Alan Thornett is a member of Southwark Respect and sits on the National Council. This is his reply to Andy Newman’s article on building Respect. Both pieces will be published in the next issue of Socialist Resistance as part of the debate around how to take the organisation forward.

The common ground in Andy Newman’s article is the need to build Respect, the significance of the electoral successes it has achieved, and its relevance as the most important left alternative new Labour moves ever more to the right. And it is clear what the response of the new Labour leadership will be to electoral defeat, particularly at a time of severe economic problems. It will be that they had not gone far enough to the right and they had not adopted enough of the neo-liberal agenda.

He seems to want to build it, however, on rather doubtful terrain in which John Cruddas and Compass are the centre of gravity in moving towards some kind of rainbow coalition. This is when it should be looking towards the trade union left, class struggle unions like the RMT, the campaigning activists –– environmental and otherwise –– and others on the left like the CPB who clearly should be in Respect but are still outside. It should also be looking crucially towards those sections of the working class hardest hit by the current economic situation and who urgently need a voice.

The deputy Governor of the Bank of England is one among many to point to the severity of the economic crisis and its consequences.  And the poorest sections of the working class are being hit the hardest by this situation. Unemployment is rising fast and Energywatch has predicted that this coming winter a staggering 5 million household will be in fuel poverty. The average UK household gas bill has risen by 31% this year and electricity bills by 22%.  Food prices have gone up by 25% –– list goes on.  All this is likely to lead to more trade union action on wages and in defence of jobs.

Respect will lose out big time if it has nothing to say about this situation. Those hit by it and those fighting back against it are its natural constituency both in terms of electoral support and for building itself as a party. Some of Respect’s biggest bases of support in inner city areas are amongst the hardest hit in this situation.

From this point of view the strategy presented in Andy Newman’s article –– for building Respect (or not building it as it could be reasonably described) –– points in the wrong direction. Respect should certainly work with organisations like Compass where that is possible as it can with many others but it has to get its principal constituency right.

Andy argues that instead of turning outwards in this way, winning new support, building new branches and strengthening the existing ones, it should concentrate its resources almost exclusively on its voter bases in East London and South Birmingham. Building outwards into other areas or into other sections of the working class is presented as more or less irrelevant.

He sees building a branch in Manchester or Bristol as just about useful whilst elsewhere there is little point. He puts it this way: “Between now and the next election, we should tilt everything towards Tower Hamlets and Birmingham, and the rest of Respect should see our task as mainly supporting them, and being led by their agenda, though we obviously need to continue to develop the small but important roots we have in places like Manchester and Bristol.”

It is an idea which has been advanced with some vigour by Andy and others inside Respect since the formation of Respect Renewal and it makes no sense –– even from a purely electoralist point of view, which is essentially what he puts forward.

The importance of building Respect in East London and South Birmingham and of winning seats there in the general election is absolutely common ground. These bases are essential to the relevance of Respect as an organisation and key to its future success. They represent a breakthrough into important minority working class inner city communities, which no other section of the left has been able to make.

It does not follow, however, that the best way to support and strengthen these bases is by counterposing them to building in other areas of the country and in other sections of the working class – for example the white working class with all its problems. Nor does it follow that the best way to build Respect there is by ignoring what is probably the biggest single problem they face. In any case the idea that Respect can build an organisation in the long-term which is overwhelmingly confined to two parts of two important cities and several minority communities is seriously flawed.

The real way to support these bases and maximise their electoral success is to build Respect outwards. To build viable branches in other towns and cities where it does not yet exist. It is a two-way process. Respect needs to use its success in these bases to extend its reach geographically and socially and then use an expanded organisation to give them the support they need for further and future success.

Of course Respect has to maximise support for Birmingham and East London in a general election campaign. It goes without saying. But what does this mean in practice? There are practical limitations. Respect’s electoral success is in advance of its membership and activist base. In Birmingham it is probably possible for all Respect supporters to pile in and support the target constituency. The same to some extent in London. But what do Respect members in Bristol, Manchester, Oxford, Brighton, Milton Keynes, Southend, Swindon, Dorset or other places where Respect has members or groups of members do? They could make several useful weekend trips to Birmingham or East London during the campaign, which would be very useful support of course, but probably not much more. They need to be building a branch locally at the same time.

In fact the key to winning elections in East London or Birmingham is to build strong branches in those places which can regenerate a strong voice to represent the interests of the area. If a branch is not built locally it hard to substitute from the outside. This is why electoral success has to be used to build active branches of the organisation.

Nor is it obvious that Respect branches in other places should not stand candidates –– in South London for example. It is difficult to build a branch locally, and put down the roots in the local community which are necessary to build something serious, on the basis that the only thing it can do at the time of an election is to go and campaign in East London or Birmingham.

Defending Respect’s existing Westminster seat is very important. But is it the totally make or break issue in the way in which it is being presented? It is always a big issue once you have elected representatives. You have to defend the seats you hold or you have an electoral setback. An electoral intervention is certainly essential, but no left party can guarantee to win seats. It cannot therefore be the only measure of success. In the last general election Salma Yaqoob failed to win her seat but she demonstrated very clearly that she had a major base in South Birmingham, which was then reflected in local government success.

But Andy Newman’s aversion t
o building Respect branches is not just about electoral strategy, it is about the character of Respect as an organisation. He argues that the ‘traditional left models of branches, resolutions and publications’ are outdated methods and a waste of space. He and other have repeatedly argued that Respect has to get away from these outmoded methods and adopt new methods and new ideas –– though not surprisingly there has been little detail as to what this means.

Everyone is in favour of new ideas of course. Though very few ideas in political organisation are actually very new. In Southwark Respect we not only have regular quite well-attended branch meetings (the August meeting was on Palestine) but a few ‘new ideas’ as well. We have just had a successful gig with Mark Steel and a very good intervention into the Carnival del Pueblo with a leaflet in English and Spanish followed by a successful Spanish language public meeting which established some contacts in the local Latin American community. Earlier in the year we had public meeting with George Galloway on rising fuel and food prices. It was not very ‘new’ but it was very successful. It found a resonance in the local community.

Andy Newman argues that Respect cannot be an ‘off the shelf’ alternative to new Labour, whatever that means. But it does have to present an alternative set of politics to new Labour if it is going to reclaim the ground they have abandoned. This cannot be done on a minimal platform of anti-war and ant-neo-liberalism. Andy ridicules the idea of having policies by saying it is not matter of having ‘correct’ positions. It is not a matter of having abstractly ‘correct’ policies. But it is a matter of having something useful to say about the problems people face and of having a vision of an alternative form of society around which to campaign –– and that means having some collectively agreed polices with which to do it.

No one thinks that Respect is preparing to form a government, or that it can have a policy on everything -–– that’s just another form of ridicule. But how can you present an alternative if you have nothing to say on most of the issues which come up in an election? Sorry – we have nothing to say on the unions, nothing to say on the environment, nothing to say on women’s right, nothing to say on civil and human rights, nothing to say on health or education, we are not that kind of party! To ask the question is to answer it. It would be absolutely bonkers.

Andy argues for Respect to have a vision for Tower Hamlets, and it certainly should. But how can it do this without developing policies on a range of issues on which to base such a vision? The alternative is for the ‘vision’ to be developed in some way other than collectively. Respect should indeed aim to win to take control of Tower Hamlets council but to do it without a developing organisation elsewhere in order to give the backup which would be necessary would be a hostage to fortune. Yes Respect should respond to the South Birmingham and East London agenda, but that means building an organisation which can do so effectively.

13 responses to “Respect has to turn outwards – Alan Thornett”

  1. Some very good points from Alan T as always, and quite telling about the politics of those leading Renewal, but swept along by his dislike of the SWP he appears not to have got it:

    Respect Renewal is a right wing breakaway from Respect and essentially represents a conservative wing of the movement. One wonders if Renewal is routed in the next elections if many of its leaders will end up in Labour . The reality of the political terrain that Renewal is headed down are staring SR/ISG in the face, but they think that if they stare at their feet and re-arrange the deck chairs on the titanic that everything will be okay.

    Socialist Resistance/SG should now join the Left Alternative and fight for their perspective within a class struggle organisation. Their contribution would be welcomed. Even as great a revolutionist as Leon Trotsky once found himself on the wrong side in a split!

    Like

  2. Its so nice of Adamski to pop up and remind all of us in Respect, no matter which side of this issue we stand on, that we have far more in common with each other than we do with headbangers like him…

    Virtually nothing in what he writes above gives any indication that he is even orbiting the same planet as the rest of us.

    ‘Join the Left Alternative and fight for their perspective within a class stuggle organisation’!!!??? I defy any one to read that out loud and keep a straight face.

    Like

  3. RobM, well you have to admit that whatever you disagreements over strategy and methods, ISG has politically more in common with the SWP than you do with those around Galloway/Mark P/AndyNewman.

    As a response to the Newman article, Thornett has done a reasonable job, but that in itself poses the question- if respect is not just an electoral machine for returning galloway to parliament as Newman wants it to be, what exactly is the point of it? Under the respect name there is almost no involvement or implantation in class struggle activities outside of two limited parts of the country.

    The problem thornett is likely to face is that this really is a serious division, between the galloway/salma fanclub approach of Newman and the class struggle approach of organised socialists. The latter requires democracy, policy positions and accountability of elected leaders- these are all the things that propents of the former are desperate to avoid.

    Like

  4. “ISG has politically more in common with the SWP than you do with those around Galloway/Mark P/AndyNewman.” – Martin Ohr

    Well thats for others to decide. The implication seemsto be though that myself and others are on ‘the right’. Such a formulation is almost entirely irrelevant in this particular case.

    Quite what is left wing in having incredibly bloated expectations about the state of an organisation you are a member of goodness only knows. Its a common misconception though, mistaking the gung-ho for the Bolshevik.

    If, and granted its a huge if, Respect can build on its two bases, part of East London, part of South Birmingham, electorally then it has some kind of future. Nobody would want to have just two strong bases, but that is the current standing of the organisation. Bases in terms of a vote, elected councillors, credible parliamentary candidates, an MP. But right now thats just about all Respect has. Without these two bases we’re just another very, very small left group. Thats not a right-wing analysis, its an honest appraisal which it is hard to disagree with unless enthusiasm is the sole basis of your politics.

    Now can we get back to debating the specifics free of the make-believe world of leftier than thou.

    Mark P

    Like

  5. 1. I agree with the gist of this countering Andy’s opportunist evolution to the right with uncritical support for Livingstone and odd fantasies about alliances with John Cruddas.

    2. I wonder though if there is some hair-splitting going on about the issue of targeting resources vis a vis aiming for stronger national spread of branches. Most forces in Respect would agree that this is desirable, but clearly consolidating the party’s hold in Birmingham and East London remains a priority.

    We need to be sober and realistic about the potential for real branches to emerge further afield in period marked by the resurgence of the Tories. For instance, Bristol is doing pretty much everything right, Galloway pulls a crowd and so on. But unfortunately I do not see much evidence of a surge of people either joining up and or making Respect the centre of their political activity as one would expect if there was a flow of people saying ‘yes we need an alternative to New Labour.’ This is not a criticism, although more could be done of course. There are serious resource limits on what branches can do right now and Bristol is one the more lively ones.

    Like

  6. Mark P,

    I don’t think it’s a left/right thing as such, and it’s pretty meaningless to argue who is most left wing between small far-left factions. My point is though that the Galloway tradition: stalinism, big power bloc international politics, back-room horse-trading of principles, solidarity with international regimes against their working classes etc, is a long way from the ISG tradition.

    Thornett implies that it wouldn’t be the end of the world if Galloway didn’t get re-elected if it meant building self-sustaining branches in other areas of the country and offered the chance of intervention in class politics, while yourself and Andy -and presumably by extension Galloway/Salma/Ger Francis etc argue the opposite. For respect-watchers it will be interesting to hear how Galloways staff speak and vote on this at your conference, politically they would be with Thornett, financially with galloway.

    For me though this is partly putting the cart before the horse; Thornett implies that it wouldn’t be the end of the world if galloway lost, I’d argue that it is a pre-condition to building the sort of party that Thornett is aiming for.

    Like

  7. I think Kevin Oovenden put it very well in his talk to the SR day-school when he said that (I paraphrase) given that the move to the right has been so huge, then any revival of the left is likely to be somewhere to the right of where we would like it to be.

    It is simply a fact that in terms of electoral implementation – and that is what makes Respect different from the 57 varieties of left group – then the only credible bases are in particular areas of East London and Birmingham, and the specific demographics and reasons for success in those areas are not easily reproducible elsewhere.

    To stretch an analogy, the PDS had a base in the five provinces of the former DDR, and it was an achievement to hold on to their representation in the Bundestag, which was only from Berlin.

    But even with the much greater membership and resources of the PDS they were unable to break out of the particular circumstances that created their base into the West.,

    But that toe hold became nationally significant by allying itself with Oskar Lafontaine’s break from the SPD.

    Respect as presently constituted is simply incapable of breaking out of its current areas into the political mainstream – to believe otherwise is to misunderstand Respect’s limitations.

    But what we can do is use the advantages we do have to seek to redefine the political context.

    Like

  8. I think the real Martin Ohr would be horrified to see that someone is using his handle to weep crocodile tears for the ISG. Campism, Stalinism, solidarity with workers’ states — are these not exactly the so-called crimes that the AWL has accused the ISG and the Fourth International of?

    As for the AWL’s insight to machine politics – let’s compare stories of its antics at NUS and LPYS conferences. The last AWLer to vote right after calling for a vote to the left gets a free copy of Socialism From Below.

    Like

  9. The majority of the working class and that smaller but still significant part of the working class that can be won to action in the immediate to medium term is clearly to the right of where many on this web-board would wish them to be.

    However, as socialists our immediate task is to win them to action and in the process of common action win people to the ideas of socialism:

    that working class people need to run society ourselves

    that the capitalist system based on profit and elite privilege is incapable of producing a just or fair society.

    To do this we propose specific actions- this can include fighting for immediate reforms.

    There is no need to lie about what we believe or pretend to believe something else to make ourselves more palatable. In fact, such tactics not only obscure the goal and sow confusion but are dishonest and easily seen through- we just seem like the next bunch of charlatans.

    Of course there are those in Respect who are honest reformists. Fair enough. We should work together in common campaigns and seek to advance those actions and debate and discuss where we can.

    Respect is not very different at all to most left groups – it is one of the larger but not the largest. It does have councillors and one MP which in theory should give it an advantage. However, the politics and activity of that MP are questionable at times and the overall identity of the group seems somewhat fragile and ill defined.

    Like

  10. Jason, there is reformism and reformism.

    For example, a guy who stood for Respect down here in 2006 was a traditional Labour voter and reformist who helped set up and chaired a Defend Council Housing campaign that saw 3 out of 4 council tenants vote No to stock transfer getting trade unions and other political parties on board. Such DIY reformism-from-below is a very different breed to those in Renewal who sew illusions in the council chamber, and think that this is the site of struggle.

    Respect Renewal seems to bear the same relation to Respect as New Labour to Labour. Andy seems to have moved dramatically to the right from the days when he was discussing the mechanics of a socialist council in Britain defying central government to abolish or cut council tax, now he thinks you have to work within the system and only so much change is possible. With mainstream politicians never held in so much contempt by ordinary people, Renewal seem to think that to succeed you have to court the mainstrem.

    A broad socialist party in this period should aim to connect with the 5% of the population who are radicalised as a bridge to the wider working class. Supporting strikes, calling for public ownership and articulating a message that is distinct from the mainstream can begin to build a base.

    For example, with the mainstream being so slow to act or speak out against the gas companies raising prices, socialists can seize the initiative to get a hearing ‘cos we are the only ones saying that the rich should pay for the credit crunch.

    Like

  11. Make connections certainly- fight around common aims e.g. no to the council house sell offs, for high quality services such as insulation and repairs, for tenants’ organisation. These are reforms yes but not necessarily reformism.

    And yes granted the person you give as an example is probably not a revolutionary so in that sense believes that the system can be patched up and reformed but even here we can have common action and – if there is a base for it which in the case of 3 successful campaigns there may be- an electoral challenge.

    Here we don’t demand that every signs up for revolution or whatever but put forward in the big meetings to decide policy (and if you’re going to have a viable campaign you’ll need big meetings) socialist politics e.g. fight for decent housing from the council under tenants’ control, against all evictions including on mortgages (for foreclosures to be taken over by the council), for housing associations to be under tenants’ control and back in the public sector, for education run by the community not big business.

    May be those policies will be rejected. Quite possibly. I’m pretty sure though they won’t be laughed out of court. But if other policies that are fighting ones are accepted then fine. However, the socialists inside Respect- ISG, SWP- policy seems to be let’s change our politics in advance. I’m saying that’s not the way forward.

    Like

  12. If Respect were to make significent losses of its present elected members, then this would have a profound effect upon its morale and cohesion.So one of the strategies to persue is to prioritise election work within those bases. But no amount of concentration on these areas can guarantee that there will not be reverses. The real mitigation of any such losses will come from building branches of Respect around the country. This will increase the campaigning ability of Respect and its potential for building struggles and support well outside the terrain of traditional electoralism.
    A final point is the recognition that left of Labour candidates find the going very hard in the context of a large Tory revival. That revival seems to me to be the most probable context of the next general election.I realise that Respect has to concentrate on the period upto and of the general election, but it would be silly not to consider what will be the position after. Andy is right to examine what potential allies might be found in the Labour left. Trickett and Crudass themselves will lead nowhere, but there might be some amongst the base they animate that need to be engaged with. I would hope however , even in the schlerosed shell that is the present Labour Party, there might be more valuable currents developing.

    Like

Leave a reply to Ben R Cancel reply

Trending