show a united front against the anti-abortionists now then it is hard to see how they could build anything remotely united on another subject?
LikeLike
-
I don’t think you can have unity on this issue when you have people argueing different things.
On here, Andy Newman claims that on this issue unity doesn’t include elected representatives supporting democratically agreed policies and on SU he is argueing that a woman’s right to choose comes secondary to the moral and ethical concerns of the electorate.
As a socialist I don’t agree that we must dilute the campaign for abortion rights just because a foetus might be viable after x amount of weeks. A womens right to choose means that women won’t be forced to become incubators due to scientific development and/or moral outrage whipped up by bigots.
It’s very difficult to unify around a common policy concerning abortion when members of an organisation we all belong to won’t follow policy and people elected to represent us don’t support its policies.
LikeLike
-
Actually, it’s pointless quoting from SU because it seems to be attacking any initiative that doesn’t follow the agenda of a certain subset in Renewal.
There are always going to be splits on the left and buying into all the bickering just demoralises people so I’ll stop right here.
LikeLike
-
“if people can’t show a united front against the anti-abortionists now then it is hard to see how they could build anything remotely united on another subject?”
May be but as far as I can tell most people on here are in favour of a woman’s right to choose.
This is a very fundamental and basic democratic right that the majority of the population support. It is about a woman’s right to have self-determination and control over her own body.
There are people who feel uncomfortable about abortion and a minority who oppose it.
We should oppose all criminalisation of women involved in late abortions and be for maximum choice for women and girls to control their own fertility including sex education
But given the majority of the population and a very large majority of the left agree on this (even if a few don’t) then there is substantial possibility for united front work on this.
http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/257/92/
I see no reason for demoralisation on this issue- there was a victory. There’s a lot of work to do but it can be done
LikeLike
-
“GG’s views on this question are derived from Catholicism, not Islam, but Islam, not Catholicism rates a mention in the original comment.”
May be but who mentioned Islam? I think it’s a bit of a stereotype to assume Islam is anit-abortion- some Muslims are but so are some people of other or no religions.
LikeLike
-
“May be but as far as I can tell most people on here are in favour of a woman’s right to choose.”
aye right, enough, as individuals they might be, but when political expediency rears its ugly head some of these individuals will spend considerable intellectual energy in defending the indefensible, this is a prime example: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2347
see the comment fields, that’s the key part
LikeLike
-
“May be but who mentioned Islam?”
It was the first comment on this thread, subsequently deleted by Liam, that attributed GG’s abstention to the influence of ‘Islamists’ in Respect.
LikeLike
-
Hi
Is there any chance I can have a reply to the concerns raised.
1. When did as Andy state it become policy for RR MP to be able to have a free vote on abortion. As a member I have not been made aware of any such discussion. I would like to know which ctte/forum decieded such policy?2. Salma is described as a govt advisor in the birmingham Post article and I am worried that her involvement in such a “task force” is a bit of an obvious courting of her by Labour.
3. Why wasn’t a selection meeting held for members to discuss the candidates for election in London.
I am just looking for some answers and re assurance to these concerns but it appears some are more interested in just bashing each other.
LikeLike
-
Alan
There is no power within Respect’s constitution to mandate any elected representtative over any issue.
So there has been no recent decision, this has always been the case since the 2004 conference.
LikeLike
-
Alan, I’m sure if you write to office@respectrenewal.org you will get a full reply to your questions; it’s a little odd expecting people on blogs, who may be pretending to be other people, to provide the answers you’re looking for.
Not that anyone would ever post on a blog pretending to be, say, an ordinary member or a leading member when they weren’t.
LikeLike
-
Tonyc
It was just that I thought Andy was on the national exec and he did post that it was the position that Respect MP can have a free vote like other organisations. I thought the policy was to defend against any attack on the 1967 abortion act and I feel that in this circumstances that meant voting for defending the status quo.
If the elected representatives are not mandated to uphold party policy in councils or parliament as stated by Koba then is there much point in having any policy. This seems an odd way for a political party to conduct oneself. Looks like this has highlighted a bit of a problem within the organisation and I know many are very angry and upset that GG did not vote to defend the 1967 abortion act.LikeLike
-
Sorry to post again
but I am concerned that no selection meeting was held for the london elections. This does seem to be elementary process for all political parties. It doesn’t seem to me to be odd or sectarian to raise these issues and as a member surely members have the right to take part in such discussions and vote to select candidates.LikeLike
-
Alan, all members of Respect are expected to support our policies. Elected representatives are representing Respect and are expected to uphold our policies. If they don’t then it’s up to Respect members to decide if we want them to represent us any longer.
In an organisation that is democratically accountable it’s possible to campaign to have an elected member deselected. It’s also possible for an elected CC to expel a member if they refuse to uphold the policy of the organisation. I’m not sure how this opperates in Renewal but in Respect agreed proceedures were set up to deal with this.
LikeLike
-
Ray
Do you have any idea what those agreed proceedures might be? Hint: they do not involve expulsion. Further hint: what you may consider their execssive softness was, in fact, agreed to and to some extent introduced by Lindsey German and John Rees as an amendment to an original position on accountability drafted by Alan Thornett.
This is the problem: making sweeping pronouncments with little or know evidence base doesn’t get your very far.
LikeLike
-
that surely is the issue, what is written down and shouldformally happen is frequently often ignored by those in power, that holds true for businesses, public organisations and small political groups
the leaders can and often do make up their own policies as they go along, irrespective of any fine sentiments or motions passed by conferences
LikeLike
-
I agree, this type of behaviour is not what Respect was set up to perpetuate. Respect has a policy on supporting abortion rights and there is no excuse for members not to defend it. If it’s a case of elected representatives voting based on conscience then we might as well allow the pro-choice, pro-war left to represent us. Either way it’s accommodating a shift to the right.
It appears that the current line of defence of Galloways abstention is to complain about LRC members who either abstained or voted for a reduction. This is not the line that anyone on the left should be taking on this issue. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
LikeLike
-
The current line, Ray, is to discuss seriously how abortion rights can be defended and extended. Tell us – what line do the three Left List councillors take over abortion. Have you asked and threatened sanctions on the off chance that they don’t agree with Left List policy on that issue.
LikeLike
-
Nas, the three councillors are expected to follow the policy of Respect which is to defend a womans right to choose. This policy was agreed at the foundation of Respect. It’s not up for debate any more than our opposition to the war in Iraq. Abstention is not in line with Respect policy and does not defend or extend a womans right to choose.
LikeLike
-
Have to disagree with you Ray. This is exactly the behaviour that Respect was set up to perpetuate. It was built on a fatal compromise around lesbian and gay and women’s rights (amongst others) which basically said that building an electoral front on unprincipled politics is more important than the issues. Elected representatives were above criticism, could take any salary they wanted and basically do what the hell they liked.
Respect Renewal unfortunately, continue this terrible politics, but people (like Kevin above) want to claim that just because it was originally rotten and its still rotten that it doesn’t stink. It does.LikeLike
-
I’ll agree with you that Galloway was given too much rope and the SWP concedes this in hindesight but nonetheless, it’s in Respect’s constitution that we uphold abortion rights and that’s not a compromise. As for LGBT and womens right’s they have been supported, perhaps not equally by all members, but they are part of Respect’s constitution.
Respect is reformist in its nature and has attracted members from the whole political spectrum of the left and members who have no prior political experience. Every political organisation attracts new members who have to get to grips with the policy of the organisation but that doesn’t mean they can discard policy that they don’t like due to personal dogma. It’s not the organisations fault if certain members flout policy. They need to be made accountable. The split was the outcome of a divergence of political strategy and Galloway’s abstention on abortion rights is an example of this.
LikeLike
-
“The split was the outcome of a divergence of political strategy and Galloway’s abstention on abortion rights is an example of this.”
Hardly, Ray. This wasn’t mentioned before the split.
Your post I think misunderstands political organisations compared to united fronts. On a particular issue demanding specific action- e.g. no worsening in abortion rights or troops out now- we should build as big a base of support as possible working with anyone who supports this position to maximise the number of people we can get out on to the streets for example.
A political organisation is different. It proposes political solutions to the problems of society- for example workers being in control instead of capitalists. We could participate in larger alliances where workers were moving leftwards and where revolutionary socialists as well as reformists had the right to discuss views and policy democratically. In Respect and indeed the Socialist Alliance before we had a different scenario- one where the largest group (the SWP) explicitly argued for reformist politics as a concession to the movement (as it was explained to me) and enforced their line by a centralised party discipline.
That of course is history and Ray several times has agreed we should move on in united fronts based around action and any discussions on parties take place within this wider framework: however to create a different future we need to understand the past and apply the lessons in the present.
LikeLike
-
“Hardly, Ray. This wasn’t mentioned before the split.”
Absolutely, and Ray – who professes to want to move on – is once again doing his best to stir shit.
Ray, as I’ve said elsewhere, inside the SWP it was accepted that the best you could hope for with George was an abstention – and it was seen as an example of marxism in action that a group of revolutionaries could work with a reformist, deeply religious anti-abortion man and convince him to abstain.
Galloway’s position on abortion is a direct result of the SWP’s original intent, to build a broad party and to try to influence it.
It’d be good if you could, at some point, tell the truth about what happened – people might move on from all of this if you people could just stop trying to pretend that you were the principled ones in all of this.
LikeLike
-
‘The split was the outcome of a divergence of political strategy and Galloway’s abstention on abortion rights is an example of this.’
What utter disingenuous nonsense. The split had absolutely nothing to do with abortion rights. This issue was not mentioned once in any of the debates. And what was the SWP’s alternative ‘political strategy’ exactly? There was no big national disagreement over political direction from any side. Disagreements over candidate selection are par for the course in electoral parties. Only the politically infantile think they warrant splits. But then, the split was never about candidate selection, or ‘witch-hunts’ or the rest of it. The split was about control and the SWP’s unwillingness to loosen their grip or take criticism in the face of extremely moderate proposals and very mild rebukes.
‘Respect is reformist in its nature and has attracted members from the whole political spectrum of the left and members who have no prior political experience.’
Amm…yes. That was the whole point. Respect’s aim at its foundation was to construct a broad left electoral initiative that could pull within its orbit those disaffected with the support for war, racism and neo-liberalism provided by the mainstream parties. Our primary aim was provide an alternative to the parties of bombing and big business on the electoral front.
By its very nature this entails working with people a huge distance from Marxist politics. That is the challenge for marxists operating in mass politics of any nature. By contract, recruiting a relatively small number of ‘believers’ to a group with a totalizing worldview is a comparatively easy job.
The challenge for the SWP was to ensure their organization could operate within Respect as a marxist minority in a way that would keep Respect anchored in its fundamental principles and enable it to reach the places the SWP could not. The SWP blew this task and in the process destroyed a central plank in their strategy for building out of the anti-war movement.
No amount of revisionism from the likes of ‘Ray’ can hide that fact.
LikeLike
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jun/07/elections2004.uk1
Who is being a little economical with the truth? Tonyc or Galloway? Or both?
LikeLike
-
The only people practicing revisionism here are certain Renewal members in order to justify Galloway’s abstention. The point I’m making is that his politics helped create the split. His abstention is just one example of his refusal to follow policy. When Galloway abstains he does so as an elected representative of Respect in direct contradiction to the policy of Respect.
Creating a united front does not mean individuals can ignore the policy of the organisation especially as Respect is a political party which has policies and stands members for election. Respect was never an alliance over one issue such as the war. It is a political organisation which has policies about abortion and Galloway knew this when he joined.
Creating a united front with reformists does not mean it’s a free vote over issues such as a womans right to choose. If that were the case then we may as well all pack up and go home because any “fundamental principles” the left had are obviously expendable when it comes down to the whim of individuals. I’m criticising the fact that without unity around bread and butter issues such as abortion then there are no principles to build a united front on. When those fundamental principles are being challenged then the united front is in trouble. That’s why Respect failed.
As for moving on, I’m all for that so I’ll ignore the SWP bashing from the usual suspects. It would be great to put the past behind us but I think that when its legacy is informing the present that should be challenged.
LikeLike
-
Ger Francis accuses Ray of misrepresenting the facts and its true, abortion rights weren’t the reason for the split, but this doesn’t improve things.
Respect Renewal – as is proven by the actions of its only MP – does not campaign for abortion rights. Just because this rotten compromise was built into the organisation from the outset, doesn’t make it right now.LikeLike
-
I never claimed that abortion was the reason for the split rather that it’s a further example of Galloway acting how he chooses rather than following the policy of Respect.
LikeLike
-
“Respect Renewal – as is proven by the actions of its only MP – does not campaign for abortion rights.”
I disagree that members in Renewal are not campaigning for abortion rights but I think they should hold Galloway accountable otherwise the perception is that Respect members are allowed to abstain on this issue. Abstention can be very dangerous in a close vote but even in this case where pro-choice vote won relatively easily it is opposing the policy of Respect.
The arguement that is made by Ger that new members may not initially support all the policies of Respect does not apply to Galloway. Even though new members may take a while to accept all the policy, when they represent Respect in an official capacity they are required to uphold Respects fundamental principles and this includes abortion rights.
LikeLike
-
This is where abandoning principles gets you. Andy Newman now calls the Labour Representation Committee “ultra left”, why not just go the whole hog and support Gordon Brown?
By regarding principles as a barrier to be overcome rather than the basis upon which an organisation exists, Respect has demonstrated – is demonstrating – the failure of the entire “broad party” approach.
Rather we should have united fronts to fight on key issues like abortion and a party based on a principled programme. Obviously such an organisation wouldn’t include George Galloway and his fellow travellers. Who’s crying?LikeLike
-
I think the issue is, that if Respect Renewaers make too much of the abortion issue in opposition to George Galloway’s views than he can simply walk away, because there is no effective control over him
Galloway is his own man, he essentially does what he wants, if he’s pushed into a corner then he will leave RR and that’s the ultimate trumpt card
so people are often forced into defending or apologising for gorgeous George’s positions
you will remember that we’ve all been here before (Big Bro, etc), just the people defending Galloway are different this time!
LikeLike
-
“Galloway is his own man, he essentially does what he wants, if he’s pushed into a corner then he will leave RR and that’s the ultimate trumpt card” while this is fundamentally true, I do think that the attacks on GG are something of a red-herring. While the majority of the left has one view on this issue, there have always been a small number of individual socialists who have a different perspective, people can get worked up about it, but it’s just a fact of life.
Incidentally, people should compare GG’s stance with PSol Presidential Candidate and trotskyist 4th Interationalist MP, Helena Heloise.For once, I am in agreement with TonyC. Where RR CAN be criticised is that there is nothing at all on their website/press releases on this issue.
LikeLike
-
Ger Francis writes
“There was no big national disagreement over political direction from any side.”
I would suggest that events post-split and the different directions of the two halfs suggest that there was an underlying tension over the direction Respect would go in and this has been festering for some time.
At one point, I had hoped that the split would be temporary, but it does seem now that there are fundamental disagreements on political direction.
Personally, I found the whole witch-hunt against the SWP claim pretty far-fetched at the time the allegation was made, but given subsequent events and statements that I have heard, I have to wonder if leading figures in RR did want to drive the marxist left out of Respect.
I also have to say that , in my opinion, RR does seem to be to the right of Respect/Left List.LikeLike
-
It makes I laugh that the trotskyite ultras accuse the 99.999999999999999999 % of the world’s population who disagree with them of having no principles!
LikeLike
-
I find Hazel Blears pretty objectionable. But empty, futile and desolate as my life is I don’t spend all my time on the internet trawling through things she said four years ago and having rows with people via my computer about what she did last week.
She exists. She annoys me but I leave it at that. Several regular commenters may find that the quality of their life could improve if they took a similar approach to George Galloway.
LikeLike
-
Dear Koba- on abortion you are wrong.
http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/218/106/
On many other matters you are wrong as well.
How many people support democracy? Are against racism? Are for fairness and equality before the law? Are for progressive taxes?
By the way ‘trotskyite’ is a term of abuse used by Stalinists.
Socialists are for the majprity to have control over their lives, for maximum democracy in public life, for equal rights. The majority of society support this as it happens.
We should be for campaigning united fronts that help the majoprity opinions prevail and for a party based on power for the vast majority- the working class, 99% or so of society.
LikeLike
-
“But empty, futile and desolate as my life is I don’t spend all my time on the internet trawling through things she said four years ago and having rows with people via my computer about what she did last week.
She exists. She annoys me but I leave it at that. Several regular commenters may find that the quality of their life could improve if they took a similar approach to George Galloway.”
Liam, yeah right. However, she is not the MP of a party that claims to be for Respect Equality Socialism Peace Environment Community Trade Union power etc.
I hardly think it is obsessive to object to Galloway’s position on abortion. I’m sure if I was sad enough I could find a post on here by you objecting to Galloway.
Well OK i am sad enough -“George Galloway has made clear that he will not stand in the Bethnal Green constituency again. He has set a very strong example of an elected official working without any reference to the democratic structures of the organisation. In this he was given a lot of latitude by the SWP. Some prominent members described things like regular meetings and MP’s report backs as “boring”, “bureaucratic” and “unnecessary drains on George’s time” when it was proposed that these standard Labour Movement practices be made part of Respect’s culture”
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/what-is-respect%e2%80%99s-future/
Is Galloway the main enemy or indeed even discussion on Galloway the main obstacle to get up a vibrant and massive united front to fight for abortion rights and woemn’s liberation in gneral? No.
Should we be mainly concentrating on building vibrant community campaigns, linking up with trade unions, fight against privatisation, racism, war an doppression in general? Yes. But is an occasional and principled criticism of Gaklloway’s lack of accountability necessarily sad, obsessive, out of order or whatever?
Answer for yourself
Kind regards
JasonLikeLike
-
Tis true Galloway is Galloway and either we agree or disagree with him but with regard to the wider issue of how the left organises and campaigns that appears to be in dispute in quite a fundamental way at the moment. I don’t think the left will be able to ignore that dilemma.
LikeLike
-
By the way my sad obseesive search took me less than two minutes. I probably should get out more, though, it’s true!
LikeLike
-
A good point well made Jason but for some people researching GG is a substitute for thinking.
LikeLike
-
Liam,
but the difference between Hazel blears and galloway is that galloway claims to be a socialist and the leader of a party aiming to build a political alternative to labour. I’m sure you would like people to stop asking you to criticise galloway, but all the time you’re in the same party as him and in a supposed trotskyist group which politically supports him against the rest of the left then I think you’ve got to expect commentors on your blog posting criticisms of him.
perhaps your “quality of their life could improve” if you went back to saying what you actually believe instead of defending an anti-choice stalinist crook.
LikeLike
-
Unlike some of his former friends I’ve never felt honour bound to defend everything GG says and does. He abstained on the abortion vote and will probably get a ticking off from his confessor. That’s a fair compromise for anyone who does not have a Stalinist conception of organisations.
What I find bewildering is just how much time some people spend expressing strong views about GG when he’s not often mentioned in anything that I post and when there is a whole big world out there to think about.
LikeLike
-
The most important thing is to fight the bigots rather than dwell on Galloway. There is a need to counter the propaganda that viability rather than a womens right to choose is at issue concerning abortion. But the left appears to be divided on this how we fight this campaign.
After the elections there’s been a growing debate about the way forward for New Labour. I think the abortion debate has been influenced by Labourites who wanted to water down the pro-choice campaign and tail-end what they hope to be public opinion in order to win votes. The left has to resist a strategy where re-electing Labour becomes the priority and leads to right-wing compromises on abortion and other issues.
LikeLike
-
Ray
Abortion simply is not going to be an election issue, so your point is silly that there are electoral considerations at play.
Currently, the political teraain is defensive on this issue, and defending 24 weeks thereofre does require a debate about viability, to persuade MPs that there has been no change in foetal viablity since the limit came down from 28 to 24 weeks.
In so far that the left and womens’ groups are in a position to extend womens’ choice it is in the area of making it easier for a woman, for example requireing only one doctor’s consent, and also removing the elements of post-code lottery.
Another real area where womens’ choice should be improved would be removing the financial and other worries that lead to women considering terminations when they may indeed prefer to have a child but cannot afford to.
Precisely the worst way to proceed is to ignore the actual political terrain, the concrete arguments that need to be made to engage with the debate in society, and the real tasks of the present hour, in ordet to indulge the self-righteous fantasists of the trotskyite left groups.
LikeLike
-
“the self-righteous fantasists of the trotskyite left groups.”
And there we have it – the real agenda underlying the split and the political divergence that is facing the left.
LikeLike
-
Andy, when you fall into the trap of debating viability with the bigots you drop the principle of a womans right to choose. The viability debate is used by the bigots to get a foot in the door to impliment their real agenda which is to ban all abortions. Unless the left exposes the bigots real agenda by defending a womans right to choose rather than an embryos right to be incubated the pro-choice campaign will be whittled down to nothing.
All of the issues you raise such as reducing financial and other worries facing pregnant women are worth addressing but this will only come about if the pro-choice campaign isn’t sidetracked into debating an embryo’s viability instead of a womans right to choose.
Don’t change your opinion to indulge us self-righteous fanatists of trotskyite left groups. Do it for the millions of women who are facing attacks on their freedom of choice by the bigots. It’s two years until the general election and if you haven’t worked out yet that Labour are moving further to the right in a desperate attempt to win votes then you don’t have any real understanding of the political terrain. Labour are attempting to shift the terrain to the right and the left should not buy into this strategy by compromising our principles.
LikeLike
-
But only 84 MPs voted for a 16 week limit, less than that for a 12 week limit- surely this is the small number who have a hidden agenda to ban all abortions.
LikeLike
-
What is most revealling about Ray is that he attacks the successful campaign by Abortion Rights that actualluypersuaded a number of MPs to abstain or vote in favoir of the status quo and which saw nadine Dorrire’s amendments defeated.
Instead he argues for a strategy that would have allowed the small number of totally anti-abortion Mps to have won over the middle ground to themselves, and therefore make much more likely a victory for the anti-abortionists.
This it seems is a “principle”, to argue a campaign on the basis that makes defeat inevitable, but which allows you to feel superior to people who don’t have your revolutionary clarity.
You couldn’t make it up.
LikeLike
-
On the one hand Ray claims he has moved on from the split. On the other he regurgitates red baiting fantasies to explain the ‘real agenda’ behind the split. Like the SWP’s ‘witch-hunt’ claims, it is simply another lie.
LikeLike
-
Andy Newman and Ger Francis are of course entitled to their ire.
None of which conceals the fact that the only pro-choice argument their organisation makes is the choice of their elected representatives to abstain on the struggle for women’s rights.
I have yet to hear anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose, opposing a campaign to defend 24 weeks. Andy Newman, in order to cover up from the terrible right wing politics of his organisation, keeps making this claim.
Needs must I suppose.LikeLike
-
Andy as already mentioned ‘trotskyite’ is an abusive insult invented by Stalinists.
There is actually a mass campaign that had some success- we should build on that rather than perpetuating some private feud. This of course applies to both sides.
There is a basis for further action convincing more people to join the campaign. In my opinion, disputes about viability don’t work. To give just a very small personal anecdote- my mum (very pro-choice) helped convince my partner (wavering as she’s lost a couple of pregnancies and thus invested heavily in the idea of the foetus as a child) by concentrating on the rights of women, and the particular circumstances often behind abortions. Of course use all arguments in the arsenal but I think viability is not the main one.
We can disagree on this of course and a whole manner of other things and still build a united campaign.
LikeLike
-
Bill J: “I have yet to hear anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose, opposing a campaign to defend 24 weeks. ”
Ray: “The viability debate is used by the bigots to get a foot in the door to impliment their real agenda which is to ban all abortions. Unless the left exposes the bigots real agenda by defending a womans right to choose rather than an embryos right to be incubated the pro-choice campaign will be whittled down to nothing.”
LikeLike
-
Exactly point made. Defending 24 weeks does not mean conceding the viability debate. The viability debate is used by bigots to get their foot in the door, Ray’s absolutely correct on that.
Defenders of a woman’s right to choose (a group which doesn’t include GG of course and by the look Andy Newman) defended 24 weeks because we did not want to see a deterioration in woman’s rights, not because we accepted the viability debate, or thought that it was counterposed to a woman’s right to choose. It isn’t.
And course Andy Newman enjoys slandering the left. Telling I think.LikeLike
-
The general debate between SWP and RR supporters reminds me of the story when Grant, the state cap, persuaded Cliff of the wrongness of his workers’ states position, only then to advocate this position himself. Or something like that.
One of my favourites from the archives is this response to a posting from ‘Lenin’.
LikeLike
-
“Should McDonnell’s campaign fail, it will reveal the strategic cul-de-sac that the Labour left finds itself in – yet none of them will for one second contemplate joining a hollowed out, undemocratic lash up between the SWP and a handful of local Muslim personalities, with a gadfly MP too busy for politics while he preens himself for a celebrity media career.”
My, Andy how you’ve shifted your alliegences. Your political terrain appears very wobbly. Now that Galloway has split from Respect and made overtures to New Labour via Livingstone it fits in nicely with your original Labourite perspective. No wonder you’re obsessed with New Labours line on a free vote for MP’s and viability rather than a woman’s right to choose. Us pesky Trotskyites just get in the way of all that.
LikeLike
-
the “viability” debate at SU blog was terrible, I think that Eddie Truman’s contribution was one of the best:
“28.
It’s been an interesting couple of days on this blog in relation to a woman’s right to choose.
Andy’s post following the vote at Westminster was a bad mistake.
I don’t know what the motivation was in posting it, to me it read like a pre-emptive strike in defence of Galloway, only Andy can say for sure.
Whatever the motivation, Andy made a fundamental mistake right at the start, to categorize the issue of abortion time limits, a woman’s right to choose whether to go through with a pregnancy or not, as being a ‘moral’ one.
As soon as you do that you surrender all your ground to the anti-abortionists because they can ascribe the abstract of morals to the abstract of unborn children.
And the anti-abortionists are relentless in using the emotive language of morals to attack a women’s rights, just go through some of the posts of ‘Ed D’ in this thread.
We read of ‘putting down’ babies (which they are not), babies (which they are not) being ‘exectuted’ etc.
Andy’s next post was just as much a mistake; the ‘viability’ argument is vital and one which the left must pursue.
Several posts on this thread have taken up that issue really well and pointed out that it is a total diversion.
All in all not a glorious episode on Socialist Unity and a great example of why the left needs to build a party on democratically agreed positions of principle on key issues, a fundamental one being a woman’s right to choose and to have access to whatever medical procedures she needs as a part of that, not as a moral issue but as a fundamental human right.
Women will always get abortions if they need to.
If this traumatising procedure is not freely available through publicly provided health care then it will be sought out through private medicine or appalling self medication, making it a class issue of who can afford such services.
Again; to say this is a moral issue is a fundamental mistake.Comment by Eddie Truman — 23 May, 2008 @ 12:17 am”
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2347#commentsLikeLike
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to Andy Newman Cancel reply