by Clive Searle, Respect national secretary

There is a political earthquake shaking Westminster politics. MPs of all the main parties have been found with the snouts in the trough – claiming fat expenses on everything from sink plugs to duck islands, ‘flipping’ second homes and renovating flats at the taxpayers’ expense. Some of the figures involved are eye watering. The revelations in the Telegraph have thrown the political establishment onto the back foot – creating a wave of righteous anger at the sheer naked greed of our supposed representatives.

No wonder the demand for a General Election is growing daily with over two-thirds wanting an election by the end of the year. David Cameron has thrown his weight behind the call despite his Tory MPs being up to their necks in the same old sleaze that brought down John Major’s government. Cameron’s only saving grace is that Gordon Brown has had an even worse few weeks, as Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister has been exposed with fingers in the expenses till. And while many expect this kind of behaviour from Tory grandees they rightly remember that New Labour came to power on a promise to clean up Westminster politics.We didn’t expect them to ‘clean up’ on their expenses!

Yet we have seen 12 New Labour years of money grubbing by MPs sitting in a Parliament that has time and again proved itself utterly useless. Our MPs have had their snouts so deeply in the trough that they failed to notice or stop an illegal war. While those same MPs were busy ‘flipping’ their second homes they overlooked the bankers pilling up their own bonuses, gambling the future of the our jobs and homes on ever more obscure ‘financial instruments’.

The truth is that Parliament while being financially flush is politically bankrupt. We need fundamental root and branch reform. A General Election that stuffs a unreformed Parliament with hundreds of new Tory MPs will simply give them time to come up with new and more ingenious ways of raking in the cash. And a parliament elected on first-past-the post may enshrine a Tory majority for a generation – one in which austerity will rule as Cameron and Co attempt to make the majority of us pay for the economic crisis.

The case of electoral reform has never been stronger than it is today. Unless and until MPs truly fear the wrath of their electors then the room for sleaze and incompetence remains. The case for a proportional voting system is now overwhelming. Respect will be adding our voices to this call over the coming months. We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to use this political crisis to extract real change from our discredited leaders. But if progressive forces are to have an impact on the current situation then we also need to raise our game for the General Election – an election which must be called by summer 2010

It was against this background that the National Council of Respect met on Saturday 23 rd May. After a wide-ranging debate we resolved to attempt a much larger electoral challenge than previously planned. We would like to stand candidates in many more seats, where MPs have been found to have their betrayed the trust of the electorate.

Respect may be a small party but we have a big reputation as a party of action. Respect members and supporters threw themselves into the Viva Palestina aid convoy earlier this year helping to ensure its success in taking aid to Gaza.

And as well as a part of action we are also one of principle which expects high standards of MPs. George Galloway voted in Parliament for full disclosure of expenses and allowances in July 2008. When the government said it would take legal action to prevent disclosure of MPs’ allowances and expenses, George Galloway wrote to the Speaker of the House demanding to be excluded from the legal action.

George Galloway does not claim the second homes allowance, anything on the so-called John Lewis list or any travel expenses.

So we will now be starting a process of selecting candidates to stand in both the Westminster and council elections next year. In some areas we have already selected candidates but we wish to broaden our electoral challenge to many more seats. We are asking members (and the many supporters whom we wish to become members) to consider standing in the elections for Respect. Already we have people coming forward who wish to raise the cause of peace, justice, equality at the ballot box.

We will need many more. We will need an army of volunteers – to raise the funds, knock on doors, and sign up new members and supporters. Respect intends to be part of the progressive challenge to the politics of ‘business as usual’. Respect was formed because we believed there needed to be an alternative to the three main parties of privatisation and war. The case for that alternative has never been stronger. Can you help us?

To join Respect (membership costs £10/£5 per year) please visit http://www.therespectparty.net/joindonate.php?page=join

To make a donation to our General Election fighting fund please visit http://www.therespectparty.net/joindonate.php?page=donate

If you think you would be a suitable candidate to stand for Respect in a Westminster or local council election please visit

http://www.gmrespect.org.uk/GEselection2009 and fill in the initial information form online.

39 responses to “Crisis at Westminster: Respect to broaden challenge at General Election”

  1. “George Galloway does not claim second home allowance or anything on the John Lewis list”. Maybe he does not need to given his income from outside work on top of his £64,000 salary ie

    Fees for hosting a radio show every Friday and Saturday night on Talk Sport Radio. (£100,001-£105,000)

    Weekly column in Scottish Daily Record (from 25 June 2007) (£25,001-£30,000)

    Fee for presenting Real Deal television programme on Press TV. (£5,001-£10,000) (Registered 16 June 2008)

    Fee for speaking engagement for Chartered Institute of Housing, November 2007. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 16 June 2008)

    Fee from Guardian newspaper, September 2008. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)

    Fee for three appearances on ‘Right Stuff’, January 2009. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)

    Fee from the Association of Tobacco Benevolent Fund for attending a fund raising event at Lords Cricket Ground on 11 June 2008. (£5,001-£10,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)

    Fee for presenting Real Deal on Press TV, July 2008. (£15,001-£20,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)

    Fee for presenting Real Deal on Press TV, September 2008. (£15,001-£20,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)

    Fee for presenting ‘Comment’ on Press TV, September 2008. (Up to £5,000) (Registered 12 January 2009)

    What ever happened to the very sensible socialist demand that our representatives take no more than the average industrial wage plus legitimate expenses? (Press TV by the way is a mouthpiece of the Iranian regime).

    Like

  2. This is excellent news. Just the kind of pro-active approach the situation demands. The hostile list above is nothing to do with expenses but is payment for work done. I do think that the elected representatives of a political party should be employed by that party not by the state. But Galloway’s campaigning isn’t backed by a big party machine and he personally has to foot the bill for much of his campaigning and he gets about a lot which is expensive and I don’t think anybody would prefer he didn’t do the radio show. Ideally the candidates of any revolutionary faction will know what to do like paying their MPs salaries into the party and receiving a democratically decided upon wage from the party without being overly anal about it i.e. using it as a split issue but as an exemplary one.

    Like

  3. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    I agree with David Ellis. And as I understand it Galloway’s fees are paid into a seperate company from which he pays for staff, not directly to his own personal accounts.

    Like

  4. Stuart King sounds like a writer for the Daily Telegraph – when Conrad Black was in charge (now, of course, he is in clink). Or else a writer for Solidarity.

    Galloway’s earnings from work outside parliament are nothing to do with the parliamentary expenses issue. In some ways, they are the opposite. They do not come from the public purse. They also fund his political work.

    This kind of ‘criticism’ – which implies that Galloway should be bracketed with the corrupt when his activities are completely above board, just shows again why many so-called ‘principled’ critics of Respect cannot be trusted to know where the class line lies.

    Galloway uses his earnings as a ‘war chest’ for political activities that he engages in worldwide. You can validly disagree with and criticise the way he does this, but to attempt to equate this with a corruption scandal involving MP’s of the main parties who secretly funded a lavish lifestyle at the public expense is appalling.

    Like

  5. The issues of expenses and earnings are formally seperate but there is a link in the sense of MPs i general (not all) using public office to fund lavish lifestyles.

    Quite rightly the current scandal of MPs defrauding money has been placed under the spotlight and caused tremendous public anger. I suspect however that it is only the tip of the iceberg with many MPs receiving commissions for being on boards, charging exorbitant fees.

    Is Galloway’s media expesnes in this bracket? If there are public accounts open to scrutiny where every single penny gathered through media appearances is accounted for and managed for campaigning work in an open transparent way then no. However it does require this kind of transparency.

    If there are going to be candidates stood by working class campaigns/organisations on an anti-corruption anti big business anti-capitalist ticket then any such issues need to be absolutely clear.

    Like

  6. What media expenses? We are talking about earnings – payment for doing work. And payments from employers.

    The only people who have an interest in ‘scrutinising’ GG’s ‘expenses’ claimed from an employer are … his employer(s). I couldn’t care less about whether or not he is ripping them off … though I very much doubt it. He’ s not daft.

    These are not ‘formally’ seperate issues. They are completely different – the opposite in fact. This complaint seems to be that the Torygraph is not going after GG. That’s because they have nothing at all to justify that … as well as bad memories of previous encounters.

    Like

  7. Perhaps I should have said ‘media fees’: but you can hardly call £5000 for appearing on a program or £15000 for presenting a program work.

    If we are serious about MPs being on an average worker’s salary and being completely above board then Galloway should be completely transparent- especially if hs socialist supporters are claiming that they are ‘earnings’ for a political war chest.

    Like

  8. “Perhaps I should have said ‘media fees’: but you can hardly call £5000 for appearing on a program or £15000 for presenting a program work.”

    Actually you can. The employer obviously does, since he/she/they are willing to fork out the money. Unless you think they are in the habit of paying money for nothing. You seem overly concerned with his employer’s financial well-being. I don’t give a toss about that.

    You are raising a completely different issue, and trying to mix it up with a corruption scandal. An AWL-style smear.

    Like

  9. If you think this kind of thing is not ‘work’, then take a look at this case, involving another prominent Respect member who does similar work.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/21/pressandpublishing3?gusrc=rss&feed=media

    Not only is this ‘work’, those involved in it can encounter the same kind of problems and issues as in any other employment.

    Like

  10. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Some of the fees shown in Galloway’s scrupulously accurate return to the Parliament office are “up to £5,000” not “£5,000”, this is the categories parliament uses, which says loads about what they consider a fee to be – they could well be in the £200-£500, which would not buy you half a day of a self-employed advisor’s work. He does pay taxes on them all of course.

    Now that we’ve settled the fact that Galloway is not robbing the taxpayer, unlike the other MPs named recently … can we return to the issue of whether Respect should be standing more candidates in the General Election on the issue of MP’s attitude to claiming expenses? Good idea or not?

    Like

  11. “The issue of whether Respect should be standing more candidates in the General Election on the issue of MP’s attitude to claiming expenses? Good idea or not?”

    Personally I think we would be better advised to try to get together a broader coalition with others on the left than go it alone.

    We should not limit ourselves to our ‘core’ areas, but this idea of 100 candidates – which was talked about at the NC – seems like going to the other extreme and I’m not sure it is feasible.

    Like

  12. “We should not limit ourselves to our ‘core’ areas, but this idea of 100 candidates – which was talked about at the NC – seems like going to the other extreme and I’m not sure it is feasible.”

    It would require (amongst other things) a regrouping of the forces around Respect from before the 2007 split, in some of the many areas where the organisation ceased to exist. The old databse could be useful for this (are there any data protection issues?)

    The Socialist Alliance fielded 98 candidates in 2001, albeit with the SP and SWP supporting them but it is a moot point as to how much effort they put into the SA, except in the areas where they had their own candidates. And as the SP point out, the SA had just 1,691 members in December 2001.

    Yes, a broad coalition would be a great idea, one that should be worked for, but recent experience shows that, unless you are prepared to go it alone if necessary, no-one will take you seriously.

    On the issue of expenses: this could well be a secondary issue and not that relevant by the time of the GE. There is after all a world recession, several wars and a climate crisis. If there are by-elections, however, I think Respect should consider standing – e.g. in Luton South if Esther Rantzen stands. Fighting celebs with local, rooted, class struggle candidates would have a positive impact. Such by-elections could also be used to campaign for electoral reform. I totally agree with the argument that the next GE should be based on PR.

    Like

  13. Obviously I hit a raw nerve. We are told fees are paid into a separate account to pay staff. Really? But Galloway also comes near the top of the list for office and staff expenses paid for by the Hse of Commons (£130,000 plus I think) Does he employ the entire Respect leadership?

    Then we are told it is a “political war chest”. For what – Respect? Unlikely as the last accounts show only £14,740 for all donations over £200. So if GGs income is for political activities why not publish accounts?

    Why is this important? Because the voters are up in arms at the “fat cat MPs”. At the moment it is just concentrated on fiddled expenses and allowances. That’s because the Tory press and media do not want to focus on another real scandal.

    That MPs are paid a good salary but only work half a year. That most of them are off moonlighting in company directorships, talk-shows, the law, journalism, after dinner speeches etc earning tens if not hundreds of thousands more. And that they don’t even have to turn up to parliament when its sitting despite being paid for it – GG is renowned for this. Any normal worker has to be at work and even (in public service) get permission to have another job. Not so our well paid MPs.

    Respect, like our MPs, “just don’t get it”. The outrage is a result of workers making sacrifices, being made unemployed, working short-time, while the MPs stuff their pockets with gold because we elected them to the Commons.

    So the 12 Respect NC members out of 50 who turned up decided to launch a massive electoral challenge at the general election. Presumably those who didn’t turn up were too busy campaigning against each other in the Euro elections – one side calling on people to vote No2EU, the other saying don’t vote No2EU vote Green Party.

    Will this particular coalition will last to the general election?

    Like

  14. Stuart King is going to vote for Gordon Brown anyway, expenses scandal and all, so who cares what he says one way or another?

    Even if Respect did cease to exist, it would still have amounted to far more than Workers Power/Permanent Revolution who have managed in 35 years to build a group of less than a hundred people and then split into two chunks who loathe each other.

    In that context, his statement that Respect ‘don’t get it’ as if he speaks for more than the inhabitants of your local phone box, is simply comical. If they’re so good and so pure, why don’t PR stand for election and see if the electorate ‘gets’ what they are saying?

    They haven’t the guts to do this, because we all know what the result would be. That’s why they’ll be supporting New Labour in this election and no doubt in the general election as well, expenses scandal be damned. What a joke!

    Like

  15. Can we get back to the issue at hand rather than tiresomely going on about Galloway’s income?

    Respect are right to field more candidates. The biggest problem with the image of Respect is that it is seen as nothing more than a vehicle for Galloway and a few select others. Just standing in three seats in the general election, as was originally planned, merely reinforces this perception.

    Certainly the number of seats we stand in should be in double figures. The actual number will depend on where we can find candidates, money and campaigners. 100 is probably optimistic but the 40-50 seats contested in 2005 is repeatable.

    It would also be great to have an informal alliance with other significant left forces, so that we stand down in their favoured seats and they stand down in ours. I rather suspect the SWP will be too proud to come back to the negotiating table, but if the coalition currently known as no2eu decide to stand in the general election as well, we should certainly be looking to work with them. But as has already been said, if no-one else will come with us we must be prepared to do it on our own.

    Like

  16. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Jon – Respect contested 26 seats in 2005, winning 68,071 votes with an average vote of 6.9% and saving 9 deposits with 1 first place, 3 second places and 1 third place. (One independent candidate had formal Respect support and also saved his deposit.)

    The Socialist Alliance in 2001 formally stood 92 candidates winning 55,295 votes and saving two deposits. (Several other Socialist Party candidates stood under Socialist Alternative rather than Socialist Alliance.)

    Like

  17. Fair enough- I was writing from memory and overestimated.

    Like

  18. Respect/SWPs support for GGs outrageous financial demands have blown up in their faces.
    Now when they attempt to condemn MPs for having their snouts in the trough, a thinking person simply says – but what about your MP? How much does he earn? What did you do about it when you actually had the chance?
    What they did about it was defend GGs bloated salary and priveleges. Actions speak louder than words.

    Like

  19. Are you gonna denounce him as an agent of Saddam Hussein, then Bill J? Stuart King came pretty damn close to that kind of thing earlier with those remarks about Press TV. Your current’s common origins with Sean Matgamna are really showing.

    The key word above, of course is ‘earn’. The MP’s of the party you support are not suspected of having ‘earned’ anything.

    They are effectively being accused of theft from the public purse. That’s what these expenses claims mean. And not as any kind of happenstance or oversight, but over and over and over again, as a system. That’s what the anger is about.

    Anyway, the PR people are still calling for votes for New Labour despite this. They have no problem hustling votes for people who have more or less admitted to stealing money, but have a big problem with someone with income that is, in their words, ‘earned’.

    Its quite amusing to be lectured on financial probity by supporters of New Labour. If I were more cynical, I’d suspect they are being paid by the New Labour hierarchy to try to smear others and ‘spread the blame’ as it were. But I doubt that – ‘left’ Labour-cretinism has its own logic and usually does not require financial reward. PR, like so many camp-followers of New Labour, do it for love, not money;-)

    Like

  20. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    The strategy of trying to push out to 100 candidates at the next election risks over extending the party, which if we are honest was stripped of the small amount of national organisation it had when SWP parted-ways.

    However, I think that its a risk worth taking for the risk of sinking back into the few areas where Respect currently functions is greater still. This could me a make or break thing for Respect.

    We have been stuck of a number of years with the philosophy of standing in very few areas so that we can put what forces we have in to them. I was for this stratergy at the time. It seemed to make sense. But in reality it lead nowhere. You have to change yourselves to push out.

    One thing I was disappointed about was that while I was many individual Respect members on the recent march for jobs, there was no organised Respect presence. If Respect is really going to recover than there needs to be recruitment at and support for events like this.

    Like

  21. It not only risks over extending us, it is certain to do so. It is beyond our capacities, way beyond. If we had the capacity to stand 100 candidates in a General Election, we would also have had the capacity to make a national intervention in these Euro elections. The fact that we did not speaks volumes.

    We need something in between – more candidates in areas where we have real organisation outside the ‘core’ areas in East London and Birmingham – and an serious attempt to push forward to a broader electoral initiative of the left. Endorsing No2EU would have been a real step forward in this regard, but that was a lost opportunity. But the task remains of seeking something broader – that is what Respect conference voted for last Autumn and that’s what seems to be missing from this perspective.

    Like

  22. Yes of course we’re in the pay of the New Labour hierarchy. Obvious really. I suppose the truth was bound to come out sometime. Thank goodness there was someone as shrewd as ID to spot it.

    Like

  23. Bill – I’m meeting Adrian for a beer this evening. Do you want me to tell him or will you do it?

    Like

  24. “But the task remains of seeking something broader – that is what Respect conference voted for last Autumn and that’s what seems to be missing from this perspective.”

    That simply isn’t true.

    Working towards smething broader is exactly what is happening, hence the endorsement of Green candudates, Salma speaking at Compass conference, George and Salma both speaking at progressive London, etc, etc.

    Like

  25. The strategy of trying to push out to 100 candidates at the next election risks over extending the party, which if we are honest was stripped of the small amount of national organisation it had when SWP parted-ways.

    However, I think that its a risk worth taking for the risk of sinking back into the few areas where Respect currently functions is greater still. This could be a make or break thing for Respect.

    That is honest. As independents are springing up , well independently rather than coming under the Respect banner, maybe the end of the line is coming.

    Like

  26. Up to a point Andy.

    Those who tried to get Respect to support No2EU argued their case at the NC. Salma is speaking on behalf of Salma at the Compass conference and if she wishes to have a dialogue with slightly left Blairites that’s her prerogative. She’s also entitled to argue this point of view inside the structures of Birmingham Respect or the NC.

    As for Progressive London I think including Vince Cable and Wally Olins ( the world’s most experienced practitioner of Corporate identity and branding) is stretching the definition of the word “progressive” to breaking point.

    People like this will have not part in the creation of any sort of class struggle party and while it’s nice that GG is asked along to these things we are unlikely to find many allies in that coterie.

    Like

  27. Well Skidmarx, when we reach the end of the line, I expect you’ll be waiting there with a slightly faded Left Alternative placard…

    Like

  28. I’ll leave that to you Liam!

    Like

  29. Well RobM, maybe I’ll have one reading
    “Beware! Crash Imminent
    Anyone With Any Real Respect Has Already
    Terminated This Journey.”

    Like

  30. I wouldn’t have minded a £5000 fee for appearances on TV during the Sukula campaign! I guess ID will say I’m not worth as much as gorgeous George!

    Seriously if media fees were put into a transparent and sperately administered fund e.g. a union branch’s strike fund then may be George’s fees would be all to the good. I’d suggest though that Respect should vote to make this happen.

    More generally with the absolute disgust and anger many feel about the crooks in the Labour party ripping us all off then it might be time to seriously consider a left socialist challenge. Perhaps Respect supporters will argue for this to have a proper democratic grassroots campaign not based on already supporting Respect or any thing else but for meetings of activists to decide on policy and candidates, where to stand and what to stand on. I’d support that. If we’re serious then let’s go for it.

    Like

  31. external bulletin Avatar
    external bulletin

    The “100 candidates” idea isn’t literal. It’s Respect saying “let’s go for it” – and I think that ID’s ideas about broadening the coalition out will be part of it. I think that alliances will be made at local and regional levels to try to stand candidates.

    Think of it as a call to arms, rather than a literal “let’s stand 100 candidates”.

    As for skidmarx, all you need to know about him is that he wants Respect to fail. No other left wing group outside the AWL and the SWP leadership wants that. But skidmarx would be extremely happy if Respect fell apart.

    He can’t see this as an appalling indictment of him as a person and as an activist (although in all honesty, the man isn’t known for any real political activity).

    Like

  32. What a depressing read this thread has become. A series of posts from people who simply don’t understand that people who do work for media companies get paid media wages.

    And call me old fashioned but I think that perhaps if people stay up late two night a week to do a radio show than they should be paid by the owners of the radio station. It’s called work!

    Then we have a frankly stupid comment from Jason that Galloway should put his wages into some separate fund. I’m sure you are happy to do the same Jason. Please hand over your teachers wages and set the rest of us a good example.

    Or perhaps it’s just a case of prolier than thou.

    So it seems that Respect’s idea of asking if others want to stand with us – or to stand alongside us – will get short shrift from the hard-core adherents of revolutionary Bolshevism in Britain. Oh well, that’s a few score votes lost.

    In the meantime, there is a real attempt here by people on the left to impact on a momentous political crisis. I hope it will pay dividends. I hope there will be new alliances made, and trust built, and perhaps the groundwork laid for a new, better, bigger organisation of the left. Who knows the outcome but it’s worth try surely.

    It should be said here that as far as I am aware Respect is not setting a target of 100 candidates. Clive Searle’s article doesn’t mention any number.

    But If Respect aims for 100 candidates and get 100 – and the members and finances to fund them – then the organisation will have been transformed. If it gets just 10 then it was worth it to try and will have more than are currently selected (which I think is 5) . Who knows we might even be able to find a candidate who Stuart, Jason and Bill feel able to support. We can all believe in miracles.

    Like

  33. “if others want to stand with us – or to stand alongside us – will get short shrift from the hard-core adherents of revolutionary Bolshevism in Britain. Oh well, that’s a few score votes lost.”

    Perhaps but as you say that would be neother here nor there. What uis irgently neeeded though and I think many members of Respect would agree is a challenge to the moral and political bankruptcy of Labour by fielding workers’ candidates of struggle from e.g. vibrant community campaigns against privatisation, cuts, workers’ strikes or other such struggles.

    The audiences to connect with are much larger than the left even the Bolshevik friends TLC obviously has.

    On MPs getting tens of thousands of pounds for media appearances- that’s not work in any simple sense, it’s a privilege garnered from being a minor celebrity. If it is put into a fully accountable fund to finance political work e.g. workers’ solidarity then that would be a tremendous asset to Galloway and Respect- this consultation I offer for a small fee to be payable to a mutually agreed cause.

    Finally, I never quite know who TLC is- not sure why s/he doesn’t use real name but each to their own- suspect I may know her/him vaguely in real world- you should have more optimism. We worked together in the Socialist Alliance. The potential for a real break with Labour is now greater I think and I’m sure between us we have the collective energy, good will, humour and imagination to work out ways forward without the need for any divine intervention!

    Like

  34. “MPs getting tens of thousands of pounds for media appearances- that’s not work in any simple sense, it’s a privilege garnered from being a minor celebrity.”

    I’m sorry but Jason will really have to define what you mean by work then. You seem to want to apply different rules to Galloway than you would to anyone else. He gives his time to do something for an employer, who pays him wage. Sounds like work to me. Now, I’m sure that within Permanent Revolution any media appearances are done for free or the proceeds donated to the relevant fund. But GG is not from your tradition but I’m not sure benefit you gain from directing your fire against one of the most active and principled MPs of the left are other than to give yourself a gloss of easy radicalism.

    “What uis irgently neeeded though and I think many members of Respect would agree is a challenge to the moral and political bankruptcy of Labour by fielding workers’ candidates of struggle from e.g. vibrant community campaigns against privatisation, cuts, workers’ strikes or other such struggles.”

    Mmm, I think this is a good idea. Perhaps we could ask the new National Secretary of Respect to write an article outlining the bankruptcy of Labour and asking if people would like to consider standing in the elections. He could call it something along the lines of ‘Crisis at Westminster’ Other organisations could do the same and perhap we could even come to some form of agreement in the future to work together or at least avoid clashes.

    But perhaps it may make people, who would be great candidates, think twice about standing if they only ever see the far left attacking existing left MPs for not being left-wing enough – rather than attacking the MPs who actually voted for illegal wars, supported the bankers’ years of greed and helped themselves at the expenses till. Just an idea.

    You say “The potential for a real break with Labour is now greater I think” so how about less attacks on those who have already broken with Labour and then we might be able to prove in practice that there is “good will and humour” on the left – because quite often it seems in very short supply.

    Like

  35. Galloway on his Talksport show last night explained once again that he would feel it was impossible for him to survive on an MPs wage, and that there were other “quality” candidates who could earn more elsewhere who would be unwilling to survive on only £60,000 or so a year. When some of the anger over the expenses scandal is expressed by people saying that MPs are claiming more in expenses than they themselves earn in toto, his attitude separates him from ordinary workers and with the media set in London who think it is normal and justifiable for them to be earning multiples of ordinary wages because there is something special about them. I’m not saying that Galloway’s income from Talksport is anything other than the rate for the job, but his belief that he and other well-paid people are special is a non-egalitarianism I don’t share. [And before billj or someone comes in to ask why the SWP didn’t insist on him only taking a workers wage in Respect, you make compromises in a coalition]. Galloway also backed MPs generous pension arrangements, which I don’t think is a widely shared opinion amongst ordinary people.

    The “100 candidates” idea isn’t literal. It’s Respect saying “let’s go for it” – and I think that ID’s ideas about broadening the coalition out will be part of it. I think that alliances will be made at local and regional levels to try to stand candidates.
    As for skidmarx, all you need to know about him is that he wants Respect to fail. No other left wing group outside the AWL and the SWP leadership wants that. But skidmarx would be extremely happy if Respect fell apart.

    If standing these extra candidates require alliances to be made, is not Respect(failing) now a superfluous organisation? Back at the last election it was a pole of attraction for those opposed to the Iraq war. Now it is a clique with a lot of baggage, and those disgusted by the expenses scandal can find other ways to express their anger other than deciding that you were right all along. I didn’t want Respect to fall apart, but you and your colleagues have made it happen.
    As far as I know “external bulletin” is only known for making abusive and sectarian comments about those on the left, the very name indicating an addiction to denigrating the SWP on the basis of reading stolen internal documents. Why this tired little man would think his attacks hit home is beyond me. I don’t think there’s many who weren’t in Respect(minority) after your coup who want it to succeed at the expense of their own political projects, even the Greens are getting more out of your backing for them than they are ever likely to reciprocate.

    Like

  36. “Perhaps we could ask the new National Secretary of Respect to write an article outlining the bankruptcy of Labour and asking if people would like to consider standing in the elections”

    That of course is fine. However, I think it would be better still to broaden it out and not just have a non-agression pact with other left groups but really try to build a left alternative to Labour wider than the currently exisiting Respect.

    On Galloway I wasn’t attacking him- he comes out of this current expenses scandal as one of the few MPs untarnished as far as I can make out. I was just pointing out that if he put his media fees into a fully transparent accountable fighting fund that would go some way to rehabilitate him in the eyes of some. I’m sorry you saw it as some kind of attack- it wasn’t.

    I am sure you are serious about debating how we can revuild the left and I will write a serious piece not based on attacking Galloway or anything else but designed to be productive. More importanlty perhaps we could have a series of meetings in Manchester designed to bring the left together in campaigning unity, ovedr issues we already agree on and debating politiely and in a comradely manner where we disagree. Tbh I’ve been out of action the last 6 months or so on a kind of paternity leave but am planning a return to action in the autumn.

    We really can rebuild the good will and humour, I’m sure! I’ll even buy you a drink or two!

    Like

  37. On Tikkabilla on CBeebies today, Sarah-Jane read a story called “Our House” in which George wouldn’t let in any redheads or girls or people with glasses. When they forced their way in and George found himself on the outside, he declared “This house is for everyone.”

    Like

  38. “that would go some way to rehabilitate him in the eyes of some” – the trouble is Jason is that many people on the far Left seem to have set impossibly high standards for Galloway that they would set for no one else. Whatever he does they will find fault with something else.

    As far as I am concerned there is no need for him to ‘rehabilitated’ over some false line of division drawn by people whose sole aim seems to be to differentiate themselves from the rest of the left, rather than find common purpose.

    Now I agree that it would be best to “try to build a left alternative to Labour wider than the currently exisiting Respect.” What a good idea. But every individual and organisation has to start where they are – not where they’s like to be. Simply calling for this ‘left alternative to labour’ will not make it happen.

    Let us suppose someone does organise a series of meeting in Manchester. If Respect calls them then many will not turn up – because ‘how dare they presume to call the meeting’. If a group of organisations call them after private discussions then many will denounce it for a back room deal done with out their participation. If somehow we could call some meetings without preconditions, then many would turn up with their own set of preconditions ready made to insert – the CPGB would trot out HOPI, the AWL would denounce Galloway (beating several others to the prize), FRFI would demand a forthright denunciation of all things and all cooperation with anyone still in the imperialist Labour Party. Someone would demand policy on worker’s wages, or abortion, or Tibet, or Taiwan or open borders or the tendency for the rate of profit to fall or whatever made it difficult or uncomfortable or unfathomable for others not already of the revolutionary left to join in. The SP would not turn up as they already have the CNWP and ‘we can’t simply declare a new organisation out of the existing left’. The SWP would turn up to keep an eye on things but say they were from Stop the War. And then someone would suggest that all of this could have taken place at the Convention of the Left – except the convention doesn’t discuss an electoral alternative to New Labour. So forgive me if I think it may best to start the ball rolling within our own organisations and then see how things pan out.Then perhaps we can have a drink or two when we’ve got real things to bring to the table rather than vague wish lists.

    But your enthusiasm is a marvel Jason. And that I am sure we can all salute.

    Like

  39. The issues you point to are real and incidentally you give a fairly amusing account.

    However, I think there are ways in. One key is to link it to campaigns so we are talking to new people as well as the existing left. I’m not against having private discussions between left groups- in some ways they may be useful- but would be against it then being presented as a fait accompli.

    There’s also an issue of votes on policies- we can’t and shouldn’t carve out such votes but if say a workers’ candidate’s policy on immigration controlrgue fos isn’t mine (perhaps only being against deportations not taking a line against all controls) then one apporach is to argue for the position you want but if you lose then still support the campaign and revisit the policy another time.

    Yes there are all sorts of issues to resolve but I do remain optimistic and even enthusiastic!

    Like

Leave a reply to Liam Cancel reply

Trending