# Come May will Respect make hay while the sun shines?



## rebel warrior (Feb 19, 2006)

The May council elections are almost upon us and some Urban 75 posters are saying that it is 'make or break' for the Respect coalition.  As a Respect member I do not agree that it is 'make or break', but neither is it a question of simply 'making hay while the sun shines'.  George Galloway, the Respect MP, has been on Big Brother and many people, including many Respect members, have had their confidence dampened by his appearance.  However, a lot could happen between now and then and we are already seeing the leaders of the United States and Great Britain talking about another war - in Iran - on top of the criminal disaster still unfolding in its full tragedy in Iraq.  Millions and billions that could have gone on public services like schools and hospitals, or pensions or public transport, or ending child poverty in the UK, have been poured into tanks and guns and bombs.   Respect emerged from the anti-war movement and are against privatisation and racism - but will they be able to win the confidence of enough people to hit New Labour where it hurts them - at the ballot box? 

Basically, how many councillors are Respect going to have after the elections in May?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 19, 2006)

> The May council elections are almost upon us and some Urban 75 posters are saying that it is 'make or break' for the Respect coalition.



Wasn't it a fellow SWP member saying this


----------



## rebel warrior (Feb 19, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Wasn't it a fellow SWP member saying this



I think so yes.


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 19, 2006)

Why is there no option for none at all?


----------



## rebel warrior (Feb 19, 2006)

Lock&Light said:
			
		

> Why is there no option for none at all?



Because Respect has councillors in areas that are not up for election in May - we cannot end up with zero.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 19, 2006)

They may get some seats, but not in areas where there is a high concentration of Cartoonists.


----------



## JHE (Feb 19, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> They may get some seats, but not in areas where there is a high concentration of Cartoonists.


  












*"So what's it like being a cartoonist?"*


----------



## rebel warrior (Feb 19, 2006)




----------



## TeeJay (Feb 19, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Basically, how many councillors are Respect going to have after the elections in May?


How many seats are they contesting?


----------



## rebel warrior (Feb 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> How many seats are they contesting?



You'll have to wait for Fisher_Gate or someone else for the full statistics on this sort of thing I'm afraid.

Over 60 seats I'd have thought - not sure though.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 19, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Because Respect has councillors in areas that are not up for election in May - we cannot end up with zero.



Where?

BarryB


----------



## JHE (Feb 19, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Where?
> 
> BarryB


Oliur Rahman, in Tower Hamlets, is not up for election.  Also, the Social Worker/Respec' councillor in Preston, who was elected as a Socialist Alliance candidate by sucking up to the local mosque, is not up for election.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 20, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> You'll have to wait for Fisher_Gate or someone else for the full statistics on this sort of thing I'm afraid.
> 
> Over 60 seats I'd have thought - not sure though.



Given the fact that Tower Hamlets have alread announced 47 candidates, Newham have said they are going to field a full slate which IIRC is 60, Hackney have announced 4, Camden at least 1 and  Bristol at least 1 I think we can safely say that yes Respect will be fielding over 60 candidates.

BarryB


----------



## BarryB (Feb 20, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Oliur Rahman, in Tower Hamlets, is not up for election.  Also, the Social Worker/Respec' councillor in Preston, who was elected as a Socialist Alliance candidate by sucking up to the local mosque, is not up for election.



Are you sure about Oliur Rahman not being up for election? I realise that he was elected on a bye election in (I think) 2004 rather than in the 2002 elections but I thought that all bye election seats in London were up for election again. For instance in Hackney in the Leabridge ward after the May 2002 elections there was a bye election in December 2002 but this is definitely up for reelection this May. 

BarryB


----------



## rebel warrior (Feb 20, 2006)

Any chance of you voting on this poll Barry?


----------



## Geoff Collier (Feb 20, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Are you sure about Oliur Rahman not being up for election? I realise that he was elected on a bye election in (I think) 2004 rather than in the 2002 elections but I thought that all bye election seats in London were up for election again. For instance in Hackney in the Leabridge ward after the May 2002 elections there was a bye election in December 2002 but this is definitely up for reelection this May.
> 
> BarryB



I think Barry may be right. London boroughs must elect all their councillors at once - the only alternative model that I know of being to elect a third of them each tiime. How else could there be an expectation to win in Tower Hamlets?

geoff c


----------



## JHE (Feb 20, 2006)

Geoff Collier said:
			
		

> I think Barry may be right. London boroughs must elect all their councillors at once - the only alternative model that I know of being to elect a third of them each tiime. How else could there be an expectation to win in Tower Hamlets?
> 
> geoff c


OK, perhaps I'm mistaken.  (We'll find out soon enough.)


----------



## Suzon (Feb 20, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Basically, how many councillors are Respect going to have after the elections in May?


I work in Tower Hamlets, and the feeling I'm getting on the streets is that RESPECT are going to get the hammering of a lifeteim. There's no chance of people here making the same mistake we made last May, when we elected that pillock Galloway.


----------



## JHE (Feb 20, 2006)

Suzon said:
			
		

> I work in Tower Hamlets, and the feeling I'm getting on the streets is that RESPECT are going to get the hammering of a lifeteim. There's no chance of people here making the same mistake we made last May, when we elected that pillock Galloway.


That's interesting - and, by the sound of it, you spend more time in TH than I do nowadays.

Still... the few people I've talked to who are potential Respec' voters all take the same line:  they think GG made a complete prat of himself by going on BB (and, unlike me, are angry about that) but say they'll still vote Respec'.

Also, and I guess you'll agree with this, there is a perception in TH that the council is corrupt - and inevitably the Labour Party gets the blame for that.


----------



## Suzon (Feb 20, 2006)

I don't think that RESPECT are going to be the winners, though. I work for the Council and so I talk to a lot of local people. And they're all saying that they prefer LAbour to people like Galloway or Rahman. Strange but true...


----------



## mutley (Feb 20, 2006)

Suzon said:
			
		

> I don't think that RESPECT are going to be the winners, though. I work for the Council and so I talk to a lot of local people. And they're all saying that they prefer LAbour to people like Galloway or Rahman. Strange but true...



I can see how certain feline antics might have given people a dim view of the gorgeous one, but what's Oliur done wrong?


----------



## JimPage (Feb 20, 2006)

20 i think. a dozen in tower hamlets- half a dozen in newham and 2 or 3 in birmingham


----------



## BarryB (Feb 20, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Any chance of you voting on this poll Barry?



No

BarryB


----------



## rebel warrior (Feb 20, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> No
> 
> BarryB



Why not?


----------



## BarryB (Feb 21, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Why not?



Until I know exactly how many candidates Respect are putting up, who they are and in what wards I see no sense in trying to guess. Once I have the exact details I will be happy to cast my vote. Fair enough?

BarryB


----------



## TeeJay (Feb 21, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Oliur Rahman, in Tower Hamlets, is not up for election.


I thought that all the seats in Tower Hamlets are being contested in May?

edit: Ah - I see that this has been mentioned already.

I am going for a guess of 10, although this kind of poll can be abused: if you vote for a high number they will say this shows how strong their support is and if you vote for a lower number than they actually get they might come back afterwards and try and rub your face in it.

Fielding only about 100 candidates nationally isn't very impressive for IMO given that the elections are for about c. 6000 seats in c. 180 councils.

The Greens stood 985 candidates in 2003 (in half the councils), 761 in 2004 (again in about half the councils) and 604 in 2005 - the number varying each year as there are a different number of councils and seats up for election each year. They currently have 2 MEPs, 7 members of the Scottish Parliament, 2 members of the London Assembly and 63 local councillors.

In my opinion any party - Respect and Greens alike - that wants to be taken seriously should be aiming at standing everywhere rather than cherry picking a few places and sucking everyone away from their own local areas in an attempt to get their leaders elected. There is a little point in even having local branches if they don't even contest local elections which don't even require a deposit.


----------



## rebel warrior (Feb 21, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Until I know exactly how many candidates Respect are putting up, who they are and in what wards I see no sense in trying to guess. Once I have the exact details I will be happy to cast my vote. Fair enough?
> 
> BarryB



Okay.  However, its a little _scholastic_ an approach if you don't mind me saying so - this is Urban 75 not Election night special with David Dimbleby.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 21, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Okay.  However, its a little _scholastic_ an approach if you don't mind me saying so - this is Urban 75 not Election night special with David Dimbleby.



Bollocks. IIRC I am the only person who on this forum has posted any details of how many candidates  Respect is standing in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney, Camden and Bristol. Yourself and the other SWP members have contributed no details. Why dont you contribute something positive?

And where is Fisher Gate?

BarryB


----------



## mutley (Feb 21, 2006)

5 in Birmingham. Salma Yaqoob in Sparkbrook.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 21, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> 5 in Birmingham. Salma Yaqoob in Sparkbrook.



Thanks for info. I dont have any great knowledge of Birmingham but 5 does sound on the low side for the number of canidates to stand in what is one of Englands biggest cities and one that has a condiderable Muslim population. Especially considering IIRC Salma Yaqoob came second in 2005 General Election in the Sparkbrook and Small heath seat with about 27.5% of the vote. I suppose you might be supporting some of that Kashmiri grounps candidates (PJP?) but even so it still sounds lower than i would have expected.

BarryB


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 21, 2006)

Geoff Collier said:
			
		

> I think Barry may be right. London boroughs must elect all their councillors at once - the only alternative model that I know of being to elect a third of them each tiime. How else could there be an expectation to win in Tower Hamlets?
> 
> geoff c



Yes Rahman is up for election - he was elected in a by-election and all seats are up in Tower Hamlets.  But the two Preston councillors - Lavalette and Brooks are not up until 2007, so Respect will have at least two councillors after May 2006.  Respect will be standing in 3 or 4 seats in Preston with a reasonable chance of a good showing and winning in one or two of them (elections are by thirds here).  The councillors profile remains high - see www.prestonrespect.org .

There are other places Respect are probably standing that haven't been mentioned - Liverpool and Manchester for example.   Outside London though these are likely to be one's and two's to concentrate campaigning efforts.  I think if Salma Yaquob is standing in Birmingham she's in with a good chance of being elected too.

I've been away for a while, but I'll try and compile a list of what I've heard sometime soon.  

[It'll save the Weekly Worker bothering to do any research too (they seem to be reading these pages regularly but haven't the nerve to post their sectariana - http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/611/respect forum.htm)].


----------



## belboid (Feb 21, 2006)

The lovely Maxine Bowler will be standing in Sheffield, Burngreave.  She will got 9.7% of the vote.


----------



## mutley (Feb 21, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> The lovely Maxine Bowler will be standing in Sheffield, Burngreave.  She will got 9.7% of the vote.



She will got? Have you invented a new tense?

Can you apply this to the lottery please and pm me?


----------



## belboid (Feb 21, 2006)

the numbers 4, 16, 27, 28, 36 and 44 will all come up.

Tho not necessarilly in the same week, that's the problem with the imperfect future tense.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 21, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Yes Rahman is up for election - he was elected in a by-election and all seats are up in Tower Hamlets.  But the two Preston councillors - Lavalette and Brooks are not up until 2007, so Respect will have at least two councillors after May 2006.  Respect will be standing in 3 or 4 seats in Preston with a reasonable chance of a good showing and winning in one or two of them (elections are by thirds here).  The councillors profile remains high - see www.prestonrespect.org .
> 
> There are other places Respect are probably standing that haven't been mentioned - Liverpool and Manchester for example.   Outside London though these are likely to be one's and two's to concentrate campaigning efforts.  I think if Salma Yaquob is standing in Birmingham she's in with a good chance of being elected too.
> 
> ...



Welcome back Fisher Gate. Once your back in the swing of things and compiled your list perhaps we could have a discussion concerning the article titled Councils, Class Struggle & Respect by Liam Mac Uaid in the Winter 2005/06 issue of Socialist Outlook- a journal which im fairly sure you support.

Concerning the admittedly sketchy news we know so far it seems to me that outside of Tower Hamlets and Newham Respect are putting up fewer candidates for election than I would have anticipated.Of course this probably means that people will be brought into Tower Hamlets and Newham from all over the country to concentrate on making a major breakthrough in part of east London. Which is possible. But if Respect makes only modest gains it could be demoralising. Although im sure the spin doctors will be hard at work to portray it as another brilliant victory.

BarryB


----------



## Matt S (Feb 21, 2006)

interestingly, Oxford RESPECT appear to have stood down one of their candidates in Oxford in order to campaign for the Green candidate.

Matt


----------



## anfield (Feb 21, 2006)

I went to the 'launch' of the Merseyside Respect local election campaign a few weeks back. Galloway turned up the same time as I did, and lapped up the awaiting media, chunnering about "Preston and Chantelle". Was quite impressed by the candidate, standing in Toxteth, who was really too good to be associated with Respect. If he was an Independent I'd almost certainly help with his campaign - but I'm reluctant to throw my lot in with the Trot-Galloway-Islamist project.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> [It'll save the Weekly Worker bothering to do any research too (they seem to be reading these pages regularly but haven't the nerve to post their sectariana - http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/611/respect forum.htm)].



Funny you should mention that. Is it true that the ISG have decided not to let their CPGB rivals in to play with their new "Respect Party Platform" toy?


----------



## belboid (Feb 21, 2006)

anfield said:
			
		

> Galloway turned up the same time as I did, and lapped up the awaiting media, chunnering about "Preston and Chantelle".


funny, there was absolutely, resoundingly, no comment at all from him or anyone else on the platform about BB at the Sheffield launch meeting last night!  Only a bloke from Workers Power mentioned it, to a resounding silence.

GG did find time to support the introduction of a law against holocause denial tho.


----------



## anfield (Feb 21, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> funny, there was absolutely, resoundingly, no comment at all from him or anyone else on the platform about BB at the Sheffield launch meeting last night!  Only a bloke from Workers Power mentioned it, to a resounding silence.



To be fair this was a couple of days after he'd come out of the BB house, and it was mentioned several times by the chair, Alec McFadden.


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2006)

How many was at the Sheffield meeting? 




> funny, there was absolutely, resoundingly, no comment at all from him or anyone else on the platform about BB at the Sheffield launch meeting last night! Only a bloke from Workers Power mentioned it, to a resounding silence.


----------



## belboid (Feb 21, 2006)

dunno, fucked if i was going to go!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 21, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention that. Is it true that the ISG have decided not to let their CPGB rivals in to play with their new "Respect Party Platform" toy?



I have a personal view on this and cannot speak for anyone else.

The CPGB/Weekly Worker cannot support the 'Platform' statement as it makes it clear supporters are in favour of building Respect in the here and now.  The CPGB/WW do not favour building Respect - they 'intervene' in it when it suits them (for example in the general election they publicly opposed voting for a lot of Respect candidates, including Salma Yaqoob even though they had been democratically selected by Respect members http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/569/respect.htm http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/574/candidates.htm).  

Therefore they have put themselves outside the framework of the Platform as far as I'm concerned.  I do not believe this is an issue on which the ISG alone have a view, but one that I believe is shared by all those supporting and sympathetic to the Platform.  

If the CPGB/WW were to change publicly their policy on building Respect to a positive one, then that might be another matter, but it would have to be shown to represent more than a tactical manouvre for anyone to believe it.   Since the CPGB/WW follows Leninist norms I assume that what applies to the group applies to all members too.


----------



## HarrisonSlade (Feb 21, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> The May council elections are almost upon us and some Urban 75 posters are saying that it is 'make or break' for the Respect coalition.  As a Respect member I do not agree that it is 'make or break', but neither is it a question of simply 'making hay while the sun shines'.  George Galloway, the Respect MP, has been on Big Brother and many people, including many Respect members, have had their confidence dampened by his appearance.  However, a lot could happen between now and then and we are already seeing the leaders of the United States and Great Britain talking about another war - in Iran - on top of the criminal disaster still unfolding in its full tragedy in Iraq.  Millions and billions that could have gone on public services like schools and hospitals, or pensions or public transport, or ending child poverty in the UK, have been poured into tanks and guns and bombs.   Respect emerged from the anti-war movement and are against privatisation and racism - but will they be able to win the confidence of enough people to hit New Labour where it hurts them - at the ballot box?
> 
> Basically, how many councillors are Respect going to have after the elections in May?


Why isn't there a zero option? 

The left wing citizen of Britain wants a serious alternative to New Labour, not a bunch of Islamists and Trots in a Party with the most cringeworthy name you can think of.


----------



## lewislewis (Feb 21, 2006)

Harrison...left-wing citizen of England, not Britain. No Welsh council seats are up for election. I do agree with you though, Respect wouldn't get the support of a majority of the left or a majority of the anti-war movement.

Did I read they support the Kashmiri People's Justice Party??


----------



## Macullam (Feb 21, 2006)

*Respect SWP report*

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8341


----------



## mutley (Feb 21, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention that. Is it true that the ISG have decided not to let their CPGB rivals in to play with their new "Respect Party Platform" toy?



Funny you should turn up again after maintaining utter silence when these boards were crawling with islamophobes. Still, why waste time defending the oppressed when you can have a pop at the ISG eh?


----------



## TeeJay (Feb 21, 2006)

HarrisonSlade said:
			
		

> Why isn't there a zero option?


It's already been explained twice already on this thread - there are some Respect councillors who are not facing reelection this year, so the number can't fall to zero in May.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Funny you should turn up again after maintaining utter silence when these boards were crawling with islamophobes. Still, why waste time defending the oppressed when you can have a pop at the ISG eh?



What the fuck are you talking about you mentalist? Do you want me to trawl through a boards archives every time I come back after a bit of a break and dig up whatever offensive threads I missed?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Therefore they have put themselves outside the framework of the Platform as far as I'm concerned.  I do not believe this is an issue on which the ISG alone have a view, but one that I believe is shared by all those supporting and sympathetic to the Platform.



And filtered throught the left group gibberish to English translator we get:

"Yes, that is correct. The ISG don't want some other organised group messing with their property."


----------



## mutley (Feb 21, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> What the fuck are you talking about you mentalist? Do you want me to trawl through a boards archives every time I come back after a bit of a break and dig up whatever offensive threads I missed?



Well you're on 3000 posts, and averaging 2.2 a day, so it's a shame that your little break coincided with an international outbreak of xenophobia but never mind. The defensive reaction is noted. 

But anyway, get back to what you generally do on here, slag off other socialists..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Well you're on 3000 posts, and averaging 2.2 a day, so it's a shame that your little break coincided with an international outbreak of xenophobia but never mind. The defensive reaction is noted.



Because of course the main front in the battle against an "international outbreak of xenophobia" is the UK Politics section of the Urban75 webboard...


----------



## mutley (Feb 21, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Because of course the main front in the battle against an "international outbreak of xenophobia" is the UK Politics section of the Urban75 webboard...



Oh I understand that you have important tasks to attend to. Obviously posting here is light relief, a chance to toy with all of us poor misguided sectarians.

However your implicit admission that if there is another outbreak of islamophobic shite on here you won't regard it as in any way your role to defend the oppressed is noted.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> However your implicit admission that if there is another outbreak of islamophobic shite on here you won't regard it as in any way your role to defend the oppressed is noted.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 21, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> And filtered throught the left group gibberish to English translator we get:
> 
> "Yes, that is correct. The ISG don't want some other organised group messing with their property."



So sad, Nigel, so sad ... when can I join the new mass party, by the way?


----------



## BarryB (Feb 21, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8341



I see that the article says that George Solomou, one of their Hackney candidates, claims to be an ex member of the Labour Party. Which reminds me that Eddie Barnes, another one of their Hackney candidates, attended two Labour Party meetings a couple of months ago saying that he was still a member of the Labour Party and claiming that the  the mention of him in the Weekly Worker saying that he was a member of Respect was incorrect . Does he know what time of day it is?

BarryB


----------



## tbaldwin (Feb 22, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Oh I understand that you have important tasks to attend to. Obviously posting here is light relief, a chance to toy with all of us poor misguided sectarians.
> 
> However your implicit admission that if there is another outbreak of islamophobic shite on here you won't regard it as in any way your role to defend the oppressed is noted.




Muslims must be so pleased to have people like you defending them.....What they really need is more useless patronising twats to join your merry band of reactionary racist donuts.


Oh yeah and they will obviously be so impressed if you manage to get 40 seats. And standing in 7 seats in Birmingham a city of over 1 million people just shows your growing strength.


----------



## mutley (Feb 22, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Muslims must be so pleased to have people like you defending them.....What they really need is more useless patronising twats to join your merry band of reactionary racist donuts.
> 
> 
> Oh yeah and they will obviously be so impressed if you manage to get 40 seats. And standing in 7 seats in Birmingham a city of over 1 million people just shows your growing strength.



Who's this 'they'.

Useless patronising twat...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 22, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Thanks for info. I dont have any great knowledge of Birmingham but 5 does sound on the low side for the number of canidates to stand in what is one of Englands biggest cities and one that has a condiderable Muslim population. Especially considering IIRC Salma Yaqoob came second in 2005 General Election in the Sparkbrook and Small heath seat with about 27.5% of the vote. I suppose you might be supporting some of that Kashmiri grounps candidates (PJP?) but even so it still sounds lower than i would have expected.
> 
> BarryB




Respect contested 2 of 11 parliamentary seats at the general so it's similar - and yes Yaqoob got 10,000+ votes (27.5%) and came second - despite the CPGB's campaign not to vote for her.    

PJP stood in 9 wards last city elections (2004) coming close in several (and of course won two in a by-election). - I'm a bit unclear how many wards there are from the Council web site; the results page lists 30 that were contested, but there are 120 councillors which implies 40.  If PJP and Respect contest about 15-20 seats between them then that's up to half of the city.  I presume there will be Green Party candidates too - and of course the SP stood in one constituency in the general election, so maybe they'll be looking to top their magnificent 120 votes (0.38%) then on the back of their  campaign for a new mass workers party due for launch in March.


----------



## TeeJay (Feb 22, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> ...I'm a bit unclear how many wards there are from the Council web site; the results page lists 30 that were contested, but there are 120 councillors which implies 40.  If PJP and Respect contest about 15-20 seats between them then that's up to half of the city...


12-20 seats out of 120 doesn't equal half.


----------



## mutley (Feb 22, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> 12-20 seats out of 120 doesn't equal half.



There are 3 councillors in each seat. 1 councillor comes up for re-election each year.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 22, 2006)

mutley just to say that while I think the comments about nigel seem like a chance just to have a dig at the SP, rather than real political criticism, I do think you've been right to pick up some of the posts that have been put up over the last couple of months. While the SWP has lost it over RESPECT as far as I'm concerned, there are too many people who have fallen into the Islamophobic hysteria that is currently being whipped up around Europe.

Having said that it's sad that the SWPs response to this has been to form RESPECT and ditch class politics and basic socialist principles.


----------



## mutley (Feb 23, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> mutley just to say that while I think the comments about nigel seem like a chance just to have a dig at the SP, rather than real political criticism, I do think you've been right to pick up some of the posts that have been put up over the last couple of months. While the SWP has lost it over RESPECT as far as I'm concerned, there are too many people who have fallen into the Islamophobic hysteria that is currently being whipped up around Europe.
> 
> Having said that it's sad that the SWPs response to this has been to form RESPECT and ditch class politics and basic socialist principles.



Cheers for that, and obviously i don't accept the accusation that we've abandoned class politics, but I don't reckon i'll be able to add anything new to that particular controversy..

The dig wasn't just at the detail of the SP's response, but also at the virtual complete silence of their members over the issue. Silence truly does speak volumes..


----------



## articul8 (Feb 23, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> The dig wasn't just at the detail of the SP's response, but also at the virtual complete silence of their members over the issue. Silence truly does speak volumes..



Have you actually read the coverage of the issue in "The Socialist"?  I think it was a very well balanced and sensitive treatment of the issues involved.



> “We oppose the production of any material that is used to create or deepen religious, ethnic, national or sexual divisions … At the same time, it has always been the workers’ movement that has been in the forefront of the struggle to win and defend democratic rights, including free expression ….
> 
> “We defend the democratic rights of all - non-believers and believers - to express their views. This includes the right to produce anti-religious material, whether it is philosophical or satirical.”


----------



## Macullam (Feb 23, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Have you actually read the coverage of the issue in "The Socialist"?  I think it was a very well balanced and sensitive treatment of the issues involved.



The article also formed the basis of the SP leaflet used on the February 18th rally and march in central London. So far from being silent on the issue the Sp were out on the streets attempting to engage witn Muslims though not in the opportunist manner of Respect/SWP


----------



## mutley (Feb 23, 2006)

*From the SP website:*

'In European countries, including Britain, there is also a groundswell of resentment amongst Muslims against a perceived increase in anti-Islamic feelings, greater police surveillance and harassment.'

*So it's a perceived increase in anti-Islamic feeling. Not definite, just perceived. Can you imagine any socialists putting out leaflets saying that 'afro-carribeans are angry about perceived police racism.' No - but in this case we have to hedge our bets a little..*

'Faced with what _they see _ as a continuous campaign of vilification in the media and increasing harassment many Muslims have protested against the publication of these cartoons.'

*Again, it's not an actual  campaign of vilification, but it's seen  as such..*

'From all sides opportunists, religious sectarians and racists have jumped in to exploit the situation.'

*Notice the order of priorities? 
First we must worry about the opportunists (Is that Respect?),
Second the religious sectarians..
Lastly, the small matter of racism.. in that order.*

' In Arab countries, right wing Islamic religious leaders are taking the opportunity to reinforce their claim to be leading the opposition to imperialism and also strengthen their grip on society.'

*Are yes there must always be a bit about the right-wing religious leaders in the Arab world - there's always got to be a bit of distancing going on..
Exactly what the character of the protests in the Middle East has got to do with the experience of European Muslims is unclear.
I'm sure Idi Amin and the like would have been quite happy to use anti-apartheid rhetoric, but we were all a lot more comfortable about that issue weren't we.*

*Then we have the finishing paragraphs:*

'Socialists resist all attempts to stigmatise Muslims but at the same time combat the attacks of vicious Islamic reactionaries against gays and the rights of women.'

'Equally, we oppose the anti-Semitic material produced under the guise of opposing Israeli policy in many Arab countries.

Most of the Islamic states that have protested against the Danish cartoons are dictatorial regimes with brutal histories of oppressing their own populations.

Today, a critical task before the workers' movement is to prevent divisions amongst working people blocking united struggles.

This means defending democratic rights and opposing repression, while striving to build a unified movement that can challenge capitalism and fight for a socialist future.'

*The problem with these last paragraphs is PRECISELY that they are so 'even-handed'. On the one hand, Bush, Blair, the racism of the tabloids, the 'enlightenment liberals' having a go in the broadsheets, the B52's, Guantanamo, imperialism but we have to balance that with our opposition to the islamic reactionaries, the anti-semitic press in the middle east, the authoritarian regimes.. cos they are an equal threat..(???)

And the very last part - we have to 'defend democratic rights' (from Fatwas i guess that means) while 'opposing repression' which is so abstract that it means fuck all unless you say who you think is being repressed. 

How about opposing racism? How about standing by the oppressed?

The comments about 'silence' were referring to the SP posters on here by the way. 

I'm sure plenty of enlightenment socialists on here will be happy to side with the SP but with referrence to Islamophobia and racism this ain't the time for even-handedness*


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 23, 2006)

Good comments by mutley in my view. Here's an article by Workers Power on the issue:

http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=14,367,0,0,1,0


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 23, 2006)

Far from being "good comments" they are the comments of the kind of cretin who populates part of the far left these days, unable to see anything in colours other than black and white. So the likes of Mutley and the SWP can see the racism involved in the issue but are incapable of mounting even the most token defence of free speech or the right to criticise religion and are for that matter utterly uninterested in combating divisions in the working class.

Let's be clear about this: If you don't oppose anti-muslim bigotry and racism you are not a socialist. But if you don't stand at the same time for freedom of speech and for the right to criticise religion and oppose anti-semitic material too you are also not a socialist. For the likes of the SWP there are two "sides", the baddies and the oppressed. Socialists just have to pick which team they are cheering for. For Marxists things are somewhat more complex than that and even as we oppose the anti-Muslim hysteria, we remember that there are other issues to be dealt with.

The Socialist Party article which is being discussed is available in full here by the way. I would invite you all to take a look at it.


----------



## mutley (Feb 23, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Far from being "good comments" they are the comments of the kind of cretin who populates part of the far left these days, unable to see anything in colours other than black and white. *(oh the irony..)*
> So the likes of Mutley and the SWP can see the racism *(would that be 'perceived' or 'actual' racism?)* involved in the issue but are incapable of mounting even the most token defence of free speech *(which is not actually seriously under threat in the UK)*or the right to criticise religion and are for that matter utterly uninterested in combating divisions in the working class.
> 
> *(1) I'm all for the right to criticise religion but i'm not so sure about the right to publish racist cartoons.
> ...



The bottom line, again, is that these weighty 'other issues to be dealt with' must NOT get in the way of the first, second, and third duties of socialists, which is to be 'the tribunes of the oppressed'.

By the way, on the freedom of speech issue, if you'd been the shop steward in the printing works of that Danish Paper, what would you have said?

This what the sw had to say about freedom of speech
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8243


----------



## Macullam (Feb 23, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Good comments by mutley in my view. Here's an article by Workers Power on the issue:
> 
> http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?id=14,367,0,0,1,0



What about a tirade against the FBU for selling out on the pensions issue, Nothing but silence.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> The bottom line, again, is that these weighty 'other issues to be dealt with' must NOT get in the way of the first, second, and third duties of socialists, which is to be 'the tribunes of the oppressed'.



You mean by opposing things like anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-semitism, divison in the working class, sexist and homophobic attitudes? As the Socialist Party is doing?


----------



## soulman (Feb 24, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> You mean by opposing things like anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-semitism, divison in the working class, sexist and homophobic attitudes? As the Socialist Party is doing?



Do you support tusp Nigel?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> Do you support tusp Nigel?



What's tusp?


----------



## soulman (Feb 24, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> What's tusp?



Splitters?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=150951


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 24, 2006)

> What about a tirade against the FBU for selling out on the pensions issue, Nothing but silence.



I'm sure there could well be comment in the next paper.

However, firstly the FBU hasn't resolved the issue yet, and secondly it's not led by revolutionary socialists on the NC.

CNWP meeting for South West London tonight. About 28-30 there - 6 Workers Power, probably 15 SP.

Hopefully these meetings around the country will be able to build a decent conference in March.


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> You mean by opposing things like anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-semitism, divison in the working class, sexist and homophobic attitudes? As the Socialist Party is doing?



It's funny, if someone printed a cartoon saying that all rastafarians were drug dealers and burglars, I really don't think that we would be told that it's vital that as well as protesting against the racism we must combat homophobia and sexism amongst rastafarians, and homophobic violence in the Caribbean. We would just protest loud and clear and say that the cartoons were a disgrace - full stop.

But it seems that we absolutely cannot defend Muslims without bringing up anti-semitic cartoons in the Middle East (for which UK Muslims bear no responsibility) and sexism and homphobia in the Muslim community (which is obviously absent from the rest of society - not).

The unspoken message is very clear: 'The cartoons are a bit over the top, but there is actually a problem with these people'.

Oh and again, if you were the shop steward in a paper that was going to run the cartoons what would you say?

And would you accept that we are not just looking at 'perceived' racism in society, and that putting that qualifier in is a mistake? Or do you defend it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2006)

Once more, your crude attempts to divide every issue into baddies and oppressed and to rigorously exclude any sense that there might be more than one issue at work here won't wash. Such empty-headed demagogy may well go down a storm at some SWP meeting, where critical thinking is considered a sign of disloyalty, but the rest of us can see it for what it is: Idiocy leavened with a touch of opportunism.

It is a fact that the main issue the Socialist Party addresses on this matter is anti-muslim bigotry. That's because it is, in fact, the main issue. Which doesn't mean that it is the only issue or that we therefore  have to jettison our critical faculties when it comes to such things as:

A) The use which reactionary regimes and religious political movements are making of the controversy.

B) The vicious oppression which those regimes and movements themselves stand for.

C) The need to emphasis that criticising religion is not in itself a bad thing, and that in fact the right to criticise religious ideas has to be protected.

As for Rastafarianism, if that religion came under a bigoted attack we would defend it too *without* abandoning our critical faculties. Of course it's not an exact comparison because there are to my knowledge no dictatorial regimes which claim their legitimacy from Rastafarianism and no substantial reactionary political movements based on it. There would be in other words an absence of the factor we are commenting on here - nasty regimes and political movements using the outrage for their own malevolent ends.

I expect that's too complicated for you though.


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Once more, your crude attempts to divide every issue into baddies and oppressed and to rigorously exclude any sense that there might be more than one issue at work here won't wash. Such empty-headed demagogy may well go down a storm at some SWP meeting, where critical thinking is considered a sign of disloyalty, but the rest of us can see it for what it is: Idiocy leavened with a touch of opportunism.
> 
> It is a fact that the main issue the Socialist Party addresses on this matter is anti-muslim bigotry. That's because it is, in fact, the main issue. Which doesn't mean that it is the only issue or that we therefore  have to jettison our critical faculties when it comes to such things as:
> 
> ...



No it's very very clear and very helpful.

What you are saying is that it is impossible to defend European Muslims without constantly referring to authoritarian regimes in other parts of the world, which *European Muslims bear absolutely no responsibility for*. Similarly, you cannot defend people without making them feel that they are somehow responsible for that minute protest that took place that called for beheadings etc.

This is exactly the approach that pisses off liberal or leftist Muslims who get sick to the back teeth of being asked to condemn anything, done anywhere, by anyone in the name of Islam.

The use which reactionary regimes in the Middle East are making of this is pretty much irrelevant to the politics of anti-racism in Europe, and your literature constantly referring to that again makes Muslims feel that somehow they are responsible for the Syrian Government. 

If you wish to reply yet again, please do so without the obligatory accusations of demagogy, non-marxist identity for anyone but yourselves, generally low intelligence and lack of ability to grasp complex issues etc etc.

It just makes you sound like an arrogant aloof tosser.

And, for the *THIRD* time, what would your strategy be, if you were a steward, in a printing works, for a paper that was going to print the cartoons?????


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 24, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> there are to my knowledge no dictatorial regimes which claim their legitimacy from Rastafarianism


There was once, I think; Hailie Sallasie of Ethiopa.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

Sorry to interrupt the highly entertaining sectariana, but what is Respect's target?  How many seats would they be happy with

*note I understand that they will not answer this since that would hinder their predicted attempt to turn any result into a doubleplusgood triumph, but you never know**

** note 2: that was an attempt to embarress them into giving an answer***

*** note 3: I realise the futility of such tactics for people who have no shame.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> There was once, I think; Hailie Sallasie of Ethiopa.


Hailie Sellasie was most certainly not a rasta!


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> There was once, I think; Hailie Sallasie of Ethiopa.



There was indeed, and Nigels argument has no logic even if he was right about that.

IF there is homophobia and sexism in Rastafarianism, why does that only become a problem if someone seeks to set up a state based on it? A set of religious beliefs which leads to oppression is to be combatted only if its adherents decide that it is an overtly political movement? Aren't all religions/value frameworks political?

The model I am arguing for is that your public literature unconditionally defends the oppressed, and that you take up the reactionary ideas with the people themselves once you have established the trust. Which is happening inside Respect. Leaflets like the SP's are water off a ducks back, cos they are NOT coming from a starting point of previously earned respect (with a small r).


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Sorry to interrupt the highly entertaining sectariana, but what is Respect's target?  How many seats would they be happy with
> 
> *note I understand that they will not answer this since that would hinder their predicted attempt to turn any result into a doubleplusgood triumph, but you never know**
> 
> ...



(Shamelessly) After the 'Million votes' prediction of 2004 i doubt you'll get any hosatges to fortune... I'm sure once we get the results we'll all have endless fun with them.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 24, 2006)

I think mutley is making some good points and I think the SP bent the stick too far one way.

Obviously it is worth criticising the fundamentalists and how the fundamentalist regimes are using this for their own ends (I think that is a relevant issue mutley) but as said I think the SP bent the stick too far. I really don't see the need to use words like "perceived" when it is clear to anyone that it is happening.

Out of interest mutley what did you think of the WP article?

As it goes the Sun published just as offensive cartoons a year or two back with their "Mr Men" cartoons. Including:



> MR ALBANIAN GANGSTER didn’t like it in Albania so now he lives in Britain.
> 
> He hangs out with Mr Drug Dealer and Mr Asylum Seeker.
> 
> ...



and



> MR YARDIE was a mystery. He didn’t get up in the morning like other people. Instead, he yawned and stretched and got up at night.
> 
> He stepped into his big car with blacked-out windows and never told anyone where he was going.
> 
> ...


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> There was indeed, and Nigels argument has no logic even if he was right about that.


Effing clueless - Haile Sellasie actually refused to leave his plane when he arrived in Jamaica until the Rasta reception committee left.  Rastafarianism was an entirely Carribbean creation which made him into some sort of divinity entirely without his agreement - he explicitly rejected this when he was in Jamaica




			
				mutley said:
			
		

> The model I am arguing for is that your public literature unconditionally defends the oppressed, and that you take up the reactionary ideas with the people themselves once you have established the trust. Which is happening inside Respect. Leaflets like the SP's are water off a ducks back, cos they are NOT coming from a starting point of previously earned respect (with a small r).


So you establish trust with oppressed muslim women by unconditionally supporting their oppressors in your public literature???


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 24, 2006)

> So you establish trust with oppressed muslim women by unconditionally supporting their oppressors in your public literature???



Socialists (and anarchists!) should never hold back their criticism of religious bigotry (as the WP article says   ) but the main issue here is that the cartoons were racist and a deliberate attempt to stir up racial tension.

Just as I thought it was fantastic that workers at the sun refused to print an anti-NUM story I would have done the same if workers at that paper had refused to print racist cartoons.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Socialists (and anarchists!) should never hold back their criticism of religious bigotry (as the WP article says   ) but the main issue here is that the cartoons were racist and a deliberate attempt to stir up racial tension.


Let's be realistic.  Two of the cartoons were fairly offensive (although nowhere near as offensive as South Park for example) - the other six were not and some of them were quite good.  We should also realise that it was not the offensive nature of the cartoons that prompted the protests - it was the very act of printing images of mohammed.

Of course they were a deliberate attempt to bash muslims and so on, the newspaper equivalent of trolling - but the best way to react to a troll is to ignore him. The only people for whom it made sense to choose this particular offense to get enraged about was the fundies.  Anti-imperialists who chose to jump on this particular bandwagon are just following the stupid black and white goodies versus baddies model of politics that GW Bush and Osama want us to play.

Many of the people who got most offended about this and who helped to organise the protests weren't particularly offended by the imperialist invasion of Iraq (eg the regimes in the middle east).  The whole thing was a transparent attempt to channel anti-imperialism into the much safer religious channel.


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Effing clueless - Haile Sellasie actually refused to leave his plane when he arrived in Jamaica until the Rasta reception committee left.  Rastafarianism was an entirely Carribbean creation which made him into some sort of divinity entirely without his agreement - he explicitly rejected this when he was in Jamaica
> 
> 
> So you establish trust with oppressed muslim women by unconditionally supporting their oppressors in your public literature???



You establish trust by defending their right to practice their religion in the way that they see fit, which includes defending both the right to wear and the right not to wear the hijab. Then you may start to get a dialogue.

You also support their community against being stereotyped as bombers which is what the cartoons did.

Nigels clearly not going to answer my thrice presented question is he.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 24, 2006)

In the context of rising Islamophobia I'd say the one with the bomb on the head was totally offensive and racist.

Also, equally important, is why the newspaper was doing it. They clearly aren't doing it to hold up free speech, they did it in an attempt to stir up racism and this should be the main thing that is pointed out.

I'm not sure you can say why all the protestors went out. Indeed quite a few secular people I've spoken to from muslim backgrounds said they were offended by them in that they thought they were racist.

I agree that the fundamentalist leaders fell straight into the trap, but that just shows how cynical the newspaper was being.



> Many of the people who got most offended about this and who helped to organise the protests weren't particularly offended by the imperialist invasion of Iraq



Indeed the WP article makes the point that firstly we shouldn't support state banning or the kind of legislations that the SWP/RESPECT is supporting and that the main thing that is worth turning anger against is stuff like Fallujah, Iraq, Palestine etc


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> You also support their community against being stereotyped as bombers which is what the cartoons did.


One cartoon did and that was not the point of the protests which were against the depiction of mohommed in any shape or form.  By supporting such protests you only show that you defer to the ridiculous dictats of fundamentalist religion and by implication their right to order women to be obedient.  If you had wanted to oppose the portrayal of muslims as terrorists you could easily have organised a protest on those grounds (maybe with placards showing mohammed as a nice happy smiling man) but you just decided to support protests whose entire point was that religious nutters should be allowed to impose their ludicrous rules on the rest of society.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I agree that the fundamentalist leaders fell straight into the trap, but that just shows how cynical the newspaper was being.


It wasn't a trap for them - it was a trap for anti-imperialists.  The whole thing was perfect for fundamentalists - it allowed them to re-orient protest on religious rather than secular grounds.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 24, 2006)

> You establish trust by defending their right to practice their religion in the way that they see fit



No I don't agree with this at all. If those pracitices include sexism, homophobia etc then you certainly don't defend those practices.

In terms of the hijab while socialists obviously shouldn't support state bans at the same time it should be recongised that the hijab is a symbol of religious sexism/oppression in its historical sense. Indeed what state bans do is enable religious leaders to turn it into an anti-imperialist symbol.

I actually know a socialist woman (not in WP) who is from an Islamic background who said in the midst of the rising Islamophobia she has been tempted to go out wearing an hijab in protest against it.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> You establish trust by defending their right to practice their religion in the way that they see fit, which includes defending both the right to wear and the right not to wear the hijab. Then you may start to get a dialogue.


I don't think that anybody has the right to practice their religion the way they see fit when this includes attacking the rights of others.  I have a right to draw pictures of whoever I want.  Women have a right not to be obedient.  Homosexuals have a right to not be murdered.  All of these rights are contrary to the way some people see fit to practice their religion - and you are on the side of the oppressors.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Feb 24, 2006)

> It wasn't a trap for them - it was a trap for anti-imperialists.



No I think that it suits the imperialists to have the fundamentalists on the march and gaining strength (that's why Israel supported Hamas), as it undercuts real anti-imperialism.

I don't think the ruling classes really care what the SWP are doing!!


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> You establish trust by defending their right to practice their religion in the way that they see fit, which includes defending both the right to wear and the right not to wear the hijab. .


So when can we expect the first campaign in support of women *not * to wear the hijab, then?

Or does your position, in practice, mean expecting women who don't want to wear the hjab (but who are being pressured to do so) to shut up for the sake of the greater good? Or at the very least can expect no active support from the left?


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> No I think that it suits the imperialists to have the fundamentalists on the march and gaining strength (that's why Israel supported Hamas), as it undercuts real anti-imperialism.


That's what I said.


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

First, the protests that the swp took part in over the hijab were all clearly around the agreed focus of 'free to wear it, free not to wear it'.

Second, on the right to practice ones religion, I was implicitly (but not clearly enough i'd agree) arguing for the right of individuals to practice their own religion according to their own values. I was not arguing to for the right to then impose that on others, on homosexuals or whatever.

In practice that means, as i said, the right to wear, or not wear, the hijab.

And i'm not the slightest bit surprised that young asian women feel like wearing the hijab as a gesture of defiance. I've heard the same point made many times by asian women. I'm not going to turn round and say 'no your gesture of defiance isn't up to my standards'. Fair play to 'em.

Lastly, I don't accept that the depiction of any image is what fueled the protests. I can't see massive anger over pictures showing the prophet in a manner respectful to believers. It's the bomber cartoon what done it.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Lastly, I don't accept that the depiction of any image is what fueled the protests. I can't see massive anger over pictures showing the prophet in a manner respectful to believers. It's the bomber cartoon what done it.


You're wrong.  There is no possible way of depicting 'the prophet' (ffs do you believe in black magic now?) in a manner respectful to muslims.  The whole point of the protests was that islam in its modern incarnation has forbidden depictions of the mediocre fat merchant-warlord from Mecca.


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> You're wrong.  There is no possible way of depicting 'the prophet' (ffs do you believe in black magic now?) in a manner respectful to muslims.  The whole point of the protests was that islam in its modern incarnation has forbidden depictions of the mediocre fat merchant-warlord from Mecca.



OK rephrasing, ur right no image is acceptable, but i don't think an image that just showed the prophet preaching or whatever would have got the same (or anything tike the same) response.

By the way do you get hung up if i call him the prophet? What's the big deal? Is there an anarchist fatwa on anyone who doesn't spit on the ground when mentioning religion?


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

double post..ignore


----------



## knopf (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> double post..ignore


I ignored it the first time, thanks.


----------



## knopf (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> By the way do you get hung up if i call him the prophet? What's the big deal? Is there an anarchist fatwa on anyone who doesn't spit on the ground when mentioning religion?


Would you refer to Jesus as "Our Lord"?

Thought not.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> Would you refer to Jesus as "Our Lord"?
> 
> Thought not.


Exactly


----------



## knopf (Feb 24, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Exactly


We're on a roll here.....

Would you refer to a Cardinal as "His Eminence"?

Would you refer to the Pope as "His Holiness, the Supreme Pontiff & Shepherd of All Christians"?

Eh? Eh? Eh? Well wouldya, eh?

 

Feel free to add more.......


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> Feel free to add more.......


I demand that the SWP stop their disgraceful slurs against my beliefs.

My proper title is "gurrier, supreme noodle-ist of the flying spaghetti monster's numberless hordes". 

I trust they will forthwith respect my religious beliefs and cook a fine noodly dinner from their own intestines as is dictated in the big book of pirates (book of roderick 3:14).  Oh, and don't forget the bit about sending me the deeds to their houses as partial compensation for the insult (book of winifred (24:11).


----------



## knopf (Feb 24, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I demand that the SWP stop their disgraceful slurs against my beliefs.
> 
> My proper title is "gurrier, supreme noodle-ist of the flying spaghetti monster's numberless hordes".
> 
> I trust they will forthwith respect my religious beliefs and cook a fine noodly dinner from their own intestines as is dictated in the big book of pirates (book of roderick 3:14).  Oh, and don't forget the bit about sending me the deeds to their houses as partial compensation for the insult (book of winifred (24:11).


I doubt they'll do that, mate -- unless you happen to be in a parliamentary constituency with a large proportion of your co-believers in the flying spaghetti monster living in it. In which case, Bob (or, to put it more accurately, George) is your uncle!


----------



## poster342002 (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> First, the protests that the swp took part in over the hijab were all clearly around the agreed focus of 'free to wear it, free not to wear it'.
> 
> Second, on the right to practice ones religion, I was implicitly (but not clearly enough i'd agree) arguing for the right of individuals to practice their own religion according to their own values. I was not arguing to for the right to then impose that on others, on homosexuals or whatever.
> 
> ...


The SWPers come across in their statements more and more like professional politicians - and that's NOT a compliment.

Basically, attending a few pro-hijab demos with the small caveat of of "free to wear it, free not to wear it" simply doesn't amount to proactive suppport for hijab-refusers. So, I'll ask again:

When can we expect the first campaign in support of women not to wear the hijab?

Or does your position, in practice, mean expecting women who don't want to wear the hjab (but who are being pressured to do so) to shut up for the sake of the greater good? Or at the very least can expect no active support from the left?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 24, 2006)

Returning to the main point of the thread ...

One Respect candidate will be standing in Manchester - Nahella Ashraf in Rusholme ward - details of the campaign launch meeting, attended by 800 people, can be found on the Respect website:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1000

and those wishing to volunteer to help the campaign can find the details on the following page - under Rusholme Respect.
http://www.respectnorthwest.org/nw/home.htm


----------



## JimPage (Feb 24, 2006)

in regards to birmingham- are respect and the pjp standing against each other? there will also be a fascist candidate in all of the birmingham wards- and in some of the inner city - heavily ethnic minority wards i expect them to take away enough votes from labour to let respect in- which is the only reason i can see for them standing in places like sparkbrook


----------



## BarryB (Feb 24, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Returning to the main point of the thread ...
> 
> One Respect candidate will be standing in Manchester - Nahella Ashraf in Rusholme ward - details of the campaign launch meeting, attended by 800 people, can be found on the Respect website:
> http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1000
> ...



Fisher Gate following my comments about my surprise in how few Respect candidates are standing in Birmingham im even more surprised that there is only one candidate in the whole of Manchester. I think im correct in saying that there are 32 wards in Manchester and that one seat in every ward is vacant. So there is only one Respect candidate in 32 wards?  You obviously know the area far better than I do so im sure your right. But I thought that Manchester historically was one the strongest SWP areas in the country.
So can you or anyone else explain the lack of Respect candidates?

BarryB


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

The general low numbers is cos we want to pile all our resouces into small areas and try to win. There were those who said (some inside Respect) that the 30 odd we stood for the GE was low, but it paid off, cos Galloway won and we got well credible results in other areas.

On the Prophet thing, I could have called him Mohammed but I know loads of blokes called Mohammed. Didn't want Gurrier (his woshipfull spaghettiness pasta be upon him) to get confused. Anyway I think the Parmesan Adventists have got much better ideas.


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

JimPage said:
			
		

> in regards to birmingham- are respect and the pjp standing against each other? there will also be a fascist candidate in all of the birmingham wards- and in some of the inner city - heavily ethnic minority wards i expect them to take away enough votes from labour to let respect in- which is the only reason i can see for them standing in places like sparkbrook



I'm pretty sure that the PJP aren't standing where we are. One of our candidates Raghib Ahsan is a former PJP candidate.

In Sparkbrook, it'll be a hard three way fight between respect, the lib-dems and labour. 2 current libdem councillors, 1 labour. The leaflet war has started already.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> The general low numbers is cos we want to pile all our resouces into small areas and try to win. There were those who said (some inside Respect) that the 30 odd we stood for the GE was low, but it paid off, cos Galloway won and we got well credible results in other areas.



Does this mean we can expect a flood of Mancurians into Tower Hamlets for the elections? If so I had better tell the Pride of Spitafield to order extra beer.

BarryB


----------



## gurrier (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> On the Prophet thing, I could have called him Mohammed but I know loads of blokes called Mohammed.


I know a fair few prophets too (starting with the 25 voters who are leading this poll   )


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Does this mean we can expect a flood of Mancurians into Tower Hamlets for the elections? If so I had better tell the Pride of Spitafield to order extra beer.
> 
> BarryB



Manchurians?? Is Fu Manchu on the way? Is there a dastardly plot afoot?


----------



## mutley (Feb 24, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> I know a fair few prophets too (starting with the 25 voters who are leading this poll   )



Under 5 councillors eh? I'm not going to lie awake worrying about the massed voices of the Urban psephologists (is that what u call swingometer obssesed people?).

Ask them all what tomorrows lottery numbers are if they're such bleedin' good prophets. Cockers (was it him?) didn't know.

Mind you, the shape of the results makes a nice multi-coloured sideways valley shape.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 24, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Manchurians?? Is Fu Manchu on the way? Is there a dastardly plot afoot?



Well Tower Hamlets is a very cosmopolitan place. Perhaps some Mancurians even. 

BarryB


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 24, 2006)

leaving the religious debate aside, not all respect candidates are muslim and obsessed with only one issue, the war in Irak. Margot Lindsay is a candidate in the Fararday ward in Southwark, although she did not expressely say so, it is clear to me that one of her main issue if not the main issue is the future of the Aylesbury estate in Southwark. I don't think she will be going around saying that Southwark had declared war on Irak. the local council is evil but not that bad.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 25, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Fisher Gate following my comments about my surprise in how few Respect candidates are standing in Birmingham im even more surprised that there is only one candidate in the whole of Manchester. I think im correct in saying that there are 32 wards in Manchester and that one seat in every ward is vacant. So there is only one Respect candidate in 32 wards?  You obviously know the area far better than I do so im sure your right. But I thought that Manchester historically was one the strongest SWP areas in the country.
> So can you or anyone else explain the lack of Respect candidates?
> 
> BarryB



It's simple - Respect are fighting to actually win the seat.  The philosophy is that it is better to have one councillor elected than ten defeated candidates.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 25, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> It's simple - Respect are fighting to actually win the seat.  The philosophy is that it is better to have one councillor elected than ten defeated candidates.



And before anyone asks - the answer is 24.6%.  

And no, it's not the highest in Manchester - Longsight is 38.9% and Whalley Range 29.0%. Two wards in Oldham up for election are more than 50%.

(I think the cynics know what I'm talking about.)


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 25, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> And before anyone asks - the answer is 24.6%.
> 
> And no, it's not the highest in Manchester - Longsight is 38.9% and Whalley Range 29.0%. Two wards in Oldham up for election are more than 50%.
> 
> (I think the cynics know what I'm talking about.)



Though the other interesting statistic is 10.5% - proportion of the population in Census 2001 who were students.  In the northern-most census area in the ward, it is 75% as it includes a large chunk of the campus of the University of Manchester.  Hence the reason for the launch meeting of 800 earlier in the week being organised by Student Respect.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 25, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> leaving the religious debate aside, not all respect candidates are muslim and obsessed with only one issue, the war in Irak. Margot Lindsay is a candidate in the Fararday ward in Southwark, although she did not expressely say so, it is clear to me that one of her main issue if not the main issue is the future of the Aylesbury estate in Southwark. I don't think she will be going around saying that Southwark had declared war on Irak. the local council is evil but not that bad.



The Respect councillors in Preston are concentrating on environmental, housing and social issues in their resolutions to the Council and practical work - see:
http://www.prestonrespect.org/productssimple.html

and also

http://www.prestonrespect.org/avianflu/
http://www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=3987&ArticleID=1357343

though they aren't ignoring the issue of Iraq and anti-muslin xenophobia either:
http://www.prestonrespect.org/danishcartoons/

There is rarely a week goes by when one or the other councillor, or other leading Respect member, does not have something positive in the local paper.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 25, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> It's simple - Respect are fighting to actually win the seat.  The philosophy is that it is better to have one councillor elected than ten defeated candidates.



I can only conclude that Respect know that they are not going to make any big breakthrough in 2006. Well there is always next year. By 2010 you may have 5 seats in Manchester if you are very lucky.

BarryB


----------



## mutley (Feb 25, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> I can only conclude that Respect know that they are not going to make any big breakthrough in 2006. Well there is always next year. By 2010 you may have 5 seats in Manchester if you are very lucky.
> 
> BarryB



Depends if your mad party leader decides to bomb Iran in the mean time, if there's a fight over pensions and who knows what other issues that will come over the horizon. Might even have a whole lot more. Might not. Politics isn't linear.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 25, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Depends if your mad party leader decides to bomb Iran in the mean time, if there's a fight over pensions and who knows what other issues that will come over the horizon. Might even have a whole lot more. Might not. Politics isn't linear.



Dont be so pessimistic. The revolution might have come by 2010. On the other hand...

BarryB


----------



## mutley (Feb 25, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Dont be so pessimistic. The revolution might have come by 2010. On the other hand...
> 
> BarryB



..on the other hand we might be under the heal of fascism, or be the (official)51st state, or have been wiped out by an asteroid..


----------



## JHE (Feb 25, 2006)

*Sulky 'elder' slags off 'clown' & Social Workers*

From the East London Advertiser (23/02/06, page 2):
*Respect elder defects to Lib Dem after row*

A senior Respect party official has defected to the Lib Dems, branding George Galloway a “clown” just a month after praising him as a “noble statesman”.

Dr Shamsuddin Ahmed, formerly vice-chairman of Respect, left the party on Tuesday after a row about which ward he could stand in for the Tower Hamlets council elections in May.

The Bengali elder said he was “disgusted” the way Respect was being run by a clique from the Socialist Workers Party, and was now convinced the Lib Dems were the “natural party for people from ethnic backgrounds”.

He said:  “I know we have been used – Respect is not the party for our community.”

Voicing his disillusionment with Mr Galloway, the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, he added:  “We do not have an MP in this area anymore.  It’s a circus and the community should not be fooled by this clown.”

Last month, as Mr Galloway was being ridiculed for his appearance in Celebrity Big Brother, Dr Ahmed told the Advertiser:  “George Galloway is one of the noblest statesmen today and we have got absolute faith in the decency of the man.”

Respect spokesman Rob Hoveman said his former colleague had left in a fit of anger after he wasn’t offered the chance to stand in the Whitechapel ward.

“The Lib Dems are clearly so desperate for candidates, they are prepared to offer them anything,” he added.

Lib Dem group leader Janet Ludlow said they were considering selecting him for Whitechapel.​


Never having heard of Shamsuddin Ahmed before, I don't know whether this Bengali 'elder' is influential enough among his fellow Bengalis in the East End to harm Respec's vote.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Feb 26, 2006)

Two Respect candidates in Birmingham have been formally announced, by virtue of speaking at a rally advertised on the Respect web-site:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?did=1023&rlid=6

They are:
Raghib Ahsan - Lozells and East Handsworth
Alliya Stennett - Aston

Both are strong candidates.  

Ahsan (Lozells and East Handsworth) is a well known long standing left wing labour movement activist in Birmingham.  He was a member of the IMG in the 70s, standing as Socialist Unity candidate in the Birmingham Ladywood by-election in 1977 following the resignation of Brian Walden (He got 4 times the vote of the SWP candidate, who stood during one of the SWP's more sectarian phases).  As an aside, I remember going along to a march against the fascist NF during that election campaign when black youths ripped up the paving stones in Handsworth's Soho Road to throw them at the police in riot gear protecting the fascist's meeting hall. Unfortunately the left wing vote was split so many ways it failed to have little impact.  Ahsan was also TGWU convenor at Rover's Solihull plant.   During the 1980s/1990s (I'm not sure exactly when), he was a left wing Labour Party councillor - a difficult position given the strongly right wing local Labour movement.  (I presume this history of labour movement activity means that unlike Salma Yaqoob, the CPGB/Weekly Worker will call for a vote for him - probably more like the kiss of death though   ).  More recently he became secretary of the People's Justice Party when it evolved in a left wing direction from a predemonantly Kashmiri group.  He stood in the Springfield ward in 2004 for the PJP winning 1,787 votes.  I expect he's at or approaching retirement age now.

I don't know much about the Lozells and East Handsworth ward as it is a new one and the wretched Birmingham City Council election web pages (surely the worst in the country!) won't display the full results from the only election held there in 2004, when three Labour councillors were elected with around 3,000 votes each .  As far as I can see the Lib Dems came a narrow second (actually 4th 5th and 6th as this was a three member election) and there were also three independent candidates who got between 500 and 1,000 votes.  The greens stood a single candidate who got 546 votes (electorate: 18,577).   The PJP did not stand.  Census data is no help as it is for wards that no longer exist.  I used to live nearby, and I think I actually worked there in the 1970s, so I presume that Lozells and East Handsworth ward is still a typical inner city Birmingham ward with a high proportion of both asian and west indian origin population - not sure which parliamentary constituency it is in (the boundary change makes it difficult to find this out - maybe Mutley knows?).

Alliya Stennett is an afro-caribbean woman and community activist working with young people at City College, who led the cross-community march after last year's riots (see: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7657).
The Aston ward is also part of Handsworth (Ladywood constituency of Clare Short I think) and there was recently a by-election following the disqualification of all three Labour councillors for election, which was won by the LibDems.  The LibDems are currently in coalition as part of the City Council ruling tory-led administration holding three cabinet seats.  The PJP did not stand there either.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 26, 2006)

Discussion forum on the 2006 elections is at www.vote-2006.co.uk

Mainly on London elections. With the elections in Tower Hamlets a popular discussion topic. No surprise there.

BarryB


----------



## mutley (Feb 26, 2006)

Lozells and East Handsworth is Perry Barr (Khalid Mahmood)
Aston is Ladywood (Clare Short)

I don't think respect will challenge Clare Short but these two seats stradddle the riot area, and the choice of one asian and one afro-carribean candidate is not accidental. In spite of Clares wobbling over the war she's been reallly good over id cards etc

Mind you i hear rumours that Clare might stand down.


----------



## JHE (Mar 2, 2006)

Dr Shamsuddin Ahmed (see post no. 127) is not the only Respekite in Tower Hamlets to jump ship.  His compatriot Mustaque Ahmed has also left to join  the Lib Dems.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/614/respect.htm

There are people who come out of this as badly as, or perhaps even worse than, the daftly Islamophile Social Workers:  (i) the Lib Dems, who don't give a shit what their new members' political opinions are, as long as the recruits  are Bengali Muslims, and (ii) the cringe-inducingly arrogant and boastful Dr Ahmed.

Dr Ahmed gives us an insight into the way Respec' campaigns (and,  presumably, the way he will now campaign for the Lib Dems):

I toured all around Tower Hamlets - all the mosques, all the imams, all the mosque committee members and other key people. I have visited hundreds of mosques and the people hold me in high esteem because of who I am.​


----------



## mutley (Mar 2, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Dr Shamsuddin Ahmed (see post no. 127) is not the only Respekite in Tower Hamlets to jump ship.  His compatriot Mustaque Ahmed has also left to join  the Lib Dems.
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/614/respect.htm
> 
> ...



Well it all depends how much credence you place on such testimony. And if we were such total opportunists as some make out, how come we didn't just let these two be the candidates where they want?


----------



## JHE (Mar 2, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Well it all depends how much credence you place on such testimony. And if we were such total opportunists as some make out, how come we didn't just let these two be the candidates?


Respec' *did* want them to be candidates.  Dr Ahmed was pissed off at not getting nominated for his preferred ward.  According to the WW article, the other Ahmed (Mustaque) was also a prospective candidate, but is pissed off with GG.


----------



## nwnm (Mar 3, 2006)

This doesn't answer mutleys question. If you side step in a bull ring you're a bullfighter, if you do it in a discussion you're a bullshitter


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Respec' *did* want them to be candidates.  Dr Ahmed was pissed off at not getting nominated for his preferred ward.  According to the WW article, the other Ahmed (Mustaque) was also a prospective candidate, but is pissed off with GG.


Come on, answer the question or be banned from joining RESPECT.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 9, 2006)

The Respect candidate in Liverpool has launched his campaign according to an article in Socialist Worker.  Paul Desson will contest Princes Park ward - which is similar to the former Granby ward at the heart of Liverpool 8/Toxteth. http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/article.php?article_id=8455

The ward is held by the LibDem's Mohammed Ali (who came third to two Labour candidates in the all out elections following boundary changes in 2004).  The Greens also contested the seat in 2004 winning between 206 to 420 votes, to the winning candidates 935 to 1,029 votes.  But the Greens had some better results in 2004, notably nearby St Michaels ward between Dingle and Aigburth and a heavily student populated area.  Previous results at  http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-32770.pdf

Desson appears to be a strong local candidate who has lived in the area all his life (unlike his LibDem opponent and the Labour councillors, all of whose addresses are in south Liverpool middle class suburbs rather than the inner city).  He is a community activist with, it appears, no track record of previous electoral activity.  He was (is?) Chair of Liverpool Black Drug Workers Group according the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1425780.stm.

There would appear to be a good case for the Greens standing aside for this candidate in return for support from Respect for building in places like St Michaels, where they ought to have the potential to win a seat.


----------



## Ryoma (Mar 9, 2006)

Does anyone think that Respect will win a council seat in an area with a small or non-existent Muslim population?


----------



## mutley (Mar 9, 2006)

Ryoma said:
			
		

> Does anyone think that Respect will win a council seat in an area with a small or non-existent Muslim population?



I've no idea if Respect might this time, but I think that even if the answer is no that can be misleading. When you have a large Muslim community, and a decent well rooted anti-war movement, you've immediately got an obvious visible potential base of support, and the argument that a Respect vote is NOT a wasted vote is much stronger. In areas where there are less or no Muslims, even if there is the chance of getting a chunk of people to vote for an alternative, the 'wasted vote' argument is a massive block.

However it is one that Respect will of course have to overcome sooner or later if it's going to have a future.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 9, 2006)

Ryoma said:
			
		

> Does anyone think that Respect will win a council seat in an area with a small or non-existent Muslim population?



I shall take the question as an honest one - and not one of the constant nit-pickers we get on these boards who forget that the earliest socialist breakthroughs in this country (and internationally) were in areas where there was a substantial minority ethnic population.

Our experience in Preston in 2003 when Socialist Alliance Against the War won the Town Centre seat (Michael Lavalette - now a Respect Councillor) was that Muslims were so angered about the war that they were prepared to break with new Labour and vote for a white atheist socialist, against a Muslim sitting Labour councillor.  They were a sizable (25%) part of the electorate, but on their own the muslim vote could not have defeated Labour.  However once other voters realised that there was enough momentum behind the anti-war candidate that there was a serious chance of defeating New Labour because Muslims were so likely to vote against them, then a layer of other people, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, white lefties and liberals etc came out to support the socialist alliance campaign.  

I think the electoral system contributes a lot to apathy, but once you can break through and show you can win, then other layers of sympathetic people will vote for you who would not bother if they thought it was a hopeless cause.  

What is clear is that more than other group of traditional supporters, Muslims are prepared to abandon New Labour.  In a few places the LibDems have unfortunately benefitted (Rochdale for example).  However where Respect has been well-placed to put forward a principled alternative then it has also won significant votes.

Whether Respect can win seats in other areas remains to be seen, but certainly having electoral successes even if in initially muslim areas helps build your profile.  For example Respect won 10% of the vote in a predominantly white division in local elections in Preston in 2005, even though it was the same day as the General Election and the 'three party' pull was at its strongest in the media.  

Certainly one of our target seats in Preston in 2006 is where muslims are 10% - I don't know whether you consider this small? - but Hindus are 12%.  We came a good second in 2004 (last time the seat was fought) and as the sitting councillor is not standing again, we have high hopes of doing well again and maybe winning the seat.  

The seat with far and away the highest proportion of muslims in Preston (about 44%, bigger even than christians at 37%), by the way, is one held by white independent socialists.  There has been a significant swing to the Liberal Democrats in recent years in this ward, though it is not up for election in 2006, so we will have to wait to see what is happening there until 2007.

The other thing that we should remember is that there is a strong correlation between those areas with a high proportion of muslim voters and the deprivation rates - so any socialists successfully campaigning in the most deprived areas are bound to work in areas with a high proportion of muslims.


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 9, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> There would appear to be a good case for the Greens standing aside for this candidate in return for support from Respect for building in places like St Michaels, where they ought to have the potential to win a seat.


But until a party has actually shown they get a large number of votes in a real life election why is there a "good case"? To me you can't base a good case on a candidate being 'local' or even well known - the only real basis for standing aside IMO is a track record of actual votes for that party in an actual election in that location, especially where there is a full range of parties to vote for, so you can actually see the head-to-head results. To me this means that deals should only be struck later on down the road, not when a party first starts standing in an area. 

There is also the fact that not-very-well established parties can't simply "hand" each other votes in a straightforward way. People may well have all sorts of reasons for voting for either Greens or Respect and in the absence of one they may opt for Labour or Lib Dems instead of simply switching to Green or Respect.  

Also, with lare numbers of people mot bothering to vote in local elections parties really need to get out onto the streets and put effort into enthusing people. Again, you can't simply hand votes over by not standing - anyone wanting to be elected has to put the effort in on the ground, and this has to come way before thinking about cutting 'deals' with other parties.


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 9, 2006)

Ryoma said:
			
		

> Does anyone think that Respect will win a council seat in an area with a small or non-existent Muslim population?


I am trying to find the thread about the 2005 election results...

...I remember making a list comparing the Respect results with the Muslim population in each area...

..dont know if it has survived in the archives somewhere. If anyone can find it I could they post a link here?


----------



## pingupete (Mar 9, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> There is also the fact that not-very-well established parties can't simply "hand" each other votes in a straightforward way. People may well have all sorts of reasons for voting for either Greens or Respect and in the absence of one they may opt for Labour or Lib Dems instead of simply switching to Green or Respect.
> 
> Also, with lare numbers of people mot bothering to vote in local elections parties really need to get out onto the streets and put effort into enthusing people. Again, you can't simply hand votes over by not standing - anyone wanting to be elected has to put the effort in on the ground, and this has to come way before thinking about cutting 'deals' with other parties.



Teejay hits the nail on the head. Actually, Princes Park was the best Green result in the city in 2004, with 14.7% overall, and 18.2% if you are trying to work out what the "best" candidate got. This also omits the fact that the respected Welsh Streets campaigner Nina Edge got around 200 votes as an independent, which in part explains why the Green Vote for the 3rd candidate was about 190 votes less than the 2nd candidate. If we had known Nina was standing, we would almost certainly had stood our 3rd candidate elsewhere.

Tactically we've had to take a decision this time round, which is not to target Princes Park, where both Labour and the Lib Dems are chucking everything they've got at the seat this time. However, as part of the wider strategy of targeting the Riverside constituency, then of course we will be working to keep our core vote up. We'll also be aiming for a couple more 2nd place finishes elsewhere, so we can start campaigning as the main challengers.

There are also wider considerations. Standing in a certain number of the regionally contested seats results in media coverage slots in the run up to the elections, so expect Greens to be standing in the NW in as many places as we can to reach that threshold. It is vital that bigger parties like Liverpool and Manchester stand full slates to achieve this, which is our aim.

I do think that Respect coming in might just allow the Lib Dems to hold this particular seat, but it will no doubt be close.


----------



## mutley (Mar 10, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I am trying to find the thread about the 2005 election results...
> 
> ...I remember making a list comparing the Respect results with the Muslim population in each area...
> 
> ..dont know if it has survived in the archives somewhere. If anyone can find it I could they post a link here?



I don't think anyone is really denying that there is a close correlation, the point is what is the significance of that fact? Fishergate has pointed out the Michael lavallettes ward is minority muslim, and Respect will make valiant attempts to break through in a number of similar places. My argument is that a chunk of Muslims helps to break down the 'you can't possibly win so it's a wasted vote' argument.

And we will all kick the results around on may 5th.


----------



## levien (Mar 10, 2006)

pingupete said:
			
		

> There are also wider considerations. Standing in a certain number of the regionally contested seats results in media coverage slots in the run up to the elections, so expect Greens to be standing in the NW in as many places as we can to reach that threshold. It is vital that bigger parties like Liverpool and Manchester stand full slates to achieve this, which is our aim.



As long as the Green's don't stand in Rusholme (Manchester) where Respect could well unseat the sitting Lib Dem Councillor.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm not in the NW, but I find it very unlikely that a local party which already *has* one Green councillor won't try to stand everywhere - especially given that Greens stood in Rusholme in 2004.

Again, it comes down to TJ's point - what proof do you have that RESPECT can even come close to unseating the sitting Lib Dem? It might be true, I don't know, but there's no way to judge it, and I'd be surprised if Greens stood down there entirely. They might not campaign hard there, but thats a different kind of thing....

Matt


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

pingupete said:
			
		

> ...
> Tactically we've had to take a decision this time round, which is not to target Princes Park, where both Labour and the Lib Dems are chucking everything they've got at the seat this time. However, as part of the wider strategy of targeting the Riverside constituency, then of course we will be working to keep our core vote up. We'll also be aiming for a couple more 2nd place finishes elsewhere, so we can start campaigning as the main challengers.
> 
> There are also wider considerations. Standing in a certain number of the regionally contested seats results in media coverage slots in the run up to the elections, so expect Greens to be standing in the NW in as many places as we can to reach that threshold. It is vital that bigger parties like Liverpool and Manchester stand full slates to achieve this, which is our aim.
> ...



...and if you follow this strategy through then there's no reason why Respect shouldn't follow the same reasoning and stand against the Greens in Lancaster, Oxford and elsewhere, possibly losing you some seats you currently have ... maybe not this year or the next, but if both parties are trying to build up a base at the same time in the same areas then something's gonna have to give sooner or later. 

Matt S has already expressed concern about Respect standing against Greens in key seats in Oxford in other posts.

It's not as if Respect wants to stand everywhere - it's standing in very limited and carefully selected locations.  And as you say, you are also prioritising your campaigning anyway.  Standing everywhere all the time doesn't help with red/green unity, so long as we have first past the post.  If the Greens parachute in to stand against Respect in winnable seats in Preston, there will be a lot of blood on the carpet and ill-feeling across the region.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

F_G,

Actually in Oxford we have done what parties should be doing everywhere, which is talking to each other rationally on a local level, and RESPECT standing down their candidate in our target ward having realised they were going to get about 25 votes....

If Manchester RESPECT are talking to the Manchester Greens, then all well and good - but I certainly wouldn't want to tell a successful and growing local Green Party that they can't stand a full slate - *especially* with the regional TV slots at stake, as Pete mentioned.

Matt


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> F_G,
> 
> Actually in Oxford we have done what parties should be doing everywhere, which is talking to each other rationally on a local level, and RESPECT standing down their candidate in our target ward having realised they were going to get about 25 votes....
> 
> ...



What's with this idea that standing 'full slates' is the only way you can be successful and grow?  

If that's the name of the game then there's not much hope is there?  

There is no way the Greens can say: 

'we are standing full slates in Manchester, Liverpool, Lancaster, Oxford ... etc come what may, but we want to talk to you about where we think you should stand'.  

In such circumstances, where there is no give and take, Respect would have to take their own decisions about where to stand - and if that means wards where there are sitting or potential Green councillors, so be it.  If it so happens that the wards the Greens hold are not ones where Respect currently thinks it can do best, then there may be a respite period.  But if Respect candidates turn out to do well this May, then they will also want to spread the coverage.  This may mean that neither party is able to win seats but will have to concentrate on building their own independent votes.  It's a recipe for marginalisation at the 5-15% level but not a breakthrough in challenging control of the three main parties.  

The Greens may be the larger of the two parties in terms of seats, but that also means they have the most to lose by a lack of willingness to cooperate.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> F_G,
> 
> Actually in Oxford we have done what parties should be doing everywhere, which is talking to each other rationally on a local level, and RESPECT standing down their candidate in our target ward having realised they were going to get about 25 votes....
> 
> ...



I agree with the first point. But the Green Party did deliberately stand against George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob in the general election, who came first and second (I believe SY  got almost 30% of the vote in Birmingham) of the vote, despite them not being strong contenders in those seats - one can only suspect that the main reason is that they hoped they would get just enough votes to keep Respect out.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

>>one can only suspect that the main reason is that they hoped they would get just enough votes to keep Respect out.>>

Well, one could suspect that, but one would be being stupid...

The Greens didn't stand in those constituencies to 'keep RESPECT out'. They stood because there are people in the constituencies who wanted to vote Green - and because the programmes of the two parties are different. RESPECT voters don't necessarily equal Green voters, and vice versa.

Speaking personally, I would probably have opposed standing against SY had I been in that local party - I'm not sure I would have opposed standing against George Galloway. He is fundamentally not Green, and I don't think having a Green standing against him should be that surprising...the vast majority of my Party think that he is a complete twit (being polite about it).

Matt


----------



## Sue (Mar 10, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I agree with the first point. But the Green Party did deliberately stand against George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob in the general election, who came first and second (I believe SY  got almost 30% of the vote in Birmingham) of the vote, despite them not being strong contenders in those seats - one can only suspect that the main reason is that they hoped they would get just enough votes to keep Respect out.



I really don't get this at all. It is utterly reasonable for the Greens to stand wheresoever they choose -- after all, it's Respect who're the johnny-come-latelies in all this.  

Matt, so looks like Bill Baker is gifting Iffley Fields to your lot...?


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

Sue,

Yeah - Iffley Fields has gone from a 50/50 to a very likely gain in my mind....they're petrified of our candidate, who is excellent.   

If only we could make a similar dent in the Lib Dems, slippery lot that they are.

Matt


----------



## Sue (Mar 10, 2006)

I'd be extremely surprised if you didn't win it, assuming you put in the effort and all that. From what I've heard, BB and the Labour lot in the ward seem to have completely fallen off the radar.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

I assumed that you knew about this from your first comment, but pehaps not - Bill Baker has announced his retirement.

No idea who Labour are going to put up.....but it won't be anyone with 1/10th of the experience of our guy.

I'm delighted - tho also worried about the possibility of a real Labour collapse in the City - winding up with the Lib Dems in the majority would be a DISASTER...

Matt


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> What's with this idea that standing 'full slates' is the only way you can be successful and grow?
> 
> If that's the name of the game then there's not much hope is there?
> 
> ...


why the hell should it be incumbent on the greens to co-operate with RESPECT when they are a far more proven, known quantity than RESPECT, and when one of the prime movers in RESPECT (the SWP) has a long and inglorious history of forming/manipulating blocs, coalitions, and fronts that end up - e.g. SA - in ignominious failure, and with their erstwhile allies feeling somewhat bruised and bitter?


----------



## Sue (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> I assumed that you knew about this from your first comment, but pehaps not - Bill Baker has announced his retirement.



Sorry, did know that -- I obviously wasn't very clear.  

So who i standing for you in Iffley Fields, if it's not a secret...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> why the hell should it be incumbent on the greens to co-operate with RESPECT when they are a far more proven, known quantity than RESPECT, and when one of the prime movers in RESPECT (the SWP) has a long and inglorious history of forming/manipulating blocs, coalitions, and fronts that end up - e.g. SA - in ignominious failure, and with their erstwhile allies feeling somewhat bruised and bitter?



I don't regard the largest socialist vote in England since 1945, winning a parliamentary seat and coming a serious second or third in half a dozen others (none of which the Greens have yet to do), and being in a position to challenge seriously for over 100 council seats, as being an 'ignominious failure'.

The Greens can choose to ignore Respect if they like, but, as I said earlier, it's they who have the most to lose ... it's clear that Respect is not going to disappear in the near future, however much you and some of the other posters might want it.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't regard the largest socialist vote in England since 1945, winning a parliamentary seat and coming a serious second or third in half a dozen others (none of which the Greens have yet to do), and being in a position to challenge seriously for over 100 council seats, as being an 'ignominious failure'.
> 
> The Greens can choose to ignore Respect if they like, but, as I said earlier, it's they who have the most to lose ... it's clear that Respect is not going to disappear in the near future, however much you and some of the other posters might want it.



Apologies - Greens managed third place in Brighton Pavilion.  No seconds yet though.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

Sue,

Our candidate is David Williams. He is a former Labour Parliamentary candidate in Rochdale, where he was a councillor for decades. He left the Labour Party over the War in Iraq, and joined the Greens soon afterwards. He is a very very impressive canvasser and is working like a demon....so yes, it's looking very good!

Matt

P.S. F_G, given the problems that seem to be erupting in Tower Hamlets over the Bengali/SWP split - are you really confident that RESPECT is around for good? Serious and honest question.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> ..
> P.S. F_G, given the problems that seem to be erupting in Tower Hamlets over the Bengali/SWP split - are you really confident that RESPECT is around for good? Serious and honest question.



Serious and honest answer - Yes.  

There is no evidence the Tower Hamlets case you cite is anything other than sour grapes by a few individuals who didn't get exactly what they wanted, being endlessly repeated by a few cynical lefties.  It is not being repeated anywhere else.  

Did the Greens not go through far worse with David Icke and the realos/fundos debates - but are still around today?


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

F_G,

Very true, but the Greens had existed for years at that stage and had something of a base and foundation to fall back on. RESPECT is a different proposition...

Well - we will see!

Matt


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> Sue,
> 
> Our candidate is David Williams. He is a former Labour Parliamentary candidate in Rochdale, where he was a councillor for decades. He left the Labour Party over the War in Iraq, and joined the Greens soon afterwards. He is a very very impressive canvasser and is working like a demon....so yes, it's looking very good!
> 
> ...



Interesting ward Iffley Fields.  

http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov...dProfileSearch.do?profileSearch=iffley+fields

I used to live there in the bit that was part of the old South Ward.  It used to straddle the two parliamentary constituencies and so longer standing residents have experience of Labour, LibDem and even Tory MPs.  

It combines one of Oxford's more traditional working class areas (Donnington -which used to be the home to a lot of car workers and was solidly Labour, hence Bill Baker's base there though it's a lot smaller than the other council estate areas), with some very mixed areas including some highly educated middle class affluence (off Iffley Road to Donnington Bridge Road).  Also has a small but not irrelevant asian population and some students, though not a large quantity by Oxford standards.  

Hardly typical by national standards though.

I don't know why Respect didn't think they could do well there, but I hope they'll be standing in the wards nearer towards Carfax and Headington, where there is a more substantial asian population that was traditionally Labour.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> F_G,
> 
> Very true, but the Greens had existed for years at that stage and had something of a base and foundation to fall back on. RESPECT is a different proposition...
> 
> ...



At that time the Greens were much smaller than Respect is today, even though they had been around longer.

As you say, we will see.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

F_G,

RESPECT didn't think that they could do well there because it is a v tight Green/Labour marginal. So they have very little room to pick up any votes at all. Similarly, they are extremely unlikely to stand in St Marys, St Clements etc, as the Labour/Green contest makes any challenge by them extremely unlikely to pick up support.

I think they may be standing in Cowley, where the Greens haven't traditionally run target campaigns...not sure though. They don't tell me these things. 

Matt


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

>>At that time the Greens were much smaller than Respect is today, even though they had been around longer.>>

No they weren't. We had 20,000 members in 1990!

Matt


----------



## Sue (Mar 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't know why Respect didn't think they could do well there, but I hope they'll be standing in the wards nearer towards Carfax and Headington, where there is a more substantial asian population that was traditionally Labour.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> >>At that time the Greens were much smaller than Respect is today, even though they had been around longer.>>
> 
> No they weren't. We had 20,000 members in 1990!
> 
> Matt



I was thinking of a slightly earlier period.  Before the 1989 Euros when membership really took off - I think membership was nearer 5,000 when Icke joined in about 1988 and the differences in Germany were beginning to have a manifestation.  

But you are quite right, the Greens grew significantly despite having some nutters in major leadership roles


----------



## levien (Mar 10, 2006)

How many members do the Greens have now?  If people don't know/don't want to answer it's fair enough (I don't know Respects.)


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

Depends on how you measure it. If you measure the people who have probably just forgotten to renew for a couple of months it's about 6500. If you measure the people who are fully and totally paid up it's just under 6000.

Matt


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> Depends on how you measure it. If you measure the people who have probably just forgotten to renew for a couple of months it's about 6500. If you measure the people who are fully and totally paid up it's just under 6000.
> 
> Matt



Respect have just sent out a big tranche of reminders/renewals.  The next National Council on 1 April is due to take a report on membership.  As Alan Thornett is down to minute it,  I'd guess the figures will be published in the minutes and available on the internet shortly afterwards, in line with Conference decisions.  I'd guess at around 3-4,000 paid up members.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> F_G,
> 
> RESPECT didn't think that they could do well there because it is a v tight Green/Labour marginal. So they have very little room to pick up any votes at all. Similarly, they are extremely unlikely to stand in St Marys, St Clements etc, as the Labour/Green contest makes any challenge by them extremely unlikely to pick up support.
> 
> ...



If they do reasonably well in Cowley this time, I should imagine it's inevitable they'll be standing in East Oxford next time, unless the Greens offer to stand down elsewhere.   (I count anything more than 5% as positive where we have no record of standing).


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

F_G,

Well you might be right, but they'll come 5th in most (if not all) places in
East Oxford....if they want to keep doing that, then OKiedoke. Seems like challenging Green incumbents is probably not the best use of time, though.

Matt


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> Depends on how you measure it. If you measure the people who have probably just forgotten to renew for a couple of months it's about 6500. If you measure the people who are fully and totally paid up it's just under 6000.
> 
> Matt



Let me confess, I joined Respect in 2004 and haven't got round to renewing my membership in 2005 or 2006, despite campaigning for them in these years


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Let me confess, I joined Respect in 2004 and haven't got round to renewing my membership in 2005 or 2006, despite campaigning for them in these years



Please renew asap!


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> F_G,
> 
> Well you might be right, but they'll come 5th in most (if not all) places in
> East Oxford....if they want to keep doing that, then OKiedoke. Seems like challenging Green incumbents is probably not the best use of time, though.
> ...



Nor is standing full slates in every city ... especially where you haven't got any councillors yet and where other red/green organisations are prepared to devote resources to fighting the main parties.


----------



## mutley (Mar 10, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Let me confess, I joined Respect in 2004 and haven't got round to renewing my membership in 2005 or 2006, despite campaigning for them in these years



Have you never heard of the standing order? £3 a month covers ur national membership. And it helps stop Alan Thornett worrying.. a valuable contribution to the sum total of human happiness.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 10, 2006)

>>especially where you haven't got any councillors yet>>

You're aware that we have a Green councillor in Manchester, right?

Matt


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 10, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> >>especially where you haven't got any councillors yet>>
> 
> You're aware that we have a Green councillor in Manchester, right?
> 
> Matt



Yes, and I can understand that you might want to stand everywhere there and in Lancaster, 

but not in Liverpool or Preston ... 

or Blackburn [where there are (all out) elections in 2008 and where I'm just on my way to a big Stop the War meeting with Galloway that Jack Straw tried to get the Council to ban!]


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 10, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I agree with the first point. But the Green Party did deliberately stand against George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob in the general election, who came first and second (I believe SY  got almost 30% of the vote in Birmingham) of the vote, despite them not being strong contenders in those seats - one can only suspect that the main reason is that they hoped they would get just enough votes to keep Respect out.


Where is your evidence that the Green Party *deliberately* chose to stand against these two?

When they chose their candidates and submitted them for election did the local Green parties involved even know if Respect had put up a candidate or who they were?

The fact is that parties just have to get with picking and standing candidates, have to be answerable first and foremost to their local members and rely on the interests and enthusiasm of their local activists, who are the ones who decide where and when they are going to contest elections, and pick target wards.

As far as I know the GP policy is that the decision to make 'agreements' (although not formal and public pacts) with other parties is down to local parties. They are allowed to do this but are not required to do so. 

Ultimately if people join the Green Party so that they can vote Green and to elect Greens then you have to stand candidates to give them the option of doing this. If they had wanted to vote for Respect they would have joined Respect surely?

To actually make "deals" you need to already have something to trade - not theoretical votes, but actual results from previous elections. For both parties to be able to put these results on the table they have to have run against each other at least once.

While occasionally a deal will make sense for both parties because they have something concrete they can offer each other, there should IMO be a presumption that both parties will do their best to offer voters the widest choice and allow their own supporters the chance to vote for their party, to campaign locally and enthuse and recruit non-voters, of which there are many. 'Standing people down' is really not the right thing for either party while they are still trying to build themselves up.


----------



## mutley (Mar 10, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Where is your evidence that the Green Party *deliberately* chose to stand against these two?
> 
> *The green party candidate in B'ham Sparkbrook and Smallheath was quite open in a private conversation that was reported to me that he expected his candidature to spanner the Respect campaign. Can't prove it but it's what I heard.  We got 10,500 votes to their 800 though. Of course if true it was the individuals opinion, not the Green Parties as a whole.*.
> 
> ...



As I said, Bham Greens stood against Respect, and left other seats with no-one who was radical in any sense. 
The thing that worries me is that the B'ham Greens are such a lack-lustre bunch that they'll have nothing that they really want to bargain to achieve. They are nowhere near winning anything here anywhere. If they keep throwing sand in the works where Respect are strong then there will be a massive row at some point.


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't regard the largest socialist vote in England since 1945, winning a parliamentary seat and coming a serious second or third in half a dozen others (none of which the Greens have yet to do), and being in a position to challenge seriously for over 100 council seats, as being an 'ignominious failure'.
> 
> The Greens can choose to ignore Respect if they like, but, as I said earlier, it's they who have the most to lose ... it's clear that Respect is not going to disappear in the near future, however much you and some of the other posters might want it.


Shall we look at the actual results then? I'll let everyone guess who is who. Maybe you can use this list to suggest where exactly Respect can offer anything to the benefit of the Green Party? These results don't suggest that Respect threatening to stand in Brighton for example is going to scare anyone - Respect can only get votes in areas with large Muslim populations, and even they they don't always suceed in doing this either. On this showing there is a very limited amount they can offer the Green Party in terms of votes IMO.  

Bethnal Green & Bow .................... 35.9
Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath .... 27.5
East Ham ............................... 20.7
West Ham ............................... 19.5
Poplar & Canning Town .................. 17.2
Preston ................................. 6.8
Tottenham ............................... 6.4
Leicester South ......................... 6.4
Birmingham Perry Barr ................... 5.6
Hackney South ........................... 4.5
Slough .................................. 4.4
Sheffield Central ....................... 4.3
Walsall South ........................... 3.2
Stretford & Urmston ..................... 2.5
Luton South ............................. 1.9
Tooting ................................. 1.7
Tyne Bridge ............................. 1.7
Bradford North .......................... 1.4
Bristol East ............................ 1.3
Cambridge ............................... 1.1
Cardiff Central ......................... 1.1
Harwich ................................. 0.9
Plymouth Devonport ...................... 0.8
Neath ................................... 0.7
Hove .................................... 0.6
Dorset South ............................ 0.5

Brighton Pavilion ..... 22.0
Lewisham Deptford ..... 11.1
Hackney North .......... 9.9
Holborn ................ 8.1
Leeds West ............. 7.5
Norwich South .......... 7.4
Islington North ........ 7.1
Brighton, Kemptown ..... 7.0
Dulwich & West Norwood . 6.5
Sheffield Central ...... 6.0
Hove ................... 5.7
Hackney South .......... 5.5
Streatham .............. 5.5
Liverpool Riverside..... 5.5
Bath ................... 5.4
Stroud ................. 5.4
Hampstead .............. 5.3
Ealing & Acton ......... 5.0
Hornsey & Wood Green ... 5.0
Nottingham East ........ 5.0
Bristol South .......... 5.0
Regents Park ........... 4.9
Islington South ........ 4.8
Lewisham West .......... 4.8
Huddersfield ........... 4.7
Leicester West ......... 4.7
Ealing Southall ........ 4.6
Leyton & Wanstead ...... 4.6
Tottenham .............. 4.6
Vauxhall ............... 4.6
City of York ........... 4.5
Leominster ............. 4.5
Bethnal Green & Bow .... 4.4
Greenwich & Woolwich ... 4.4
Lancaster & Wyre ....... 4.4
Manchester Central ..... 4.4
Oxford East ............ 4.3
Manchester Withington .. 4.3
Kensington ............. 4.3
City of Westminster .... 4.2
Battersea .............. 4.2
Tooting ................ 4.1
Camberwell ............. 4.0
Lewisham East .......... 4.0
New Forest West ........ 4.0
Oxford West & Abingdon . 4.0
Hammersmith & Fulham ... 3.9
Wealden ................ 3.9
Hertford & Stortford ... 3.9
Birmingham, Selly Oak .. 3.8
Bristol East ........... 3.8
Sheffield, Heeley ...... 3.8
Bristol West ........... 3.8
Milton Keynes SW ....... 3.7
Brentford & Isleworth ...3.6
Essex North ............ 3.6
Shipley ................ 3.5
Mitcham & Morden ....... 3.5
Newcastle Central ...... 3.5
Richmond (Yorks) ....... 3.5
North Devon ............ 3.5
Chesham and Amersham ... 3.5
Reading East ........... 3.5
Southampton Test ....... 3.5
Castle Point ........... 3.5
Wansbeck ............... 3.4
Rochford & Southend East 3.4
Exeter ................. 3.4
St Ives ................ 3.4
Torridge and W. Devon .. 3.4
Ashford ................ 3.4
Sheffield, Hallam ...... 3.3
Leicester South ........ 3.3
Tewkesbury ............. 3.3
Henley ................. 3.3
Suffolk Coastal ........ 3.3
Canterbury ............. 3.2
Brent South ............ 3.2
Bromley & Chislehurst .. 3.2
Wimbledon .............. 3.2
Bradford West .......... 3.1
Suffolk Central ........ 3.1
Witney ................. 3.1
Southwark North ........ 3.0
Wakefield .............. 3.0
Rushcliffe ............. 3.0
Birmingham Edgbaston ... 3.0
Rotherham  .............. 3.0
Watford ................ 3.0
Bury St Edmunds ........ 3.0
West Ham ............... 2.9
Hull North  ............. 2.9
Brent East ............. 2.9
Ealing North ........... 2.9
Calder Valley .......... 2.9
Bridgwater ............. 2.9
Salisbury .............. 2.9
Gosport ................ 2.9
Cambridge .............. 2.9
South Cambridgeshire ... 2.9
Warwick and Leamington . 2.8
Chipping Barnet ........ 2.8
Croydon North .......... 2.8
Twickenham ............. 2.8
Banbury ................ 2.8
Putney ................. 2.7
Richmond Park .......... 2.7
Stalybridge & Hyde ..... 2.7
Runnymede & Weybridge .. 2.7
Norwich North .......... 2.7
Colne Valley ........... 2.6
Gower .................. 2.6
Edmonton ............... 2.6
Enfield Southgate ...... 2.6
Finchley & Golders Green 2.6
Hayes & Harlington ..... 2.6
Scarborough and Whitby . 2.6
Wantage ................ 2.6
Bedfordshire Mid ....... 2.6
Poplar & Canning Town .. 2.5
Leeds North West ....... 2.5
Woodspring ............. 2.5
Windsor ................ 2.5
Braintree .............. 2.5
Ceredigion ............. 2.4
Tiverton and Honiton ... 2.4
Hastings and Rye ....... 2.4
Havant ................. 2.4
Waveney ................ 2.4
Newcastle-under-Lyme ... 2.3
Shrewsbury and Atcham .. 2.3
Stratford-on-Avon ...... 2.3
West Worcestershire .... 2.3
Lewes .................. 2.3
Feltam & Heston ........ 2.2
Ruislip Northwood ...... 2.2
Birmingham, Sparkbrook . 2.2
Hereford ............... 2.2
Swansea West ........... 2.2
South Swindon .......... 2.2
Milton Keynes NE ....... 2.2
Reading West ........... 2.2
Thanet South ........... 2.2
Barking ................ 2.1
Carshalton & Wallington. 2.1
Croydon Central ........ 2.1
Uxbridge ............... 2.1
Cheltenham ............. 2.1
Forest of Dean ......... 2.1
North Dorset ........... 2.1
Great Grimsby  .......... 2.0
Worcester .............. 2.0
Cardiff South .......... 2.0
Eastbourne .............   2.0
Slough ................. 2.0
Luton South ............ 2.0
Blackburn .............. 1.9
Basingstoke ............ 1.9
Bradford South ......... 1.9
Hendon ................. 1.8
West Dorset ............ 1.8
Broxtowe ............... 1.8
Ludlow ................. 1.8
Rossendale & Darwen .... 1.8
Neath .................. 1.8
Batley and Spen ........ 1.7
Aberavon ............... 1.7
Gloucester ............. 1.7
Upminster .............. 1.6
Northavon .............. 1.6
Guildford .............. 1.6
Bradford North ......... 1.6
Bridgend ............... 1.6
Swansea East ........... 1.6
Conwy .................. 1.5
Dewsbury ............... 1.5
Basildon ............... 1.5
Newport West ........... 1.5
Folkestone and Hythe ...   1.4
Preseli Pembrokeshire .. 1.3
Rochdale ............... 1.1
Boston and Skegness .... 1.0
Hartlepool ............. 0.8


----------



## tbaldwin (Mar 10, 2006)

Crikey what a load of losers!


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 10, 2006)

So let's look at where the Green party and Respect actually ran against each other:

This rules out East Ham, Preston, Birmingham Perry Barr, Walsall South, Stretford & Urmston, Tyne Bridge, Cardiff Central, Harwich, Plymouth Devonport and Dorset South where the Green Party did not stand.

*There were 7 seats where Respect got more than the Greens:*

Bethnal Green & Bow:
Respect: 35.9% 
Green: 4.4%

Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath:
Respect: 27.5% 
Green: 2.2%

West Ham:
Respect 19.5% 
Green: 2.9%

Poplar & Canning Town: 
Respect: 17.2% 
Green: 2.5%

Tottenham: 
Respect 6.4% 
Green: 4.6%

Leicester South: 
Respect: 6.4% 
Green 3.3%

Slough: 
Respect: 4.4% 
Green: 2.0%

*There were 9 seats where the Green Party got more than Respect:*

Hackney South: 
Green: 5.5% 
Respect: 4.5%

Sheffield Central:
Green: 6.0%
Respect: 4.3%

Luton South:
Green: 2.0%
Respect: 1.9%

Tooting
Green: 4.1%
Respect: 1.7%

Bradford North:
Green: 1.6%
Respect: 1.4%

Bristol East:
Green: 3.8%
Respect: 1.3%

Cambridge:
Green: 2.9%
Respect: 1.1%

Neath:
Green: 1.8%
Respect: 0.7%

Hove:
Green: 5.7%
Respect: 0.6%

Is the proposal that these two sets of seats are simply “traded”? Would this extend to council, london and euro elections as well?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 11, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> So let's look at where the Green party and Respect actually ran against each other:
> ...



It's arguable, but I would include Blackburn as well.  Craig Murray stood as an independent, the Greens opposed him.  Murray was backed by Respect and Respect members canvassed and supported him, building on the Socialist Alliance campaign in 2001 (when there was no Green candidate).  I've just left a Stop the War meeting with over 200 people to oppose the visit of Condaleeza Rice in Blackburn that Murray spoke at with George Galloway and its pretty obvious that he is closest to Respect and the only party likely to provide serious forces on the ground to oppose Labour in Blackburn is Respect.  There was no noticeable Green Party presence at the meeting despite their ostensible support for the Stop the War Coalition.  Jack Straw had tried to get the meeting banned through his cronies at the council and there was a lot of talk about turfing them out at the next local elections (2008).  Its also clear that people clearly meant that Respect were the only party that could turf Labour out.

Include that one and it's:
Blackburn:
Independent/Respect 5.0
Green 1.9

When you look at the eight seats Respect outpolled the Greens, it was generally by quite a significant margin, whereas in the nine seats where the Greens outpolled Resect, it was much nearer, with some where neither party did well.  

I'd say its not an open and shut case that the Greens are the stronger party and have nothing to gain by trying to work with Respect.  We will have to see after the local elections what happens in the head to heads but it is possible the Greens will fare worse.


----------



## Matt S (Mar 11, 2006)

>>It's not an open and shut case that the Greens are the stronger party>>

Well, with respect (ho ho) - 2 MEPs, 2 GLA members and 70 councillors, compared to - what - 1 MP and 3 or 4 councillors? Something like 1,400 candidates this year, compared to probably 200ish? Over 200 GE candidates compared to about 10/15?

I appreciate that some of that is down to targetting, but I think the Greens still have a tangibly stronger presence across most of the country than RESPECT. In East London, Birmingham and Preston, thats not true - but across most of the rest of the UK, you guys hardly exist....

Matt


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 11, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> >>It's not an open and shut case that the Greens are the stronger party>>
> 
> Well, with respect (ho ho) - 2 MEPs, 2 GLA members and 70 councillors, compared to - what - 1 MP and 3 or 4 councillors? Something like 1,400 candidates this year, compared to probably 200ish? Over 200 GE candidates compared to about 10/15?
> 
> ...



I meant after May - that is the topic of the thread.  Obviously not at present in terms of council seats.  

And London and Birmingham are not exactly small places - to be making breakthroughs in such a short time there, augers well for the next few years.  I accept that places like Preston (and Lancaster and Oxford ...) are of less significance).  Of course we are very concentrated in certain parts of the country, and I make no apology for that - so is the population.  

And its not just about targetting - in the half dozen seats where we did really well in the general election, it is self-evident that we did better than the Greens anywhere  in the country ... the fact is that we did really well, historic indeed ...

... and by the way our second most successful parliamentary candidate is not a guy at all ...


----------



## Rostock (Mar 11, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> And London and Birmingham are not exactly small places - to be making breakthroughs in such a short time there, augers well for the next few years.  I accept that places like Preston (and Lancaster and Oxford ...) are of less significance).  Of course we are very concentrated in certain parts of the country, and I make no apology for that - so is the population.



This is a very interesting paragraph:

1. Preston is of 'less significance' wtf? Than where? Surely it's not beyond the ken of even the most slow-witted  activist to realise that powerful regional bases need not be built in London/ Birmingham.

2. Your last sentence would appear to be an admission that RESPECT targets votes on the basis of etnicity rather than class. If I read you correctly- and it's hard to see how your last sentence could be read any other way- how then is RESPECT different from the BNP?


----------



## Matt S (Mar 11, 2006)

>>... and by the way our second most successful parliamentary candidate is not a guy at all ..>>

And neither are our two Parliamentarians, so you can probably dismount from that particular high horse...  

Matt


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 12, 2006)

Rostock said:
			
		

> This is a very interesting paragraph:
> 
> 1. Preston is of 'less significance' wtf? Than where? Surely it's not beyond the ken of even the most slow-witted  activist to realise that powerful regional bases need not be built in London/ Birmingham.
> 
> 2. Your last sentence would appear to be an admission that RESPECT targets votes on the basis of etnicity rather than class. If I read you correctly- and it's hard to see how your last sentence could be read any other way- how then is RESPECT different from the BNP?



Eh?  Of course powerful regional bases can be built, but the more they are in major cities, the more 'powerful' they are - this means places like Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, Bristol ... to name a few ... are all more important than Preston, Lancaster or Oxford, which also have two tier local government as well, so the councils are not as powerful.  The SP's council positions in Coventry and Stoke are also more significant.  Brighton is a special case - it is regionally significant (and a unitary council), largely by being lumped in with Hove, which is quite a distinct place.

I wasn't trying to make an attack, just making a factual point. Resect is concentrating on the two largest conurbations in the country and only putting up comparatively few candidates elsewhere.  To be fair the Greens also have some strength in London with an MEP and two GLA members (both of which Respect only narrowly lost out on in 2004), but challenging for control of two local authorities, as Respect is doing, is qualitatively more significant politically.  

Matt S was trying to make the point that Respect were nowhere.  But the  largest concentrations of Green councillors are Brighton, Oxford and Lancaster - which are not the major regional bases I have mentioned (and nor is Preston where Respect has councillors).  The Green councillors in places Leeds and Manchester are, long term, of more significance.  

If (and I accept it's a big 'if') Respect has success in Birmingham and London this May, I think we can expect to see it challenging in the other major cities in subsequent elections.  This is nothing directly to do with ethnicity and everything to do with where the biggest concentrations of working class and dispossessed are, and where a fledgling party can make the biggest impact most quickly.  And of course when the timetable for elections come up.

I haven't read the government report on the State of the Cities yet, but I expect some interesting issues to emerge from that in relation to Respect's electoral strategy.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 12, 2006)

Matt S said:
			
		

> >>... and by the way our second most successful parliamentary candidate is not a guy at all ..>>
> 
> And neither are our two Parliamentarians, so you can probably dismount from that particular high horse...
> 
> Matt



Sure ... but language has hidden meanings as I'm sure you appreciate - I'd never call the Green Party 'you guys'.  It's just a different personal approach we seem to have.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2006)

garbage - "you guys" is a generic term.  Only a politically correct pedant would object.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> garbage - "you guys" is a generic term.  Only a politically correct pedant would object.



I plead guilty as charged ... there are still a lot of people who think that 'Chairman' is an acceptable "generic term" ...


----------



## mutley (Mar 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> garbage - "you guys" is a generic term.  Only a politically correct pedant would object.



Internalised oppression if you ask me.. (speaking in a personal capacity..)


----------



## JHE (Mar 13, 2006)

*Bad news for Respec' in Brum*

Respec's Kashmiri Muslim chums in the 'People's Justice Party' are disbanding, but they are not joining Respec'.  They are joining the Lib Dems instead.

PJP group leader Coun Ali Khan said talks about disbanding the party began when members worked closely with the Lib Dems to expose postal vote fraud in Aston and Bordesley Green.

"We have decided it is time to join mainstream politics. The Liberal Democrat Party provides the most obvious home for our membership. People are very excited about this because they can see that we will now be able to play a bigger role in helping to run Birmingham.​Birmingham Mail article


----------



## Stevil (Mar 13, 2006)

Funny but the party Respect most remind me of is the Lib-Dems - especially in Preston.


----------



## mutley (Mar 13, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Respec's Kashmiri Muslim chums in the 'People's Justice Party' are disbanding, but they are not joining Respec'.  They are joining the Lib Dems instead.
> 
> PJP group leader Coun Ali Khan said talks about disbanding the party began when members worked closely with the Lib Dems to expose postal vote fraud in Aston and Bordesley Green.
> 
> "We have decided it is time to join mainstream politics. The Liberal Democrat Party provides the most obvious home for our membership. People are very excited about this because they can see that we will now be able to play a bigger role in helping to run Birmingham.​Birmingham Mail article



It's not that big a deal. We called for a vote for them, and they us, in 2004, but there was no relationship last year in the GE. Raghib Ahsan, one of our candidates, is a former PJP candidate but now fully paid up to Respect.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> It's not that big a deal.



One to file under "they would say that, wouldn't they". Respect were wooing this bunch of communalist careerists and if you'd happened to come up with a better offer than the Lib Dems bunch your androids would even now be telling us about how progressive they are. That's one of the many problems with trying to win people over without arguing for socialist politics - the left will always be outbid by the mainstream parties.


----------



## nwnm (Mar 13, 2006)

Ah... thats why your lot left the labour party then   still got that 'Enabling Act' stuffed in yer back pocket 'ave yer?


----------



## Macullam (Mar 13, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> It's not that big a deal. We called for a vote for them, and they us, in 2004, but there was no relationship last year in the GE. Raghib Ahsan, one of our candidates, is a former PJP candidate but now fully paid up to Respect.



apparently the PJP atcked the lib dems at the euro elections for its support for gay rights


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 13, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> apparently the PJP atcked the lib dems at the euro elections for its support for gay rights



No - this is an 'urban myth'. An unauthorised leaflet put out in the name of the PJP was withdrawn by the leadership of the PJP who refused to countenance and endorse this comment.  A few people claim to have received copies of this leaflet at a meeting, but there is no evidence that it was widely circulated.  This was an organisation in transition - that the leadership withdrew such a leaflet is evidence that they were moving in a positive direction.  It is now two years since this example was first cited - any chance of moving on to discuss what the PJP are doing now?  It is disappointing they are joining the Lib Dems but I expect some will join Respect as an alternative.


----------



## JHE (Mar 13, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> This is an organisation in transition from a communalist to a socialist basis...


Via the Lib Dems?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 13, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> One to file under "they would say that, wouldn't they". Respect were wooing this bunch of communalist careerists and if you'd happened to come up with a better offer than the Lib Dems bunch your androids would even now be telling us about how progressive they are. That's one of the many problems with trying to win people over without arguing for socialist politics - the left will always be outbid by the mainstream parties.



Reminds me of all those interviews in Militant in the 1980s ... 'I voted for Maggie Thatcher in 1979 but now I've seen the light and joined the true socialists .... '


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 13, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Via the Lib Dems?



Obviously not.  But's its not unknown for left wingers to join the Lib Dems - just misguided.  

[PS Sorry I edited the post 1 minute later to make it clearer I disapproved of them joining the Lib Dems.]


----------



## JHE (Mar 13, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Obviously not.  But's its not unknown for left wingers to join the Lib Dems - just misguided.
> 
> [PS Sorry I edited the post 1 minute later to make it clearer I disapproved of them joining the Lib Dems.]


Do you have any reason, other than wishful thinking, to see the PJP as left-wing?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 13, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> It's not that big a deal. We called for a vote for them, and they us, in 2004, but there was no relationship last year in the GE. Raghib Ahsan, one of our candidates, is a former PJP candidate but now fully paid up to Respect.



Ahsan was not just a candidate but was the secretary.  He is one of the better elements in the PJP who has decided his future lies with Respect.  Unfortunately he was obviously unable to convince some of his colleagues.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 13, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Do you have any reason to see the PJP as left-wing?



Some members obviously were - Ahsan's credentials, for example, as a left winger (and trade unionist) are strong.  Any study of Malcolm X's writings will reveal that there is no automatic destination for those breaking from the 'Nation of Islam' style of politics.


----------



## JHE (Mar 13, 2006)

*400:1*




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Some members obviously were - Ahsan's credentials, for example, as a left winger (and trade unionist) are strong.


I don't know anything about Ahsan - and am fairly willing to take your word for it.

On the other hand, 400 PJPers are joining the Lib Dems (according to the Brum Mail).


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 13, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> I don't know anything about Ahsan - and am fairly willing to take your word for it.
> 
> On the other hand, 400 PJPers are joining the Lib Dems (according to the Brum Mail).



Ahsan was a former Socialist Unity candidate in the 1970s, labour councillor and TGWU convenor at Rover's Solihull plant.  Believe me, he was undeniably on the left.

The two PJP councillors have said that 400 are joining the LibDems.  How many do so remains to be seen.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 13, 2006)

Stevil said:
			
		

> Funny but the party Respect most remind me of is the Lib-Dems - especially in Preston.



Given that you are an anarchist who sees no fundamental difference between any party that contests elections - from BNP and Tories, to LibDems, Labour, Respect, IWCA or Socialist Party, they are all the same to you - this hardly amounts to a devastating critique   

The fact that the LibDems advocate privatisation of everything from the Post Office to Public Libraries, and that Respect supports public ownership is presumably irrelevant to a man of your principles ...


----------



## mutley (Mar 13, 2006)

I doubt 400 PJPers will join the lib-dems. There may be a load at their big bash to celebrate this political marriage, but that's cos there's a free curry.

The PJP were pulled to the left in the wake of the big anti-war upsurge, but unfortunately the siren song of the bigger parties has pulled them in. And Fisher-gate is right about the leaflet, it was circulated at a PJP public meeting, then pulled at Respect's insistence. (And I have a copy). I'd say that that was a positive effect of Respects influence. We've had no dealings with them since 2004, and around the 2005 campaign it was clear that most of them weren't backing Respect.

Nigels argument that it's the kind of politics argued that's the problem is bollocks, there are plenty of ex-trots who've been pulled by the establishment. Look at Hatton ffs.


----------



## Stevil (Mar 13, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Given that you are an anarchist who sees no fundamental difference between any party that contests elections - from BNP and Tories, to LibDems, Labour, Respect, IWCA or Socialist Party, they are all the same to you - this hardly amounts to a devastating critique



Wasn't meant to be, I was just bored. You have a very crude view of my politics though. I'm quite surprised.


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Ahsan was a former Socialist Unity candidate in the 1970s, labour councillor and TGWU convenor at Rover's Solihull plant.  Believe me, he was undeniably on the left.
> 
> The two PJP councillors have said that 400 are joining the LibDems.  How many do so remains to be seen.



Prior to his standing for Socialist Unity (sic) he was a member of the Asian Socialist League a front formed by the International Marxist Group. I presume that he was then also a member of the latter grouping. Later a councillor for Labour for sixteen long years.

So yes undoubtedly on the left and a leading figure too. But while one cannot but have sympathy for him as a victim of racism within the Labour Party, and that has been established legally, he would seem to have drifted to the right over the years seeking refuge in the 'community'. Hence his drift into the communalist PJP I would suggest. A group that was based on little more than the communal interests of self seeking 'community leaders' who were briefly inamoured with respect when it suited their ambitions. Rather like some other 'community leader' types in London who recently decamped to join the Liberal Democrats from Respect.

In joining Respect Ahsan is bucking the tend among 'community leader'. The real question is why a man with roots in class politics could collapse into communalism in the first instance. I suspect the answer lies in the defeats suffered by the class over the last two decades and more which resulted in the destruction of the Labour Party and the reduction of a part of the far left to something resembling idiocy. That is to say Respect and toadying for Kitty Galloway.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 14, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Prior to his standing for Socialist Unity (sic) he was a member of the Asian Socialist League a front formed by the International Marxist Group. I presume that he was then also a member of the latter grouping. Later a councillor for Labour for sixteen long years.
> 
> So yes undoubtedly on the left and a leading figure too. But while one cannot but have sympathy for him as a victim of racism within the Labour Party, and that has been established legally, he would seem to have drifted to the right over the years seeking refuge in the 'community'. Hence his drift into the communalist PJP I would suggest. A group that was based on little more than the communal interests of self seeking 'community leaders' who were briefly inamoured with respect when it suited their ambitions. Rather like some other 'community leader' types in London who recently decamped to join the Liberal Democrats from Respect.
> 
> In joining Respect Ahsan is bucking the tend among 'community leader'. The real question is why a man with roots in class politics could collapse into communalism in the first instance. I suspect the answer lies in the defeats suffered by the class over the last two decades and more which resulted in the destruction of the Labour Party and the reduction of a part of the far left to something resembling idiocy. That is to say Respect and toadying for Kitty Galloway.



Given that the PJP had their origins in a group of LABOUR councillors who left the LABOUR Party en bloc, methinks there is something of an exageration here!  

And it is not unknown from people associated with the LABOUR movement to decamp to the right - Sue Slipman went from the CPGB to the SDP in one move, and Labour Party members have been known to join the Tories and Lib Dems.  

You ignore and have nothing to say about Ahsan's trade union activity which says buckets about your approach to this.  Ahsan clearly remains on the left, except in your warped imagination that seems to place Galloway somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 14, 2006)

Stevil said:
			
		

> Wasn't meant to be, I was just bored. You have a very crude view of my politics though. I'm quite surprised.



People who refuse to vote and condemn all political parties as the same, annoy me.  People gave their lives fighting for it you know.


----------



## Stevil (Mar 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> People who refuse to vote and condemn all political parties as the same, annoy me.  People gave their lives fighting for it you know.



And people who "bend the stick" to use an old Leninist phrase, to pull the wool over the eyes of the working class annoy me.

People have given their lives fighting for all sorts of causes, it didn't make them right. As you said I have principles, and stick to them, unlike others.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 14, 2006)

Stevil said:
			
		

> And people who "bend the stick" to use an old Leninist phrase, to pull the wool over the eyes of the working class annoy me.
> 
> People have given their lives fighting for all sorts of causes, it didn't make them right. As you said I have principles, and stick to them, unlike others.



Fair enough - but it just means its a bit pointless to compare political parties if they're all the same to you.  If you're gonna boycott the political process you should be consistent and ignore it completely, as your opinions on differences within it are worthless.  Makes me wonder why you bother putting anything on these boards?


----------



## poster342002 (Mar 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> People who refuse to vote and condemn all political parties as the same, annoy me.  People gave their lives fighting for it you know.


People fought for elections that _would make a difference_, not the ineffectual figleaf elections increasingly redolent of the former eastern bloc that we've ended up with.

Take a step back and analyse it; whatever the outcome of the next general election in the UK, the resulting government policy will be privatisation, war and further reduction of the welfare state.


----------



## treelover (Mar 14, 2006)

excellent point, the UK is becoming a sham democracy




> People fought for elections that would make a difference, not the ineffectual figleaf elections increasingly redolent of the former eastern bloc that we've ended up with.


----------



## belboid (Mar 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Fair enough - but it just means its a bit pointless to compare political parties if they're all the same to you.  If you're gonna boycott the political process you should be consistent and ignore it completely, as your opinions on differences within it are worthless.  Makes me wonder why you bother putting anything on these boards?


jesus christ get a grip man!  That is one of the most puerile and pathetic comments I've read in a long time, even on here.With a political analysis that poor, I can't be surprised at your choice of party.


----------



## Stevil (Mar 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Makes me wonder why you bother putting anything on these boards?



So do I mate, so do I.

I don't usually get involved but broke my rule just to make one comment. You're a believer in bourgeois democracy I'm a believer in independent workplace organisation. There's no point carrying on.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2006)

treelover said:
			
		

> excellent point, the UK is becoming a sham democracy


it is an excellent point.  I don't think anybody here thinks we have a good democracy.  However the alternative, abstaining, just makes way for people like the fascist to be elected take control of the state and smash even the meagre democracy and civil rights that we have.  I think it is quite logical and pragmatic to start what you have got, defend that if it comes under attack, and use every means at your disposal to increase working-class influence.

That's why I will vote respect, but try to build a revolutionary socialist alternative.

Respect.  ResistantMP3


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Given that the PJP had their origins in a group of LABOUR councillors who left the LABOUR Party en bloc, methinks there is something of an exageration here!
> 
> And it is not unknown from people associated with the LABOUR movement to decamp to the right - Sue Slipman went from the CPGB to the SDP in one move, and Labour Party members have been known to join the Tories and Lib Dems.
> 
> You ignore and have nothing to say about Ahsan's trade union activity which says buckets about your approach to this.  Ahsan clearly remains on the left, except in your warped imagination that seems to place Galloway somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan.



You ignore and have nothing to say of Ahsan's article in New Left Review some years back which says nothing about your aproach to this. Just as my not writing a full biographical sketch of Ahsan says nothing of my approach to his politics.

The popint here is that Ahsan moved from ostensibly revolutionary politics with the ASL/IMG to reformist politics in the Labour Party. Which shift to the right reflected the retreat of the workers movement in these years. In Ahsans case a part of his ersonal retreat was to take refuge in community politics a process encouraged by the Bundism of th IMG and the willingness of Labourism then to conciliate softer forms of communalism in a quest for support.

It is further my cntention that Ansans current allegiance to Respect the populist alliance, is not a shift back to the left as it would appear tyhat he remains based on a ommunalist political viewpoint. That the bulk of the careerist elements and base of the PJP have now joined the Liberal Democrats is but testimony to the greater pull of that partys machine on such elements.

Ahsan who is clearly a man with better principles than those of the parties he has been a member of has however chosen a populist and communalist politics over class politics in opting for Respect. It matters little whether Respect, Kitty Galloway or the Rees-German clique are to the left or right of Tony Blair, or Ghengis Khan for that matter, on foreign policy issues when their social program is to the right of even the insipid reformist socialism of Wedgewood-Benn.


----------



## mutley (Mar 14, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> You ignore and have nothing to say of Ahsan's article in New Left Review some years back which says nothing about your aproach to this. Just as my not writing a full biographical sketch of Ahsan says nothing of my approach to his politics.
> 
> The popint here is that Ahsan moved from ostensibly revolutionary politics with the ASL/IMG to reformist politics in the Labour Party. Which shift to the right reflected the retreat of the workers movement in these years. In Ahsans case a part of his ersonal retreat was to take refuge in community politics a process encouraged by the Bundism of th IMG and the willingness of Labourism then to conciliate softer forms of communalism in a quest for support.
> 
> ...



What's your evidence that Raghib joining Respect is a shift towards communalism, *apart from * the fact that you clain that Respect is communalist?


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 14, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> What's your evidence that Raghib joining Respect is a shift towards communalism, *apart from * the fact that you clain that Respect is communalist?



No suggestion was made that in joining Respect the populist alliance Raghib was turning towards communalism. The argument was that his politics have always been puled between community and class. That at an earlier stage this was not a problem with the class moving forward and increasingly taking up the question of racism.

But that with the retreat of the class, the downturn if you like, that Raghib increasingly turned toward his 'community' as a result of the downturn in industrial struggle. This tendency on his part being reinforced by his involvement with the Labour Party and electoralism.

It is my contention that the institutional racism of the Labour Party then forced Raghib to choose to join a group based on its communal identity in the form of the PJP. Given that Respect is not an explcitly socialist but a populist party that makes appeals to voters on the basis of communal loyalties and has among its leaders figures whose base is communal in character Raghibs joining Respect does not represent a step away from communalism.


----------



## cutandsplice (Mar 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Reminds me of all those interviews in Militant in the 1980s ... 'I voted for Maggie Thatcher in 1979 but now I've seen the light and joined the true socialists .... '


And all those currently in Socialist worker: I used to be in the labour party but I've seen the light and joined respect, the true communalist party.


----------



## Pigeon (Mar 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> It is disappointing they are joining the Lib Dems but I expect some will join Respect as an alternative.



Given that the PJP's councillors have pledged to work with the Liberals (who are in coalition with the Tories runniing Brum council), I would have expected these defections to Respect already if your logic was right.


----------



## mutley (Mar 15, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> No suggestion was made that in joining Respect the populist alliance Raghib was turning towards communalism. The argument was that his politics have always been puled between community and class. That at an earlier stage this was not a problem with the class moving forward and increasingly taking up the question of racism.
> 
> But that with the retreat of the class, the downturn if you like, that Raghib increasingly turned toward his 'community' as a result of the downturn in industrial struggle. This tendency on his part being reinforced by his involvement with the Labour Party and electoralism.
> 
> It is my contention that the institutional racism of the Labour Party then forced Raghib to choose to join a group based on its communal identity in the form of the PJP. Given that Respect is not an explcitly socialist but a populist party that makes appeals to voters on the basis of communal loyalties and has among its leaders figures whose base is communal in character Raghibs joining Respect does not represent a step away from communalism.



Which leaders have a base that is communal in character and what is your evidence that they do? When have Respect appealed on basis of communal loyalty. The Brum election litrerature has never made any such appeal.


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 15, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Which leaders have a base that is communal in character and what is your evidence that they do? When have Respect appealed on basis of communal loyalty. The Brum election litrerature has never made any such appeal.



When Kitty Galloway appears in the media claiming that Respect is the party for Muslims and leading members of the MAB stand as candidates of Respect nobody need take your claims seriously. Frankly I think you are deluding yourself in pretending that Respect does not woo a communal vote from the Muslim communities.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> When Kitty Galloway appears in the media claiming that Respect is the party for Muslims and leading members of the MAB stand as candidates of Respect nobody need take your claims seriously. Frankly I think you are deluding yourself in pretending that Respect does not woo a communal vote from the Muslim communities.


Frankly I think you are deluding yourself in pretending that Respect do woo a communal vote from the Muslim communities.  

Rmp3


----------



## mutley (Mar 15, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> When Kitty Galloway appears in the media claiming that Respect is the party for Muslims and leading members of the MAB stand as candidates of Respect nobody need take your claims seriously. Frankly I think you are deluding yourself in pretending that Respect does not woo a communal vote from the Muslim communities.



So does being a member of a religious organisation automatically make a candidate a communal candidate? If some other candidate has some involvement with the Church are they communal or is it just groups like MAB?

Some Respect members do argue for a vote from Muslims explicitly. They will argue along the lines of saying that 'the values of equality and social justice (zakat etc) that are the core of Islam are best reflected by Respect'. Not an argument I'd use because i think that the central divide is class, and i think that Islam is contradictory but then we are a coalition.

That is NOT the same as saying 'vote for a Muslim and we'll look after Muslims above others'. That would be a communal appeal.


----------



## tbaldwin (Mar 15, 2006)

If New Labour are so unpopular how come RESPECT are not doing a lot better?


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 15, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> If New Labour are so unpopular how come RESPECT are not doing a lot better?


Maybe Labour voters will just not vote for anyone...


----------



## Pigeon (Mar 16, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Frankly I think you are deluding yourself in pretending that Respect do woo a communal vote from the Muslim communities.
> 
> Rmp3



Quite so.

BTW, you going to the rally at Sparkbrook Mosque next Sunday?


----------



## JHE (Mar 16, 2006)




----------



## mutley (Mar 16, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> Quite so.
> 
> BTW, you going to the rally at Sparkbrook Mosque next Sunday?



I am


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 16, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> If New Labour are so unpopular how come RESPECT are not doing a lot better?



Tricky question ....

Maybe it's because there have not been any elections since the General Election?   [when Respect scored the best results of any left-of-Labour party since 1945]


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 18, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> So does being a member of a religious organisation automatically make a candidate a communal candidate? If some other candidate has some involvement with the Church are they communal or is it just groups like MAB?
> 
> Some Respect members do argue for a vote from Muslims explicitly. They will argue along the lines of saying that 'the values of equality and social justice (zakat etc) that are the core of Islam are best reflected by Respect'. Not an argument I'd use because i think that the central divide is class, and i think that Islam is contradictory but then we are a coalition.
> 
> That is NOT the same as saying 'vote for a Muslim and we'll look after Muslims above others'. That would be a communal appeal.



What has being a member of a religious organisation got to do with this discussion? It is you that would seem to be reducing the concept of communalism to religious based communities only. Is it not the case that many communities are not defined by religion but by other factors?

As for the MAB being communalist, as you would seem to agree, that too needs qualifying. After all the tiny but well funded MAB represents itself as being a part of the British Muslim community when in fact such a community has no real substance. In fact there are many Muslim communities in Britain defined by both religion and ethnicity and until recently there is no doubt that the latter was central. The MAB is then best understood as a quasi-communalist group of clerico-fascist origins as Tony Cliff pointed out in respect of its parent sect.

Its pleasing that you consider that class is the central division in society but if this is the case why not fight for a socialist party rather than a populist 'coalition'? And of course you are correct that some members of Respect the populist coaltion do call for a vote for Respect by Muslims as they consider it to reflect the avowd tenets of Islam. Including your leader Kitty Galloway a member of the Roman cult of Christians. Moreover Respect does in fact concentrate its resources, actually those of its socialist wing the so called SWP, in Muslim areas. If that is not an implicit appeal to communalism then I'm the Hidden Iman.


----------



## BarryB (Mar 18, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Tricky question ....
> 
> Maybe it's because there have not been any elections since the General Election?   [when Respect scored the best results of any left-of-Labour party since 1945]



But there have been elections since the General Elections. There has by my quick calculation 304 council bye elections in England and Wales since that election. IIRC Respect have stood in just one of these elections- Waltham Forest on 14 July. 1 out of 304 contested. Not an impressive performance.

BarryB


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 18, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> But there have been elections since the General Elections. There has by my quick calculation 304 council bye elections in England and Wales since that election. IIRC Respect have stood in just one of these elections- Waltham Forest on 14 July. 1 out of 304 contested. Not an impressive performance.
> 
> BarryB



I don't know what you expected - it all depends on what comes up, no-one can predict by-elections.

Respect stood in 26 seats in the general election - we did exceptionally well in some of those areas and will be concentrating on them in the local elections.  

As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a *single* council by-election in any of those 26 seats since the general election.  The only place we could have considered standing were the two wards in Birmingham and I think those were very special circumstances and we decided to stay out of it.  

There are no council by-elections in London - Respect's strongest area -  allowed (by law) in the six months in the run-up to May elections, so it's hardly a surprise that there haven't been many suitable council by-elections there, given that half the year since the general election is wiped out.  

In the County Council elections held on the same day as the General Elections last year, despite this being overshadowed by the General Election - we were able to stand six candidates across 14 (district) wards in one of Respect's stronger areas - Preston - and won over 10% of the vote across a much wider area than previously contested.  But there hasn't been a council by-election in Preston for years.

I think you'll have to contain yourself reserve your judgement about Resect's current performance until 5 May.


----------



## rebel warrior (Mar 18, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I think you'll have to contain yourself reserve your judgement about Respect's current performance until 5 May.



I'd quite like Barry to hurry up and vote in this poll actually...


----------



## BarryB (Mar 18, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't know what you expected - it all depends on what comes up, no-one can predict by-elections.
> 
> Respect stood in 26 seats in the general election - we did exceptionally well in some of those areas and will be concentrating on them in the local elections.
> 
> ...



I know that where council bye election occurs can be very much down to the luck of the draw. Quite often they are caused by the death of a sitting councillor and so are unpredictable. So whilst I can understand the point you make about the probability of no bye elections occuring in the 26 General Election contested seats by Respect the fact remains that Respect claims to be a national party (ie England and Wales). Given that claim if there was any truth to it than surely you would have contested more than 1 out of 304 seats? After all a true national party would not only be contesting seats in inner city working class wards but also in city suburbs, small, medium and large towns etc.

BarryB


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 18, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> I know that where council bye election occurs can be very much down to the luck of the draw. Quite often they are caused by the death of a sitting councillor and so are unpredictable. So whilst I can understand the point you make about the probability of no bye elections occuring in the 26 General Election contested seats by Respect the fact remains that Respect claims to be a national party (ie England and Wales). Given that claim if there was any truth to it than surely you would have contested more than 1 out of 304 seats? After all a true national party would not only be contesting seats in inner city working class wards but also in city suburbs, small, medium and large towns etc.
> 
> BarryB



I suggest you read Respect's agreed electoral strategy - rather than the one you are making up as you go along.

http://www.respectcoalition.org/pdf/041103_resolutions.pdf

According to the latest Respect tabloid newspaper, the following areas are expected to see Respect candidates in May:



> RESPECT IS CHALLENGING NEW LABOUR AND THEIR FAILING POLICIES IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
> 
> BIRMINGHAM
> BRADFORD
> ...



No mention of Oxford by the way - don't know why that is.


----------



## BarryB (Mar 19, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I suggest you read Respect's agreed electoral strategy - rather than the one you are making up as you go along.
> 
> http://www.respectcoalition.org/pdf/041103_resolutions.pdf
> 
> ...



Read it. It just reinforces the point that Respects claim to be a national organisation is spurious.  

Thanks for providing the list where Respect are standing. But just to give 10 examples of places outside London where Respect should be standing but according to the list are not explodes the claim ie

Brighton
Carlisle
Ipswich
Newcastle
Northampton
Norwich
Nottingham
Plymouth
Sunderland
York

As for London the fact that Respect are not standing in places like Brent, Islington and Waltham Forest stands out. And I note that Waltham Forest is the one place where Respect have stood in a bye election since last years General election. If you felt confident enough to stand a candidate then why not now?

BarryB


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 19, 2006)

Only one candidate in Lambeth out of 60-odd seats being contested?

Is this the same story in other boroughs?


----------



## BarryB (Mar 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Only one candidate in Lambeth out of 60-odd seats being contested?
> 
> Is this the same story in other boroughs?



Im not sure how accurate my information is but I think in Camden and Southwark its just one candidate as well. In Hackney as far as I know they are standing 2 candidates each in 4 wards.

BarryB


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 19, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Only one candidate in Lambeth out of 60-odd seats being contested?
> 
> Is this the same story in other boroughs?



Liverpool and Manchester have only one candidate apiece.  I understand there will be some mayoral candidates as well, who cover the whole of a borough area.  There are some areas not mentioned on the list - for example I've seen a Respect candidate in the Sowerby Bridge ward of Calderdale Council [which most London-centred politicos would have trouble finding on a map].

The reasoning for this highly selective approach is very simple (and oft-repeated on these boards) - Respect is standing in the areas in which it is most likely to win and is focussing its resources on those seats.  This is a departure from the traditional 'scatter gun' approach of political parties who stand everywhere, often putting up paper candidates who have little time for campaigning and sometimes hope they don't win the seat anyway.  This creates electoral cynicism - 'we never see you except just before an election' is often said by ordinary people about political parties.    Respect candidates and supporters will work in areas on a consistent and long term basis.  They will have the time, energy, enthusisasm and political approach not just to sit in the council chamber but primarily to be active outside of it championing and supporting struggles of the oppressed.  It's a radical break from the traditional approach to electioneering.

Whether it is successful or not in electoral terms remains to be seen - and will no doubt be discussed extensively from 5th May.


----------



## rebel warrior (Mar 19, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Read it. It just reinforces the point that Respects claim to be a national organisation is spurious.
> 
> Thanks for providing the list where Respect are standing. But just to give 10 examples of places outside London where Respect should be standing but according to the list are not explodes the claim ie
> 
> ...



There are not council elections in some of those areas this year - York for example.  That might explain the anomoly.


----------



## JimPage (Mar 19, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Read it. It just reinforces the point that Respects claim to be a national organisation is spurious.
> 
> BarryB



Barry

but the SWP are  anational orgainsiation- and could fight many more areas if they chose to.

and as the council leaflet posted shows (http://www.respectcoalition.org/pdf/f451.pdf) its an appeal which in the whole is not on religious grounds- but on clear class politics lines


----------



## BarryB (Mar 19, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> There are not council elections in some of those areas this year - York for example.  That might explain the anomoly.



Fair point. But there are loads of towns where elections are being held and where if Respect were a national organisation you would expect them to be standing such as:

Portsmouth, Reading, Blackburn, Coventry, Oldham and Bolton.

BarryB


----------



## BarryB (Mar 19, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Liverpool and Manchester have only one candidate apiece.  I understand there will be some mayoral candidates as well, who cover the whole of a borough area.  There are some areas not mentioned on the list - for example I've seen a Respect candidate in the Sowerby Bridge ward of Calderdale Council [which most London-centred politicos would have trouble finding on a map].
> 
> The reasoning for this highly selective approach is very simple (and oft-repeated on these boards) - Respect is standing in the areas in which it is most likely to win and is focussing its resources on those seats.  This is a departure from the traditional 'scatter gun' approach of political parties who stand everywhere, often putting up paper candidates who have little time for campaigning and sometimes hope they don't win the seat anyway.  This creates electoral cynicism - 'we never see you except just before an election' is often said by ordinary people about political parties.    Respect candidates and supporters will work in areas on a consistent and long term basis.  They will have the time, energy, enthusisasm and political approach not just to sit in the council chamber but primarily to be active outside of it championing and supporting struggles of the oppressed.  It's a radical break from the traditional approach to electioneering.
> 
> Whether it is successful or not in electoral terms remains to be seen - and will no doubt be discussed extensively from 5th May.



I realise the list of places where Respect are standing is not necessarily the final one. But if you are right about Respect standing in areas on a consistent and a long term basis then I must say that im surprised that you are not putting anyone up in Waltham Forest. In the Leytonstone bye election on 14 July last year the Respect candidate polled 14.5% which is a reasonable result. However I can understand why you are apparently not putting up anyone in Hoxton in Hackney where in last years bye election you only polled 3.4%. And this is a ward which is very close to Tower Hamlets. Hoever Dean Ryan the hapless candidate in Hoxton is standing for election for the Mayor of Hackney. I dont think the Labour candidate will be losing much sleep over Dean Ryan.

BarryB


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 19, 2006)

JimPage said:
			
		

> Barry
> 
> but the SWP are  anational orgainsiation- and could fight many more areas if they chose to.
> 
> and as the council leaflet posted shows (http://www.respectcoalition.org/pdf/f451.pdf) its an appeal which in the whole is not on religious grounds- but on clear class politics lines



The idea that the SWP could if it wished fight many areas is daft. Certainly it could put up candidates in many areas and run symbolic campaigns but these days they simply lack the nuimber of bodies  and enthusiasm needed to run real campaigns.

If they were to venture outside a limited number of areas where they can concentrate their declining forces  suspect the humiliating results would lead to an increase in demoralisation in the ranks.

As for the Respect council leaflet to which you kindly provide a link it is not based on clear class politics in the least. the positions it espuses are certainly supportable by all decent liberals, democrats and socialists but they are essentially populist. A lot is made of the pliht of specific groups which are discriminated against in racist Britain but the leaflet does not draw the conclusion that this situation can only be remedied by workers power and a socialist society. moreover nothing is said about the role of workers as the central force able to bring down capitalism.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 19, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> The idea that the SWP could if it wished fight many areas is daft. Certainly it could put up candidates in many areas and run symbolic campaigns but these days they simply lack the nuimber of bodies  and enthusiasm needed to run real campaigns.
> 
> If they were to venture outside a limited number of areas where they can concentrate their declining forces  suspect the humiliating results would lead to an increase in demoralisation in the ranks.
> 
> As for the Respect council leaflet to which you kindly provide a link it is not based on clear class politics in the least. the positions it espuses are certainly supportable by all decent liberals, democrats and socialists but they are essentially populist. A lot is made of the pliht of specific groups which are discriminated against in racist Britain but the leaflet does not draw the conclusion that this situation can only be remedied by workers power and a socialist society. moreover nothing is said about the role of workers as the central force able to bring down capitalism.



You'll be voting Labour then I presume?


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 19, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> You'll be voting Labour then I presume?



Not voting no election to vote in.

If however the European, Westminster Parliament, National Assembly and the two councils in whose area I have a vote were up at the same time I might cast a vote for a Labour candidate.

But only if its not raining.

Frankly who gives a shit these days about elections?

I see that nice David Cameron wants to reduce the size of the number of MP's so we can finance his and the equally nice Tony Blairs parties.

See what I mean? Who gives a shit? Not I thats for fucking certain.


----------



## BarryB (Mar 19, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Frankly who gives a shit these days about elections?



Only the millions who vote.

BarryB


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 19, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Only the millions who vote.
> 
> BarryB



A decreasing number of people then Barry. Many of whom are as cynical as I with regard to the 'democtratic process' I would warrant.

Seriously we now have some THREE MILLION legal migrant workers in britain PLC. That is to say some 10% of the workforce. The majority of them workers and almost all non-union.

But are any of the major unions making serious attempts to unionize them? Or anyone come to that. Have any of the degenerate sects called for them to have the vote? No taxation without representation jeez what a revolutionary concept that looks like today.

No Barry their parliament simply doesn't interest me. Their councils still less so. More to the point how many voters will bother to turnout come May? Few under thirty thats for certain. One big fucking yawn man.


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2006)

Are you sure about that figure, what happens in a recession when there is no work?


----------



## nwnm (Mar 19, 2006)

"this situation can only be remedied by workers power " God I hope not - there's only about 50 of 'em


----------



## BarryB (Mar 20, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> A decreasing number of people then Barry. Many of whom are as cynical as I with regard to the 'democtratic process' I would warrant.
> 
> Seriously we now have some THREE MILLION legal migrant workers in britain PLC. That is to say some 10% of the workforce. The majority of them workers and almost all non-union.
> 
> ...



Its such a big fucking yawn why bother to post on a thread about elections? 

As far as im aware workers from European Union countries do have the right to vote in local elections.

BarryB


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 20, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Its such a big fucking yawn why bother to post on a thread about elections?
> 
> As far as im aware workers from European Union countries do have the right to vote in local elections.
> 
> BarryB



Cos I'm very old fashioned, as you know, and still retain some small interest in bourgeois freedoms such as the right to vote. But really its not me you ought to be annoyed at but the millions, the majority of the electorate, who won't turn out in May come rain or shine.

I'm not certain if EU citizens do have the right to vote in local elections but will happily take your word for it. I do know that British middle class retirees in Spain have used their votes effectively, in alliance with the Spainish right wing of course.

But EU migrant workers in Britain are not, to the best of my knowledge, being encouraged to resigster to vote by either their govt or that of Britlandia. Moreover their semi-nomadic mode of existence would mitigate against the effective use of the voote even if they were so encouraged. Effectively there are up to 3 million missing, mostly proletarian, votes in this country and the increasingly electoralist left is unconcerned. Amusing is it not?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Mar 20, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> ...I'm not certain if EU citizens do have the right to vote in local elections but will happily take your word for it. ...



He's right - they can vote in local elections, european parliamentary elections and for the devolved assemblies/parliaments.  Unless they are a Irish citizens they can't vote in general elections.  They are marked on the electoral registers with an E (members of the House of Lords are marked with an L as they can also vote in local elections but not general elections).

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/Whocanvote_17067-6144__E__N__S__W__.pdf


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 20, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> He's right - they can vote in local elections, european parliamentary elections and for the devolved assemblies/parliaments.  Unless they are a Irish citizens they can't vote in general elections.  They are marked on the electoral registers with an E (members of the House of Lords are marked with an L as they can also vote in local elections but not general elections).
> 
> http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/Whocanvote_17067-6144__E__N__S__W__.pdf



I had no doubt that Barry was correct did I not point that out?

The point is that very few EU migrant workers are even registered to vote. And even if they were would it make a lot of difference given that local authorities have relatively little control over the dispensation of their budgets?

Like it or lump it but Westminster is the three ring circus around which official politics on these benighted isles revolves. You win there and you get to tell Edinburgh, Cardiff and the other local authorities how to spend their dosh. if they don't like it you take their money away from them. If they misbehave you get an Ombudsman to temporarily remove their mandate.


----------



## BarryB (Mar 20, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> I had no doubt that Barry was correct did I not point that out?
> 
> The point is that very few EU migrant workers are even registered to vote. And even if they were would it make a lot of difference given that local authorities have relatively little control over the dispensation of their budgets?
> 
> Like it or lump it but Westminster is the three ring circus around which official politics on these benighted isles revolves. You win there and you get to tell Edinburgh, Cardiff and the other local authorities how to spend their dosh. if they don't like it you take their money away from them. If they misbehave you get an Ombudsman to temporarily remove their mandate.



I would support more foreign workers getting the vote in Britsh elections as im sure Fisher Gate would.

BarryB


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 20, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> I would support more foreign workers getting the vote in Britsh elections as im sure Fisher Gate would.
> 
> BarryB



I'm absolutely certain you do Barry.

I'm also certain that you are for votes at 16 and a unicameral legislature and the right of self determination for Scotland and Wales.

Not sure if you would agree with me as to removing the vote from non-residents however. Remember the Vale of Glamorgan where my old chum John Smith lost his seat?


----------



## BarryB (Mar 20, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> I'm absolutely certain you do Barry.
> 
> I'm also certain that you are for votes at 16 and a unicameral legislature and the right of self determination for Scotland and Wales.
> 
> Not sure if you would agree with me as to removing the vote from non-residents however. Remember the Vale of Glamorgan where my old chum John Smith lost his seat?



Remind me.

BarryB


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 20, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Remind me.
> 
> BarryB



John won his seat at a bye-election and lost it at a general election. Due to a very small number of votes cast abroad by expatriots.

The point is that non-residents would seem to be able to vote both in their countries of origin and in their countries of permanent residence. In the case of the latter not at the state level.

It strikes me as grotesque that non-residents can vote, on the basis of property rights meaning ownership in most cases, in numbers such that they can change the nature of an elected assembly whose decisions that in person they will not be greatly touched by.


----------



## TeeJay (Mar 20, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> ...I'm not certain if EU citizens do have the right to vote in local elections but will happily take your word for it...


The following is from The Electoral Commisson Factsheet "Who Can Vote?" http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/templates/search/document.cfm/6144

"Only individuals whose name appears on the electoral register are entitled to vote. To vote in UK Parliamentary elections a person must also:

* be 18 years of age or over on polling day;
* be a British or other Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic who is resident in the UK; and
* not be subject to any legal incapacity to vote.

At a general election, the following cannot vote:

* anyone under 18 years old;
* members of the House of Lords. They can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament;
* EU citizens (who can vote at local government, devolved legislature and European Parliamentary elections);
* citizens of any country apart from the UK, Irish Republic and Commonwealth
countries;
* convicted persons detained in pursuance of their sentences (though remand prisoners, unconvicted prisoners and civil prisoners can vote if they are on the electoral register);
* anyone found guilty within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal practices in connection with an election; and 
* under common law, people with learning disabilities or a mental illness if, on polling day, they are incapable of making a reasoned judgement..."

"*Irish and Commonwealth citizens*

The position of Irish and Commonwealth citizens in the UK is due to the traditionally close ties that exist between our countries. The Representation of the People Act 1918 provided that only British subjects could register as electors. However, the term ‘British subject’ included any person who, at that time, owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the Crown territory in which they were born. This included Commonwealth citizens. The status of Irish citizens is laid down in the Ireland Act 1949, which declares that citizens of the Republic of Ireland are not to be treated as aliens. That position is reciprocal in that people born in the UK are not treated as aliens in the Republic. Since 1985 British citizens resident in the Republic have been
entitled to vote in elections to the Irish Parliament.

*Why can EU citizens vote in some UK elections? Why can’t others?*

The Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht (1993) contained provisions to extend voting rights to all Union citizens in their Member State of residence. Citizens of other EU countries resident here have been eligible to register to vote at European Parliamentary and local government elections since 1994 and 1996 respectively. However, the Treaty contains no provisions to extend voting rights in national Parliamentary elections to those EU citizens resident in another part of the Union. The legislation that subsequently established devolved elected legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also effectively extended voting rights to EU citizens in elections to those bodies. People of other nationalities are not eligible to vote in this country even if they are UK taxpayers and long-term residents. Whenever the House of Commons has in the past considered whether the right to vote in Parliamentary elections should be extended to people of other nationalities, it has always taken the view that such people should be required to obtain British citizenship, as evidence of their commitment
to this country, before being able to vote."


----------



## mutley (Mar 20, 2006)

One thing about this thread, whether respect make hay or not I wish the fucking sun would shine. Seems fa chance of that..


----------



## Ryoma (Mar 22, 2006)

I have a question about the Respect Coalition. Maybe somebody in that group could enlighten me. Respect is a coalition of people and groups with some fairly divergent views on some things and common views on others. Basically, they have come together to resist a common foe - fair enough - I've no problem with that. My question is as follows: How are dodgy, non-progressive views (homophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism etc.), which could be aired in Respect meetings and events by those in Respect's milieu (not necessarily Respect activists), handled? Would they be challenged forcefully by the more progressive elements in Repect or is maintaining a United Front the first and foremost concern?

This is a genuine question as I would like to know how a United Front operates in the real world and tensions handled.


----------



## Macullam (Mar 22, 2006)

This is a genuine question as I would like to know how a United Front operates in the real world and tensions handled.[/QUOTE]

United Front would not be my description of the type of coalition that is respect but lets not get into that debate. What seems to be the norm in Respect is that those who try and argue against homophobia, womens right to choose, etc are clamped down on and labelled Islamophobes for fear of upsetting some of the more reactionary elements within respect. Respect lacks the open democratic structures needed for a geniuine coilition where differences can be debated and  points of view aired and for the right for minority groups to organise within that structure.


----------



## mutley (Mar 22, 2006)

Ryoma said:
			
		

> I have a question about the Respect Coalition. Maybe somebody in that group could enlighten me. Respect is a coalition of people and groups with some fairly divergent views on some things and common views on others. Basically, they have come together to resist a common foe - fair enough - I've no problem with that. My question is as follows: How are dodgy, non-progressive views (homophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism etc.), which could be aired in Respect meetings and events by those in Respect's milieu (not necessarily Respect activists), handled? Would they be challenged forcefully by the more progressive elements in Repect or is maintaining a United Front the first and foremost concern?
> 
> This is a genuine question as I would like to know how a United Front operates in the real world and tensions handled.



I haven't heard any such views openly aired at a Respect meeting (we have one each month by the way). I'm not denying that the attitudes might not be there  - but the same is prob true in any well attended union meeting. Many discussions about these issues have taken place while out campaigning and leafletting, and the other way that sexism gets challenged is by the visible leading role of women eg all 3 south brum candidates are women.

I was once at a Stop the War meeting where a comment was made about there being no jews in the twin towers on 9/11. It was challenged by another speaker, and I know that people did take up the argument with the individual later.

I think that the key is to challenge such views firmly, but with an attitude that the challenger is willing to debate.


----------



## rebel warrior (Apr 4, 2006)

Barry - any chance of voting now all the Respect candidates are in?


----------



## BarryB (Apr 4, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Barry - any chance of voting now all the Respect candidates are in?



rw im quite happy to take a guess when I know for sure who is tanding and where. But I havent seen a list of those who are standing as of the close of nominations yesterday. Is there such a list available on the net?

BarryB


----------



## junius (Apr 4, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> I haven't heard any such views openly aired at a Respect meeting (we have one each month by the way). I'm not denying that the attitudes might not be there  - but the same is prob true in any well attended union meeting. Many discussions about these issues have taken place while out campaigning and leafletting, and the other way that sexism gets challenged is by the visible leading role of women eg all 3 south brum candidates are women.
> 
> I was once at a Stop the War meeting where a comment was made about there being no jews in the twin towers on 9/11. It was challenged by another speaker, and I know that people did take up the argument with the individual later.
> 
> I think that the key is to challenge such views firmly, but with an attitude that the challenger is willing to debate.



Which is why those who defend free expression and the rights of women and gay people are instantly dubbed racists.

But anti-semites are different...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 4, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> rw im quite happy to take a guess when I know for sure who is tanding and where. But I havent seen a list of those who are standing as of the close of nominations yesterday. Is there such a list available on the net?
> 
> BarryB



Not yet - they don't have to publish the nominations by law until tomorrow 12 noon and they don't have to publish them on the internet at all.  

The best organised councils have already published nominations, but Tower Hamlets BC does not come into that category ...

I heard on another board that Tower Hamlets Labour Party have put out a leaflet in the Bangladeshi national colours attacking Respect and the Tories ... but this being Tower Hamlets Labour Party they apparently managed to put the phone number for *Croydon * Labour Party on the leaflet ...   

If you've got one of these leaflets, I suggest you phone to ask about the state of council services ...


----------



## BarryB (Apr 4, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Not yet - they don't have to publish the nominations by law until tomorrow 12 noon and they don't have to publish them on the internet at all.
> 
> The best organised councils have already published nominations, but Tower Hamlets BC does not come into that category ...



Once I have ssen the list of Respect candidates I will oblige Rebel Warrior by guessing how many councillors Respect will have. Presumably the Respect website will list the candidates.

BarryB


----------



## mutley (Apr 4, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> Which is why those who defend free expression and the rights of women and gay people are instantly dubbed racists.
> 
> But anti-semites are different...



Oh, that's like sooo convincing.. that must be why Respect demanded (and achieved) the withdrawal of a homophobic PJP leaflet. That's why Respect members in East London have been part of protests against anti-semitism. That's why Respect's second most successful candiate is a woman, and that's why the same woman's appearance on Newsnight has been available to watch through the Respect website for 3 months.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 5, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Oh, that's like sooo convincing.. that must be why Respect demanded (and achieved) the withdrawal of a homophobic PJP leaflet. That's why Respect members in East London have been part of protests against anti-semitism. That's why Respect's second most successful candiate is a woman, and that's why the same woman's appearance on Newsnight has been available to watch through the Respect website for 3 months.



Galloway's comments on the holocaust to the 'fake sheikh' were pretty clear too.


----------



## junius (Apr 5, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Oh, that's like sooo convincing.. that must be why Respect demanded (and achieved) the withdrawal of a homophobic PJP leaflet. That's why Respect members in East London have been part of protests against anti-semitism. That's why Respect's second most successful candiate is a woman, and that's why the same woman's appearance on Newsnight has been available to watch through the Respect website for 3 months.



I though it was the PJP that insisted on the withdrawl of this 'rogue' leaflet. But let's assume you're correct - why did Respect continue to call for a vote for these homophobes?

Your argument about Respect's defence of the rights of women is simply laughable - Norman Tebbit used to make a similar point about the Tories.


----------



## mutley (Apr 5, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> I though it was the PJP that insisted on the withdrawl of this 'rogue' leaflet. But let's assume you're correct - why did Respect continue to call for a vote for these homophobes?
> 
> Your argument about Respect's defence of the rights of women is simply laughable - Norman Tebbit used to make a similar point about the Tories.



Well you thought wrong. And we continued cos there was a perception that they were shifting left, and a dialogue was taking place. Whether the shift was imaginary, or was real but then stopped and they shifted back till they joined the libs is debatable.

But your 'wrong thought' and ur description of them as homophobes are totally in contradiction. Doesn't take much for you to put people in a labelled box does it?

As for Tebbit, are you saying that cos he (allegedly) did it then promoting women as candidates is therefore devalued for all time by all parties?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 5, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Once I have ssen the list of Respect candidates I will oblige Rebel Warrior by guessing how many councillors Respect will have. Presumably the Respect website will list the candidates.
> 
> BarryB



Candidates are on the THBC site:

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/your-council/data/elections/


----------



## junius (Apr 5, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Well you thought wrong. And we continued cos there was a perception that they were shifting left, and a dialogue was taking place. Whether the shift was imaginary, or was real but then stopped and they shifted back till they joined the libs is debatable.
> 
> But your 'wrong thought' and ur description of them as homophobes are totally in contradiction. Doesn't take much for you to put people in a labelled box does it?
> 
> As for Tebbit, are you saying that cos he (allegedly) did it then promoting women as candidates is therefore devalued for all time by all parties?



Rewriting history is not very wise when you provide no evidence.

Oh, by the way I was referring to the Tory pin-up girl Mrs T. And this is 2006 - apparently promoting women candidates is hardly an indication of 'progressive' politics.


----------



## mutley (Apr 5, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> Rewriting history is not very wise when you provide no evidence.
> 
> *So what history am I re-writing? And what are you asking for evidence of? You argued that Respect does not defend the rights of women, or gay people. I provided concrete instances of when Respect did. Which concrete fact are you disputing?*
> 
> Oh, by the way I was referring to the Tory pin-up girl Mrs T. And this is 2006 - apparently promoting women candidates is hardly an indication of 'progressive' politics.



Never mind 'by the way'. You argued that Respect is complicit in continuing the oppression of women. I argued that Respects promotion of female candidates (4 out of 5 in Brum) showed that that is bollocks. Never mind general 'progressive politics' don't move the goalposts the specific issue was womens oppression. Asian women candidates are rare, and the profile we have given them is definitely causing sharp arguments. I know that this is the case, for example there were men (believed to be supporters of the sparkbrook lib-dem candidate) loitering outside our last rally saying that it is against Islam to vote for a woman. Desperate stuff from rattled parties.

All of this is 10 times more effective than purist postering, even if you do give yourself allusions of grandeur with your chosen name.


----------



## junius (Apr 5, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Never mind 'by the way'. You argued that Respect is complicit in continuing the oppression of women. I argued that Respects promotion of female candidates (4 out of 5 in Brum) showed that that is bollocks. Never mind general 'progressive politics' don't move the goalposts the specific issue was womens oppression. Asian women candidates are rare, and the profile we have given them is definitely causing sharp arguments. I know that this is the case, for example there were men (believed to be supporters of the sparkbrook lib-dem candidate) loitering outside our last rally saying that it is against Islam to vote for a woman. Desperate stuff from rattled parties.
> 
> All of this is 10 times more effective than purist postering, even if you do give yourself allusions of grandeur with your chosen name.



Nope, I was referring specifically to the oppression of women also. Respect voting down calls for free abortion on demand is about not even defending basic demands that socialists have long argued for.

As for posturing, let me paraphrase Red (not Green) Rosa's rebuke of the approach of reformists in her party: 'the movement is everything, the final goal nothing'. What is Respect's final goal - nothing.


----------



## mutley (Apr 5, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> Nope, I was referring specifically to the oppression of women also. Respect voting down calls for free abortion on demand is about not even defending basic demands that socialists have long argued for.
> 
> *Conference 2004 'Respect opposes any change in abortion law and defends the right to choose'. That formulation is OK with me. *
> 
> As for posturing, let me paraphrase Red (not Green) Rosa's rebuke of the approach of reformists in her party: 'the movement is everything, the final goal nothing'. What is Respect's final goal - nothing.



Respects final goal is a mass movement that can give voice to the political challenge to neo-liberalism. It will change greatly in the process, and beyond that point. 

If you're so keen on Rosa Luxemburg, then I assume that you are part of some organisation (unless you are very selective in which parts of her politics you like). I also assume that you won't have the slightest shyness about saying which organisation that would be? Or do you just cherry pick from the Marxist tradition while not actually building anything?


----------



## nwnm (Apr 5, 2006)

out of 18 posts 13 of yours are on RESPECT junius. 
A) Get over yourself
B) Save it for  the MI5 Gazette   . There are far more accomplished sectarians with a respect complex than you.....


----------



## junius (Apr 5, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> out of 18 posts 13 of yours are on RESPECT junius.
> A) Get over yourself
> B) Save it for  the MI5 Gazette   . There are far more accomplished sectarians with a respect complex than you.....



And of your 415 posts...at least this one goes to show you can send something without the usual stream of consciousness.

As for the comment about the 'Mi5 Gazette', I think it is fair to assume you mean Socialist Worker. No jibe intended, but I suspect the SWP attracts the careful attention of the spooks. Ask David Shayler. Do you agree?


----------



## junius (Apr 5, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Respects final goal is a mass movement that can give voice to the political challenge to neo-liberalism. It will change greatly in the process, and beyond that point.
> 
> If you're so keen on Rosa Luxemburg, then I assume that you are part of some organisation (unless you are very selective in which parts of her politics you like). I also assume that you won't have the slightest shyness about saying which organisation that would be? Or do you just cherry pick from the Marxist tradition while not actually building anything?



Bernstein would have been proud of you.

Socialist Alliance. I'm sure you will now heap much abuse upon it.


----------



## nwnm (Apr 6, 2006)

"As for the comment about the 'Mi5 Gazette', I think it is fair to assume you mean Socialist Worker" S'funny don't remember you posting links to SW.

"Socialist Alliance. I'm sure you will now heap much abuse upon it." SPLITTERS! Always look on the bright side of life do-do, do-do-do-do-do-do


----------



## mutley (Apr 6, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> Bernstein would have been proud of you.
> 
> *Well I doubt Rosa would be proud of you*
> 
> Socialist Alliance. I'm sure you will now heap much abuse upon it.



I'm sure the results that the new SA gets will speak for themselves.


----------



## junius (Apr 6, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> I'm sure the results that the new SA gets will speak for themselves.



And there speaks the voice of electoral crettinism.

No doubt you'll be pleased to here that the RMT is officially backing Janine Booth, AWLer and Socialist Unity candidate, in the local elections.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Apr 6, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> And there speaks the voice of electoral crettinism.
> 
> No doubt you'll be pleased to here that the RMT is officially backing Janine Booth, AWLer and Socialist Unity candidate, in the local elections.



Any group which has the islamophobic and Zionist AWL in it's ranks is on a road to nowhere.

The RMT is backing Janine Booth in what sense?

The South East Wales CWU voted to support Respect a while back, but naturally because of the state of play in the national union couldn't affiliate their branch


----------



## nwnm (Apr 6, 2006)

RMT backed Forward Wales in Wrexham once - where are they now? What was it our Rosa said 'the movement is everything, the final goal nothing'. Well thats just what the AWL will give to the struggle against imperialism in Palestine and elsewhere sweet Fuck All.


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 6, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Any group which has the islamophobic and Zionist AWL in it's ranks is on a road to nowhere.
> 
> The RMT is backing Janine Booth in what sense?
> 
> The South East Wales CWU voted to support Respect a while back, but naturally because of the state of play in the national union couldn't affiliate their branch



Is it not the case that a leading South East CWU official is now a supporter of the CNWP? Proving that the backing of this particular union for either Respect or any other group is meaningless if confined to a resolution passed by a handful of people at a branch meeting. The same is true of the RMT's backing of Janine Booth, John Marek, Peter Law and the SSP.

Unless and until the rank and file of the unions are involved, or in most cases informed, of their union supporting various 'left of Labour' candidacies then from a marxist point of view they are of no importance whatsoever. Although I accept from a money grubbing position seeking point of view they may have some limited importance.


----------



## mutley (Apr 6, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> And there speaks the voice of electoral crettinism.
> 
> No doubt you'll be pleased to here that the RMT is officially backing Janine Booth, AWLer and Socialist Unity candidate, in the local elections.



Will she be re-printing the danish cartoons on her leaflets?


----------



## junius (Apr 6, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Any group which has the islamophobic and Zionist AWL in it's ranks is on a road to nowhere.
> 
> The RMT is backing Janine Booth in what sense?
> 
> The South East Wales CWU voted to support Respect a while back, but naturally because of the state of play in the national union couldn't affiliate their branch



The RMT National Executive Committee has coughed up £500 towards her campaign. Nothing earth shattering, but interesting.


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 6, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> RMT backed Forward Wales in Wrexham once - where are they now? What was it our Rosa said 'the movement is everything, the final goal nothing'. Well thats just what the AWL will give to the struggle against imperialism in Palestine and elsewhere sweet Fuck All.



It was Bernstein, the revisionist, who wrote that the movement is everything and the goal, that is socialism, nothing. Such an idocy has nothing in common with the ideas of Luxemburg who was the foremost enemy of bernstein and all he stood for.

It says much about Nwnm's world view that he identifies with a statement that explicitly denigrates the socialist goal and elevates the movement, that is the sect form, above all else.

Proving I suspect that despite having owned copies of Luxemburgs writings for decades that he has neither read them or understood them.


----------



## belboid (Apr 6, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> RMT backed Forward Wales in Wrexham once - where are they now? What was it our Rosa said 'the movement is everything, the final goal nothing'. Well thats just what the AWL will give to the struggle against imperialism in Palestine and elsewhere sweet Fuck All.


Jesus.  If the RMT had backed an non-labour candidate in England for the first time on 100 years, and it was Respect...well, I'm sure we can all imagine the orgasmic threads you would be blindly copy and pasting all over the show.

But as it is someone from a rival political tendency, then it is utterly meaningless it seems.  Organised working class?  Fuck em.

Truly fucking pathetic.


----------



## belboid (Apr 6, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> The RMT National Executive Committee has coughed up £500 towards her campaign. Nothing earth shattering, but interesting.


naah, the _branch_ (of which JB is a member) coughed up the dosh, the exec had to approve it, as it has to with any donation not to Labour.


----------



## junius (Apr 6, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> naah, the _branch_ (of which JB is a member) coughed up the dosh, the exec had to approve it, as it has to with any donation not to Labour.



Well, it comes from the horse's mouth:

From: Janine Booth < janine.booth@
Date: Apr 5, 2006 11:54 AM 
Subject: Hackney election latest: RMT gives official support

On Monday, RMT's national executive voted unanimously to back my candidature
for Hackney Council. This is the first time that RMT has backed a non-Labour
candidate in England (it has backed the SSP in Scotland, and John Marek and
Peter Law in Wales).

This is really really good news, not least because the executive also agreed
to donate £500 and authorise local branches to donate as well.

It will help the election campaign a fair bit. But it is also (probably
more) significant in terms of the political development of the union. After
being booted out of the Labour Party for backing the SSP, RMT has drifted
politically, particularly in England, with the danger of becoming a lobbying
organisation, and the split with Labour turning out to be a move to the
right, not the left.

In solidarity
Janine


----------



## belboid (Apr 6, 2006)

aah, beg your pudding - I'd only seen the 'authorise local branches' bit before


----------



## nwnm (Apr 7, 2006)

*‘She’s not the only one…..’*

check out letter and links below......

Our union branch backed Respect
As reps and activists from the Stratford No 1 branch of the rail workers’ RMT union, we wish to extend our congratulations on Respect’s brilliant results in Tower Hamlets and Newham, as well as George Galloway’s historic victory. 
Stratford No 1 branch voted to support Respect in our branch’s geographical area — which covers Galloway’s seat and West Ham, where Lindsey German stood for Respect — after a fantastic debate over two branch meetings.
We listed both New Labour’s positions and Respect’s — over the Iraq war, privatisation (including PPP on the tube) and the attacks on our civil liberties — and compared them to our union’s policies. Respect’s platform adhered to our union’s policies. New Labour was diametrically opposed.
We are proud of our support for Respect. You can count on our support for the council elections in Tower Hamlets and Newham next year.
Respect has relit the torch of radical east London. Our flag stays red. Together we’ll keep it flying. 
Fiona Prior, Unjum Mirza, Andy Whitecross, Terry O’Neill, Kat Stelzner, Tim Afzal, Mo Azad, Waseem Malik, Gary Wilson, Michael Mungroo, Ali Miah, Sunesh Sivadasan
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=6509


See also this story  here -
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=364

CARLISLE RMT held a meeting last week and discussed support for Respect. Craig Johnson, the RMT branch secretary, told Socialist Worker, "We invited in a speaker from Respect. There was a real debate about it. The vote was unanimous to urge all members to support Respect and ask the union's executive council if we can use our political fund to back Respect.


See also rail workers bit here- 
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=545

See also Response from the unions bit here -
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=1442


----------



## belboid (Apr 7, 2006)

lol, we remember you daft sod.  And we remember how Respect went mad about these messages at the time (one and two years ago).  And now a branch has committed actual _money_ your members come out and go 'yeah well, so what'.  

Do you not recognise the hypocrisy?


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 7, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> lol, we remember you daft sod.  And we remember how Respect went mad about these messages at the time (one and two years ago).  And now a branch has committed actual _money_ your members come out and go 'yeah well, so what'.
> 
> Do you not recognise the hypocrisy?



The daft begger can't recognise a quote from Bernstein leave alone his own hypocrisy.


----------



## nwnm (Apr 7, 2006)

"Do you not recognise the hypocrisy?" And do you not recognise the RMT's move as part of an on going process? One that has speeded up due to the war on terror, which means I have every right to criticise her position on palestine and as another poster has, Islamophobia. This is a fatal flaw in her politics in my opinion. The process the RMT is involved in isn't automatically linear either, they may recoil from this (back towards the LRC for example), they may move towards the Greens or Lib Dems or if RESPECT does well in May, it may present a poll of attraction. I happen to prefer being part of an on going political project like RESPECT for the reasons outlined in the cut'n'pastes above.


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 7, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Do you not recognise the hypocrisy?" And do you not recognise the RMT's move as part of an on going process? One that has speeded up due to the war on terror, which means I have every right to criticise her position on palestine and as another poster has, Islamophobia. This is a fatal flaw in her politics in my opinion. The process the RMT is involved in isn't automatically linear either, they may recoil from this (back towards the LRC for example), they may move towards the Greens or Lib Dems or if RESPECT does well in May, it may present a poll of attraction. I happen to prefer being part of an on going political project like RESPECT for the reasons outlined in the cut'n'pastes above.



It's not the RMT it's a local committee at which a half dozen comrades were present. Not that there is a chance in hell of a workers organisation such as the RMT becoming involved with Respect mind you


----------



## BarryB (Apr 9, 2006)

Apparently the 3 Respect candidates for St Katherines and Wapping ward in Tower Hamlets have been disqualified from standing as their nomination forms were not in order. Believe it or not im going to crow over this as I know from recent personal experience how stressful it can be to ensure that the forms are completed correctly.

A Green candidate in Brownswood ward in Hackney has also been disqualified from standing. I dont know the reason why but it is a considerable blow to the Greens as this is one of their key target seats in Hackney.

BarryB


----------



## JHE (Apr 9, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Believe it or not im going to crow over this...


Can we take it that you accidentally missed out a 'not' there?

Anyway, what's so complicated about the forms?


----------



## BarryB (Apr 9, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Can we take it that you accidentally missed out a 'not' there?
> 
> Anyway, what's so complicated about the forms?



Bloody hell. Yes I did accidentally miss out a 'not'! I dont know exactly what went wrong in this ward. But I do know that unless the forms are filled in 100% correctly they will be thrown out. Hopefully someone else will be more aware of the circumstances.

BarryB


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> "Do you not recognise the hypocrisy?" waffle waffle waffle


i also noticve how you completely fail to respond to the pont that was being made, and instead, repreat a previous one.  yawn.  shouldn't expect anything else from a lying prat like you anyway.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 10, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Bloody hell. Yes I did accidentally miss out a 'not'! I dont know exactly what went wrong in this ward. But I do know that unless the forms are filled in 100% correctly they will be thrown out. Hopefully someone else will be more aware of the circumstances.
> 
> BarryB



I understand that the forms were correctly signed by the candidate and 10 nominators, but that the electoral numbers from the register that have to be on the form for identification purposes alongside each nominator's name were mistakenly those from the 2005, not the 2006 register.  The Returning Officer disqualified the whole form (rather than let them cross out the numbers and put the right ones in).  Fair play that's the rules and it was a cock-up - something that even more experienced parties occasionally make, but not excusable.  

Some Returning Officers offer to 'informally' check forms before they are handed in and give advice to help inexperienced agents avoid technical problems and give them a chance to correct errors or misunderstandings of the rules ... but we're talking Tower Hamlets Council here!  

The ward is 26.7% muslim in the Census.

There are two Green candidates on the ballot (but there are three seats).  S

So it will be interesting to see if the Greens do much better in this ward than others - that might tell us whether there is Respect/Green cross voting.

According to the London strategic voter site (which I don't endorse the conclusions of but it's got useful data in), Respect got 12% and the Greens 10% in this ward in the GLA elections in 2004 (Tories 26%, Labour 23%, Lib Dems 18%).  I wanted to check the European parliamentary results but it has mysteriously disappeard from the Mayor's web site and my copy is on another computer - I'll check it out and let you know.


----------



## nwnm (Apr 10, 2006)

"i also noticve how you completely fail to respond to the pont that was being made, and instead, repreat a previous one. yawn. shouldn't expect anything else from a lying prat like you anyway." Which point and what lie?


----------



## neprimerimye (Apr 11, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Which point and what lie?



Well you have to fair to Nwnm at least he admits to being a liar. And with so many lies how can he be expected to keep track of them all?


----------



## JHE (Apr 11, 2006)

Well, no, to be fair to nwnm, daft Social Worker that he is, he hasn't conceded anything of the sort.  You and he are products of the same crap Trot school of political debate.  It shows.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 11, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> ...
> According to the London strategic voter site (which I don't endorse the conclusions of but it's got useful data in), Respect got 12% and the Greens 10% in this ward in the GLA elections in 2004 (Tories 26%, Labour 23%, Lib Dems 18%).  I wanted to check the European parliamentary results but it has mysteriously disappeard from the Mayor's web site and my copy is on another computer - I'll check it out and let you know.



No significant difference in the EU parliament election - Respect were a distant fourth.  It was highly unlikely this ward would have swung to Respect

This could be a Tory ward - depends on whether the absence of a Resect candidate means the Labour vote holds up, whether the Greens dent the Labour vote sufficiently and by how much Labour support is collapsing nationally.


----------



## belboid (Apr 11, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Well, no, to be fair to nwnm, daft Social Worker that he is, he hasn't conceded anything of the sort.  You and he are products of the same crap Trot school of political debate.  It shows.


as oppossed to the vastly superior school attended by you and your BNP comrades.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 11, 2006)

150+ Respect candidates declared:
http://respectcoalition.org/?aid=120

Though the PA list missed off Manchester and Preston    the journos in london probably had trouble finding them on a map ...


----------



## mutley (Apr 12, 2006)

There's 162. Full list on the Respect site. Has Barry voted yet?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 12, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> There's 162. Full list on the Respect site. Has Barry voted yet?



I make it 163 council candidates plus 1 mayoral.


----------



## BarryB (Apr 12, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> There's 162. Full list on the Respect site. Has Barry voted yet?



Just done so. Has Fisher Gate voted yet?

BarryB


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 13, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Just done so. Has Fisher Gate voted yet?
> 
> BarryB



Yes.

Remember we have 2 councillors not up for election counting towards the total, and the poll says 'after May', so that's the 1 June in my book.


----------



## mutley (Apr 13, 2006)

So of 96 voters on U75 (today) 62 think 8 or less.. 
We shall see..


----------



## nwnm (Apr 14, 2006)

here's the  full list

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1038


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 14, 2006)

I see the tactical voters at 'London Strategic Voter' are calling for a Respect vote in every single ward in Newham ...

http://www.strategicvoter.org.uk/doku.php/boroughs/newham

interesting ... (not that I endorse their calls for votes for LibDem or even Tories elsewhere of course).


----------



## Macullam (Apr 19, 2006)

*Respect has labour on the run*

Respect has Labour on the run in the east London election campaign.

any evidence for this socialist worker headline. There is nothing in the article to back up this claim IMHO


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 19, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> Respect has Labour on the run in the east London election campaign.
> 
> any evidence for this socialist worker headline. There is nothing in the article to back up this claim IMHO



I think you'll find that 36,584 votes representing 24% of the electorate, across the whole of two London boroughs, is a pretty good starting base.


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2006)

BNP comrades?



> as oppossed to the vastly superior school attended by you and your BNP comrades.


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2006)

fuck, RW thinks they, Respect are going to get over thirty seven seats, no way jose


----------



## BarryB (Apr 20, 2006)

I see that Respect have launched a Charter for the East End (of London). One of its points is the stopping of the Crossrail project. Which is interesting as it brings them into direct conflict with the RMT and ASLEF who far from opposing it want it to start as soon as possible.

BarryB


----------



## mutley (Apr 21, 2006)

Can't help thinking that some of the 40 odd who've gone for 'same as now - under 5' have mistaken a prediction for what they want to see. Do people really think that the combined total in Tower Hamlets, Preston and Brum will be under 5?

(hope i won't be eating these words in two weeks time..)


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 21, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Can't help thinking that some of the 40 odd who've gone for 'same as now - under 5' have mistaken a prediction for what they want to see. Do people really think that the combined total in Tower Hamlets, Preston and Brum will be under 5?
> 
> (hope i won't be eating these words in two weeks time..)



'Under 5' means maximum of 4.  As there are two Respect councillors not up for election this would mean only 2 gains in the whole of Tower Hamlets, Newham, Birmingham, Preston etc.  As you say I think it is wishful thinking (and an element of 'stop the world I want to get off') by the hardened anti-Respecters.  Hopefully they'll be proven wrong shortly.


----------



## BarryB (Apr 27, 2006)

Took a walk down Brick Lane this afternoon. Some shops had Respect posters in their windows. Most of the same shops had Conservative posters as well. And one shop had Respect and Labour posters. Talk about hedging your bets!

BarryB


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 28, 2006)

I've admittedly not read the whole thread, so I'll be quick and apologise in advance if I repeat any material - Respect are standing 5 councillors in Preston and one in Blackburn. We're standing one in Machester, Rusholme to precise (my old home) and one in Liverpool too.

The reason the number of candidates is nothing in comparison to the number the Greens are standing is because we've been told time and time again not to stand in wards which we think we won't win - as such, in all the wards we do stand, we have a very reasonable chance of success.


----------



## Macullam (Apr 28, 2006)

[as such, in all the wards we do stand, we have a very reasonable chance of success.[/QUOTE]

If only,  I suppose it depends on what you mean by success


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 28, 2006)

Either tactical or outright victories class as successes.


----------



## rebel warrior (Apr 29, 2006)

Also - My poll said 'after May' so this includes not just the council elections on 4 May but also the 3 by election results in wapping after Respect's appeal was upheld...

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1064


----------



## mutley (Apr 29, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Also - My poll said 'after May' so this includes not just the council elections on 4 May but also the 3 by election results in wapping after Respect's appeal was upheld...
> 
> http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1064



Don't Respect have top go to court to challenge the elections after 4 may? That's my uderstanding of what's on the Respect site..


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 29, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Also - My poll said 'after May' so this includes not just the council elections on 4 May but also the 3 by election results in wapping after Respect's appeal was upheld...
> 
> http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1064



I misunderstood that first time too.  

Respect won in the high court   -  but lost in the appeal court a day later  .  

The election goes ahead without the Respect candidates.  Respect will have to challenge the result after the election through an election petition.  Technically an election court could overturn the result and demand another election, but it's very unlikely to do so.  The legal issue revolves around whether it is reasonable to assume it is the candidate/agent's responsibility to spot errors that are picked up by the returning officer later.  

This was not a likely Respect gain anyway - Tories are the most likely to win it from Labour.  Anyone in this ward should vote Green on 4 May (for two of their votes as they are only standing two candidates for three seats).


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 29, 2006)

The most interesting aspect in the Tower Hamlets verdict is that it has highlighted that the Returning Officer - Christine Gilbert - is married to a Labour minister - Tony McNulty.

So the person charged with ensuring that elections in Tower Hamlets are carried out fairly and independently is the partner of a leading politician   

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/home-office-ministers/tony-mcnulty/

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/your-council/data/works/data/directorates.cfm


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Apr 29, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Also - My poll said 'after May' so this includes not just the council elections on 4 May but also the 3 by election results in wapping after Respect's appeal was upheld...
> 
> http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1064



interesting link. as an aside, I don't know the issue there but the greens were barred from standing in a ward in dulwich which they had a reasonable chance of winning, due to a stupid technicality. one of the the ten people proposing the candidates on the nomination papers had used her original name rather than her married name. they had plenty of other people to use but were told not to worry by the council officer. but because she was on the first 10 people on the list, the council officer turned around and said they could not use another name! maybe they should challenge that in court as well!


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Apr 29, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The most interesting aspect in the Tower Hamlets verdict is that it has highlighted that the Returning Officer - Christine Gilbert - is married to a Labour minister - Tony McNulty.
> 
> So the person charged with ensuring that elections in Tower Hamlets are carried out fairly and independently is the partner of a leading politician
> 
> ...



very interesting.....remind me of the story on the news a couple of days ago of all the people that had been told they had been given postal votes which they had not requested and did not receive them, anyway, so they can't vote.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 29, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> very interesting.....remind me of the story on the news a couple of days ago of all the people that had been told they had been given postal votes which they had not requested and did not receive them, anyway, so they can't vote.



the returning officer in chorley, lancashire has managed to send two sets of postal ballots to voters ...


----------



## BarryB (Apr 30, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> interesting link. as an aside, I don't know the issue there but the greens were barred from standing in a ward in dulwich which they had a reasonable chance of winning, due to a stupid technicality. one of the the ten people proposing the candidates on the nomination papers had used her original name rather than her married name. they had plenty of other people to use but were told not to worry by the council officer. but because she was on the first 10 people on the list, the council officer turned around and said they could not use another name! maybe they should challenge that in court as well!



From what you say a court challenge sounds like a waste of time as clearly the person signing the nomination form should have used exactly the same name as appears on the Electoral Register. Surprising that the party agent didnt notice the discrepancy.

BarryB


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Apr 30, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> From what you say a court challenge sounds like a waste of time as clearly the person signing the nomination form should have used exactly the same name as appears on the Electoral Register. Surprising that the party agent didnt notice the discrepancy.
> 
> BarryB



Tower Hamlets Borough Council reissued the register in March, with slightly different numbering;  The Agent used the December version and there were tiny differences of one or two in the numbers.

In normal circumstances, the Returning Officer would draw attention to this when receiving the nomination forms and given the agent chance to correct the numbers.  It takes 10 seconds for the Returning Officer to check this.  

In this case, Tower Hamlets Borough Council said the form was okay, waited until after nominations had closed, then said it wasn't okay and disallowed the nominations.  Hence the reason why the High Court found in favour of Respect.  

The Appeal Court decided that in law it is the responsibility of the agent/candidate to ensure the form is correct and there is no legal requirement for the Returning Officer to point out errors;  it's a sort of 'buyer beware' legal precedent - If it applied to buying and selling washing machines this is how it would work ... Customer: "Do your washing machines have a guarantee?".  Retailer: "Yes".  Customer: "I'll take this one".  After paying customer says: "I'll have the guarantee". Retailer: "This one doesn't have one".  Customer: "You said it did".  Retailer: "Usually they do, but you didn't ask me about this one, and it doesn't have a guarantee".  Customer:  "I'll have my money back please".  Retailer:  "sorry, you've paid, too late".  Legal but not exactly nice.

EDITED afterwards - sorry, should have made it clearer: the nominating names were all valid and exactly as on the register and the signatures were correct.  The forms were disqualified because of the minor discrepancies between the numbers in the December and March registers.  If it was case of simple incompetence in completing the forms the High Court would not have found in Respect's favour first time round.  There's more to this case than meets the eye.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Apr 30, 2006)

Interesting information coming out of the Lockleaze ward in North Bristol, where sacked Rolls Royce shop steward Jerry Hicks is standing for Respect.
They've had 20 odd canvassers out every night now for 3 weeks and claim to have "well over" 500 definite votes in the bag.
They've always been confident they could beat Labour to second but are increasingly convinced they can win it.
Lib Dem activists, who currently hold the ward, have consistently poo-pooed Respect's efforts saying:


> If Respect can suddenly start doing in white working-class areas what they do in muslim places like Tower Hamlets then the whole of British politics has changed.





> It would be a massive upset if Respect beat Labour for 2nd. It would be a singularly unique upset of national significance if Respect won...i.e. it wont happen. Especially not with the Libs riding at 25% in the polls nationally.


How significant would a Hicks victory on a white working class estate be? And did anyone see this coming?


----------



## mutley (May 1, 2006)

It would be very significant, but wouldn't be copied without the hard work that's been carried out. That work could be done elsewhere.. but there's no short-cuts..


----------



## JKKne (May 1, 2006)

I don't think they're even standing up here.

I think the nearest ward would be Tyne Bridge, about 40 miles away and I think the poor woman only got about 30 votes...

I've always seen them as more of a London local party


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 1, 2006)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> Interesting information coming out of the Lockleaze ward in North Bristol, where sacked Rolls Royce shop steward Jerry Hicks is standing for Respect.
> They've had 20 odd canvassers out every night now for 3 weeks and claim to have "well over" 500 definite votes in the bag.
> They've always been confident they could beat Labour to second but are increasingly convinced they can win it.
> Lib Dem activists, who currently hold the ward, have consistently poo-pooed Respect's efforts saying:
> ...



Calm down - candidates always talk up their prospects just before an election.  

If Respect managed second place in this LibDem held white working class seat, this would be a phenomenal success, if they won it would be epoch-making.  Pretty big ifs - we'll have to see on Friday morning.  Anything more than 10% would be an excellent result for Respect.  

A lot depends on how much the New Labour vote is in free-fall, and who will benefit from that.  What is clear is that a bad-hair day for New Labour last Wednesday is lasting a whole week!


----------



## Macullam (May 2, 2006)

JKKne said:
			
		

> I don't think they're even standing up here.
> 
> I think the nearest ward would be Tyne Bridge, about 40 miles away and I think the poor woman only got about 30 votes...
> 
> I've always seen them as more of a London local party



The poor woman is actually a man its Yunus not Eunice. I think he got 31 votes as a socialist alliance candidate/ he also stood in the euro elections for Respect.


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 3, 2006)

I think RESPECT will get a lot of seats of Friday.

I was speaking to some honest RESPECT members (ISG and SWP) who agreed with me that if RESPECT win Tower Hamlets council it will be a disaster, far better to be the main opposition.

The reason for this is that an immediate conflict with central goverment would occur and RESPECT/SWP just doesn't have a base to win that battle. A pitiful implementation in the unions and a very shallow implementation in the local community added with the fact that a lot of the liberal RESPECT candidates would bottle it mean that if RESPECT win Tower Hamlets the battle just couldn't be won, even taking into account the wishy washy nature of RESPECTs manifesto.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 3, 2006)

I agree with much of that. I think that Respect will win a substantial number of seats. I don't think that they will win control of a council. And it would almost certainly be a disaster if they did.


----------



## mutley (May 3, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I think RESPECT will get a lot of seats of Friday.
> 
> I was speaking to some honest RESPECT members (ISG and SWP) who agreed with me that if RESPECT win Tower Hamlets council it will be a disaster, far better to be the main opposition.
> 
> The reason for this is that an immediate conflict with central goverment would occur and RESPECT/SWP just doesn't have a base to win that battle. A pitiful implementation in the unions and a very shallow implementation in the local community added with the fact that a lot of the liberal RESPECT candidates would bottle it mean that if RESPECT win Tower Hamlets the battle just couldn't be won, even taking into account the wishy washy nature of RESPECTs manifesto.



What would be the basis of the 'immediate conflict'? You lot discuss it while i go out and try to make your nightmare come true.

Seriously, if it does happen you'll need to come up with something better than 'the swp can't posibly NOT fuck it up'. Also don't give this govt too much credit - in a conflict over a decision to build more housing, who the fuck will line up with Blair et al?


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 3, 2006)

As said it was SWP members who were saying this. But if you think otherwise fair enough. Pointless debating it.

And believe me I don't think RESPECT winning Tower Hamlets council is a "nightmare". Believe it or not most people don't really care much about the SWP or RESPECT one way or the other.


----------



## mutley (May 3, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> As said it was SWP members who were saying this. But if you think otherwise fair enough. Pointless debating it.
> 
> And believe me I don't think RESPECT winning Tower Hamlets council is a "nightmare". Believe it or not most people don't really care much about the SWP or RESPECT one way or the other.



Sorry i misread, you said 'disaster'. But my question was genuine. Why do you think there will be 'immediate' conflict, and around what issues?

As far as people caring goes, there are loads of issues where lots of people 'ain't even bothered', but they matter anyway, as I'm sure you'll agree. I'd say a leftist coalition winning a council is one example.


----------



## rebel warrior (May 3, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I agree with much of that. I think that Respect will win a substantial number of seats. I don't think that they will win control of a council. And it would almost certainly be a disaster if they did.



That would indeed be a disaster - a disaster for New Labour...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 3, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> That would indeed be a disaster - a disaster for New Labour...



I think that sort of response shows a near total lack of understanding of how difficult it would be to run a clearly left wing council in opposition to a rabidly right wing government. Particularly when many of your councillors would not themselves be socialists and would not have any significant political experience. I realise that Respect are not nearly as left wing as the old Poplar Councillors let alone the Liverpool 47 but even still the organisation - a loose coalition - would come under enormous political pressure from the off.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 3, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I think that sort of response shows a near total lack of understanding of how difficult it would be to run a clearly left wing council in opposition to a rabidly right wing government. Particularly when many of your councillors would not themselves be socialists and would not have any significant political experience. I realise that Respect are not nearly as left wing as the old Poplar Councillors let alone the Liverpool 47 but even still the organisation - a loose coalition - would come under enormous political pressure from the off.



Can "right wingers" also be "socialists"?   

Taafe and Mulhearn called at least two of the 47 by this description in print. One of them went on to become Lord Mayor of Liverpool, a post that Militant hailed the abolition of as part of a 'socialist programme'. 

I was in the same ward as one of the 47 for a few years and I would certainly never describe him as a socialist.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 3, 2006)

A not entirely unreasonable point - if you forget that the 47 were operating as the public face of a highly organised local Labour movement. What's more like the Poplar Councillors all of them came from and through and were part of the working class movement in a way which applies to few if any prospective Respect councillors.

I note too that other than the above piece of pedantry you make no response to the meat of my post. Strange that.


----------



## Astramax (May 3, 2006)

A lot fewer than the BNP will get thats for sure. I'm unsure which party I dislike more though.


----------



## Hanoipete (May 3, 2006)

comparing respect to the bnp is really ridiculous and possibly dubious. respect may not be some kind of perfect organisation but im in a place they campaign strongly in and the idea that the bnp could be as big would be a complete disaster. they are violent racists who want all kinds of terrible things, that is not respect.
respect have also drawn many recent immingarnts and others into a party that is basically secular.
so many of these accusations were leveled at east end socialists who appealed to jews in the 1930s...


----------



## mutley (May 3, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I think that sort of response shows a near total lack of understanding of how difficult it would be to run a clearly left wing council in opposition to a rabidly right wing government. Particularly when many of your councillors would not themselves be socialists and would not have any significant political experience. I realise that Respect are not nearly as left wing as the old Poplar Councillors let alone the Liverpool 47 but even still the organisation - a loose coalition - would come under enormous political pressure from the off.



Liverpool were up against Thatcher, in the wake of a defeated miners strike.(Your lot denied it was a defeat at the time which probably didn't help..). A Respect council would be up against a Blair govt that is very unpopular and leaking fast below the waterline.

There will be massive pressure, but the possibility of building support will also be massive, esp. as we would almost certainly have other councillors in other areas, if things go so well that we take a council.

Added: Who are the SP calling for a vote for in Newham, TH, etc?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 3, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> There will be massive pressure, but the possibility of building support will also be massive, esp. as we would almost certainly have other councillors in other areas, if things go so well that we take a council.



You would have:

Councillors with little experience of either the labour movement or council politics.

Councillors with a range of politics, including people effectively there as "community leaders" rather than as leftists and including Tory defectors and the like.

No base in the trade union movement generally and more particularly in the local government unions.

No mass membership party to operate through unlike the Poplar or Liverpool Labour Parties.

Yet very quickly you would have to start making major decisions about budgets, taxes, services and the like in the teeth of a government which will want to cut you off at the knees. And of course a rabidly hostile media. Do you think every one of those Respect candidates in Tower Hamlets or Newham is up for a fight to the end, including being personally surcharged and the like? Because I don't think even the most self-deluding Respectite could really believe that.

(This is of course academic, because there is very little chance of Respect taking a council - but it would be a fiasco if you do).


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 3, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> A not entirely unreasonable point - if you forget that the 47 were operating as the public face of a highly organised local Labour movement. What's more like the Poplar Councillors all of them came from and through and were part of the working class movement in a way which applies to few if any prospective Respect councillors.
> 
> I note too that other than the above piece of pedantry you make no response to the meat of my post. Strange that.



I don't understand why you are posting about hypothetical events that you deny will ever happen.  I think that is what's called pedantry.  The Liverpool 47 happened - and it wasn't the bed of roses, red or otherwise, you portray it as.


----------



## cutandsplice (May 3, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't understand why you are posting about hypothetical events that you deny will ever happen.  I think that is what's called pedantry.  The Liverpool 47 happened - and it wasn't the bed of roses, red or otherwise, you portray it as.



I don't understand the point of your post. The councillors involved were all working class unlike most respect candidates, oh and your other trot chums like tariq ali etc.

I might not agree with the Socialist Party on everything but at least they're not pushing pro-islamic candidates like respect.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 4, 2006)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> I don't understand the point of your post. The councillors involved were all working class unlike most respect candidates, oh and your other trot chums like tariq ali etc.
> 
> I might not agree with the Socialist Party on everything but at least they're not pushing pro-islamic candidates like respect.



They certainly weren't all manual workers - some were "white collar" and "professionals", if that is what you are getting at - and they weren't all socialists either.  A large number were also Liverpool "parochialists" not interested in anything outside the city boundaries.  Some could have been regarded as strongly pushing 'pro-catholic' views too, especially one of their supporters in parliament, Bob Parry (who I note is on the 'Roll Call' at www.liverpool47.org).

Don't get me wrong, I supported them in their struggle against the Tory government, but they weren't the homogenous group of hardened bolsheviks that they are made out to be by the SP, and they made several calamitous mistakes, including a dreadful approach to black self-organisation and the appalling issuing of the redundancy notices.  They were also not averse to selling off assets (aka privatisation), and cutting what they regarded as non-essential services, including taking the City's Polytechnic to the brink of closure.   They closed schools as well, though I think they did that quite well and for good reason.

But then what would I know ... I only lived and worked there ...


----------



## Macullam (May 4, 2006)

[Don't get me wrong, I supported them in their struggle against the Tory government, but they weren't the homogenous group of hardened bolsheviks that they are made out to be by the SP, and they made several calamitous mistakes, including a dreadful approach to black self-organisation and the appalling issuing of the redundancy notices.  

Typical that you repeat the kinnock/Blairite smear re the issuing of redundancy notices which was acknowledged as a tactical error and was a financial measure in order to win some breathing space and extra funding, this tactic was discussed at mass meetings of every union apart from one and was accepted by the work force, There was never any intention of issuing redundancies as you well know.

what you cant accept is that respect is nothing more than a loose amalgam of opportunists and chancers with a layer of sincere well meaning individuals who will regret having their fingers burnt following the elections and in the future. It will be seen as a further barrier towards building a genuine working class alternative to new labour. I suugest you read liverpool the city that dared to fight and other material. You will see the historical background of the liverpool labour movement and its development in the eighties, there is no  claim that the liverpool working class or indeed the Liverpool 47 were an homogeneous group, I suppose the dreadful approach to black self organisation means not bending the knee to middle class self appointed community leaders.


----------



## belboid (May 4, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> They certainly weren't all manual workers


who mentioned manual workes?  no one, so what exactly is your point?  None as far as I can see, except an attempt to shift the terms of discussion.

Which were - that should Respect win TH Council (& I hope they do) it will be with a group of councillors who are vastly less politically experienced, both in terms of internal council politics, and morfe general politics, than the Liverpool or Poplar councillors were.  Can you really deny that?  Or that the political organisaton of Respect is notyhing like as strong and deep as the Labour parties?  And that those facts will make significant differences to how any struggle against a government might go?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 4, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> who mentioned manual workes?  no one, so what exactly is your point?  None as far as I can see, except an attempt to shift the terms of discussion.
> ...



cutandsplice said: 
"The councillors involved" (ie Liverpool 47) "were all working class unlike most respect candidates".  (emphasis added)

The Liverpool 47 could only all be "working class" if that definition includes white collar workers and professionals.  

[There was a train of thought within Militant in the 1980s that defined people as 'werrking class' (flat 'a') , if they spoke with a scouse accent - so much so that Milipedes from all over the country used to try to impersonate it in meetings, but fortunately that trend died out when Hatton joined the ranks of the nouvelle rich]  

The implication of the post was that Respect's candidates in Tower Hamlets were not "working class", whereas the Liverpool 47 were.  

How many Respect candidates in Tower Hamlets are factory owners or millionaires?  What was the definition of working class intended?

And Tariq Ali has never hid the fact that he was from an upper class family, nor did Paul Foot or Friedrich Engels (who did own a factory), but that didn't prevent them having something useful to contribute to the socialist cause.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 4, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> Typical that you repeat the kinnock/Blairite smear re the issuing of redundancy notices which was acknowledged as a tactical error and was a financial measure in order to win some breathing space and extra funding, this tactic was discussed at mass meetings of every union apart from one and was accepted by the work force, There was never any intention of issuing redundancies as you well know.
> 
> what you cant accept is that respect is nothing more than a loose amalgam of opportunists and chancers with a layer of sincere well meaning individuals who will regret having their fingers burnt following the elections and in the future. It will be seen as a further barrier towards building a genuine working class alternative to new labour. I suugest you read liverpool the city that dared to fight and other material. You will see the historical background of the liverpool labour movement and its development in the eighties, there is no  claim that the liverpool working class or indeed the Liverpool 47 were an homogeneous group, I suppose the dreadful approach to black self organisation means not bending the knee to middle class self appointed community leaders.



I not only had a pre-publication copy of the book you referred to when it was published back in the 1980s, I did also live in the city, worked for the council and shared a ward branch of the Labour Party with some of the 47.  I was even permitted to attend meetings of the so-called Broad Left invitation-only caucus.

The redundancy notices was a far more serious mistake than Militant's belated self-criticism gives credit for, and supporting black self-organisation is no more bending the knee to middle class self appointed leaders than is the SP's subsequent conversion to self-organisation for lesbian and gay activists (something they opposed vigorously in the 1980s).

Neither is telling it how it was, warts and all, anything to do with the "Kinnock/Blair smear". 

If it was so great, how come Militant shrunk to a tiny rump in the city?

I'm sure every Blairite in the country is hoping and praying Respect does badly in Tower Hamlets today.  It's a shame the SP will be joining with them.


----------



## dennisr (May 4, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> [There was a train of thought within Militant in the 1980s that defined people as 'werrking class' (flat 'a') , if they spoke with a scouse accent - so much so that Milipedes from all over the country used to try to impersonate it in meetings, but fortunately that trend died out when Hatton joined the ranks of the nouvelle rich]



Thats a little fantasy of yours isn't it Fish? (speaking as a Londoner who was up in Liverpool at the time). The leading organisers of Militant in Liverpool being from the NE and Northern ireland with appropriate regional accents to boot...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 4, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> If it was so great, how come Militant shrunk to a tiny rump in the city?



Because they were defeated by a united front of Thatcher, the media, the courts and most importantly of all the right wing of the Labour Party. The Labour Party leadership being willing to destroy their own party on Merseyside and hand the city to the Liberals in perpetuity to beat Militant.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I'm sure every Blairite in the country is hoping and praying Respect does badly in Tower Hamlets today.  It's a shame the SP will be joining with them.



Where did anyone say that? I hope Respect do very well indeed (although, as I suspect with many people on these boards, that feeling lessens every time you open your mouth). Which doesn't stop me from knowing that in the extremely unlikely event that they win control of a council in this election that it would be an absolute disaster for them.

I note once more that your posts recently here have consisted of empty nit-picking and dishonest attempts to change the subject. You seem to have no reply at all to the central points being made - the assessment CR, belboid, macullam and I have made of the much weaker position Respect would be in were it to control a council as compared to the Poplar or Liverpool councillors. They are less politically coherent, have little or no experience of council politics, have no rooting in the Labour movement, have no mass party to back them, have no strength in the local unions and are staffed by a sizeable number of opportunists or incompetents. Hardly the ideal base from which to take on the entire establishment!

But please, don't answer. Treat us to some more of your tedious pedantry instead.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 4, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> Thats a little fantasy of yours isn't it Fish? (speaking as a Londoner who was up in Liverpool at the time). The leading organisers of Militant being from the NE and Northern ireland with appropriate regional accents to boot...



No it isn't fantasy - I was down in the south east (England) LPYS region for a while at the time and they were all desperate to outdo each other's impersonation of scouse.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 4, 2006)

Glad to see you sticking to the point as usual.


----------



## dennisr (May 4, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> (something they opposed vigorously in the 1980s).



I suppose if you repeat the same lies often enough you start to believe them




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Neither is telling it how it was, warts and all, anything to do with the "Kinnock/Blair smear".



see above...




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> If it was so great, how come Militant shrunk to a tiny rump in the city?



So hows you're organisation doing in Liverpool (or anywhere on the planet) Fishy? As you well know the left - as a whole - was set back massively. Internationally, as a result of the final collapse of the stalinist states - in Liverpool as punishment for standing up to the Tories - and let down by bureaucrats and isolated and betrayed by the soft 'left' you are part of.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I'm sure every Blairite in the country is hoping and praying Respect does badly in Tower Hamlets today.  It's a shame the SP will be joining with them.



I won't be cheering - but neither will 'victory' or 'defeat' for Respect in TH stop me "telling it how it IS, warts and all" to paraphase you. Now why don't you answer the pertinant questions previously raised? rather than throw more dust to sideline the points made


----------



## dennisr (May 4, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> No it isn't fantasy - I was down in the south east (England) LPYS region for a while at the time and they were all desperate to outdo each other's impersonation of scouse.



*tumbleweed meanders aimlessly across the barren plain of Fishy's wasted and somewhat pointless 'political' life*


----------



## audiotech (May 4, 2006)

Militant/SP supporters as usual OK at dishing it out, but unable to take any criticism of their politics by others.

I have been involved in left politics since the early seventies and whenever I have come across this band of left reformists they have been sectarian to the core.

One of them even had the gall to threaten me with violence when I questioned their tactic of using the working class in Liverpool as a stage army. I informed him in my working class Yorkshire accent that he was being pathetic and he fucked off.

A friend of mine, who is now a Socialist Party supporter describes the membership as pleasant in her neck of the woods. Judging by the responses here and my experiences elsewhere I have my doubts.


----------



## belboid (May 4, 2006)

neither me nor cutnsplice are/were in the SP - and we're both immensley pleasant, so could you answer us then?

Or are you just trying to avoid the actual point being made as well?


----------



## audiotech (May 4, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> neither me nor cutnsplice are/were in the SP - and we're both immensley pleasant, so could you answer us then?
> 
> Or are you just trying to avoid the actual point being made as well?



I'm pleasantly suprised that I've forgotten the point. If you could be a good chap and remind me?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 4, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> whine whine yap yap



We love you too. Now do you have anything remotely political to say for yourself?


----------



## audiotech (May 4, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> We love you too. Now do you have anything remotely political to say for yourself?



Sorry can't reciprocate the love fest.

Political? How about left reformism ends up in counter revolution as a starter for ten.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 4, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> I'm pleasantly suprised that I've forgotten the point. If you could be a good chap and remind me?



The point that they were making was that Respect's candidates in Tower Hamlets are weak, inexperienced and opportunists and do not have the background that the Poplar or Liverpool Councillors.  Therefore a Respect-led Tower Hamlets council would be a disaster.  

My point was that the Liverpool councillors were not the great homogenous heroes that they are painted by the SP and those sharing some of their leftist fantasy-land.   

And while we're on the subject, how come only Liverpool and Poplar get a mention - no-one ever talks about Lambeth council's fight (led by Ted Knight no less!) in the 1980s, the Clay Cross battle in the 1970s and John Lawrence's leadership of Camden council in the 1950s (http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/archive/n2111_04.htm)? 

Maybe because it doesn't suit the world view of those talking about councils taking on the government, to mention that others from a more heterogenous and diverse political backgroun have attempted it in the past, with some success?

I will answer the central point - but I think it is a bit much criticising me since, none of Respect's critics actually think this scenario is going to happen!

Belboid thinks Respect win a maximum of only 6 seats (and we'll see soon whether he has egg on his face);  Nigel Irritable is more optimistic but still thinks it'll be a max of 28 - and we need 26 to (narrowly) win control of Tower Hamlets.  So neither of them think it is going to happen - cutandsplice couldn't be bothered to vote by the way.

The point is in any movement that involves struggle, people learn quickly and so long as they build their connection with the mass movement outside the council chamber, there is no limit to the direction the struggle can take them.  Certainly the Respect candidates do not have experience of the council chamber - but neither did the Poplar councillors, most of whom had not been involved in municipal politics prior to them winning control of the council.  A few may have some reactionary religious views, but so did some of the Liverpool 47.  As far as I'm aware the majority of Respect candidates have been involved in mass activity - be it within trade unions or in the anti-war movement.  If they haven't sat through the last twenty years of interminable Labour Party meetings they haven't lost much.  But they all have a strong connection with their neighbourhoods and communities, and their electoral success, if it happened, would confirm that strong parts of the population want them to lead struggle.

It's probably the most unlikely scenario that they'll win, but even if they did, I think the blow it would give to Blair and the dynamic it would open up, would represent a tremendous step forward.  I do believe in the capacity for human development - that's what socialism is all about, and not the pessimistic nay-saying that passes for political comment by some on these boards.


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 4, 2006)

Fisher_Gate you're wrong I said that RESPECT would win enough seats to take Tower Hamlets.

As said your ISG friends in the pub after Mayday (who have been canvassing in Tower Hamlets) agreed that it would be a disaster if RESPECT won and so did a couple of SWP members I have spoken to, so it's hardly just the opinion of people outside RESPECT.

The ISG members have done a lot of work in Tower Hamlets and know the candidates well so I think their opinion is worth listening to. The reason I have this view isn't because I want to do RESPECT down it's because I think that RESPECT doesn't have deep enough roots in the community and because it has almost zero implementation i the trade unions. Without this it will be almost impossible to take on the government.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 4, 2006)

Yes I know few of us think there'll be a Respect controlled council tomorrow - most of us have said from the start of this discussion that it's not going to happen.

Your post doesn't address most of the issues raised with regard to the difference between a Respect run Tower Hamlets and the old Liverpool or Poplar Council struggles and those you do mention you simply gloss over. To list them again:

1) There would be no mass party to work in and through. Even allowing for a hypothetical big increase in Respect membership we are not for the forseeable future going to be talking about a genuine mass membership organisation.

2) Respect has no significant base in the trade union movement and in particular has no significant base in the local government unions in Tower Hamlets.

3) Few if any of the prospective councillors are themselves rooted in the labour movement or have any experience of council politics.

4) They include amongst their number a lot of people who have no record in principled left wing politics of any sort whatsoever and some who have a much dodgier background as "community leaders" or even Tories. As a marginally more honest Respect member put it: "One of the worrying things is that Respect could get a group of twenty councillors elected. Depending on who they are they could be twenty class struggle heroes. They might equally be twenty easily influenced, inexperienced novices who could be persuaded to shut all the libraries and abolish old people to save money. It reminds me a bit of the Lenin Levy that Stalin brought into the Bolshevik Party."

Maybe you should take up such shocking cynicism with your ISG friends?


----------



## JHE (May 4, 2006)

*Racist thuggery in the East End*

Respec' claims to be staunchly opposed to racism.  I wonder if the Respec' candidates have had anything to say about a recent crime in Stepney:  Machete mob in race hate attack


----------



## dennisr (May 4, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Militant/SP supporters as usual OK at dishing it out, but unable to take any criticism of their politics by others.



You mistake 'criticism' for poisonous diversion and ouright distortion. As for taking criticisim - maybe you could present some rather than the usual tedious 'memories' of how 'horrible' the 'nasty' militants are.

While you are exposing these counter revolutionary left reformists from your computer here is a little balance for your 'memories' about what these wee reforms meant to ordinary liverpudlians - http://www.liverpool47.org/

to qoute: Legacy of the Liverpool battle:

    * 6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes
    * 2, 873 tenement flats demolished
    * 1,315 walk-up flats demolished
    * 2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished
    * 4,800 houses and bungalows built
    * 7,400 houses and flats improved
    * 600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats
    * 25 new Housing Action Areas being developed
    * 6 new nursery classes built and open
    * 17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation
    * £10million spent on school improvements
    * Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open
    * Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget
    * Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme
    * Three new parks built
    * Rents frozen for five years


----------



## audiotech (May 4, 2006)

Dennis, I was in Liverpool at the time supporting Militant in it's achievements, as I also supported that organisation against the witchunt which took place later, by raising it with shop stewards and Labour Party members in the area I live. I was threatened with violence by one of it's supporters for raising some criticism as how I thought it was using the working class in Liverpool as a stage army. A comrade I worked with also got some of the same grief at a meeting he attended for raising the exact same point. That put me off Militant. I would hope that now things have changed with regard to the Socialist Party and it's members (all of it's members), being a bit more mature in how they act politically to criticism.


----------



## audiotech (May 4, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Respec' claims to be staunchly opposed to racism.  I wonder if the Respec' candidates have had anything to say about a recent crime in Stepney:  Machete mob in race hate attack



They would condemn it as would all candidates in this election. What makes you think they wouldn't?


----------



## JHE (May 4, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> They would condemn it as would all candidates in this election. What makes you think they wouldn't?


I don't imagine for a moment that they would condone it.  My guess, however, is that they will prefer not to mention it - and that, if they had to say anything, the Social Workers would start making excuses for the thugs.

I would be happy to be proved wrong.


----------



## audiotech (May 4, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> I don't imagine for a moment that they would condone it.  My guess, however, is that they will prefer not to mention it - and that, if they had to say anything, the Social Workers would start making excuses for the thugs.



My guess is that they would say something like fight racism - black and white unite.


----------



## JHE (May 4, 2006)

What _have_ they said, if anything?

If a gang of white thugs had attacked a Bengali in the East End a month ago, putting a machete into his head and leaving him with severe and permanent disabilities, the Social Workers and Respec' would have talked (or shouted) about it a lot.  Their (justified) indignation would have been impossible to miss.  They would have issued press releases, talked about the thuggery at their public meetings and while campaigning on the streets, reported the incident in their publications and probably would have called a protest march in the area.  You know this as well as I do.


----------



## audiotech (May 4, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> What _have_ they said, if anything?



My brother was attacked by an Asian gang and I was racially abused and they never reported that either come to think of it. The BNP were active in the area at the time.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 5, 2006)

May I be the first to congratulate the overwhelming majority of U75 members on getting it wrong.  

As at 6.30am Respect has now gained 9 seats, plus two we hold, takes it to 11. 72.6% of you thought we would get 10 or less.


----------



## dennisr (May 5, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Dennis, I was in Liverpool at the time supporting Militant in it's achievements, as I also supported that organisation against the witchunt which took place later, by raising it with shop stewards and Labour Party members in the area I live. I was threatened with violence by one of it's supporters for raising some criticism as how I thought it was using the working class in Liverpool as a stage army. A comrade I worked with also got some of the same grief at a meeting he attended for raising the exact same point. That put me off Militant. I would hope that now things have changed with regard to the Socialist Party and it's members (all of it's members), being a bit more mature in how they act politically to criticism.



MC5, How can I answer an unsubstanciated claim by one indervidual on a bulletin board almost 20 years after the events? I suppose i could add that I don't think what you have just said happened at all and if somthing did it is being blow out of all proportion by you and possibly reflects a reaction to the sort of approach you have shown on these bulletin boards by a hothead. 

I was also in Liverpool (Liverpool 8) - then and in the period after. Sorry but i cannot remember going around 'intimidating' people. i can remeber bending over backwards to accomodate and patiently explain my arguement again and again and again. i have faced violence from caucus thugs. One of my freinds was attacked and hospitalised with a brick to the head by the same thugs. There is little point me trying to blame any group for the actions of those dickheads, especially not almost 20 years later. 

Many of my friends and comrades spent years unable to get work and surcharged and criminalised and hounded in the media in what was a major battle by us 'counter revolutionaries' against forces who were willing to use all the methods they could get away with. Thanks for putting all of them in thier place and exposing them as the 'reformist counter revolutionaries' they are. Thankyou for the insight, that is us told then... I hope you are proud of raising the 'really' important questions - sod houses and jobs then

As you would well know - if you actually were in Liverpool - the idea that a relatively small group of Militants could go around intimidating the vast majority of Liverpool people is frankly laughable - the same sort of crap as the idea as Scargill 'intimidating' his members during the 84-85 minors strike - and yet that innuendo is all you have had to say on these events... You echo lies that have been repeated so many times mate - are you sure you are not confusing watching that bleasdale play for events that happened in your life??

But ...of course... I should be able to take this a 'constructive criticism'


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 5, 2006)

Looks like:



> Andy the Don, BarryB, Matt S, mutley, osterberg, pingupete, rmac, socialistsuzy



are the winners!


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 5, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> May I be the first to congratulate the overwhelming majority of U75 members on getting it wrong.
> 
> As at 6.30am Respect has now gained 9 seats, plus two we hold, takes it to 11. 72.6% of you thought we would get 10 or less.



Why was Tower Hamlets so late to declare? An interesting report shows that Tower Hamlets council were trying to stop journalists from covering the election count: 
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2006/05/tower_hamlets_journalists_out.html

And Newham still hasn't declared.
Salma Yaqoob elected!

Some quite good results where we didn't win. In most of Preston in second place, a lot of seats in second and third place.  Jerry Hicks came second in Bristol.


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 5, 2006)

> May I be the first to congratulate the overwhelming majority of U75 members on getting it wrong.
> 
> As at 6.30am Respect has now gained 9 seats, plus two we hold, takes it to 11. 72.6% of you thought we would get 10 or less.



To be fair Fisher you got it quite badly wrong as well (as did I!). You were just as out in your prediction as someone like belboid.


----------



## Matt S (May 5, 2006)

What do I win?

Matt


----------



## pingupete (May 5, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Salma Yaqoob elected!



Great news. British politics will be better for this.

+9 not a bad night for Respect and a bit better than I expected. Has John Rees and/or other high profile Respect figures gained seats?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> To be fair Fisher you got it quite badly wrong as well (as did I!). You were just as out in your prediction as someone like belboid.



Not yet he's not - Newham results not in yet and Respect will win seats in at least one of the TH wards which haven't been counted yet.




			
				pingupete said:
			
		

> Has John Rees and/or other high profile Respect figures gained seats?



No. It looks like so far the Muslim section of Respect have won all of their seats.


----------



## rbel (May 5, 2006)

The Mayoral ballot in Newham has gone to a second round with Robin Wales getting 45 % of 1st peference. Talking to somebody at the count and Respect are looking confident in 5-6 wards.


----------



## Yossarian (May 5, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> May I be the first to congratulate the overwhelming majority of U75 members on getting it wrong.
> 
> As at 6.30am Respect has now gained 9 seats, plus two we hold, takes it to 11. 72.6% of you thought we would get 10 or less.



You yourself are off by the same number as people who thought they'd get zero. Only 8 people guessed the correct number - do they win a signed photo of Galloway?


----------



## osterberg (May 5, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 So what prize do I get 

Opposition in the council is the best possible result for RESPECT.
Much better than taking control of the council and possibly fucking it up.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 5, 2006)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> You yourself are off by the same number as people who thought they'd get zero. Only 8 people guessed the correct number - do they win a signed photo of Galloway?



As Newham which is one of Respect's strongest areas has yet to declare, and their are still wards in Tower Hamlet's yet to declare, the "correct number" has yet to be established.


----------



## osterberg (May 5, 2006)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> You yourself are off by the same number as people who thought they'd get zero. Only 8 people guessed the correct number - do they win a signed photo of Galloway?



Er,no thanks.Only if I wanted to scare mice.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> As Newham which is one of Respect's strongest areas has yet to declare, and their are still wards in Tower Hamlet's yet to declare, the "correct number" has yet to be established.



I've already said that!


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 5, 2006)

> As Newham which is one of Respect's strongest areas has yet to declare, and their are still wards in Tower Hamlet's yet to declare, the "correct number" has yet to be established.



Fair point, Fisher could still get it yet......


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 5, 2006)

Did the SP pick up an extra councillor in Coventry?

I thought the second-place result in Bristol for sacked trade union militant, Jerry Hicks, was quite pleasing - especially as Respect's general election performance was less than 1% in Bristol.  It probably helped that Jerry Hicks has some local media profile.

Hackney has yet to declare.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Did the SP pick up an extra councillor in Coventry?



Yes and one in Huddersfield. One of the ones who defected to us in Stoke a couple of months ago though lost his seat. Lewisham councillors reelected but didn't quite manage to add a third councillor there. A few second places around the country but none of them near a seat.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 5, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> As Newham which is one of Respect's strongest areas has yet to declare, and their are still wards in Tower Hamlet's yet to declare, the "correct number" has yet to be established.



<smug look on>

Respect are at 14 at the moment. (11 Tower Hamlets, 1 Birmingham, 2 Preston).  I must admit I had calculated on one in Preston - losing by 7 is a killer.

Two wards in TH still to declare - why is it taking so long! - one of which is St Dunstans & Stepney Green, which as it was the only seat Respect had previously won (2004 by-election) and has the only sitting Respect councillor, was assumed by me to be in with a good chance for all three.  Respect got 23.3% in the mayoral in Newham and as wards have 3 members we only need a couple, though I'd happily settle for more, for it to get to 21-25 and a victory for me.  No declarations from there yet.

<smug look off>


----------



## mk12 (May 5, 2006)

How does the Respect total compare with what leading Respect members were predicting beforehand?


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 5, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> How does the Respect total compare with what leading Respect members were predicting beforehand?


the same could be asked of every political party.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> the same could be asked of every political party.



Isn't Respect supposed to be different?


----------



## mutley (May 5, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> How does the Respect total compare with what leading Respect members were predicting beforehand?



I'm not sure any were silly enough to predict an actual number. There was plenty of talk about the possibility of a breakthrough to take over TH, but it was always qualified. Considering the performance i think flagging up the *chance* of a win like that was fair enough.

I think that although Preston is frustrating, Bristol, and the performance in Sheffield and Manchester were a good supplement to TH and Brum. 

If it were a school report I'd say 'good solid progress, but no room for complacency'. The worry is the greater progress made by our polar opposites of course.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 5, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> I'm not sure any were silly enough to predict an actual number. There was plenty of talk about the possibility of a breakthrough to take over TH, but it was always qualified. Considering the performance i think flagging up the *chance* of a win like that was fair enough.
> 
> I think that although Preston is frustrating, Bristol, and the performance in Sheffield and Manchester were a good supplement to TH and Brum.
> 
> If it were a school report I'd say 'good solid progress, but no room for complacency'. The worry is the greater progress made by our polar opposites of course.



Yes I agree.  And we are still waiting for Newham, so we'll have to see it is the icing on the cake.


----------



## rebel warrior (May 5, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> How does the Respect total compare with what leading Respect members were predicting beforehand?



Actually Respect National Secretary John Rees was spot on.  He said before hand that 'New Labour knows that if it loses control of a council because of us, Respect will be unstoppable in the labour movement'.  

And lo and behold - Labour have lost Tower Hamlets to NOC because of Respect.  

Here: 
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8691


----------



## gurrier (May 5, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Actually Respect National Secretary John Rees was spot on.  He said before hand that 'New Labour knows that if it loses control of a council because of us, Respect will be unstoppable in the labour movement'.
> 
> And lo and behold - Labour have lost Tower Hamlets to NOC because of Respect.
> 
> ...


hahahahahha

1.  He didn't make a prediction that labour would lost tower hamlets, he speculated about "if" they did.

2.  His speculation displays a frankly lizard-space-alien leap of logic.  if labour loses control of a single council because of respect *therefore* respect will be 'unstoppable' in the labour movement.  

"lo and behold" our alien overlords arrived.


----------



## rebel warrior (May 5, 2006)

*Respect breakthrough in East End*

From the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4977798.stm

Finally Respect's results are being reported!


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Actually Respect National Secretary John Rees was spot on.  He said before hand that 'New Labour knows that if it loses control of a council because of us, Respect will be unstoppable in the labour movement'.
> 
> And lo and behold - Labour have lost Tower Hamlets to NOC because of Respect.
> 
> ...


in what way is that a 'spot on' prediction?  there was no prediction of whether labour actually _would_ do so, and the prediction that was made is obviously untested so far (and is likely to be proven utterly false).

Spot on?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 5, 2006)

Respect councillor tally is now 15 with only Newham outstanding (60 seats).  One from there and over two thirds of you will have underestimate the strength of Respect.  Very difficult to predict Newham, because we could come second in every single ward and not win one.  My guess is we will win 3-6.


----------



## gurrier (May 5, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Respect councillor tally is now 15 with only Newham outstanding (60 seats).  One from there and over two thirds of you will have underestimate the strength of Respect.  Very difficult to predict Newham, because we could come second in every single ward and not win one.  My guess is we will win 3-6.


Going on the idea of the "wisdom of crowds" I worked out that the Respect tally would be 13 to 18 IIRC.  

Remember too that all the people who underestimated the number of seats will have been closer to the right answer than the 18 people who selected over 30.


----------



## audiotech (May 5, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> MC5, How can I answer an unsubstanciated claim by one indervidual on a bulletin board almost 20 years after the events?



Dennis, I don't want to linger on this, because it is as you say almost twenty years ago. However, the events as I described did happen and I was indeed in Liverpool at the time.

Also, I never described anyone as "counter-revolutionary" and I apologise if it came accross like that. What I intended was to point out - as Rosa Luxembourg did - that reformist and revolutionary politics are not two different paths to the same destination, but different paths because they end in different places - revolution or counter-revolution.

Edit to add: congratulations to the SP in gaining seats.


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 5, 2006)

> Actually Respect National Secretary John Rees was spot on. He said before hand that 'New Labour knows that if it loses control of a council because of us, Respect will be unstoppable in the labour movement'.
> 
> And lo and behold - Labour have lost Tower Hamlets to NOC because of Respect.



What are you talking about? Labour has held Tower Hamlets, it has won 26 out of the 51 seats.

To be honest I think RESPECT will be a little disappointed that Labour still has overall control, it would have made it a lot harder on Labour if it had been NOC.

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/your-council/data/elections/chamber.cfm


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 5, 2006)

Looks like you'll have to leave the smug mode off Fisher. 15 seems to be the final total. To be honest I thought from initial indicators that RESPECT had done better than they have. Don't get me wrong, they've still done very well, but I think they'll be disappointed they didn't get NOC in Tower Hamlets.

Still I'd be pretty upbeat about today if I was a RESPECT member. If I was in the SWP I'd be a bit more concerned.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 5, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Looks like you'll have to leave the smug mode off Fisher. 15 seems to be the final total. To be honest I thought from initial indicators that RESPECT had done better than they have. Don't get me wrong, they've still done very well, but I think they'll be disappointed they didn't get NOC in Tower Hamlets.
> 
> Still I'd be pretty upbeat about today if I was a RESPECT member. If I was in the SWP I'd be a bit more concerned.




No you are wrong.  3 seats for Respect in Newham Green Street West just declared!


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 5, 2006)

Three RESPECT candidates elected in Newham!!

Karim, Asif - RESPECT 1,829

Sheikh, Abdul Karim - RESPECT 1,784

Abdulmuhit, Hanif - RESPECT 1,751


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 5, 2006)

Final total of 18 seats.....same comments that I put a couple of posts back remain.....


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 5, 2006)

So the actual winners are.....drum roll......

greenbrain, JimPage, Sean


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

And all bar one of the Respectoids here overestimated how many seats they would get, even though I suspect in many cases they were trying to downplay their chances. 16 new seats, all in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Birmingham is not a breakthrough of any kind.


----------



## nwnm (May 5, 2006)

nose cut off to spite face me thinks by our resident SP'r


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> nose cut off to spite face me thinks by our resident SP'r



What the hell are you talking about? 

I'd have liked to see Respect do a lot better (and I thought they would do a fair bit better as the poll above should reveal). That doesn't mean that I'm going to play along with the predictable "rah rah rah we did fantastically, we are now the 2nd force in UK politics" stuff which is guaranteed to be coming from Social Worker over the next while.

It's a fact that the Respect supporters here pretty much universally thought Respect would do better and in most cases a great deal better than they did. It is a fact that the Respect leadership were talking in terms of winning control of a council. It is a fact that Respect's wins have come in a subset of the areas where they have previously polled well. There is no breakthrough here or widening national spread, in fact it's a slight retreat into East London.


----------



## nwnm (May 5, 2006)

you mean we've 'retreated' into the place where labour was born and is now declining? Since when could securing a bridgehead be described as a retreat?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> Since when could securing a bridgehead be described as a retreat?



When that "bridgehead" was secured a number of elections ago and used to be somewhat bigger.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 5, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> hahahahahha
> 
> 1.  He didn't make a prediction that labour would lost tower hamlets, he speculated about "if" they did.
> 
> ...



Well, I for one welcome our new ant masters.


----------



## nwnm (May 5, 2006)

"that "bridgehead" was secured a number of elections ago and used to be somewhat bigger." wot? when we only had ONE councillor  (oliur Rahman) you mean? We are obviously fucked then.....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> wot? when we only had ONE councillor  (oliur Rahman) you mean? We are obviously fucked then.....



Over the last number of elections Respect have done very well in parts of East London, Birmingham, Preston and to a lesser extent Leicester. This time out you did well in the same parts of East London but only managed one seat in the rest of the country. Your good performances a number of elections later are still coming only in those places but minus a few places where you had previously done well.

The trend is not currently towards a national breakout but towards a deeper dependence on a few core areas.


----------



## neprimerimye (May 5, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> you mean we've 'retreated' into the place where labour was born and is now declining? Since when could securing a bridgehead be described as a retreat?



Reading Nwnm and indeed the comments of other Respectoids I'm struck by the bi-polar disorder that affects them. Our chum writes of 'we' but who are 'we'? Are 'we' the SWP or are 'we' Respect?

When various of the newly elected Respect councillors slip up and talk ucomplete and utter bollocks, as is only a matter of time, will the SWPers so easily speak of 'we'?

As for the place where Labour was born that would be in the class struggle from which concept Respect is a retreat from. Nonetheless it must be gratifying to win a bridgehead in the council chambers and who I wonder will be drawing nice fat allowance cheques for doing so (and we may be certain will not liit themselves to a workers wage)? Not John Rees thats for sure.


----------



## JHE (May 5, 2006)

*Mozzy votes for Mozzy candidates*




			
				Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> It looks like so far the Muslim section of Respect have won all of their seats.


Yup, it does.

Come on, Social Workers, tell us of any exceptions.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 5, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Over the last number of elections Respect have done very well in parts of East London, Birmingham, Preston and to a lesser extent Leicester. This time out you did well in the same parts of East London but only managed one seat in the rest of the country. Your good performances a number of elections later are still coming only in those places but minus a few places where you had previously done well.
> 
> The trend is not currently towards a national breakout but towards a deeper dependence on a few core areas.



Bristol (25%) ... Sheffield (26%!) ... 

Oxford ... Manchester ... Liverpool ... Blackburn ... Newcastle ... Harlow ... Dudley ... Cambridgeshire ...
 all areas where Respect candidates scored more than 10%.  

Sure we're not winning seats due to the electoral system, but these are excellent votes considering how long Respect has been going.

What's the best ever vote by the SP in an area where you haven't previously been elected as Labour (or stood a sitting councillor)?


----------



## neprimerimye (May 5, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Bristol (25%) ... Sheffield (26%!) ...
> 
> Oxford ... Manchester ... Liverpool ... Blackburn ... Newcastle ... Harlow ... Dudley ... Cambridgeshire ...
> all areas where Respect candidates scored more than 10%.
> ...



Frankly I think all this electoralism is bollocks. It reflects little more than the mood within that part of the electorate that chooses to exercise its right to vote and that part is declining.

As for the Respect results outside Asian ethnic areas is that there were so few Respect candidates of any variety. This cannot but reflect that it is a very marginal political formation of no real consequence and lacking in any roots in either the working class or socialist theory.

Moreover it is striking that the best single result cited, that of Jerry Hicks in bristol, is very much a one off in which special circumstances cannot but play a major role. As to Sheffield I'd be interested to learn more of the circumstances in that constituency. but in general it seems that the votes were in abolsute terms poor and only appear better when viewed as percentages of what are low turnout figures.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 5, 2006)

Yes, yes Fisher Gate there are few second places and some more respectable votes in a few more wards scattered about the place. Nothing out of the ordinary for well run campaigns by small groups like the Socialist Party, the IWCA or well... Respect. The thing is though that nobody is under any delusion that the Socialist Party or the IWCA have made some big breakthrough. Or for that matter that we are about to. 

By getting into "well the Socialist Party are doing no better" point scoring you only emphasise my point. If Respect were actually in the process breaking out of the same few areas you wouldn't be comparing yourselves to us. As I said above what's interesting about Respect's performance this time out is that their dependence on the same (but slightly shrunken) core areas is getting greater not diminishing.


----------



## belboid (May 5, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> As to Sheffield I'd be interested to learn more of the circumstances in that constituency.


this is the ward i live in, i shall be knocking something out about it - and where the vote came from - shortly, when i can be arsed.

It was a good result for them, no doubt about it, tho it did also show that much of the nonsense about the greens costing respect votes is just that - nonsense.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 6, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Yes, yes Fisher Gate there are few second places and some more respectable votes in a few more wards scattered about the place. Nothing out of the ordinary for well run campaigns by small groups like the Socialist Party, the IWCA or well... Respect. The thing is though that nobody is under any delusion that the Socialist Party or the IWCA have made some big breakthrough. Or for that matter that we are about to.
> 
> By getting into "well the Socialist Party are doing no better" point scoring you only emphasise my point. If Respect were actually in the process breaking out of the same few areas you wouldn't be comparing yourselves to us. As I said above what's interesting about Respect's performance this time out is that their dependence on the same (but slightly shrunken) core areas is getting greater not diminishing.



Oh come off it that's just stupid ... 'same few areas' ...

List of the largest English Cities (from Wiki).  Spot the one Respect did not get at least 10% for a candidate in?

1 	London 	7,172,091 	
2 	Birmingham 	970,892 	
3 	Liverpool 	469,017 	
4 	Leeds 	443,247 	
5 	Sheffield 	439,866 	
6 	Bristol 	420,556 	
7 	Manchester 	394,269

What's the record of the rest of the left in these cities ... SP? 2 councillors in a ward once held by one of them as Labour ...  IWCA?  don't kid me - as if 4 wards in Oxford and 2 in Islington equates to the kind of spread that Respect fought.  

Respect's range of candidacies and votes are on a totally different scale, that hasn't been seen by the rest of the left for 50 years.


----------



## cutandsplice (May 6, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> this is the ward i live in, i shall be knocking something out about it - and where the vote came from - shortly, when i can be arsed.
> It was a good result for them, no doubt about it, tho it did also show that much of the nonsense about the greens costing respect votes is just that - nonsense.


 A good vote obviously but where Respect have won (as far as I know), it has only been with candidates with a Muslim name whose first allegiance is to the religion, rather than the 'secular' side of the party.


----------



## neprimerimye (May 6, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Oh come off it that's just stupid ... 'same few areas' ...
> 
> List of the largest English Cities (from Wiki).  Spot the one Respect did not get at least 10% for a candidate in?
> 
> ...




You can add in Newcastle too if it helps to develop your case for Respect having national spread. But the point remains that with one or two exceptions the Respect vote is heavily based on one ethnic group and the Respect campaign is heavily reliant on the SWP's apparatus. You are not breaking out of the limited constituency towards which your party is heavily oriented and show no signs of even comprehending the problem.

The last time there was an electoral challenge of the breadth and range that respect represents it came from the CPGB if I'm not mistaken. You should learn the lessons of that extincy beast comrade electoralism does not pay and neither does populism. It is political death for revolutionaries.


----------



## Jografer (May 6, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Bristol (25%) ...



Respect are at least becoming proper politicians, and learning how to spin.

In Bristol they stood in ONE seat and came a distant second after loads of work, and the usual predictions of a stunning breakthrough victory..... they did not get 25% of the vote in Bristol.....


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 6, 2006)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Respect are at least becoming proper politicians, and learning how to spin.
> 
> In Bristol they stood in ONE seat and came a distant second after loads of work, and the usual predictions of a stunning breakthrough victory..... they did not get 25% of the vote in Bristol.....



I never said they did - I was talking about wards.  25% *is* a stunning political breakthrough.  I think it's worth people looking at the electoral history of this ward:

2006


> Sean Clifford Emmett 	Liberal Democrat 	  	1091 	40.21
> Jeremy Richard (commonly known as Jerry) Hicks 	The Respect Party 	  	679 	25.03
> Gregory Maurice Green 	The Labour Party Candidate 	  	554 	20.42
> Christina Mary Quinnell 	The Green Party 	  	251 	9.25
> Richard James Manns 	The Conservative Party Candidate 	  	138 	5.09



2004


> Emma Jayne Bagley 	Liberal Democrat 	  	1880 	45.28
> Kerry Barker 	The Labour Party Candidate 	  	1542 	37.14
> Kevin Michael Quartley 	The Conservative Party Candidate 	  	488 	11.75
> Christina Mary Quinnell 	Green Party 	  	183 	4.41
> Roger Stephen Thomas 	The Socialist Alternative Candidate 	  	59 	1.42



2002


> Sean Clifford Emmett 	Liberal Democrat 	  	1492 	56.79
> Nichola Irene Barton 	The Labour Party Candidate 	  	797 	30.34
> Matthew Christopher Stallabrass 	The Conservative Party Candidate 	  	236 	8.98
> Vince Simon Jones 	Green Party 	  	51 	1.94
> Roger Stephen Thomas 	Socialist Alternative 	  	51 	1.94



Back in 2002 the Socialist Party (to whom Nigel Irritable's allegiance is and to whom I was responding when I referred to Bristol etc), described  some of its candidates election results as "extremely good", even carping that "we received more than double the average Socialist Alliance vote".  Most of these "extremely good" results were won by former Labour councillors.  Well in Bristol, Respect turned a situation where the Socialist Party had previously got less than 2% of the vote to a Respect vote of 25%.  I think that's deserving a superlative that is more than "extremely good".

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2002/05/03spresults.html


----------



## BarryB (May 6, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Oh come off it that's just stupid ... 'same few areas' ...
> 
> List of the largest English Cities (from Wiki).  Spot the one Respect did not get at least 10% for a candidate in?
> 
> ...



Yes Respect had some good results but outside of Tower Hamlets and Newham their hope of a breakthrough in London was in Hackney where they put up 2 candidates in each of 4 wards. Their votes were miserable. In my home ward (Leabridge) they were going round boasting that they would see of Labour by winning 2 of the seats. It just didnt happen like that. Their was a swing against Labour but it was to the Greens. Labour retained the ward.

BarryB


----------



## osterberg (May 6, 2006)

cutandsplice said:
			
		

> A good vote obviously but where Respect have won (as far as I know), it has only been with candidates with a Muslim name whose first allegiance is to the religion, rather than the 'secular' side of the party.



 How can you tell someone's religion from their names?

Actually this is a slightly better result than I expected.I never thought we'd see a left Of Labour party be the second biggest group on a council and with a lot of black and asian votes ( and why is it that there are people round here that seem to think that's a bad thing?)

It's better than anything the Socialist Alliance ever managed.


----------



## Fullyplumped (May 6, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> How can you tell someone's religion from their names?


This may help.


----------



## osterberg (May 6, 2006)

Yeah but just because someone has a muslim name doesn't mean they're muslim.
eg,Tariq Ali the well known atheist.

 Anyway the real test for these councillors,muslim or not,is how well they do their jobs in the council and what they do.Then we'll know if Respect has made a real breakthrough.


----------



## JHE (May 6, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Yeah but just because someone has a muslim name doesn't mean they're muslim.
> eg,Tariq Ali the well known atheist.


Can you find even one apostate among Respec's councillors elected this week?  Go on, even one.


----------



## Macullam (May 6, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Can you find even one apostate among Respec's councillors elected this week?  Go on, even one.



http://macuaid.blogspot.com/
There is a contradictory element to some of the results. The twelve councillors in Tower Hamlets are all Bangladeshi. This means that the council group is not fully representative of the ethnic and political diversity of either the borough or Respect in Tower Hamlets. Many of the councillors are politically untested and few of them have experience of socialist organisations other then Respect. Sections of Respect’s leadership have been very reluctant to adopt rudimentary Labour Movement procedures for the accountability of elected officials. The councillors will be able to cite the precedent that George Galloway has set whenever they are asked to report to the local organisation.


----------



## neprimerimye (May 6, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> http://macuaid.blogspot.com/
> There is a contradictory element to some of the results. The twelve councillors in Tower Hamlets are all Bangladeshi. This means that the council group is not fully representative of the ethnic and political diversity of either the borough or Respect in Tower Hamlets. Many of the councillors are politically untested and few of them have experience of socialist organisations other then Respect. Sections of Respect’s leadership have been very reluctant to adopt rudimentary Labour Movement procedures for the accountability of elected officials. The councillors will be able to cite the precedent that George Galloway has set whenever they are asked to report to the local organisation.



Quite so. One little correction Respect does not claim to be socialist - for the good reason tha it is not. It will also be moderately interesting to see what attitude the incoming Respect councillors take towards the generous allowances now avaiable. One hestitates to suggest that they shall be like unto pigs at the trough but....... time will tell.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Oh come off it that's just stupid ... 'same few areas' ...
> 
> List of the largest English Cities (from Wiki).  Spot the one Respect did not get at least 10% for a candidate in?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure why you are treating us to a list of city populations, given that in most of those places Respect stood in only one ward - you'd be more honest to give us ward populations although even then I don't know what point you think you are making. What's more your last sentence is a massive leap of logic, reeking more of a bombastic attempt to fool yourself than anything else.

The fact is that outside of parts of East London, Respect's results are in no way out of the ordinary for a small leftish group. In fact excluding East London the results of small "left" organisations on May 4 were - 

*Green Party* - had 20 councillors elected and too many other good votes to count.
*Socialist Party* - had 4 councillors elected, some second places and some other good votes.
*IWCA* - had 1 councillor elected and a handful of other good votes.
*Respect* - had 1 councillor elected, some second places and some other good votes.

Those are the hard facts of the situation and no amount of bluster will escape them. As I said from the beginning, almost all of the Respect supporters here thought Respect were going to do better. In most cases a great deal better. It's leaders thought it could challenge for control of a council or two. Instead it picked up some councillors in East London and otherwise got run of the mill results for well run campaigns by a small leftish grouping.

This is no breakthrough. In fact it represents a slight retreat on the national spread previously achieved by Respect, relying even more on Tower Hamlets and Newham. Do I think that's a good thing? No. But I'm not going to play along with the half-witted hype machine the Social Workers and friends wheel out no matter what the result.




			
				Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Back in 2002 the Socialist Party (to whom Nigel Irritable's allegiance is and to whom I was responding when I referred to Bristol etc), described some of its candidates election results as "extremely good" [...]I think that's deserving a superlative that is more than "extremely good".



I'm not sure if you are being dishonest or merely moronic here, FG. As I pointed out earlier in the thread (and as you've repeatedly ignored), if Respect was making some kind of breakthrough or even achieving some kind of national spread beyond the same areas with a large Muslim population, the last thing you'd be doing is comparing yourselves with the results of small left groups. You wouldn't be saying "well if the Socialist Party result was good ours must be very good" or boasting about how Respect is bigger than the IWCA. What's good for a small revolutionary group like the Socialist Party is rather different to what represents a good vote for a party which claims to be the fourth force in British politics! Or am I going too fast for you?


----------



## nwnm (May 6, 2006)

"Those are the hard facts of the situation and no amount of bluster will escape them." No - the hard facts of the stuation is that you try to pretend that london is some sort of exception, and so don't include those results for your own sectarian reasons. I happen to think going from 1 to about 12 councillors and becoming the main opposition party IS a breakthrough.

PS you sound about as obsessed with who is or isn't a Muslim <rather than what social class they might be a part of judging by the area they live work and stand in> as Nick Griffin. Wake up its the 21st century. The working class don't all wear flat caps and race wippets anymore, they don't wear carpet slippers and brylcream, and they don't talk in mock scouse accents either....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> No - the hard facts of the stuation is that you try to pretend that london is some sort of exception, and so don't include those results for your own sectarian reasons.



Where are those banging your head against a wall smilies when you really need one? The point of the discussion is that Respect have made no significant advance beyond the same, heavily Muslim, areas they have already shown an ability to poll well in. In fact in this election they got councillors elected only in a subset of those areas. 




			
				nwnm said:
			
		

> I happen to think going from 1 to about 12 councillors and becoming the main opposition party IS a breakthrough.



Yet only a few weeks ago you were predicting more than 40 councillors for Respect. This is typical Social Worker stuff, no matter what the result the hype is the same.




			
				nwmnm said:
			
		

> PS you sound about as obsessed with who is or isn't a Muslim as Nick Griffin.



Well I wondered how long it would be before one of you halfwits started calling people racists.


----------



## nwnm (May 6, 2006)

No I'm just calling you a religion obsessed twat.

respect results here
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/sw_election01.php

a bolshevik attitude to islam here - 
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=181&issue=110


----------



## osterberg (May 6, 2006)

Removed: Didn't make sense.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> a bolshevik attitude to islam here -
> http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=181&issue=110



You might benefit from reading a rather better article about socialists and islam, which amongst other things responds to some of the flaws at the link above:

http://www.socialismtoday.org/87/islam.html


----------



## osterberg (May 6, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Can you find even one apostate among Respec's councillors elected this week?  Go on, even one.



 Since I don't know them I can't,can I? 
Why have you got such a hang-up about whether a councillor is a muslim or not?
 And why can't you spell Respect? What's with the apostrophe?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 6, 2006)

I think one problem is that the thread was originally set up to guess how many councillors Respect would get.  The majority of u75 members seriously underestimated this  (and a few of us slightly overstimated).

But we have in England, by comparison with the rest of Europe and even other parts of the UK, a uniquely bad system for representing the popular vote, ie First Past the Post.  This system makes it very difficult for small parties to break through and win council seats, as people tend to vote for the 'least worst party that can win'.  And if  you are standing for the first time, voters don't know whether you can win.

The debate has moved on to the performance of Respect outside London.  But the criteria being used is still the number of councillors.  I would argue that if you want to judge Respect's overall performance (and that of any other 'minor' party), you should look at the proportion of popular vote rather than number of councillors.

There can be two comparators here.  First of all the record of left-of-Labour parties.  Since the demise of the CPGB in the 1950s (and outside a few of their strongholds that lingered on, like, Rhondda), British left-of-Labour parties have rarely got into double figures anywhere outside of splits of former Labour Party representatives.  In fact the usual left-of-Labour vote is typically less than 5%.  

Secondly in Europe there has been a rise of 'left of Social Democracy/Green' parties.  These range from the Left Block in Portugal, the Danish Red/Green Alliance, the German WASG (the PDS is a special case), the Italian PRC, to name a few.  Typically these parties get 5-10% at the national level and in better constituencies over 10%.  PR however ensures significant representation at local and national level.

Below is the proportion of vote achieved by Respect outside London (in one member seats).  There are clearly more than a few very good results and only a tiny number one of very poor results by comparison with the benchmarks above.  The geographical spread is also much broader than it is being given credit for.  I shall be doing the same analysis for London (where it is more complicated because of multimember seats) and for other left parties.  Then we can truly compare

_Excellent Results >30%	_

Birmingham	Sparkbrook ward	49.4%
Preston	Town Centre ward	37.2%

_Very Good Results 15-30%	_ 

Sheffield	Burngreave ward	25.9%
Preston	Riversway ward	25.7%
Preston	St George's ward	25.3%
Bristol	Lockleaze ward	25.0%
Preston	St Matthew's ward	23.1%
Manchester	Rusholme ward	21.8%
Birmingham	Springfield ward	21.5%
Birmingham	Lozells & East Handsworth ward	19.3%
Preston	Fishwick ward	18.5%

_Okay Results 10-15%	_

Oxford	Cowley ward	12.8%
Blackburn with Darwen	Corporation Park ward	11.7%
Dudley	Belle Vale ward	10.9%
Liverpool	Princes Park ward	10.6%
Newcastle	Elswick ward	10.5%

_Below Par but not bad 5-10%		_

Cambridgeshire	Romsey ward	9.9%
Walsall	Palfrey ward	9.6%
Portsmouth	Dickens ward	8.5%
Birmingham	Moseley & Kings Heath ward	7.8%
Slough	Baylis & Stoke ward	7.2%
Walsall	St Matthew's ward	6.7%
Leeds	City & Hunslet ward	6.3%
South Cambridgeshire	Bar Hill ward	5.2%

_Poor - <5%	_ 

Plymouth	Devonport ward	4.0%
Birmingham	Aston ward	3.5%


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> _Very Good Results 15-30%	_
> 
> Sheffield	Burngreave ward	25.9%
> Bristol	Lockleaze ward	25.0%
> ...



Four points:

1) Excluding those same high Muslim population areas where Respect have already polled well, the list looks more like the above. Which gives Respect all of 3 wards outside of certain areas in East London, Birmingham and Preston where they got more than 13%. That would be out of 2,000 plus wards nationally.

2) You are by the way missing a number of Respect results.

3) I'd be interested in your methodology for working out percentages by the way. For instance you have 9.9% for Cambridge Romsey, while the SUN site has your two candidates on 6.4% and 5.8%.

4) Most importantly, what this fails to take into account is the "one ward" factor. Being able to get 8% of the vote in one ward by only standing in one ward in the city and surrounding region is *not* the same as getting 8% in the region. A small party will have picked its best ward to start with and more to the point will have massively concentrated its resources there. If Respect were making a national impact on a scale different to that achieved by other small left groups over the last number of years it wouldn't be standing in such a tiny number of places.


----------



## belboid (May 6, 2006)

re Sheffield - the muslim population of the ward is 22%, not much below the Respect result.

Of course it was a white socialist who stood, and the result is one of the best for such a candidate.  But she didnt mention socialism in any of her leafelts at all, and has been very visible around the ward for the last year (she was the candidate for the seat in the last general election), before which she'd never been seen. Most of her work was in varous muslimn centres around the ward, and a lot of (quite succesful) work around fundraising for the kashmiri earthquake appeal (indeed she went on the local delegaton to Kashmir to see the effects of the quake, and begin a fundraising campaign).  Of really 'local' issues, there weren't any really - except those she picked up and copies wholesale from the local community mag (including at least one article I'd written, grrr).

She also had the benefit of Socialist Alliance campaigning in the ward for the previous four/five years - where we had built up a very healthy vote (over 600 last time, 14%). Whilst most of the local SA members aren't in Respect, there is enough for a carryover to still exist.

Comparing the result with previous elections, the large majority of the extra votes came from the Lib_dems, rather than anywhere else.

It should also be pointed out that the Labour candidate is the deputy-leader of the council, and widely despised (much more so than the other two councillors - a good 2/300 votes I would estimate).  This was probably an influence in none of the other parties campaigning _at all_ during the campaign - even Labour hardly made an effort.

A good result, but one that will take a lot of work to actually retain, let alone build on.

On another matter - the SP hospital campaigner - she stood for the Hospital Campaingn ratther than the SP didnt she?  So whilst her affiliatin and the SPs input into the campaign obviously nifluneced its directin and success, it wouldnt really be fair to describe her as an SP councillor would it?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 6, 2006)

Nigel Irritable deliberately tries to avoid the reality, that Respect have achieved successes outside of it's base in East London and Birmingham, and have branched out considerably.

For example, in a very white working class area in Bristol, Jerry Hicks came second.  This result was particularly impressive, as when Respect stood in the General Election, Respect barely achieved a 1% vote and didn't retain their deposit.

In 4 wards in Preston we came second.

In Sheffield Burngreave we came second.

In west London three candidatescame second in Southall Green as did Respect in Somerstown, Camden and in two Tottenham wards. 

By the way, Respect is a socialist organisation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> On another matter - the SP hospital campaigner - she stood for the Hospital Campaingn ratther than the SP didnt she?



Yes you are right. The three people standing for the campaign all appeared as Save Huddersfield NHS on the ballot paper (I believe). However all of her election literature stated that she is a Socialist Party member. 

Interestingly (and this is an unrelated point) she did *much* better than the other two SHNHS candidates, which I think may be down to her having been the main organiser and public face. She was 700 plus votes clear of her nearest rival, while the other two don't appear to have been in the running at all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Nigel Irritable deliberately tries to avoid the reality, that Respect have achieved successes outside of it's base in East London and Birmingham, and have branched out considerably... beep... whirr... beep...


----------



## belboid (May 6, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Nigel Irritable deliberately tries to avoid the reality, that Respect have achieved successes outside of it's base in East London and Birmingham, and have branched out considerably.
> 
> For example, in a very white working class area in Bristol, Jerry Hicks came second.  This result was particularly impressive, as when Respect stood in the General Election, Respect barely achieved a 1% vote and didn't retain their deposit.
> 
> ...


Hicks - a one off due to recent history of the man and the area - _if_ it can be built upon and sustained it would be very significant, but I dont see how that campaign possibly can be really.

Sheffield - see above, and ditto.

Preston - it is something of a heartland as well isnt it?  The only white councillors! A good result, but not a significant step forward.

Cant really comment on the others, tho I can ask how close they actually were?

oh, and no it isnt.  Barely even pretends to be, even when 'leading' revolutionaries are the candidates!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> Cant really comment on the others, tho I can ask how close they actually were?



Outside of Newham (where they fucked up in strategy terms and failed to win as many seats as they should) and Tower Hamlets, Respect had only one narrow miss. That was in Preston Town Centre ward where they lost by 7 votes. None of their other 2nd place votes was close. That unfortunately goes for a number of Socialist Party 2nd places too.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 6, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> Hicks - a one off due to recent history of the man and the area - _if_ it can be built upon and sustained it would be very significant, but I dont see how that campaign possibly can be really.
> 
> Sheffield - see above, and ditto.
> 
> ...



Some fair points.  But I would suggest that 5 years ago, for far left candidates to even retain their deposit was an achievement.  The fact, that in several wards Respect has got more votes than mainstream parties is a good result, and the results show that Respect has branched out into areas outside of East London and Birmingham.

In the Sheffield ward it is intesting how feebly the LibDems did - pushed into FIFTH place behind Respect, Tories and Greens.

Does anyone know why the Newham results came in so ridiculously late - on Friday evening?
Which along with the fairly late result on Friday morning for Respect in Tower Hamlets, meant a media blackout on our results.  By the way, any comments on the newspaper report about TH council trying to ban journalists from the Election count?


----------



## belboid (May 6, 2006)

Libs came second last time too......

and media blackout? You got pretty good coverage on the friday, mentined in most broadcasts.  Not as often as the BNP, but you cant really say you were ignored.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 6, 2006)

Isn't it the case that the SP seem to be unable to establish a base outside of the areas where they only got a profile through their membership of the Labour Party?  For example Coventry where Nellist was a Labour MP.

Some people claim that the success of Jerry Hicks was a fluke or due to very specific and special circumstances - well surely the same could be said of the Bolshevik revolution and any number of events!!!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

I started to answer and then thought, why bother. The real question is why is Udo so desperately trying to change the subject to something which has nothing to do with Respects continuing failure to break out of the same few areas with a high Muslim population?


----------



## blamblam (May 6, 2006)

So how many have they got then? is it 30 or 40-something?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 6, 2006)

icepick said:
			
		

> So how many have they got then? is it 30 or 40-something?



How many what have who got? Respect? They won 16 seats, to add the 2 they already have.


----------



## mk12 (May 6, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> No I'm just calling you a religion obsessed twat.



Couldn't that be applied to the SWP CC and George Galloway?


----------



## audiotech (May 6, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Couldn't that be applied to the SWP CC and George Galloway?



You appear to have become bitter since they kicked you out matt?


----------



## Harold Hill (May 6, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Isn't it the case that the SP seem to be unable to establish a base outside of the areas where they only got a profile through their membership of the Labour Party?  For example Coventry where Nellist was a Labour MP.
> !



Not every party has nationally known members famous for being buddies with saddam.


----------



## mk12 (May 6, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> You appear to have become bitter since they kicked you out matt?



Me? Never! 

No, just disillusioned with the 'Respect' turn.


----------



## JHE (May 6, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Me? Never!
> 
> No, just disillusioned with the 'Respect' turn.


Good for you.  Were you critical of Respec' before you were kicked out or is it post-expulsion disillusion?


----------



## mk12 (May 6, 2006)

I wasn't _as_ critical then. I was a member, despite having reservations. I am not a member now though.


----------



## JKKne (May 6, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> _Okay Results 10-15%	_
> 
> Newcastle	Elswick ward	10.5%



But put that against the rest of the results in that ward and its pretty poor showing

Yunus Bakhsh RESP 238  10.5%    

Kenneth Thomas BNP 437  19.2%    

Derek William Malcolm LAB 1015  44.6  majority of428  

Andrew James McQuillin LIB DEMS 587  25.8%    

So, 4th place and behind the BNP. Respect will never break through in Newcastle, in my personal opinion, the Conservatives have more chance


----------



## Macullam (May 6, 2006)

So, 4th place and behind the BNP. Respect will never break through in Newcastle, in my personal opinion, the Conservatives have more chance[/QUOTE]

The SP recieved 13% in Byker Newcastle we are not making any grandiose claims. It is a consolidation from previous outings and regular campaigning in the ward.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 7, 2006)

Nigel Irritable once again refuses to look reality square in the face.  The Respect results are not spectacular, but they are pleasing, and they DO clearly show that Respect is advancing beyond what he terms "a muslim base" in East London and Birmingham.  Respect's successes are still limited mainly to some of Britain's inner cities - but surely, any new party is going to have extremely uneven results.

As I stated, we came second in Southhall Green, Somerstown, Camden, 2 wards in Totenham, 4 wards in Preston, Bristol Locksleaze.  I would suggest that this means that Respect is starting to break into new territory, particularly the Bristol result where Respect's general election result was one of our lowest

We also came third in a Liverpool ward, this is an achievement as I believe Respect didn't even stand in Liverpool during the General Election.

And given that not so long ago, far left groups could rarely hope to even retain their deposit, this is an advance from the days of 0 - 2%

_Originally Posted by Fisher_Gate
Very Good Results 15-30% 

Sheffield Burngreave ward 25.9%
Bristol Lockleaze ward 25.0%
Manchester Rusholme ward 21.8%

Okay Results 10-15% 

Oxford Cowley ward 12.8%
Blackburn with Darwen Corporation Park ward 11.7%
Dudley Belle Vale ward 10.9%
Liverpool Princes Park ward 10.6%
Newcastle Elswick ward 10.5%

Below Par but not bad 5-10% 

Cambridgeshire Romsey ward 9.9%
Walsall Palfrey ward 9.6%
Portsmouth Dickens ward 8.5%
Slough Baylis & Stoke ward 7.2%
Walsall St Matthew's ward 6.7%
Leeds City & Hunslet ward 6.3%
South Cambridgeshire Bar Hill ward 5.2%

Poor - <5% 

Plymouth Devonport ward 4.0%
Birmingham Aston ward 3.5% _


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 7, 2006)




----------



## junius (May 7, 2006)

Have been at ESF so haven't seen in full Respect's results. How many SWPers elected?


----------



## Macullam (May 7, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Nigel Irritable once again refuses to look reality square in the face.  The Respect results are not spectacular, but they are pleasing, and they DO clearly show that Respect is advancing beyond what he terms "a muslim base" in East London and Birmingham.  Respect's successes are still limited mainly to some of Britain's inner cities - but surely, any new party is going to have extremely uneven results.
> 
> How about a poll predicting how long it will be before the 12 bengali respect councillors jump ship and switch allegiance to another party. There is no ideology holding them together apart from being anti war.


----------



## JHE (May 7, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> How many SWPers elected?


None.  The Social Workers' role is to campaign for their Muslim chums.


----------



## nwnm (May 7, 2006)

nice of you to keep posting that picture of yourself up nigel irritable  - at least we know which one you are on demo's. No wait, you all look the same then in red t-shirts. Very macdonalds


----------



## junius (May 7, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> None.  The Social Workers' role is to campaign for their Muslim chums.



Then's it's a decent enough result result for the Galloway/Muslim wing of Respect and a dreadful one for Rees and the SWP. But serves them right. George and the dirty dozen won't be taking any instructions from the Central Committee. They now call all the shots.

Another episode in the long running farce of leftists who think they've made the big time.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 7, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> How about a poll predicting how long it will be before the 12 bengali respect councillors jump ship and switch allegiance to another party. There is no ideology holding them together apart from being anti war.



And being against privatisation, for defence of council housing, for taxing the rich, against racism, facsism and Islamophobia, for placing transport under democratic control, for opposition against neo-liberalism, for abolition of student fees, a decent pension, scrapping anti-trade union laws, for action on the environment including running council buildings on renewable energy and street lights (a respect pledge in Tower Hamlets) and all the other things in the Respect manifesto - but why bother with facts when you're an SP robotrot churning out the latest line - Next M and Nigel will be telling us that the Labour Party was a socialist organisation till they were kicked out - didn't Peter Taafe claim that it could be transformed into a revolutionary organisation when you were in bed with social democracy?  And what a hypocrite Taafe is writing a book about the Vietnam War when your organisation didn't even participate in the movement.  Read _the Militant _in 1968, and you will discover that they didn't even cover the storming of the US embassy in Grosvenor Square.  Fastforward to 2006, and the SP trade union bureaucrats are selling out workers on Pensions and voting with Blairites to stop the union sending a delegation to the World Social Forum.

It's amusing that Nigel Irritable is such a narcissist that he posts pictures of himself, but how about facing the fact's.  You say that Respect is only sucessful among areas with a high Muslim population, yet I have showed clearly that Respect have struck out into areas outside of the rather narrow East London/Birmingham base by becoming in electoral terms the opposition to Labour in wards in Totenham, Camden, West London, Southhall, Preston, Sheffield and Bristol - where we came second.  Not to mention good results elsewhere.  Out of interest, it wasn't even a bad result for SWP members who stood for Respect who came second in Sheffield, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Bristol Lockleaze and elsewhere - hardly a "dreadful result" as Junius claims.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 7, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> beep... whirr... beep... beep



Can somebody find his standby button?


----------



## Macullam (May 7, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> And being against privatisation, for defence of council housing, for taxing the rich, against racism, facsism and Islamophobia, for placing transport under democratic control, for opposition against neo-liberalism, for abolition of student fees, a decent pension, scrapping anti-trade union laws, for action on the environment including running council buildings on renewable energy and street lights (a respect pledge in Tower Hamlets) and all the other things in the Respect manifesto
> 
> All fine words on paper but I doubt all those elected on the respect ticket would agree with the programme. after all they can follow Galloways line and adopt a pick and mix approach. You seem to have no understanding how things rarely develop in a straight line. There are no local elcetions for some time and as respect has no record of campaigning on local issues in many of the  areas you quote they could be forgotten next time around and by that time the SWp will have found a new toy. still keep repeating the dogma its relatively harmless.


----------



## the B (May 7, 2006)

How many did they get in the end? (sorry to be so lazy about this...)


----------



## JHE (May 7, 2006)

the B said:
			
		

> How many did they get in the end? (sorry to be so lazy about this...)


16, I believe:  12 in Tower Hamladesh, 3 in Newham, 1 in Brum.  They had two not up for election (1 elected as Socialist Alliance in Preston and 1 defector from Labour) - so they've got 18.


----------



## the B (May 7, 2006)

Far cry from 40+ and generally, what seems to me like a pretty bollocks performance then. Grand.

Cheers JHE


----------



## nwnm (May 8, 2006)

a far cry from under 5, and a good base to build from.....


----------



## Dej (May 9, 2006)

*Respect and John William Rees*

JWR should have changed his name by deed poll; and then he might have stood a chance of getting elected.


----------



## Macullam (May 9, 2006)

*From Marxist.com socialist Appeal*

George Galloway’s Respect made significant gains in Tower Hamlets, however one has to ask what exactly is the point of this party? They have 12 councillors in Tower Hamlets. However these councillors are not committed to a socialist programme. According to George Galloway:

[W]e're a coalition, and we don't bind a Muslim candidate in Yorkshire to the explicitly socialist parts of our programme…Many of them are small business people and wouldn't describe themselves as socialists and are not bound to accept it. And the same goes for other issues including tax." 

They are not a socialist party, nor are they an alternative workers’ party. They have gained a protest vote against Blair and particularly the profoundly unpopular occupation of Iraq. However, in the future, any shift to the left in the Labour Party will act as a strong pole of attraction for that discontent and completely undermine such protest candidates and groups.


----------



## audiotech (May 9, 2006)

A shift to the left in the Labour Party? Is that going to happen anytime soon?


----------



## dennisr (May 9, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> A shift to the left in the Labour Party? Is that going to happen anytime soon?



I think that hope against reality is tacked on to all of marxist.com's arguements - its the old grantite/socialist appeal's cliche. The other points stand though as concerns that need to be answered. i don't think they will be answered here - it is pretty much entrenched and largely preconcieved viewpoints argueing for and against - but they will be answered over the next few years (or months even?...) by the actions or otherwise of the new Respect concillors in TH etc


----------



## audiotech (May 9, 2006)

Agreed.


----------



## Macullam (May 9, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I think that hope against reality is tacked on to all of marxist.com's arguements - its the old grantite/socialist appeal's cliche. The other points stand though as concerns that need to be answered. i don't think they will be answered here - it is pretty much entrenched and largely preconcieved viewpoints argueing for and against - but they will be answered over the next few years (or months even?...) by the actions or otherwise of
> 
> From this weeks socialist worker. John Rees at least in coded language accepts the limitations and problems facing respect.
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> » Respect gets good results around the country


oh god!

“We will continue working alongside people in the ward, and next year we’ll get elected.”

no you wont you eejit!


----------



## mutley (May 10, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> oh god!
> 
> “We will continue working alongside people in the ward, and next year we’ll get elected.”
> 
> no you wont you eejit!



Well you've confused me. (not hard some might say..)

Who are you quoting, and who are you calling an eejit?


----------



## belboid (May 10, 2006)

The Respect candidate from Sheffield (from the SW article Macuallam quotes), who is a madly deluded fule.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2006)

JOHN REES


> If we want to make further gains, we have to stress the labour movement and socialist values at the heart of Respect to appeal to working class voters let down by New Labour.



GEORGE GALLOWAY:


> we don't bind a Muslim candidate in Yorkshire to the explicitly socialist parts of our programme…Many of them are small business people and wouldn't describe themselves as socialists and are not bound to accept it. And the same goes for other issues including tax



would someone like to explain how these statements are compatible?


----------



## 1875 (May 10, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> JOHN REES
> If we want to make further gains, we have to stress the labour movement and socialist values at the heart of Respect to appeal to working class voters let down by New Labour.



Those 973 votes weren't enough were they John. At least one Swappies seems to have realised that the cart has overtaken the horse. Far too late to do anything about it now though.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 10, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> The Respect candidate from Sheffield (from the SW article Macuallam quotes), who is a madly deluded fule.



I don't think it is mad for somebody got second place in an election to say that next time they will get first place


----------



## belboid (May 10, 2006)

within the normal range of candidate hyperbole.  except, she was second by a city AND country mile, and next years candidate is an actual popular local councillor, unlike the one who stood this time.

Unless labour fuck up spectacularly over the next year, way beyond the extent to which they have in the last month or so, she will be very very lucky to gain a repeat of this result, let alone narrow the gap at all.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 10, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> within the normal range of candidate hyperbole.  except, she was second by a city AND country mile, and next years candidate is an actual popular local councillor, unlike the one who stood this time.
> 
> Unless labour fuck up spectacularly over the next year, way beyond the extent to which they have in the last month or so, she will be very very lucky to gain a repeat of this result, let alone narrow the gap at all.



Surely, it would be possible to increase her vote, on the basis that most voters are reluctant to vote for a small party because they believe that it will be a wasted vote, the fact that the Respect candidate came second could mean that many more people might consider voting for Respect, as this result has made them more credible in electoral terms.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 10, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> They are not a socialist party, nor are they an alternative workers’ party. They have gained a protest vote against Blair and particularly the profoundly unpopular occupation of Iraq. However, in the future, any shift to the left in the Labour Party will act as a strong pole of attraction for that discontent and completely undermine such protest candidates and groups.



Actually, much of what I have read suggests that in Tower Hamlets the main issue that Respect campaigned on wasn't Iraq but in defence of Council Housing.


http://www.respectcoalition.org/2006/local.php?seatid=86


----------



## belboid (May 10, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Surely, it would be possible to increase her vote, on the basis that most voters are reluctant to vote for a small party because they believe that it will be a wasted vote, the fact that the Respect candidate came second could mean that many more people might consider voting for Respect, as this result has made them more credible in electoral terms.


frankly, no.  She will be able to pick up (maybe) a couple hundred more votes from the libs & greens, plus maybe a similar amount from non-voters, or even a few more.  But the next labur candidate will get 300 more votes than this one (or would have if it had been her up this time, iyswim), which cancel those out.  So it is down to the labour vote to collapse.


----------



## mk12 (May 10, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> JOHN REES
> 
> 
> GEORGE GALLOWAY:
> ...



They're not. But did you get that off of "Pink News"? Is that a reliable source? (genuinely interested)


----------



## Macullam (May 10, 2006)

*Dangers in Respect's development*

Dangers in Respect's development

Respect stood over 150 candidates and got 16 elected: 12 in Tower Hamlets, three in Newham and one in Birmingham.
Judy Beishon

The victories of candidates standing against the Iraq war, privatisation and the other neo-liberal attacks of New Labour and big business are welcome. However there are also strong danger signs regarding Respect's development.

All of their winning candidates are from a Muslim background and won predominately on the basis of Muslim votes in areas with high Muslim populations. Winning support from working-class Muslim and other Asian, black and immigrant communities is an essential task of left and socialist parties. These communities face some of the worst housing conditions, jobs and unemployment in Britain and also suffer the consequences of increased racism.

However, the extreme difference between Respect's election performance in those areas compared with areas with relatively few Muslims is striking. Virtually all of Respect's results in towns and cities such as Plymouth, Portsmouth, Cambridge, Liverpool, Newcastle and Oxford were very much lower (around 2-300 votes) than their votes in areas with high Muslim populations.

On its website, Respect declares that their twelve council seats in Tower Hamlets are "one more than the BNP in Barking and Dagenham". This would be a cause for great celebration by the left as a whole, if it had been achieved on a clear class-based programme. But instead, unfortunately, Respect could unconsciously further the beginnings of a polarisation based on racial division, by not countering the growing perception that it is a 'party for Muslims'.

The white working-class BNP voters of Barking and Dagenham will only be won away from the BNP by a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative. It is not so much a question of what Respect's election material says, but of what it doesn't say. While it puts across opposition to NHS cuts, council house privatisation, the war in Iraq and other welcome positions, it does not consistently include a class-based appeal to all sections of the working class.

As the Socialist Party has repeatedly warned, it is necessary for socialists to stand clearly and firmly on a fighting, class-based programme that can unite working people from all sections of society. In Kirklees, standing for 'Save Huddersfield NHS', Socialist Party member Jackie Grunsell won a council seat with 2,176 votes and a majority of 807, by appealing to both white voters and a significant Asian minority electorate. Victorious Socialist Party candidates in Coventry and Lewisham have also appealed to all sections of workers in those areas.

Another major challenge Respect now faces will be in living up to expectations to improve the lives of people in Tower Hamlets. Some of its new councillors there have a record of fighting privatisation and cuts, but as the second largest political group on the council they will soon be tested at a new level.

The housing, welfare and other urgent needs in that poverty stricken borough cannot be solved with the money presently given by the government and raised in local council tax. So Respect's councillors will be faced with the choice of supporting cuts in some services, increasing council tax, or of mobilising all sections of the community into a major campaign to demand the necessary resources from the government, as Liverpool's socialist councillors did in the 1980s.

Respect has already shown - particularly through the behaviour of its MP George Galloway - that its public representatives are far from accountable to the party. This, combined with the fact that many of its new councillors do not come from a socialist background, is cause for concern in Tower Hamlets.

What is needed, is a united, campaigning team of councillors, opposing all cuts and leading and basing themselves on the struggles of workers from all religious and ethnic backgrounds. Only in this way can a successful campaign be launched against the New Labour government and council attacks on living standards and for the resources necessary to transform people's lives.

Special feature from The Socialist, paper of the Socialist Party, cwi in England and Wales.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 10, 2006)

*Robo-trot Sp*

*MacMullan and Nigel Irritable:*






Cheers, Macmullan, I think we have heard most this before.  What it ignores is that in this election (unlike previous elections) Respect actually came second in a number of wards that are not high in a Muslim vote.

It is noticable that the Socialist Party article somehow manages to mention a number of cities where Respect didn't gain a high vote, but doesn't manage to mention Bristol, Sheffield, Camden, Totteham, Southall etc. where we came second, funny how the SP can't bring themselves to face this fact.

I'm not sure why Macmullan thought that the usual smears about Respect from the SP would be of interest - and could you explain to me how SP union bureaucrats selling out future workers in the PCS is really aiding workers unity?


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> They're not. But did you get that off of "Pink News"? Is that a reliable source? (genuinely interested)



The Galloway quote was from Macullum's post, which was taken from Socialist Appeal website (OK not an impartial source but it could well be legit).


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 10, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The white working-class BNP voters of Barking and Dagenham will only be won away from the BNP by a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative. ...



What went wrong in Stoke then?


----------



## Macullam (May 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> What went wrong in Stoke then?



Labour and the Independent candidate let the BNP in.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 10, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> Labour and the Independent candidate let the BNP in.


 
But wasn't there a _"a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative" _too?  I thought that was all you needed?

And you did have the advantage of a sitting councillor and "deep roots in the area"?

Your pre-election prognosis was rather optimistic would you not agree?

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/activate/Election2006/stoke01.htm


----------



## Macullam (May 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> But wasn't there a _"a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative" _too?  I thought that was all you needed?
> 
> 
> Stoke - BNP wins close-run election
> ...


----------



## Macullam (May 10, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> But wasn't there a _"a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative" _too?  I thought that was all you needed?
> 
> And you did have the advantage of a sitting councillor and "deep roots in the area"?
> 
> ...



If you read the article Fuckwit it states the BNP had not declared they were standing at the time of writing.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 11, 2006)

Let me check I've got this right ... having a _"a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative"_ is *not* a guarantee of defeating the BNP?  

Shit!  And here's me thinking the answer was that simple! Oh well back to the drawing board ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> *MacMullan and Nigel Irritable:*



Jesus, does your programming lack some vital input that would allow you to find your own photographs when desperately looking for a put down? Or is it a hardware problem? Have some of your circuits fused?


----------



## dennisr (May 11, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Let me check I've got this right ... having a _"a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative"_ is *not* a guarantee of defeating the BNP?
> 
> Shit!  And here's me thinking the answer was that simple! Oh well back to the drawing board ...




C&P from UKLN 'discussion' on the BNP election between Labour party member and Andy (the fella who is qouted above):

Bob:
So the Socialist Party finally managed to find a candidate for Abbey Green ward who could take enough votes off Labour to let the BNP in. Well done, comrades.

Andy:
Give it a rest Bob. Our candidate was the *sitting* councillor. By your logic it should have been the Labour party who stood aside to give him a free run.

And as someone who has actually been campaigning in the ward, I know what the mood of people on the doorstep was, not you. If we were stupid enough not to stand there's every reason to believe the BNP would have won anyway. I spoke to many many people who said they would never vote Labour again, some of whom were going to vote BNP as a protest. Because we had a candidate they had a positive alternative instead. It's also worth noting that even though the BNP vote was up, they registered a very slight decline in percentage terms. In other words they're at the limits of their support in the ward. We on the otherhand increased our support in absolute terms.

If you're looking for a scapegoat for the BNP result Bob you might want to ring Stoke Central CLP's office. The candidate they selected has a reputation for lining his own pockets - in his last tenure as a councillor he pocketed over £160,000 for sitting on 32 committees. The fact Labour selected him just goes to show how much they hold the electorate in contempt.

You might also want to reflect on the fact the independent, Stan Lees, stood on a vaguely leftish platform. As I noted in my article carried on SUN's website there is a chance he could cost us the seat. Unfortunately that proved to be the case. I've every confidence we would have picked up the majority of his vote if he'd put the interests of the struggle before his own egotism. Also Bob, while you're at it why don't you have a pop at the LibDems? Last time they didn't stand, and know they have no chance of winning here. I await your denunciation with interest.

Fact is Bob your Labour loyalism makes you incapable of facing up to reality. While you're sitting in your plush office spitting venom at anyone who dares challenge Labour at the polls, comrades from the SP will be out there engaging with working class people.


----------



## dennisr (May 11, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Let me check I've got this right ... having a _"a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative"_ is *not* a guarantee of defeating the BNP?
> 
> Shit!  And here's me thinking the answer was that simple! Oh well back to the drawing board ...



The only guarantee is that the choice of parties generally on offer (not putting forward a working class alternative..) will greatly increase the likelhood of the BNP gaining electorally. We would agree on that or not? 

I can probably also guarantee that you will distort the actual views of those you oppose rather than deal with the actual issues Fishy ... hopefully you can prove that guarantee wrong for a change


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 11, 2006)

Can anyone from RESPECT/SWP come back on this?

JOHN REES

Quote:
If we want to make further gains, we have to stress the labour movement and socialist values at the heart of Respect to appeal to working class voters let down by New Labour.  


GEORGE GALLOWAY:

Quote:
we don't bind a Muslim candidate in Yorkshire to the explicitly socialist parts of our programme…Many of them are small business people and wouldn't describe themselves as socialists and are not bound to accept it. And the same goes for other issues including tax  


would someone like to explain how these statements are compatible?


----------



## JimPage (May 11, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Let me check I've got this right ... having a _"a left party that puts forward a class-based alternative"_ is *not* a guarantee of defeating the BNP?
> 
> Shit!  And here's me thinking the answer was that simple! Oh well back to the drawing board ...



actually it is that simple- it is the best last hope of defeating the bnp- if baked up by years of hard work in the community

but its the last bit that the english left, except in a few honorable exceptione like the IWCA and SP have yet to grasp 

you cant expect to beat the bnp at the first outing in a city like stoke- but given time and hard work- they can be beaten


----------



## mutley (May 11, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Can anyone from RESPECT/SWP come back on this?
> 
> JOHN REES
> 
> ...



I'm sure Rees and Galloway disagree about a great many things, and how we push forward as a coalition which  can continue to balance the diverse ways that people oppose war and neo-liberalism will be a matter of debate, some private, some public. 

Obviously a democratic centralist organisation with a membership of less than 100 will find it quite easy to be homogeneous, a coalition with thousands of members and many more supporters and sympathisers will find it less so. But I know where I'd rather be.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 11, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> All of their winning candidates are from a Muslim background and won predominately on the basis of Muslim votes in areas with high Muslim populations. Winning support from working-class Muslim and other Asian, black and immigrant communities is an essential task of left and socialist parties. These communities face some of the worst housing conditions, jobs and unemployment in Britain and also suffer the consequences of increased racism.
> 
> However, the extreme difference between Respect's election performance in those areas compared with areas with relatively few Muslims is striking. Virtually all of Respect's results in towns *and cities such as Plymouth, Portsmouth, Cambridge, Liverpool, Newcastle and Oxford were very much lower (around 2-300 votes) than their votes in areas with high Muslim populations.*



Still no explanation from MacMullan about why the SP somehow forgot to mention places such as Bristol, Sheffield, Camden, Totteham, Southall, Preston etc. where White candidates from Respect came second (not to mention the white candidates who came second in East London).  Could it be because mentioning these results would undermine their thesis that Respect only does well in Muslim areas?

It is fair enough for the SP to criticise Respect, but they should at least stay fact-based.  For example, in another article in "The Socialist" they attacked Respect for not calling for the nationalisation of Rover in Birmingham, somehow omitting to mention that Salma Yaqoob (or Cllr. Salma Yaqoob!) had called for nationalisation of Rover and for workers to occupy their workplace, and spent (general) Election day with Rover workers - the only election candidate to do so.

Personally, I think having 12 councillors elected from one of the poorest communities in the poorest borough in London is nothing to be ashamed of.

And can MacMullan and Nigel Irritable explain how selling out future workers pensions, as the SP trade union bureaucrats did on the PCS Exec, furthers "workers unity" or how voting with New Labour Blairites on the PCS to stop workers from the PCS attending the World Social Forum furthers workers unity.


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 11, 2006)

> I'm sure Rees and Galloway disagree about a great many things, and how we push forward as a coalition which can continue to balance the diverse ways that people oppose war and neo-liberalism will be a matter of debate, some private, some public.
> 
> Obviously a democratic centralist organisation with a membership of less than 100 will find it quite easy to be homogeneous, a coalition with thousands of members and many more supporters and sympathisers will find it less so. But I know where I'd rather be.



Why bother making comments about Workers Power. You don't give a fuck about them and WP are tiny organisation even by left standards. A group of less than 100 members is hardly a good benchmark to judge RESPECT by.

Also this isn't about a numbers game. The CPB had 50,000 members when my nan was on the central committee and I'm sure they threw that around as a marker to show how great their stalinist politics were. Fair enough numbers are obviously important but they aren't in and of themselves any indicator of whether the politics of a left organisation are the way forward.

The fact is that Galloway dwarfs any other leading figure in RESPECT by a mile and is far more likely to have an influence over the elected councillors than the SWP, even more so given that no SWP candidates got elected.

Now I think that the RESPECT is flawed for many reasons I've given before. But surely even by your own analyis you must recognise it as a problem that RESPECT now has many councillors who aren't socialists and that the leading figure of RESPECT is saying that's fine.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 11, 2006)

Out of interest, Special Branch are now investigating electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets:

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....y=newsela&itemid=WeED10 May 2006 17:09:40:450

And it's not just Respect who are alleging fraud, the Conservative candidate is calling for an investigation:
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....ostbagela&itemid=WeED10 May 2006 16:35:58:613


----------



## durruti02 (May 11, 2006)

to udo .. the wards you mention in sheffield camden and haringey are the most muslim wards in all those boroughs and i think the same goes for southall and preston .. respect are a disaster for the w/c left .. roll on the bnp ..  fool


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 11, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> to udo .. the wards you mention in sheffield camden and haringey are the most muslim wards in all those boroughs and i think the same goes for southall and preston .. respect are a disaster for the w/c left .. roll on the bnp ..  fool



Any proof of this - or is it assertion?  I know for a fact that the ward in Bristol is solid white w/c.

Still no reply from the SP why their paper omitted to mention these wards, that are a clear sign that Respect is branching out.

I'm not sure how the success of a party that is unequivocally anti-imperialist, against privatisation, wants to tax the rich, defend the welfare state, defend pensions, oppose neo-liberalism etc. is a setback for the working class.


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 11, 2006)

> I'm not sure how the success of a party that is unequivocally anti-imperialist, against privatisation, wants to tax the rich, defend the welfare state, defend pensions, oppose neo-liberalism etc. is a setback for the working class.



Would you have described the growth of the old CPB as a set back for the working class? Or the formation of various social democratic parties around the world?


----------



## durruti02 (May 11, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Any proof of this - or is it assertion?  I know for a fact that the ward in Bristol is solid white w/c.
> 
> Still no reply from the SP why their paper omitted to mention these wards, that are a clear sign that Respect is branching out.
> 
> I'm not sure how the success of a party that is unequivocally anti-imperialist, against privatisation, wants to tax the rich, defend the welfare state, defend pensions, oppose neo-liberalism etc. is a setback for the working class.




er i didn't mention bristol as i am not sure .. burngreve .. yes definately .. was eating a curry there the other day .. camden yes def too ..  the haringay ones have significant turkish kurdish pops .. and preston has been discussed on urban many times .. 

so really the ball is in your court .. almost everyone outside of respect ( and as i hear significant numbers in the swp) are  noting that respect is going into w/c areas and campaiging on non class issues .. 

this is manna from heaven to the bnp


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> er i didn't mention bristol as i am not sure .. burngreve .. yes definately .. was eating a curry there the other day ..


wre you?  kashmir or mangla?  kashmir's going sadly 

Burngreave is far and away the ward with the largest muslim population in burngreave - and you can check them all on the government statistics site, http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 11, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> er i didn't mention bristol as i am not sure .. burngreve .. yes definately .. was eating a curry there the other day .. camden yes def too ..  the haringay ones have significant turkish kurdish pops .. and preston has been discussed on urban many times ..
> 
> so really the ball is in your court .. almost everyone outside of respect ( and as i hear significant numbers in the swp) are  noting that respect is going into w/c areas and campaiging on non class issues ..
> 
> this is manna from heaven to the bnp



Ah, so the proof that Shefield is an area with a high Muslim population is that you were eating a curry there.  Don't give up the day job Durruit.

Actually, as I stated earlier the key issues that Respect campaigned on in East London were class issues, particularly housing, the crossrail development, and privatisation. 

If I may quote from an organ hostile to Respect, the newspaper Workers Power: 

"More significantly, Respect has made some inroads with white working class tenants on council estates because of its supporters’ determined efforts in opposing the transfer of estates to housing associations. Proposals for stock transfer crashed to defeat in five ballots late last year. 

This is a crucial issue in a borough where there is still a very large council housing sector – 27 per cent of all accommodation – and owner occupation is out of the question for virtually all of the council’s 24,000 tenants."

I happen to know that new Respect councillor's, Rania Khan's, main political activism in the last year has been as a campaigner for Defend Council Housing


----------



## mutley (May 11, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> er i didn't mention bristol as i am not sure .. burngreve .. yes definately .. was eating a curry there the other day .. camden yes def too ..  the haringay ones have significant turkish kurdish pops .. and preston has been discussed on urban many times ..
> 
> so really the ball is in your court .. almost everyone outside of respect ( and as i hear significant numbers in the swp) are  noting that respect is going into w/c areas and campaiging on non class issues ..
> 
> this is manna from heaven to the bnp



What planet you on? Brum Respect campaigned on Housing, jobs and schools. Working class issues. I'd be amazed if the same themes hadn't dominated others (certainly did Tower Hamlets). And yes we did mention the war (not much though). War is a class issue, cos its workers that get killed.


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 11, 2006)

http://data.webstar.co.uk/census_data_analysis.php?PHPSESSID=dbe6f0441144ded3a1bd29f27a5aa8ba

*Sheffield*

Burngreave

Total Population
13,784

People stating religion as: Muslim
3802 (27.6%)


*Camden*

St Pancras and Somers Town

Total Population
12,490

People stating religion as: Muslim
2861 (22.9%)


*Haringey*

ST ANN’S

Total Population
12,603

People stating religion as: Muslim
1811 (14.4%)

WEST GREEN

Total Population
11,884

People stating religion as: Muslim
1933 (16.3%)


*Ealing*

Southall Green

Total Population
12,895

People stating religion as: Muslim
2178 (16.9%)


*preston*

St George's Ward

Total Population
5,050

People stating religion as: Muslim
1345 (26.6%)

Town Centre Ward

Total Population
6,671

People stating religion as: Muslim
1709 (25.6%)

Riversway Ward

Total Population
5,824

People stating religion as: Muslim
584 (10%)

NB RESPECT got just over 25% of the vote in this ward

Fishwick Ward

Total Population
5,303

People stating religion as: Muslim
1258 (23.7%)


*Bristol*

Lockleaze

Total Population
11,043

People stating religion as: Muslim
412 (3.7%)

Can’t be bothered to find anymore, but the link at the top of the post finds every ward in the country…..


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 11, 2006)

I know that housing dominated the campaigning in Tower Hamlets.


----------



## Macullam (May 12, 2006)

*SSP Report part*

I will try and post a link to the full article

RESPECT DUE? By Graham Campbell (Convenor SSP Black and Asian Members
Network) 

THE MUSLIM VOTE AND RESPECT'S SUCCESS

The most obvious pattern was that Respect did very well in predominantly
Muslim communities and did poorly in pre-dominantly non-Muslim communities.
The exceptions to this were in Ealing Southall where Sikh candidate
Sakvinder Dhillon came second; in Harlesden, north west London where Albert
Alvin Harriot won 463 votes while sacked British Aerospace shop steward and
SWP member Jerry Hicks came second to Labour in Bristol getting 679 votes
with well-rooted local campaign in Lockleaze.

The main criticism of the SWP that Scottish socialists have had of the
Respect project is that the SWP has downplayed its socialism, and been
opportunist in attracting Muslim support in a maneuver to get its own
leaders elected as councillors. The short cut did not work because despite
Respect topping the poll in most Tower Hamlets council seats in 2005, the
obvious damage caused by George Galloway's Big Brother appearance caused
enough Muslims to swing back to New Labour for them to win the council.

The pattern of communalism was also very evident both in seats Respect won
in Tower Hamlets and in those  they did not win. John Rees and several other
white SWP members failed to win coming up to 400 votes behind their fellow
(Muslim) Respect candidates who did win. In only one ward Shadwell did
Respect score a fantastic victory taking all three council seats with
between 1700 and 1850 votes taking out the New Labour council leader Micheal
Keith. The other nine Respect winners won their seats as one or two of three
elected split with New Labour winners. Cllr Oliur Rahman was only re-elected
by a handful of votes in third place behind 2 New Labour winners.

For Respect none of the white or non-Muslim SWP members were elected. Even
SWP leader and Respect National Secretary John Rees shoehorned into what
should have been a safe seat in Bethnal Green South while winning an
excellent 973 votes came nearly 400 votes behind top Respect candidate Syeda
Hussain who was elected in third place. In Limehouse ward Respect won two of
three seats with 1,000 votes but SWP full-timer Martin Empson got 150 fewer
votes so was not elected. This indicates that Muslim voters split their
votes between Respect and Labour's Muslim candidates. Despite taking up the
council housing and anti-privatisation issues Respect's message, if not
explicitly, was certainly an implicitly Muslim communal one above all else.
This communal effect was evident with all the other main parties. For Labour
it meant that Muslim candidates got between 200 and 500 votes more that
non-Muslims on the same slate. For the Liberal Democrats this communal
effect was worth 200 votes; for the Tories about 100 votes.

RESPECT AND THE CRISIS OF REPRESENTATION

The SWP have ignored how the tactic of appeasing existing Muslim community
leaders has failed as a short cut to electoral success and how that looks to
many of the white working class voters it must attract to Respect in order
to succeed. That would be easier if the SWP allowed Respect to be an
explicitly working class party, but at the Respect conference in November
2005 the SWP used its bloc votes to prevent the creation of the normal
structures of a democratic party structure that would make the party
leadership accountable to its members. Respect's national and regional
election material made no mention of the words working class or socialism.
In those remaining white working class council estate areas, Millwall (in
1993 the BNP won there) and Blackwall the Tories won all the seats and
Respect polled poorly. In most wards directly affected by council housing
stock transfer/privatisation, Respect failed to win seats.

This is what Scotland has in common with Barking. Several of Glasgow's
neighbourhoods have seen a rapid transformation in the diversity of the
population. Ethnic minorities are now thought to make up between 7-10% of
Glasgow's 600,000 people - nearly double the numbers in 2000 when asylum
seekers and refugees started to be 'dispersed' by the Home Office. There are
now five or six Glasgow wards where deeply impoverished white working class
communities have experienced rapid demographic change with now up to 15%
even 20% of the people being from an ethnic minority. We will unfortunately
see an influx of BNP organisers and activists from down south to boost their
pitiful local forces in Scotland because the objective conditions for an
explosion of racism certainly exist in Glasgow.  The SSP must learn from the
English results and boost ots grass roots campaigning in its heartlands and
once again target working class youth on the housing schemes abandoned by
New Labour years ago.

It would be cherlish not to recognise the tremendous successes of Respect.
It is now an established political force with 16 councillors and tens of
thousands of voters that is clearly attractive as an alternative to New
Labour for many especially Muslim working class people. However it is not
seen that way by the vast majority of white working class people. Respect is
clearly not the answer to the crisis of working class representation though
many of the forces behind might be part of it. The criticisms of the SSP
model in favour of the SWP's preferred 'broad coalition' - the 'united front
of a special type' that have appeared in its recent publications - have
proved to be misplaced. It's evident that the real solution to this feeling
of profound working class alienation is that of left unity in a united
socialist party where its class struggle character and social base are
crystal clear. It is something that the SWP and those principled socialists
inside (and mostly outside) of Respect must now reconsider before it is too
late and before neo-fascism consolidates its foothold. END


----------



## mutley (May 12, 2006)

What is striking about all of these reports is the way that the difference of a few hundred votes, in a wards containung thousands and thousands of Muslims, is indicative of a communal pattren of voting from 'the Muslim community'. 

In the case of Martin Empson, just 150 votes difference, a tiny fraction of the total number of muslims in the area. 

The fact is, EVERY working class community (if we seperate then out as black, white, muslim workers) contains a chunk of people who go preferentially for 'their own'. To describe that as a generalised 'communal response' is laughable. Respect will give attention to how we can break it down, as well as getting more votes across the board so as to push all our candidates above the threshold. But the effect described will undoubtedly continue to manifest itself as long as we live under capitalism...So that's at least until next years elections I reckon..


----------



## Macullam (May 12, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> What is striking about all of these reports is the way that the difference of a few hundred votes, in a wards containung thousands and thousands of Muslims, is indicative of a communal pattren of voting from 'the Muslim community'.
> 
> So you agree with the rest of the article ?


----------



## mk12 (May 12, 2006)

weekly worker seem to have worked it out:



> In fact, on average, the SWP and its supporters won only 69% of the votes of their fellow muslim candidates standing in the same ward.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 12, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> weekly worker seem to have worked it out:



They also point out that even 69% of the winning/near winning votes is still a very high vote by comparison with the tradition of votes for candidates of (far) left parties standing against Labour in Britain (or who were not an immediate split from or dispute within Labour - ruling out the Community Action Party in Wigan, or the 'Real Labour' candidates in Liverpool in the early 1990s).  

The only comparison I can think of is with the votes of the (real) CPGB between the 1930s and 1950s, and the few candidates of the Common Wealth Party in parliamentary elections in 1945.   (I think the ILP was not generally opposed by Labour, even after it disaffiliated).  

I'd be interested in whether anyone knows of a stronger local government example, that is not restricted to the odd ward or two?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 12, 2006)

Out of interest the article mentions votes in Limehouse as key "evidence" for its case, where both Conservative and Respect candidates are alleging electoral fraud.

This section is a bit dodgy: "is clearly attractive as an alternative to New
Labour for many especially Muslim working class people. However it is not
seen that way by the vast majority of white working class people."

Is the SSP seen this way by the vast majority of White working class people? - election results would suggest not.  The idea that within the space of 2 years you could build a mass alternative to the Labour party that has dominated w/c politics for over 100 years is pretty silly.

But I can't help agreeing with Mutley's wise words: "What is striking about all of these reports is the way that the difference of a few hundred votes, in a wards containung thousands and thousands of Muslims, is indicative of a communal pattren of voting from 'the Muslim community'. "

Personally, I'm not interested in being lectured by the SSP who push their own brand of communalist politics called Nationalism


----------



## rebel warrior (May 12, 2006)

Great posts Udo.  

I remember when the Socialist Alliance stood in local elections a few years ago and got between 1-2 % nationally (bar the miraculous winning of one council seat in Preston) - do we really all want to go back to those days again, as the SSP seem to be suggesting we ought to?


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2006)

Never mind the politics. count the votes?


----------



## Sue (May 12, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Never mind the politics. count the votes?



Beat me to it....


----------



## mutley (May 12, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> mutley said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2006)

rebel warrior said:
			
		

> Great posts Udo.
> 
> I remember when the Socialist Alliance stood in local elections a few years ago and got between 1-2 % nationally (bar the miraculous winning of one council seat in Preston) - do we really all want to go back to those days again, as the SSP seem to be suggesting we ought to?


ywah got some terrible results.  And some less terrible - like the 450 votes in a ward where Respect won 250 last week?  Or Foots performance in the Hackney mayorals. Or the 14% in Sheffield. etc etc


----------



## mutley (May 12, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> weekly worker seem to have worked it out:


 
WEll unless the weekly worker have managed to work out exactly who's swp and who's not, it don't mean much. As they've admitted that they know very little about the candidates who've been elected I think we can assume they just did a calculation based on muslim versus non-muslim names. Also, have they taken every seat, just TH, or what?


----------



## belboid (May 12, 2006)

it appears to be the 11 TH wards - where it was easy to make such a comparison:

"In the 11 Tower Hamlets wards where candidates from both wings of Respect were selected (there were three seats contested in each ward), in every case the “secular socialists” pulled in considerably fewer votes than the “muslim activists”. In fact, on average, the SWP and its supporters won only 69% of the votes of their fellow muslim candidates standing in the same ward. (Again, comrade Rahman, a trade union militant, could be considered an exception, although, of course, he may well be perceived by some voters as first and foremost a muslim.)"
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/624/respect.htm

A rudimentary knowledge of the SWP in those area's, plus a bit of asking around, would rapidly let you know if someone was from the 'secular socialist' wing or not.


----------



## durruti02 (May 12, 2006)

so an apology re burngreave and camden and southall and haringay???? etc .. the interesting ones are bristol and preston .. as has been stated on here it appears Respect may have broken out there of its muslim confines 

 BUT the pros must be put against the disasterous association, in an alienated white working class, of the Left with the Muslim community .. the BNP votes in leeds and essex can clearly be seen in this context


----------



## mutley (May 12, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> so an apology re burngreave and camden and southall and haringay etc .. the interesting ones are bristol and preston .. as has been stated on here it appears Respect may have broken out there of its muslim confines
> 
> BUT the pros must be put against the disasterous association, in an alienated white working class, of the Left with the Muslim community .. the BNP votes in leeds and essex can clearly be seen in this context



I am absolutely not convinced by this 'people are voting BNP cos Respect has made communal voting respectable' theory. It's so full of holes - you could use it as a sieve.

Just 2 points-

1. Every Resepct campaign I know of this spring has concentrated overwhelmingly on working class issues - housing mainly.
2. The BNP vote started to rise before Respect existed - 2001 GE in particular


----------



## durruti02 (May 12, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> I am absolutely not convinced by this 'people are voting BNP cos Respect has made communal voting respectable' theory. It's so full of holes - you could use it as a sieve.
> 
> Just 2 points-
> 
> ...




FFS people have been getting alienated from the left for many years .. of course you are right there ... BUT IN THIS CONTEXT TO HAVE THE MAJOR PARTY ON THE LEFT ASSOCIATED SO CLEARLY WITH ONE RELEGIOUS COMMUNITY AND THE ONE ITSELF IDENTIFIED WITH 7/7 .. that is the disaster 

 i do not dispute Respect says the right thing in their leaflets .. as we found out in haggerston it is party machines that win elections though .. and these are oftne based on relegious/ ethnic groups

p.s. did you see the BNP vote in Leeds?? 
 the bnp averaged 20% of the vote across c.20wards they stood in in Leeds, nearly 30% in the 16 wards in Bradford and 20% across kirkless ..


----------



## audiotech (May 12, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> p.s. did you see the BNP vote in Leeds??
> the bnp averaged 20% of the vote across c.20wards they stood in in Leeds,



Overall vote turnout for the local elections held in Leeds on Thursday 4 May 2006 was 35.9%. The BNP percentage was 11.3 percent.

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Leeds City...ge.aspx?style=


----------



## durruti02 (May 12, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Overall vote turnout for the local elections held in Leeds on Thursday 4 May 2006 was 35.9%. The BNP percentage was 11.3 percent.
> 
> http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Leeds City...ge.aspx?style=



in the wards they stood in it was about 20% .. check your facts


----------



## audiotech (May 12, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> in the wards they stood in it was about 20% .. check your facts



It wasn't check yours. 

The Average was about 17 percent overall.

Leeds
 | Ardsley and Robin Hood
 | John Darrell Hirst
 | BNP
 | 1,182
 | 22.4
 | 3 of 4
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Armley
 | Bernard Adrian Allen
 | BNP
 | 921
 | 17.5
 | 2 of 5
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Beeston and Holbeck
 | Dean Taylor
 | BNP
 | 899
 | 17.9
 | 3 of 5
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Bramley and Stanningley
 | Sandra Cockayne
 | BNP
 | 882
 | 17.8
 | 2 of 6
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Bramley and Stanningley
 | Eddy Morrison
 | BPP
 | 135
 | 2.7
 | 6 of 6
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Burmantofts and Richmond Hill
 | Mark Adrian Collett
 | BNP
 | 1,124
 | 21.8
 | 3 of 4
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Calverley and Farsley
 | Robert John Leary
 | BNP
 | 987
 | 14.1
 | 3 of 4
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Crossgates and Whinmoor
 | Martin Darren Gibson
 | BNP
 | 924
 | 14.7
 | 3 of 5
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Farnley and Wortley
 | Peter Frank Maverick
 | BNP
 | 992
 | 16.5
 | 3 of 6
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Garforth and Swillington
 | John Powell
 | BNP
 | 988
 | 12.4
 | 3 of 4
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Guiseley and Rawdon
 | Wayne Patrick Taylor
 | BNP
 | 617
 | 9.0
 | 4 of 6
 | 1 

Leeds
 | Harewood
 | Joannna Marie Beverley
 | BNP
 | 767
 | 10.8
 | 3 of 6
 | 1

Leeds
 | Killingbeck and Seacroft
 | George Geepin
 | BNP
 | 1,017
 | 19.5
 | 3 of 8
 | 2

Leeds
 | Killingbeck and Seacroft
 | Richard Thomas Warrington
 | BNP
 | 860
 | 16.5
 | 5 of 8
 | 2

Leeds
 | Kippax and Methley
 | Lisa Michelle Crossley
 | BNP
 | 1,126
 | 17.4
 | 3 of 4
 | 1

Leeds
 | Middleton Park
 | Kevin Meeson
 | BNP
 | 1,424
 | 28.5
 | 2 of 4
 | 1

Leeds
 | Morley North
 | Thomas Henry Redmond
 | BNP
 | 1,491
 | 21.4
 | 2 of 5
 | 1

Leeds
 | Morley South
 | Christopher James Beverley
 | BNP
 | 2,083
 | 32.9
 | 1 of 6
 | 1

Leeds
 | Otley and Yeadon
 | Mark Gates
 | BNP
 | 551
 | 6.7
 | 4 of 6
 | 1

Leeds
 | Pudsey
 | Anngela Julie Day
 | BNP
 | 1,115
 | 16.4
 | 3 of 5
 | 1

Leeds
 | Rothwell
 | Tracy Ann Andrews
 | BNP
 | 823
 | 14.4
 | 3 of 4
 | 1

Leeds
 | Temple Newsam
 | Peter Hollings
 | BNP
 | 1,486
 | 22.0
 | 3 of 4
 | 1

Leeds
 | Weetwood
 | Gillian Margaret Leake
 | BNP
 | 370
 | 6.3
 | 5 of 6
 | 1

Leeds
 | Wetherby
 | Ralph Nutter
 | BNP
 | 873
 | 12.9
 | 4 of 4
 | 1


----------



## durruti02 (May 12, 2006)

if this isn't nearer 20% than 11% .. the 11% on the leeds website includes wards they did not stand in .. 

p.s. the second figure is the 2004 vote .. some increase ..


Gary Aronsson Knowsley  Kirkby Whitefield           3rd 188 14.8   147  3.44   
John Hirst  Leeds  Ardsley & Robin Hood             3rd 1182 22.4   1158  4.77   
Rob Leary Leeds  Calverley and Farsley                3rd 987 14.1     
Wayne Taylor  Leeds  Guiseley & Rawdon              4th 617 8.9   634  2.61   
Dick Warrington  Leeds  Killingbeck & Seacroft      5th 860 16.4   1079  4.45   

Kevin Meeson  Leeds  Middleton Park                2nd 1424 28.5   1123  4.63   
Gillian Leake Leeds  Weetwood                           5th 370 6.3     
Ralph Nutter Leeds  Wetherby                          4th 873 14.1     
Bernard Allen  Leeds  Armley                            2nd 921 17.4   780  3.21   
Dean Taylor  Leeds  Beeston & Holbeck              3rd 899 17.9   984  4.05   

Sandra Cockayne  Leeds  Bramley & Stanningley  2nd 882 17.8   866  3.57   
Mark Collett  Leeds  Burmantofts & Richmond Hill  3rd 1124 21.7   949  3.91   
Darren Gibson  Leeds  Crossgates & Whinmoor       3rd 924 14.7   775  3.19   
Peter Maverick  Leeds  Farnley & Wortley             3rd 992 16.5   878  3.62   
John Powell  Leeds  Garforth & Swillington            3rd 988 12.3   1100  4.53 656  10.48 

Jo Beverley  Leeds  Harewood                           3rd 767 10.8   549  2.26   
George Geapin  Leeds  Killingbeck & Seacroft       3rd 1017 19.4  1079  4.45   
Lisa Crossley  Leeds  Kippax & Methley               3rd 1126 17.4  850  3.50   
Thomas Redmond  Leeds  Morley North               2nd 1491 21.3  1086  4.47   
Chris Beverley  Leeds  Morley South                   1st 2083 32.9  1263  5.20 1064  18.99 

Mark Gates  Leeds  Otley & Yeadon                      4th 551 6.7   590  2.43   
Julie Day  Leeds  Pudsey                                   3rd 1115 16.4  911  3.75   
Tracy Andrews  Leeds  Rothwell                           3rd 823 14.4  795  3.28   
Peter Hollings  Leeds  Temple Newsam                  3rd 1486 22.0  846  3.49


----------



## audiotech (May 12, 2006)

FFS.  If you add all the numbers of the BNP vote together and then divide by the number of seats you'll find it's nearer 17 percent across the wards where they stood.

Yes, but the 11% on the leeds website, which does include wards they did not stand in is a more accurate picture of their vote. Their percentage would be even smaller if more people had come out to vote.


----------



## durruti02 (May 12, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> FFS.  If you add all the numbers of the BNP vote together and then divide by the number of seats you'll find it's nearer 17 percent across the wards where they stood.
> 
> Yes, but the 11% on the leeds website, which does include wards they did not stand in is a more accurate picture of their vote. Their percentage would be even smaller if more people had come out to vote.



   calm down calm down .. sorry i posted without seeing you had already raided the stats .. well whatever .. 17% ( it is nearer 20% than 11%  ) 
 but whatever  IT IS BIG!!!!! ACROSS 24 WARDS THAT IS VERY BIG!


----------



## audiotech (May 12, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> calm down calm down .. sorry i posted without seeing you had already raided the stats .. well whatever .. 17% ( it is nearer 20% than 11%  )
> but whatever  IT IS BIG!!!!! ACROSS 24 WARDS THAT IS VERY BIG!



Are the 23,500 who did vote for the BNP in Leeds racist, fascist nutters though?  I doubt it. I think most of it will wither on the vine.


----------



## durruti02 (May 12, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Are the 23,500 who did vote for the BNP in Leeds racist, fascist nutters though?  I doubt it. I think most of it will wither on the vine.



no .. thats the problem .. that the party moves toward its voters and the voters toward its party .. the PP in spain had its roots in fascism .. same in italy etc etc .. i think the bnp will continue to moderate ( at least publicallly) as it has an influx of new supportters .. but equally those who join wil learn more about what fascsim is .. and many will agree with it


----------



## audiotech (May 12, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> no .. thats the problem .. that the party moves toward its voters and the voters toward its party .. the PP in spain had its roots in fascism .. same in italy etc etc .. i think the bnp will continue to moderate ( at least publicallly) as it has an influx of new supportters .. but equally those who join wil learn more about what fascsim is .. and many will agree with it



Many will not.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 13, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> so an apology re burngreave and camden and southall and haringay etc .. the interesting ones are bristol and preston .. as has been stated on here it appears Respect may have broken out there of its muslim confines
> 
> BUT the pros must be put against the disasterous association, in an alienated white working class, of the Left with the Muslim community .. the BNP votes in leeds and essex can clearly be seen in this context



BNP: The roots of its appeal (full report) (776KB)

This new report offers a comprehensive and objective analysis of the rise of support for the British National Party in the UK, using a range of data sources to understand the reasons behind it.

http://www.jrct.org.uk/core/documen...load.asp?id=140

y
you will probably be shocked to hear, it doesn't mention respect.  

Respect ResistanceMP3


----------



## JHE (May 13, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> http://www.jrct.org.uk/core/documen...load.asp?id=140


Duff link.

Edit:  http://www.jrct.org.uk/core/documents/download.asp?id=140


----------



## durruti02 (May 13, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> BNP: The roots of its appeal (full report) (776KB)
> 
> This new report offers a comprehensive and objective analysis of the rise of support for the British National Party in the UK, using a range of data sources to understand the reasons behind it.
> 
> ...



 how embarressing for respect .. if there was a left wing  opposition to the bnp the report would have mentionned it  


 actually i thougt the report was a bit light .. there was nothing about the estrangement of people from politics generally .. ironically jrt are advertsising their 'power to the people' thing that talks about precisely that 

 and we would all agree how labour moving to the right has alienated many in the white and other w/c .. but clearly the left has a role too .. the processs of alienation of w/c peole from the left predates respect by many many years mate .. 

 for example the report has very little to say about people previous political affiliation .. indeed it notes from voting stats it is not esay to judge 

 look i do not doubt much of their suport comes from tories .. but clearly an increasing element is from w/c people who used to be labour .. and should be the constituency of the left .. 

 which brings us back ... why is bnp doing well among the white w/c when apart from in bristol ( where there was a strong local candiadate) respect getting next to no support

 and 2 my q. .. i'll repeat it again .. in a situation when many in the white w/c are moving toward the bnp .. does it make sense to have the main left opposition SO linked too the muslim community??


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 13, 2006)

the difference being, your several fantasies, are not of objectively studied facts.


----------



## durruti02 (May 14, 2006)

my 'fantasies' are indeed not clearly backed by that  report ..( shame you do not look at what i have written but settled only for a jibe) .. but by several posters on here who know about these things 

.. if you wish to live in a fantasy world where it is only the middle class who are being influenced by the bnp do what you will .. evidence from yorks / lancs and essex says you are clearly wrong


----------



## nwnm (May 16, 2006)

thats an internet version of saying "Well.... according to the blokes down the pub......"


----------



## JHE (May 16, 2006)

Who'd listen to the blokes down the pub when you can get advice from the brothers down the mosque?


----------



## nwnm (May 16, 2006)

I don't think anyone 'from down the mosque' wrote the report they're arguing about ya bigoted twat


----------



## Philbc03 (May 16, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> C&P from UKLN 'discussion' on the BNP election between Labour party member and Andy (the fella who is qouted above):



Actually the reply to Bob Pitt was from me, not Andy. There should be another article on the Stoke result appearing on the SUN website soon (if it's not up already).


----------



## Macullam (May 16, 2006)

*AWL tell it like it is ?*

British fascism is growing not only because of the hijacking of the Labour Party by the Blairites and New Labour’s bankruptcy as any sort of working-class or even any sort of reformist party. It is also growing because of the bankruptcy of the traditional revolutionary left in Britain.

In inner East London, in Tower Hamlets, Respect, the party faced up by George Galloway and controlled by the Socialist Workers’ Party, did well too on 4 May. It won 12 councillors. All the Respect candidates elected were Muslims with some local communal base. The biggest “revolutionary socialist” party in Britain, the SWP, has now immersed itself almost completely in Islamic communal politics.

It is the backbone of Respect, the party which “fights for Muslims”. It supports Muslim — and other — faith schools. It celebrates the victory of the political Islamists Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections.

Socialists defend immigrant and Muslim communities against organisations such as the BNP. Where necessary we defend them physically. But we defend them under such general slogans as “Black and white, unite and fight”, or “immigrants and others are sisters and brothers”.

Our fundamental responsibility and our basic policy is to unite the working class. We know that working-class unity is the precondition for being able to solve the social problems which the fascists and racist exploit and use to divide workers.

Quite apart from any other considerations, workers of different backgrounds cannot be united by “socialists” who immerse themselves in the communal and even religious identity of one of the communities.

The other side of the immersion of the erstwhile revolutionary socialists in Islamic communalism is the encouragement of the old-established white communalism which the BNP fastens on and politically exploits. The savage truth - but it needs to be said - is that Respect in inner East London and the BNP in outer East London are mirror images of each other. They are the twin poles of a division of the working class into two hostile, competing, inter-warring communal camps, one led by the BNP and the other supported - not led by, far from it, supported - by the erstwhile revolutionary socialist left now bizarrely turned Islamic-communalist.

The self-immersion of large sections of the once-revolutionary left in political Islam, which has been stinking up British left politics for the last three years, now threatens to poison the wells of broad working-class politic


----------



## mutley (May 16, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> British fascism is growing not only because of the hijacking of the Labour Party by the Blairites and New Labour’s bankruptcy as any sort of working-class or even any sort of reformist party. It is also growing because of the bankruptcy of the traditional revolutionary left in Britain.
> 
> In inner East London, in Tower Hamlets, Respect, the party faced up by George Galloway and controlled by the Socialist Workers’ Party, did well too on 4 May. It won 12 councillors. All the Respect candidates elected were Muslims with some local communal base. The biggest “revolutionary socialist” party in Britain, the SWP, has now immersed itself almost completely in Islamic communal politics.
> 
> ...



Telling it like it is? No i don't think so. 

It's quite clear that no Muslim can take part in the AWL's little toy-town trot world of working class politics without utterly renouncing their religion. Poles apart from the position Lenin argued for, and the bolsheviks put into practice at the Baku congress. The TH candidates stood on a platform of defending council housing, and opposing war and privatisation. But, well they're Muslims. so it must be communal mustn't it.

Wankers.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 16, 2006)

another view Mac





> After the excellent results Respect gained in the council elections on the 4 May, the question being asked across the country is how are we going to capitalise on our successes.
> There have been two responses to the Respect election results from the left. Labour MPs like John McDonald and Michael Meacher have publicly stated that the Respect election results were “very impressive”.
> On the other hand the reactionary journalist Nick Cohen compares us to the BNP. The argument that Respect is a communal organisation is doing the rounds and has been taken up by the likes of Bob Crow. The Socialist Party put up the following disgraceful statement on its website, “Respect declares that their twelve council seats in Tower
> Hamlets are "one more than the BNP in Barking and Dagenham". This would be a cause for great celebration by the left as a whole, if it had been achieved on a clear class-based programme. But instead, unfortunately, Respect could
> ...


----------



## BarryB (May 17, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> another view Mac



Anybody got a source for the allegation of Bob Crows critical remarks about Respect? 

BarryB


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

RevolutionMP3 said:
			
		

> After the excellent results Respect gained in the council elections on the 4 May, the question being asked across the country is how are we going to capitalise on our successes.
> There have been two responses to the Respect election results from the left. Labour MPs like John McDonald and Michael Meacher have publicly stated that the Respect election results were “very impressive”.
> On the other hand the reactionary journalist Nick Cohen compares us to the BNP. The argument that Respect is a communal organisation is doing the rounds and has been taken up by the likes of Bob Crow. The Socialist Party put up the following disgraceful statement on its website, “Respect declares that their twelve council seats in Tower
> Hamlets are "one more than the BNP in Barking and Dagenham". This would be a cause for great celebration by the left as a whole, if it had been achieved on a clear class-based programme. But instead, unfortunately, Respect could
> ...



What's the source of this tendentious bollocks RMP3? Some halfwitted SWPers blog?

I particularly like the rank dishonesty of its attempt to divide the responses to Respect's results into two binary camps. On the one hand we have those who are cheering and on the other hand we have... Nick Cohen and the Socialist Party. Clearly somebody who is familiar with the traditional Stalinist tactic of argument by amalgam.


----------



## mutley (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> What's the source of this tendentious bollocks RMP3? Some halfwitted SWPers blog?
> 
> I particularly like the rank dishonesty of its attempt to divide the responses to Respect's results into two binary camps. On the one hand we have those who are cheering and on the other hand we have... Nick Cohen and the Socialist Party. Clearly somebody who is familiar with the traditional Stalinist tactic of argument by amalgam.



Well, while the SP are more polite, and call it an unconscious effect, there's a great overlap between their argument and Nick Cohens.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Well, while the SP are more polite, and call it an unconscious effect, there's a great overlap between their argument and Nick Cohens.



No there isn't. Cohen thinks Respect are as bad as Nazis. The Socialist Party thinks that Respect's small scale advance is a basically good thing, which because of Respect's crass methods carries some serious dangers. Only an SWPer, trained as they are to view anyone who isn't cheering hysterically as a rabid Islamophobic enemy would regard the two as being at all similar.

Whoever wrote the above gibberish (where is it from by the way?) has a problem with basic honesty.


----------



## articul8 (May 17, 2006)

it reads like SWP party notes


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> it reads like SWP party notes



How can you tell? Most people who've been in the SWP for a while sound like party notes, all breathless excitement and triumphalist idiocy.

Then again, if it is party notes, that would elevate it from merely stupid to downright hilarious. That's the level of logical argument the SWP thinks its members deserve...


----------



## mutley (May 17, 2006)

Yep it's party notes.

As far as the SP saying its a 'good thing', the article on their website says that 'the victories.. are welcome' but then goes on at length about how they are also the beginnings of a polarisation, between Muslim and white workers and that unless there is a 'class-based programme' then Respect can't break white workers away from the bnp. 

One could be forgiven for wondering what's welcome about the victories if that were true. 
It could also be argued that a programme of defence of council housing, opposition to war, anti-racism and equality is a class-based programme in terms of content. It just hasn't got the 'branding' that people are very attached to.

By the way I think 'idiotic triumphalism' roles off the tongue better than 'triumphalist idiocy'.


----------



## articul8 (May 17, 2006)

An educated guess 

To be fair, that SP quote (ripped from original context) says that Respect _ could _ unconsciously further division.  

ie. not inevitable, but a genuine risk 
[which John Rees himself seemed to acknowledge when he said that if Respect were to win over the white working class it would have to emphasise its roots in the thought of the labour movement].  

Mind you, SPers don't help their case by citing AWL commentaries.  The latter _do _ approach Cohen-esque anti-Islamic bile.


----------



## durruti02 (May 17, 2006)

nwnm said:
			
		

> thats an internet version of saying "Well.... according to the blokes down the pub......"



 er and yes it is er .." according to the blokes down the pub.." !!! 

and don't you think it is about time the left started talking to them.. cos the bnp sure is! 

 and while the left remains to be totally alienated from the blokes down the pub .. we are fkd!


----------



## mutley (May 17, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> er and yes it is er .." according to the blokes down the pub.." !!!
> 
> and don't you think it is about time the left started talking to them.. cos the bnp sure is!
> 
> and while the left remains to be totally alienated from the blokes down the pub .. we are fkd!



I don't think anyones saying that the left shouldn't talk to the blokes down the pub. They're saying that TBDTP aren't a scientific and objective source of information about what is happening in British society. Not that they won't throw light on the matter.


----------



## durruti02 (May 17, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> I don't think anyones saying that the left shouldn't talk to the blokes down the pub. They're saying that TBDTP aren't a scientific and objective source of information about what is happening in British society. Not that they won't throw light on the matter.



 but the left DO NOT TALK TO TBDTP .. that is just fact .. you go in any pub from barking to bradford and you'll get 100 bnp  to every respect .. and thats not counting that most people won't support either .. 

 p.s. i know people were just saying it wasn't cientific/objective    .. but i thought i would make a point out of it  

AND if as has happenned we have lost the BDTP then we as a left have done something dramatically wrong .. ( didn't lenin say the workers paper should smell of the workers beer .. or something like that!!)


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 17, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> but the left DO NOT TALK TO TBDTP .. that is just fact .. you go in any pub from barking to bradford and you'll get 100 bnp  to every respect .. and thats not counting that most people won't support either ..
> 
> p.s. i know people were just saying it wasn't cientific/objective    .. but i thought i would make a point out of it
> 
> AND if as has happenned we have lost the BDTP then we as a left have done something dramatically wrong .. ( didn't lenin say the workers paper should smell of the workers beer .. or something like that!!)



out of interest, the SWP did used to do papersales in Pubs - but frankly, I think trying to talk politics with drunk people is a bad idea


----------



## durruti02 (May 17, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> out of interest, the SWP did used to do papersales in Pubs - but frankly, I think trying to talk politics with drunk people is a bad idea



 you know, you people really do not get it  

 the idea is not that you just go into a pub every now and again al la sally army and try to sell your paper .. but er that the left actually, you know, drinks in pubs etc etc .. 

 and actually mixes with ordinary people .. sorry i know this is contreversial!!   

 p.s. i think trying to talk politics with trots is a bad idea . i just can't help myself ..


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 17, 2006)

durruti02 said:
			
		

> you know, you people really do not get it
> 
> the idea is not that you just go into a pub every now and again al la sally army and try to sell your paper .. but er that the left actually, you know, drinks in pubs etc etc ..



I'm sure that most members of the SWP like most people on the left talk politics in their workplace, in the pub etc. when the topic arises


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Yep it's party notes.



Amazing.

Tell me Mutley, do you agree that there have been two types of reaction on the left to Respect's minor advances? One of cheering and the other being the "disgraceful" one of Nick Cohen and the Socialist Party?

Or do you think that party notes was engaging in the dishonest practice of amalgamating different points together so as to discredit reasonable criticisms by associating them with the barking mad or malevolent?




			
				mutley said:
			
		

> One could be forgiven for wondering what's welcome about the victories if that were true.



In reality, outside of party notes and SWP rallies, issues are rarely binary, black and white divisions. Instead events are contradictory. The Socialist Party welcomes Respect winning some council seats because, Respect represents a left of labour force which is attempting to mobilise anti-war sentiment. On the other hand that doesn't mean that we think Respect is perfect or that elements of its approach aren't very dangerous.

Our criticisms of Respect lack of a democratic culture or structure are well known and need not be rehearsed here. More relevant is that in seeking a shortcut to votes it has on occasion made crass appeals to Muslim voters on the basis of religion or community rather than class. Further it has tended to try to tap into what the SWP refers to as "existing networks" around religious institutions and local community leaders rather than emphasising the role of Muslim workers and young people. In circumstances where all of Respect's new councillors (and this not necessarily entirely Respect's fault) are from the Muslim wing of the coalition and where its candidates with South Asian names in its Tower Hamlets heartland all did better than their non-South Asian running mates, this does present a danger of increasing rather than decreasing divisions in the working class. Unless, of course, a class approach is taken.

We are absolutely clear that Muslim and South Asian workers generally are amongst the poorest and more oppressed sections of the working class. Where we have a problem with Respect it is certainly not that they are trying to reach out to such people, but that they are doing so in what we regard as an opportunistic and dangerous manner.

Much easier for whatever brainless hack writes party notes to try to wrap that up with the veiws of the equally brainless Nick Cohen than answer it seriously though, isn't it?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> In circumstances where all of Respect's new councillors (and this not necessarily entirely Respect's fault) are from the Muslim wing of the coalition and where its candidates with South Asian names in its Tower Hamlets heartland all did better than their non-South Asian running mates, this does present a danger of increasing rather than decreasing divisions in the working class. Unless, of course, a class approach is taken.



Given that Tower Hamlets is represented by a white Respect MP, and that generally white Respect candidates came second on the ballot papers, that white Labour councillors in Tower Hamlets have defected to Respect, and Respect has a membership in Tower Hamlets that is not disproportionately from one ethnic group, the Socialist Party hysteria about 12 Asian councillors is a little worrying.

I frankly think it is pretty reactionary to argue that the election of non-white candidates could lead to divisions in the working class, and think the SP are heading down a pretty nasty and slippery slope with this line of argument and where it logically leads in practice.


----------



## durruti02 (May 17, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I frankly think it is pretty reactionary to argue that the election of non-white candidates could lead to divisions in the working class, .




but it has already !!! 

 myself, SP, whoever are not proposing that this might happen .. or cheerleading it .. we are reporting that in TH and East london the linking by respect of leftism with muslim communlism has had an reactionary effect .. the horse has bolted ..

 p.s. a mate of mine said at the last election that respect/GG's antics had set back race relations years in TH


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 17, 2006)

Alan Thornett has written a more sober analysis than Party Notes, that recognised both the real step forward that Respect has made (and the SP) in winning seats, while acknowledging that there important issues for future development.

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=1053

[Though he's factually wrong on how many councillors Respect now has - he hasn't counted Labour defector Stephen Brooks in Preston]


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> the Socialist Party hysteria about 12 Asian councillors is a little worrying.
> 
> I frankly think it is pretty reactionary to argue that the election of non-white candidates could lead to divisions in the working class, and think the SP are heading down a pretty nasty and slippery slope with this line of argument and where it logically leads in practice.



You are fucking vermin.

Really, I shouldn't waste any more words on the kind of excrement whose reaction to socialist political criticism is to shriek racist, but just in case anyone else is mislead by the above: Nowhere have I or the Socialist Party argued that the "election of non-white candidiates could lead to divisiton in the working class". 

What I have argued - correctly - is that in a context where:
(a) all of Respect's new councillors are from one smallish ethnic (Bangledeshi)  and religious (Muslim) group and 
(b) where all of its candidates from that group did better than its other candidates in the same ward and 
(c) where it overwhelmingly concentrates its efforts in areas where people from that grouping are heavily concentrated and
(d) where a fascist organisation relatively nearby has made greater progress in large part by arguing that it is the party of the white sections of the working class that 
(e) Respect's occasional tendency to portray itself as "the party for Muslims" and
(f) its constant attempts to gather votes by tapping into networks around religious institutions and existing community leaders, rather than on the basis of a class appeal to alienated workers and young people from those communities could
(g) unconsciously lead to greater divisions amongst the working class if
(h) an effort isn't made to reach out to the labour movement and to workers of all ethnic and religious backgrounds on the basis of class.

None of this, for a moment suggests that it is a bad or dangerous thing for people from a Muslim background or Asians (note how Udo, shitbag that he is, slips back into an ethnic rather than religious description when he's trying to smear political opponents) to be elected as councillors or for socialists to try to win support amongst such particularly disadvantaged sections of society. It is, as always, centrally about class.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Alan Thornett has written a more sober analysis



If that was a "sober" analysis I'd be worried about his literacy and numeracy when drunk. He is factually wrong not just about the number of Respect councillors but about the number of Socialist Party and IWCA councillors. What's more he claims that Respect's platform was not significantly different from that of the Socialist Party, which only shows that either he hasn't read our material and Respects or he hasn't been able to understand it.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 17, 2006)

I get the impression that ALL of the Socialist Party's elected representatives are WHITE, and that all of their local election candidates were WHITE - I fear this communalism could undermine workers unity and alienate Muslim and Asian workers.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

I have no idea what the ethnic background of all of our candidates is. Currently all of our seven councillors happen to be white, although of the ten or so people who have been councillors for us in the last few years one that I can think of off the top of my head is not - which is a slightly bigger percentage than the 7.9% of the British population who are not.

Even to get into that though is to give Udo's smear too much credit. Unless he is going to claim that the Socialist Party has distributed leaflets claiming to be the "party for white people" or described our candidate as "fighters for white people" or concentrated our efforts only in areas with unusually high white populations? I ask because I wouldn't put such claims past him for a moment. In fact, the Socialist Party, always and everywhere makes a class appeal to workers of all ethnic backgrounds.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I have no idea what the ethnic background of all of our candidates is. Currently all of our seven councillors happen to be white.



Nigel I've investigated this, all of your election candidates in the recent local election came from the same ethnic background, and all of your elected councillors are white.

Your write: "Currently all of our seven councillors happen to be white".
To which I respond: "Currently all of our 12 councillors in Tower Hamlets happen to be Asian"

I should note that unlike the Socialist Party, Respect has elected representatives from more than one ethnic group!


----------



## Macullam (May 17, 2006)

Mind you, SPers don't help their case by citing AWL commentaries.  The latter _do _ approach Cohen-esque anti-Islamic bile.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean citing AWL commentaries ?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Nigel I've investigated this



Udo, I wouldn't believe you if you told me that the sky is blue or that the sea is wet. You are the most dishonest, vile and repugnant human being it has ever been my displeasure to encounter. But again, such frivolities are beside the point. 

You continue to argue as if I thought the fact that all of Respect's new councillors were from a Bangladeshi Muslim background was bad in and of itself. You have to argue like that because you have nothing to say beyond desperate attempts to smear people as racists. In fact I have said nothing of the sort. Everything is about context and about political methods and approaches. As I said earlier (repeated because I'm dealing with the hard of thinking here) in a context where:

(a) all of Respect's new councillors are from one smallish ethnic (Bangledeshi) and religious (Muslim) group and 
(b) where all of its candidates from that group did better than its other candidates in the same ward and 
(c) where it overwhelmingly concentrates its efforts in areas where people from that grouping are heavily concentrated and
(d) where a fascist organisation relatively nearby has made greater progress in large part by arguing that it is the party of the white sections of the working class that 
(e) Respect's occasional tendency to portray itself as "the party for Muslims" and
(f) its constant attempts to gather votes by tapping into networks around religious institutions and existing community leaders, rather than on the basis of a class appeal to alienated workers and young people from those communities could
(g) unconsciously lead to greater divisions amongst the working class if
(h) an effort isn't made to reach out to the labour movement and to workers of all ethnic and religious backgrounds on the basis of class.

And here is SWP honcho John Rees in a typically mealy mouthed and partial way saying that Respect need to make a turn towards class politics:




			
				Rees said:
			
		

> If we want to make further gains, we have to stress the labour movement and socialist values at the heart of Respect to appeal to working class voters let down by New Labour.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> ... he claims that Respect's platform was not significantly different from that of the Socialist Party, which only shows that either he hasn't read our material and Respects or he hasn't been able to understand it.






> Tower Hamlets should be the most democratic, just, green and publicly accountable council in the country. It should put people before profit. The council should defend its residents from the power of big corporations and be a showcase for high quality houses and services.
> 
> But Tower Hamlets’ New Labour council is committed to a big business privatisation agenda. It wants to privatise council housing, drive Crossrail through the borough and sell-off council services, like the youth service, to private firms.
> 
> ...





> Standing for the millions...
> ...not the millionaires
> The big three parties all stand for the millionaires not the millions.
> 
> ...



Am I missing some fundamental difference here?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Am I missing some fundamental difference here?



Just minor things like for example:




			
				Socialist Party manifesto said:
			
		

> The Socialist Party is fighting for every possible improvement in working-class people's lives, but we recognise that under this profit-hungry capitalist system, we will always face a constant struggle to defend our living conditions.
> 
> That is why we are fighting for socialist change. We don't want the kind of regimes that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe which, while they were based on a planned economy, were completely undemocratic. Socialism can only work with the fullest democracy.
> 
> We want real socialism - a democratic society and economy run to meet the needs of all instead of the profits of a few. Based on co-operation and equality, socialism would lay the basis for an end to poverty and all forms of discrimination and oppression.



Nothing much I realise.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> ..
> You continue to argue as if I thought the fact that *all* of Respect's new councillors were from a Bangladeshi Muslim background was bad in and of itself.
> ...
> (a) *all* of Respect's new councillors are from one smallish ethnic (*Bangledeshi*) and religious (Muslim) group and





> Abdul Karim Sheikh, Respect councillor in Newham, east London, spoke to Socialist Worker after the successes in the local elections on 4 May.
> I was born in *Pakistan*,



Is this a new category of ethnicity - a Bangladeshi from Pakistan?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Just minor things like for example:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing much I realise.



I don't think you'll find that was your specific campaigning manifesto in the election was it?  Or are we back to the maximum and minimum programme again?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Is this a new category of ethnicity - a Bangladeshi from Pakistan?



Apologies to Mr Sheikh, I was going on information posted by one of your ISG friends on his blog that as well as all being from the Muslim wing of Respect all of the new councillors were of Bangladeshi origin. It appears that at least one is a Muslim originally from Pakistan. Not that it makes a great deal of difference to my point. Or any difference in fact.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I don't think you'll find that was your specific campaigning manifesto in the election was it?  Or are we back to the maximum and minimum programme again?



It's from the link you provided but evidently didn't read. Just like Thornett it seems. As for your "minimum - maximum" programme remark, it makes little or no sense. It's a central part of a transitional programme that it does in fact point towards a socialist transformation of society.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Apologies to Mr Sheikh, I was going on information posted by one of your ISG friends on his blog that as well as all being from the Muslim wing of Respect all of the new councillors were of Bangladeshi origin. It appears that at least one is a Muslim originally from Pakistan. Not that it makes a great deal of difference to my point. Or any difference in fact.



The blog was clear that it was about Tower Hamlets borough council - where the Respect councillors are actually from an ethnic group that is more than one third of the population, and probably a majority of working class people.  

Not all Respect councillors are from Tower Hamlets.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> It's from the link you provided but evidently didn't read. Just like Thornett it seems. As for your "minimum - maximum" programme remark, it makes little or no sense. It's a central part of a transitional programme that it does in fact point towards a socialist transformation of society.



It was further down the page - evidently not your central agitational message for the local elections.  Does the Campaign for a New Workers Party call for the transitional programme in opposition to stalinism by the way?   History is littered with the debris of sects and traitors who describe themselves as "socialists" in sunday speeches but betrayed people from Monday to Saturday.  

There are further points elsewhere on the Respect web site, for you to disagree with:



> Respect is a radical political alternative to the rightward march of new Labour and the other
> establishment parties. Although it grew out of the mass opposition to the war on Iraq, it is far
> from just an anti-war or social justice party. A vote for Respect is a crucial step towards the
> creation of a new radical working-class voice that will speak for millions who, through the
> ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 17, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> It was further down the page



Yeah, in the first third or so of a two page document... 

And it was just one example. The difference between the Socialist Party and the Respect manifestos is that the Socialist Party stood on a transitional programme while Respect stood on a list of mostly quite reasonable reforms. Not that I'm having a go at them over that - they've never claimed to be a revolutionary organisation.


----------



## mutley (May 17, 2006)

Blimey you log off to cook tea and when you come back... LEAVE IT NIGEL,'E AIN'T WORTH IT! Udo, outside, come on 'e's pissed stop winding 'im up...

By the way Mr Sheikh also has a couple of decades at Ford Dagenhams as a T & G member under his belt, as well as being a former Labour councillor. Loads more to say but got stuff to do. Suffice to say Nigel seems to be arguing that the election of the Respect councillors both is and is not a good thing.. still we've all had to argue that certain things are contradictory in a dialectical manner..

I reckon the way this contradiction, if it is one, will be resolved is if the councillors do a damn good job of resistance.

By the way what is a 'honcho' and how do you get to be one?


----------



## Udo Erasmus (May 17, 2006)

I'm just disappointed that Nigel can't explain why SP is veering towards a white communalist vote - all their elected representatives are white, and they didn't stand a single non-white candidate - even the BNP stood more non-white candidates than the SP!

On a more serious note, given the high level of politicisation among the Asian and Muslim population of this country, the inability of the SP to relate to this is a sign of a problem with their politics.  This came home to me, when I read that the recent meetings on a new mass workers party were dominated by white, middle aged, men


----------



## audiotech (May 17, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> out of interest, the SWP did used to do papersales in Pubs - but frankly, I think trying to talk politics with drunk people is a bad idea



All SWP meetings were held in pubs at one time.

A pub bore once refused to buy SW from me on the grounds that the SWP supported cop killers.


----------



## articul8 (May 17, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> What do you mean citing AWL commentaries ?



 sorry, was your post headed "AWL tell it like it is ?" not a quote from an AWL source?


----------



## Macullam (May 17, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> sorry, was your post headed "AWL tell it like it is ?" not a quote from an AWL source?


 
That does not mean I agree with it. the subject title was intentionally toungue in cheek. I will post a disclaimer in future. I actually thought the tone of the piece was shocking.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 17, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> ..the Socialist Party stood on a transitional programme ...



I hardly think that a call for wages to be automatically increased by inflation (just about the only transitional demand I could find) in the middle of a series of minimalist and largely economistic demands, amounts to a transitional "programme" ... 

no mention of sliding scale of hours, work-sharing, workers control, opening the books, soviets, workers militias and the arming of the proletariat, state-ization of credit, nationalisation of land and collectivisation of agriculture, confiscation of military profit and expropriation of the traffickers in war industries ... etc etc

I always liked this section ... does it remind you of anyone?   



> Against Sectarianism
> 
> Under the influence of the betrayal by the historical organizations of the proletariat, certain sectarian moods and groupings of various kinds arise or are regenerated at the periphery of the Fourth International. At their base lies a refusal to struggle for partial and transitional demands, i.e., for the elementary interests and needs of the working masses, as they are today. Preparing for the revolution means to the sectarians, convincing themselves of the superiority of socialism. They propose turning their backs on the “old” trade unions, i.e., to tens of millions of organized workers—as if the masses could somehow live outside of the conditions of the actual class struggle!
> 
> ...


----------



## durruti02 (May 18, 2006)

re spat between sp  and swp  .. 

no wonder the left is fked  .. platforms and transistional or minimum or maximum programmes are part of the problem  ..and lets be honest are history .. in fact both the respect and bnp results reflect that .. they are communalist votes .. the key is to try like the HI or IWCA to cut across that .. 

and whenever HI or IWCA have stood against sa/ruc they have beaten them ..


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 19, 2006)

I don't think anyone would argue that it's a bad thing have Asian councillors, at least I can't see anyone saying that.

I think what people are saying is that it's bad to get votes on a communal basis. The fact that RESPECT candidates with "white" names got 69% of the votes that RESPECT candidates with "Asian" names got could suggest something. Indeed in some instances I think this allowed LP councillors to get in. Interestingly it also seems that the difference for LP candidates with white and Asian names was less marked than for RESPECT.

More worrying for the SWP is Galloways remarks that it's ok for RESPECT candidates to ignore the socialist bits of the programme, a programme which is only left reformist in itself.

Does anyone know much about any of the RESPECT councillors in Tower Hamlets?


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 19, 2006)

Here's some info I saw elsewhere:



> Trying to find information as to the politics of Respects new councillors is difficult. Some are new to politics and have little past to speak of, one is a former candidate for the Conservative Party and others are clearly linked to the Mosques.
> 
> Others to be fair are former Labour Party members although that in itself means very little as to their beliefs given that the Labour Party won its base among British Asians by forging links on a quasi-communalist basis. Which is of course why as time has passed that base has slowly slipped away and developed a relationship with its more natural partners the Liberal Democrats.
> 
> ...


----------



## mutley (May 19, 2006)

So, as ever, if anyone hasn't imbibed their anti-imperialism with their mothers milk, but has shifted or learned from the experiences we've all had since 9/11 then we clearly can't trust them. And if Muslim candidates have stood for Labour before, well, labour used communalism so apparently its not as impressive or meaningful as when white people do. Who are these wankers?

If they were opportunists or communalists then why did they not fucking well stay with labour? Looks like that would have been a safer bet to me.

Another point of view:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8839


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 19, 2006)

As it goes RESPECT won 10 of their 12 seats off Labour (they also won a vacant seat and one off an independent).

Labour also lost six seats to the Tories.

They held up their place on the council by winning four seats off independents and nine seats off the Lib Dems and one off RESPECT.

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/your-council/data/elections/index.cfm


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 19, 2006)

> So, as ever, if anyone hasn't imbibed their anti-imperialism with their mothers milk, but has shifted or learned from the experiences we've all had since 9/11 then we clearly can't trust them. And if Muslim candidates have stood for Labour before, well, labour used communalism so apparently its not as impressive or meaningful as when white people do. Who are these wankers?
> 
> If they were opportunists or communalists then why did they not fucking well stay with labour? Looks like that would have been a safer bet to me.



Calm down mutley, I'm just putting up what I saw elsewhere, as much as anything else to see what SWPers have to say about it.

The main problem I've got is Galloway, the main leader of RESPECT, saying that he's happy for socialist bits of RESPECTs programme to be ignored. A programme which has already been watered down to a left reformist basis.

Although I think the 69% difference does suggest something.

Anyway the proof is in the pudding as they say, we'll have to see what happens over the next two or three years.


----------



## Socrates (May 19, 2006)

Didn't Cockneyrebel support Russia's brutal imperialist occupation of Afghanistan?  If Jafar does have illusions in the UN it is not that exceptional - Naomi Klein and Milan Rai want a UN occupation in Iraq.

As far as I can see, Jafar was an employee for the UN in Kosovo in a legal capacity - not sure how much you can read into that given that I can't see much comment that he has made on it, he seems to be involved in some stuff to do with the Maldives

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7390
http://www.dhivehiobserver.com/anni/Sir-Ivan-Anni_PR_Eng.pdf


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 19, 2006)

> Didn't Cockneyrebel support Russia's brutal imperialist occupation of Afghanistan?



I doubt it, I think I was two at the time......

In terms of the post on Jafar, it's not my comments. I was genuinely interested in what SWP/RESPECT members had to say about it. No need to be so defensive.


----------



## mutley (May 19, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I doubt it, I think I was two at the time......
> 
> In terms of the post on Jafar, it's not my comments. I was genuinely interested in what SWP/RESPECT members had to say about it. No need to be so defensive.



I'd still like to know where the quotes is from..

On the 69% malarkey, there are two issues of relevance..

1) We know there was a spread of ethnic origins to TH candidates, but was that spread truly equal in terms of the strength or likely strength of Respect? My point being, if there were more non-Muslim origin candidates in seats where respect just didn't get as many votes, then you'd get an apparent bias towards Muslim candidites that was much bigger than in reality.
The way round it would be to take each seat one by one and work out the difference, then average those differences.. (can I be arsed?)

2) the other undoubted factor is that in the Muslim community, pretty much every candidate has a big load of relatives, mates, associates and the like who will vote for them whatever party there in. Generally up to a few hundred. That is an advantage over non-Muslim waifs and strays.

An example was on my polling station, the leafletter for the lib-dems told me that he generally voted labour but that the libdem candidate was a mate of his. He then said that he'd like to stand cos he reckoned he could get 1000 votes just like that. I asked him where he planned to get the second 1000 which is where the politics kicks in and he agreed that would be a problem. (Remember we have dirty great wards in Brum, up to 20,000 voters). 
Now obviously those of us who might like to see all cross-class community bonds dissolve and be reconstituted in a hardened proletarian collectivism might sniff at such parochial ties, but, well, it ain't where Brum's at. These networks ain't communal, cos they ain't religious, (in Brum there's often 3 Muslim candidates trying to mobilise the biggest amont of clout) they're family/clan networks. And they do give a head start of a few hundred to a well connected candidate. The votes in TH for non-muslims could be seen as the bedrock Respect vote, with some candidates picking up extra.

Incidently, there were loads of indications that Salma cut through a lot of this, stories of women and youngsters ignoring the men who said 'our family is backing Mr Aziz' and went for Salma instead.


----------



## mutley (May 19, 2006)

Worked it out, average difference across TH after calculating in each ward 73% so a bit less than the ww figure. Might have got it wrong though. How fucking sad am I?


----------



## cockneyrebel (May 19, 2006)

> I'd still like to know where the quotes is from..



Sorry I didn't know you asked in the first place. It's just a random post from another web board, not from any organisation. I just put it up here because I wondered what SWPers would say.

In terms of whether it's 69% or 73% all I'm saying is that is quite a big gap, either way. Incidentally I was quite surprised that the SWP put one of their candidates (Ayesha Ali) in an unwinable seat.

The 69% figure in the Weekly Worker was comparing like for like in the same wards as far as I know. If not then point one you make is very valid. But from what I saw of the break down it was the case that candidates with Asian sounding names did significantly better than people with non-Asian sounding names in the same ward.



> 2) the other undoubted factor is that in the Muslim community, pretty much every candidate has a big load of relatives, mates, associates and the like who will vote for them whatever party there in. Generally up to a few hundred. That is an advantage over non-Muslim waifs and strays.



Do you have any evidence that all the muslim candidates had 100s of relatives and mates in a "clan"? Sounds like a bit of a stereotype to me.....

As said though the main thing that would concern me if I was an SWPer is the fact that Galloway has said he is happy for candidates to ignore socialist bits of an already reformist programme. The same bloke who openly boasted about his religious credentials to pick up votes.


----------



## mutley (May 21, 2006)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Sorry I didn't know you asked in the first place. It's just a random post from another web board, not from any organisation. I just put it up here because I wondered what SWPers would say.
> 
> In terms of whether it's 69% or 73% all I'm saying is that is quite a big gap, either way. Incidentally I was quite surprised that the SWP put one of their candidates (Ayesha Ali) in an unwinable seat.
> 
> ...



It concerns me too. That's life in a coalition...


----------



## junius (May 21, 2006)

That's life in a coalition is it?

Popular frontism is what it is.


----------



## mutley (May 21, 2006)

junius said:
			
		

> That's life in a coalition is it?
> 
> Popular frontism is what it is.



Oh yeah lets have that argument again.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 21, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Worked it out, average difference across TH after calculating in each ward 73% so a bit less than the ww figure. Might have got it wrong though. How fucking sad am I?




I'm even sadder!  

The correct figure for the average variation between lowest and highest candidate is 71.1%.  [WW have used the wrong methodology for reasons explained below.]

The really interesting thing is that *all parties have such a variation*.  This is a feature of electoral behaviour in three member elections.  No party's supporters are homogenous - in Tower Hamlets this is more significant than other boroughs.  

*The party in Tower Hamlets with the most variation between the lowest and highest candidate is actually the Liberal Democrats where the average for the 17 wards contested was 69.2%*

The proportions for each of the four main parties was as follows:

*Conservative 80.5%
Labour 79.0%
Respect 71.1%
LibDem 69.2%*

(Respect 16 wards; other parties 17 wards)

The range between the ward with the largest variation and that with the lowest was as follows:

Party, Highest % and Ward, Lowest Percentage and Ward

*Conservative 97.4% (Millwall), 48.6% (MileEnd & Globe Town))
Labour 93.2% (StKath&Wapping), 52.0% (MileEnd East)
Respect 92.2% (Shadwell), 51.5% (Millwall)
LibDem 87.7% (BromleyByBow), 40.9% (East India & Lansbury)*

Now I would argue that all the parties had pretty much the same phenomenon with an average variation of approx between 70-80%;  not much to choose between the parties at all.  It is wrong to single out Respect's results as being atypical without comparing it to the other parties in the borough.  I'm not looking for a cause here - but *it is a fact that in Tower Hamlets there was significant variation for all parties between the lowest and highest candidate in each ward.*

Methodological Note:  The WW figure is based on simply taking the arithmetic average of each percentage.  This is methodologically unsound because it takes no account of the size of the party vote in each ward.  For example: imagine two wards - A & B.  In Ward A the party's highest vote is 1000, the next highest 950, while its lowest is 900.  The percentage of lowest to highest is 90%.  In ward B the highest is 200, next highest 150, while the lowest is 100.  This percentage is 50%.  The average of these two percentages is (50% + 90%) /2 = 70%.  But the party vote in A is much higher than B; so the percentage there is more significant.  The correct way to calculate the average of the two percentages is by adding the votes of the highest candidates in each ward and then dividing into it the total of the lowest candidates, ie (900+100) / (1000+200) = average of 83.3%.  This is intuitively much more satisfactory. 

The tables below show the votes and percentage using the above methodology for each of the four parties in Tower Hamlets.  Each row shows the votes in order for each of the three candidates and the percentage difference between lowest and highest.  The total row shows the overall percentage for all wards, calculated using the methodology above.

*Respect		* 
Ward	Res1	Res2	Res3	
SH	1851	1789	1707	92.2%
BW	505	445	425	84.2%
BE	366	309	307	83.9%
LI	1099	1092	854	77.7%
MEE	993	753	752	75.7%
BGS	1342	1113	973	72.5%
EIL	607	599	436	71.8%
MGT	1012	816	717	70.8%
SDS	1351	1292	954	70.6%
BBB	1308	1077	923	70.6%
WH	1449	1084	1004	69.3%
WE	830	494	489	58.9%
SPB	866	682	471	54.4%
BCT	502	411	273	54.4%
BGN	882	592	475	53.9%
MI	606	398	312	51.5%
Total	15569	12946	11072	*71.1%*

*Labour		* 
Ward	Lab1	Lab2	Lab3	
SK	1321	1290	1231	93.2%
WH	1107	1040	1019	92.1%
SDS	1453	1410	1329	91.5%
BCT	990	903	888	89.7%
BGS	1609	1593	1436	89.2%
MI	1248	1128	1084	86.9%
BW	1483	1442	1282	86.4%
BE	1314	1156	1126	85.7%
SPB	912	860	775	85.0%
BGN	1108	950	940	84.8%
SH	1287	1141	1054	81.9%
LI	1208	1017	960	79.5%
MGT	1380	1113	1050	76.1%
WE	854	652	575	67.3%
EIL	1461	1150	841	57.6%
BBB	1689	966	916	54.2%
MEE	1338	897	696	52.0%
Total	21762	18708	17202	*79.0%*

*Conservative	* 
Ward	Con1	Con2	Con3	
MI	 1,724 	 1,685 	 1,679 	97.4%
LI	 933 	 886 	 847 	90.8%
BGS	 264 	 237 	 237 	89.8%
BBB	 271 	 254 	 242 	89.3%
EIL	 542 	 511 	 483 	89.1%
BE	 321 	 290 	286	89.1%
BCT	 1,317 	 1,197 	 1,142 	86.7%
SK	 1,351 	1223	1153	85.3%
WE	 254 	 249 	 214 	84.3%
SH	 723 	 670 	 605 	83.7%
WH	 397 	 344 	 284 	71.5%
MEE	 454 	 346 	 312 	68.7%
BGN	 436 	 413 	 280 	64.2%
BW	 592 	380	364	61.5%
SDS	 630 	 590 	373	59.2%
SPB	 458 	 329 	241	52.6%
MGT	 481 	 264 	234	48.6%
Total	11148	9868	 8,976 	*80.5%*

*LibDem	* 
Ward	LibDem1	LibDem2	LibDem3	
BBB	 293 	 271 	 257 	87.7%
BGN	 1,096 	 960 	 958 	87.4%
SK	 349 	 321 	 305 	87.4%
WH	 529 	 511 	 458 	86.6%
MI	 358 	 301 	 300 	83.8%
BW	 1,099 	 902 	 896 	81.5%
BE	 918 	 765 	 740 	80.6%
BGS	 876 	 863 	 689 	78.7%
SH	 266 	 226 	 205 	77.1%
SDS	 747 	583	550	73.6%
LI	 470 	 382 	 324 	68.9%
MGT	 912 	 751 	627	68.8%
SPB	 548 	 424 	354	64.6%
BCT	 652 	 463 	402	61.7%
MEE	 828 	 742 	454	54.8%
WE	 1,819 	 1,059 	 948 	52.1%
EIL	 1,149 	 944 	470	40.9%
Total	12909	10468	8937	*69.2%*


----------



## JHE (May 21, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> I'm not looking for a cause here...


OK - but since you have looked closely at the results in Tower Hamlets, it's fair enough to ask you what you have noticed about _which_ candidates did better or worse.

In the case of Respec' candidates, the Bengali Muslim candidates did better than other candidates.  In the cases of Labour, Lib Dem & Tory candidates, are there similar (or indeed opposite) patterns, with the differences appearing to be explicable by whether or not the candidates were Bengali Muslims?


----------



## Macullam (May 22, 2006)

*Response to SWP Party Notes*

The Socialist, the weekly paper of the Socialist Party in England and Wales recently carried an article in issue 439 by Judy Beishon on Respect’s election results. Some, particularly the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), the backbone of Respect, objected to points made in that article. Below we publish a reply to those objections.

In particular the SWP objected to the following statement in the article:
"Respect declares that their twelve council seats in Tower Hamlets are ‘one more than the BNP in Barking and Dagenham’. This would be a cause for great celebration by the left as a whole, if it had been achieved on a clear class-based programme. But instead, unfortunately, Respect could unconsciously further the beginnings of a polarisation based on racial division, by not countering the growing perception that it is a ‘party for Muslims’." Continues
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1200


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 22, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> OK - but since you have looked closely at the results in Tower Hamlets, it's fair enough to ask you what you have noticed about _which_ candidates did better or worse.
> 
> In the case of Respec' candidates, the Bengali Muslim candidates did better than other candidates.  In the cases of Labour, Lib Dem & Tory candidates, are there similar (or indeed opposite) patterns, with the differences appearing to be explicable by whether or not the candidates were Bengali Muslims?



I do not have data on the ethnicity of the candidates from any of the parties.  Therefore it is not possible to compare their results scientifically - any attempt at an explanation is based on supposition, not certainty of facts.  If you have such data on each candidate of all the parties, please supply it.  You are assuming name tells you ethnicity, but that is not necessarily the case - in a ward in Preston for example, the Labour candidate had an arabic name "Al-Seraj"; in fact she is white british, "born and bred in Preston".

You are also ignoring the fact that alone among the parties in Tower Hamlets, Respect attempted to have slates mixed by ethnicity.  Therefore you are not comparing like with like.  

I am not saying there is not an issue of ethnicity having an impact on voter behaviour here, just that no one can claim to know what that relationship is for sure without data subjected to appropriate statistical tests.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 22, 2006)

Macullam said:
			
		

> The Socialist, the weekly paper of the Socialist Party in England and Wales recently carried an article in issue 439 by Judy Beishon on Respect’s election results. Some, particularly the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), the backbone of Respect, objected to points made in that article. Below we publish a reply to those objections.
> 
> In particular the SWP objected to the following statement in the article:
> "Respect declares that their twelve council seats in Tower Hamlets are ‘one more than the BNP in Barking and Dagenham’. This would be a cause for great celebration by the left as a whole, if it had been achieved on a clear class-based programme. But instead, unfortunately, Respect could unconsciously further the beginnings of a polarisation based on racial division, by not countering the growing perception that it is a ‘party for Muslims’." Continues
> http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1200



I think the record's got stuck ...


----------



## Fisher_Gate (May 22, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> OK - but since you have looked closely at the results in Tower Hamlets, it's fair enough to ask you what you have noticed about _which_ candidates did better or worse.
> 
> In the case of Respec' candidates, the Bengali Muslim candidates did better than other candidates.  In the cases of Labour, Lib Dem & Tory candidates, are there similar (or indeed opposite) patterns, with the differences appearing to be explicable by whether or not the candidates were Bengali Muslims?



Here's two extreme examples where myth and reality seem somewhat different ...

*East India & Lansbury*

This was the ward with the biggest gap between *Lib Dem* candidates, and the biggest gap in the whole borough for any of the 4 principle parties. 

The top 2 *Lib Dem* candidates got 1,149 (third and elected) and 944 (fourth and not elected).  The other LibDem got 470 (11th and not elected) - a lowest/Highest proportion of *40.9%*.  The first two LibDems have names that indicate they might be Asian (the best way I can put it).  The final Lib Dem has a name that indicates they might not be Asian.

The same pattern - two highest with asian names, last without - also applies to the three *Labour* candidates with votes of 1,461, 1,150 and 841 - an L/H proporiton of *57.6%*. 

The same pattern also applies to the three *Respect* candidates, with votes of 607, 509 and 436.  However the L/H proportion was *71.8%*, fairly typical of wards in the borough.

The *tories* stood three candidates with names indicating they are not asians with  542, 511 and 483 	- an L/H proportion of *89.1%*, one of the highest for the tories.  There were also 2 independents one with a name indicating they might not be asian with 240 and one with a name indicating they might be asian with 120 - not enough to explain the discrepancies between candidates.

So in this ward, it could be the case that of the three parties fielding mixed asian/non-asian slates - Lab, LibDem, Respect - *non-asian candidates did worst*.   However of these three parties, the one least affected by this was Respect, with the non-asian candidates of the *Lib Dems and Labour being affected much worse than Respect*.

*Mile End East*

Here* Labour* fielded three candidates with names indicating that they had different ethnicity.  The two Labour candidates with Asian names came first and eighth with 1338 and 696, while a candidate without an asian name came third with 897 - an L/H proportion of just *52.0%*, Labour's worst in the borough.  However the worst performing Labour candidates name does not look to me like a Bangladeshi or Pakistani name - it looks like maybe an Indian/Sri Lankan surname with an english/caribbean/african forename.  Her picture on the internet indicates that while she is definitely black, she may not be from the asian sub-continent.  [despite her poor relative performance, she was a sitting councillor too].

The *LibDems* also fielded two candidates with asian names - 848 and 742, while their candidate with a white name won only 454 - an L/H proportion of  only *54.8%*.

*Respect* also stood two candidates with asian names and one without - they won 993, 753 and 752 - an L/H proportion of *75.7%*.  Again the candidate without an asian name came last, but in this case only 1 vote behind the next highest Respect candidate.

The *Tories* stood one candidate with an asian name, who was highest at 454,  and two candidates without asian names with 346 and 312 votes - an L/H proportion of 68.7%.  

There was one independent candidate who had an asian name and won 531 votes - significant but not enough to explain the variations for all four main parties.

So in this ward, all four main parties stood mixed ethnicity slates.  Of these the party with the highest L/H proportion and therefore least affected by ethnicity issues was Respect.  *The Tories, Labour and LibDems were all apparently more affected by the ethnicity of their candidates than Respect. *

*Conclusion*

When you look deeper into these results you see that the notion that white Respect candidates did worse than asian ones, is much more complex than first meets the all eye.  All parties were badly affected and in some wards, Respect's votes were actually *the most homogenous of parties standing multi-ethnic candidates*.


East India & Lansbury

name	party	vote
Shiria Khatun	Labour	1461
Abul Ahmed	Labour	1150
Rajib Ahmed	Lib Dem	1149
Iqbal Hossain	Lib Dem	944
Peter Ton-That	Labour	841
Kambiz Boomla	Respect	607
Mohammed Shahid	Respect	599
Jane Archer	Con	542
Ian Campbell	Con	511
Paul Ingham	Con	483
Caroline Spencer	Lib Dem	470
Martin Hayward	Respect	436
John Phillips	Ind	240
Mahfuz Khan	Ind	122


Mile End East

name	party	vote
Motin Uz-Zaman	Labour	1338
Ahmed Hussain	Respect	993
Rupert Bawden	Labour	897
Misbahur Khan	Lib Dem	828
Ismail Hussain	Respect	753
Jackie Turner	Respect	752
Shamsul Syed	Lib Dem	742
Betheline Chattopadhyay	Labour	696
Hafizur Choudhury	Ind	531
Jewel Islam	Con	454
Stewart Rayment	Lib Dem	454
Graham Collins	Con	346
Caroline Rouse	Con	312


----------



## mutley (May 22, 2006)

Well done Fisher - you know what, you would be doing a service if you tidied that up and sent it off to get more widely published. A good demonstration that Respect is in the FOREFRONT of breaking down whatever communalism there is, as well as breaking down sexism with its female candidates.

As to the SP article, its frankly laughable.

The fact that MAB endorsed Respect in the five Euro regions where they did best then claiming the credit is just MAB being a bit idiotic frankly. They looked at where Respect looked rooted enough to be a goodish bet, then called for a vote for them in those regions. This is, to use a phrase from Eamonn Mcann, like 'calling for the sun to rise, with a view to claiming responsibility for its eventual appearance'.

And Mcann brings me neatly to the second thread in the SP article, the (non) comparison to Northern Ireland. The article states that 'The situation in Britain is nowhere near that of Northern Ireland at the present time.' It is also nowhere near the situation of Northern Ireland in the late '60s.

In NI you had an entrenched division in the working class, with sectarian organisations like the Orange Lodges with an existence going back generations. In the UK you have a tradition of united trade unionism and anti-racism. In NI you had large skilled workplaces that were the preserve of just one community, in East London you simply don't - organised workplaces like the councils or the transport system have integrated workforces. In NI then you had a community fighting bitterly against a virtual pogrom, which is fortunately not the case here. And lastly the implicit comparison between Respect and Sinn Fein is laughable:

Already in Bristol we have an example of a situation which would be analogous (on the SP comparison) to a shop steward standing for Sinn Fein in an area that is 95% Protestant, and coming second with 25% of the vote. Which, err, has never happened.

There are of course big worries in the situation. The fact that the Dockers organisation in East London is just a memory, and Ford Dagenhams has gone. But Respect can fight and provide an alternative on a far wider scale - so I'd better fuck off and do something more meaningful really..


----------



## mutley (May 23, 2006)

Come on SPers, don't be shy.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 12, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Come on SPers, don't be shy.



Silence.

I've now undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the voting in Tower Hamlets wards in both 2006 and 2002.  The results are rather interesting to the propagators of the thesis that there was great significance in the fact that no white candidate was elected for Respect.

I analysed the results for two things:
- firstly the ratio between the Lowest/Highest candidate for each of the major parties (I call this 'the L/H %' for short)
- secondly whether in that particular ward the party candidates were distributed with someone with an Asian name coming first for the party, whereas someone without an Asian name came third for the party; for brevity I'll call this Asian/Non-Asian bias or AN-AB for short.

Obviously where there is an AN-AB, the L/H % tells you about the significance compared to other parties, ie which party was most affected by the AN-AB.  In the analysis that follows all figures are L/H %

In the 2006 elections, of the 17 wards in Tower Hamlets, there were only *three *where there was an AN-AB for Respect and this was the lowest L/H %.   By a peculiar coincidence these also happen to be the first three in alphabetical order, therefore some people may have been misled into thinking that every ward followed the same pattern.  The three were (Respect L/H % in brackets):

Bethnal Green North (53.9%)
Bethnal Green South (72.5%)
Blackwall & Cubitt Town (54.4%)

In a further *eight* wards, another party also had an AN-AB with a worse L/H % than Respect.  (worst affected party first, others with AN-AB in brackets, all % are relevant L/H % for that party):

Bow West Con 61.5% (Res 84.2%, Lab 86.4%)
Bromley-by-Bow Lab 54.2% (Res 70.6%)
East India & Lansbury LibDem 40.9% (Lab 57.6%, Res 71.8%)
Limehouse LibDem 68.9% (Res 77.7%, Lab 79.5%)
Mile End & Globe Town Con 48.6% (LibDem 68.8%, Res 70.8%, Lab 76.1%)
Mile End East Lab 52.0% (Con 68.7%, Res 75.7%)
Spitalfields & Banglatown LibDem 64.6%
Weavers LibDem 52.1% (Res 58.9%, Lab 67.3%)

In St Katherine's & Wapping there were no Respect candidates, but Labour suffered an AN-AB which had an L/H % of 93.2% (they did fail to win a third seat, although they had the largest proportion of votes cast)

The other five wards had mixed analysis.  In two, Respect had an AN-AB, but the Tories actually had a worse L/H ratio (Bow East and St Dunstan's & Stepney).  In Whitechapel, Millwall and Shadwell no party had an AN-AB. 

*So the conclusion of this is that although there was a clear Asian/Non-Asian Bias that was most strongly against Respect in three wards, in nine other wards another party had a worse Asian/Non-Asian bias than Respect.*

I also went back to the *2002 elections*, before Respect was formed, and was not surprised to see that in *12 out of the 17 ward at least one party had a significant Asian/Non-Asian Bias*, indicating that this phenomenon pre-dates Respect and is part of the electoral landscape in Tower Hamlets.

The 2002 wards that had an AN-AB for at least one party and the related L/H % were as follows:
Bethnal Green North LibDem 89.6%
Bethnal Breen South Con 75.7%, Lib Dem 90.5%, Lab 92.5%
Blackwall & Cubbitt Town Lab 90.5%
Bow West Con 68.0% Lab 93.8%
East India & Lansbury LibDem 67.1%, Lab 74.5%
Limehouse Lab 89.4%
Mile End & Globe Town: Lab 69.8%, LibDem 85.7%
Mile End East LibDem 93.9%
Shadwell LibDem 63.9%
Spitalfields & Banglatown Con 68.0%
St Katherine's & Wapping LibDem 67.7%
Weavers Lab 79.1%, LibDem 81.1%, Con 46.4%

To illustrate the fact that this phenomenon predated Respect, I give below the 2002 result for Mile End & Globe Town ward below where both Lab and LibDem parties had an Asian/Non-Asian Bias, and it made a difference in the outcome.  The figures below show the lowest and highest and % for each party (so you can check my maths and method).  I could have also used Weavers ward where all three parties had Asian candidates top and non-Asian candidates bottom of their list.

I rest my case.  Let the Defence present theirs!


Mile End & Globe Town 2002 results
Candidate	Description	Votes
Chowdhury, Mohammed Jainal Uddin (Known As Jainal	Lib Dem	1,108
Ahmed, Rofique Uddin 	Labour	1,042
Duffey, Barrie Charles	Lib Dem	1,008
Tucker, Rosina Stella 	Lib Dem	950
Shajahan, Sharmin 	Labour	778
Taylor, Graham Malcolm 	Labour	727
Hoque, Jahidul 	Con	326
Coombes, Christopher William	Green	267
Gordon, Amelia Jo 	Green	218
Fletcher, Michael James Gwynne 	Con	217
Karim, Mohammad Rezaul 	Con	174
Hicks, Jeremy Guy 	Green	156

Lab
Highest 1042 (Asian)
Lowest 727 (Non-Asian)
L/H: 69.8%

Lib Dem
Highest 1108 (Asian)
Lowest 950 (Non-Asian)
L/H: 85.7%


----------



## articul8 (Jun 12, 2006)

err - without getting bogged down in psephological detail... 

isn't the point that the left should be _ breaking decisively _ with ordinary voting patterns?

The fact that the communalist element of Respect's vote still to a large extent replicates that of the old corrupt bourgeois parties is surely still itself a problem, even if that problem doesn't originate entirely with them.


----------



## JoePolitix (Jun 12, 2006)

Whilst there are obviously problems with Respect's chances of success being usually limited to communities with high muslim populations, to describe their stratagy as "communalist" is misguided. 

I think the key element of communalism is to pit various ethnic or religious groups *against* each other (eg the BNP etc). This is blatently not part of respect's campiagn with merely demands equal rights and an end to discrimination. As far as I see it the problem is not that alot of Muslims vote for Respect but that hardly anybody else does.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 12, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Silence



http://www.socialismtoday.org/101/britain.html - "Respect and the elections" (sub article to main analysis of electons in Socialist Today - theoretical journal of the SP)


----------



## mutley (Jun 12, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> http://www.socialismtoday.org/101/britain.html - "Respect and the elections" (sub article to main analysis of electons in Socialist Today - theoretical journal of the SP)



I replied to the points in the SP article in post 638 above. Still waiting for a reply.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 12, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> I think the key element of communalism is to pit various ethnic or religious groups *against* each other (eg the BNP etc). .



not necessarily.  A communalist politics is one which appeals to a particular, narrowly sectional group in isolation from the wider society.  I don't say Respect is entirely communalist - but there is an unmistakable element of a communalist appeal.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 12, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Come on SPers, don't be shy.



this was thr reply? (post 638)


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 12, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Whilst there are obviously problems with Respect's chances of success being usually limited to communities with high muslim populations, to describe their stratagy as "communalist" is misguided.
> 
> I think the key element of communalism is to pit various ethnic or religious groups *against* each other (eg the BNP etc). This is blatently not part of respect's campiagn with merely demands equal rights and an end to discrimination. As far as I see it the problem is not that alot of Muslims vote for Respect but that hardly anybody else does.



I'm afraid you are making the unwarranted assumption that a communalist startegy must entail agitating against communties other than that in question. Which the cleverer communalists are quite capable of pointing out is not the case in that their aim is to redress inequalities effecting their community not to deprive other communities.

Which sounds fine but is predicated on the populace as a whole belonging to one or other community. Which cannot but mitigate against any project which seeks to build on the basis of class.


----------



## mutley (Jun 12, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> this was thr reply? (post 638)



Ah. Just testing. Post 637...


----------



## mutley (Jun 12, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> I'm afraid you are making the unwarranted assumption that a communalist startegy must entail agitating against communties other than that in question. Which the cleverer communalists are quite capable of pointing out is not the case in that their aim is to redress inequalities effecting their community not to deprive other communities.
> 
> Which sounds fine but is predicated on the populace as a whole belonging to one or other community. Which cannot but mitigate against any project which seeks to build on the basis of class.



Build on class basis but don't deny that some groups suffer racism/oppression. Cos that's the route your heading down in your post - and implying that anyone who does oppose oppression of their community is just a 'clever' communalist.

Tara for now.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 13, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> Build on class basis but don't deny that some groups suffer racism/oppression. Cos that's the route your heading down in your post - and implying that anyone who does oppose oppression of their community is just a 'clever' communalist.
> 
> Tara for now.



Not in the least. You my friend are making the unwarranted assumption that I'm heading down some purist path that neglects oppression as a political factor. Similarly you claim that I'm suggesting that anybody resisting oppression is a 'clever communalist' without a shred of evidence to back you up.

look the truth of the matter is that the oppression of Muslims in Britain today is not the central question of British politics and there are no working class left inclined groups organising against said oppression within the Muslim communities. for the good reason that said oppression is les now than it has been historically. To give two examples gangs of white youth no longer go out 'Paki bashing' as was once common and the police are by no means as racist as they were in the days of the 'sus' laws.

Frankly I think that the leaders of the SWP, historical materialists all, have a poor sense of history. Do they not recall that back in the 1970's the IWA was a large left wing workers group which included considerable numbers of muslim workers? Do they not recall that the Southall Youth Movement and similar bodies also organised considerable numbers of supporters, mostly from muslim backgrounds, to fight racism and police oppression? Perhaps they don't recall this although one Respect recruit in brum was a part of all this, because the way both IS and SWP related to such movements was very different to the way you now relate to the so called Muslim community.

In short the IS/SWP sought to relate to Asian workers and youth on the basis of an active fight in the streets against state racism by winning such workers and youth to a consistent revolutionary politics. No question then of falling into a pallid electoralism and setting up a populist electoral machine. In short the IS/SWP put class first and totally ignored the petty bourgeois elements, some of them based in the Mosques, who are now your allies and in many class the direct exploiters of labour.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> err - without getting bogged down in psephological detail...
> 
> isn't the point that the left should be _ breaking decisively _ with ordinary voting patterns?
> 
> The fact that the communalist element of Respect's vote still to a large extent replicates that of the old corrupt bourgeois parties is surely still itself a problem, even if that problem doesn't originate entirely with them.



It's not parties who vote - it's the people who are voters, and parties don't control them.  In multi-member wards, voters have more choice than in single member elections, they therefore have the right to exercise their choice.  If a a minority of voters are prepared to put ethnic considerations above political ones, there is nothing parties can do to stop them.  [It is a minority because as you can see from the data in most wards some 60-80% of voters appear to have voted for all the candidates on a parties slate].  It is not entirely a reactionary trend, as there is massive under-representation and oppression of ethnic minorities in british political life, it is hardly surprising that some people should want to redress that as their first concern.

By putting forward slates that in the most part reflected a mixed ethnicity, Respect was directly challenging this tendency of a small minority towards ethnic rather than political voting.  Had Respect stood an entirely monoethnic slate of candidates it would have undoubtedly won more seats - that it didn't do so indicates that it is seeking to challenge rather than pander to this view.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 13, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> If a a minority of voters are prepared to put ethnic considerations above political ones, there is nothing parties can do to stop them.
> 
> Had Respect stood an entirely monoethnic slate of candidates it would have undoubtedly won more seats



There is a lot of tokenism here a la Cameron's Tories - making an assumption background/gender/ethnicity of candidates is itself indicative of a political approach.

The whole point is that Respect would have been _ more _ likely to cut across communalist voting patterns had it advanced a more distinctive, combative class-based approach. 

Saying that voting patterns in areas you were successful (overwhelmingly muslim-dominated) suffered marginally less from communalist discrimination then the mainstream bourgeois parties does nothing to vindicate your strategy _politically_.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> There is a lot of tokenism here a la Cameron's Tories - making an assumption background/gender/ethnicity of candidates is itself indicative of a political approach.
> 
> The whole point is that Respect would have been _ more _ likely to cut across communalist voting patterns had it advanced a more distinctive, combative class-based approach.
> 
> Saying that voting patterns in areas you were successful (overwhelmingly muslim-dominated) suffered marginally less from communalist discrimination then the mainstream bourgeois parties does nothing to vindicate your strategy _politically_.


.  But we DID have a more distinctive, combative class-based approach.
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9766


----------



## articul8 (Jun 13, 2006)

Socialist Review said:
			
		

> Those who have joined Respect and stood for election come from a range of different backgrounds — among them are trade unionists



Yes, and also amongst them are people from a background in Conservative politics, or former advisors to the pro-imperialist UN.  Oh, but your hack (sorry correspondent) forgot to mention this?

oh, and remember this
GEORGE GALLOWAY:


> we don't bind a Muslim candidate in Yorkshire to the explicitly socialist parts of our programme…Many of them are small business people and wouldn't describe themselves as socialists and are not bound to accept it. And the same goes for other issues including tax


----------



## osterberg (Jun 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Yes, and also amongst them are people from a background in Conservative politics, or former advisors to the pro-imperialist UN.  Oh, but your hack (sorry correspondent) forgot to mention this?
> 
> oh, and remember this
> GEORGE GALLOWAY:


 Are you saying ex-members of the Conservative party have joined Respect?
Who?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 13, 2006)

With backgrounds like this, would you be surprised?



> Councillor Asif Karim -  Managing Director ABZ Trading Ltd





> Abdurahman Jafar is Respect mayoral candidate for Newham in the 2006 elections. He is a barrister...
> 
> Born, raised and educated in east London, Abdurahman was a member of the Royal Green Jackets in the Territorial Army based at East Ham. He was with the first British Troops to enter Prishtina, Kosovo, where he later worked for the UN



Managing directors and Barristers of the world unite?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Yes, and also amongst them are people from a background in Conservative politics, or former advisors to the pro-imperialist UN.  Oh, but your hack (sorry correspondent) forgot to mention this?
> 
> oh, and remember this
> GEORGE GALLOWAY:


 you are so dishonest.  No one suggested it was an independent nonpartisan article.  It was a political polemic, designed to counter the political polemics waged against Respect from the likes of Nick Cohen etc.  

The Article was well aware of conservatives and more radicals amongst Moslems, 





> Some Muslims, though opposing the war, remained loyal to Labour, and some white voters, because they opposed the war, chose to vote Respect. The canvassing returns demonstrated that the split tended to emerge on class lines, with Bengali Muslims in better-off areas like Wapping being more inclined to stick with Labour, while white voters in poorer areas were more likely to support Respect. The supposedly monolithic "Muslim vote" was split, and therefore it was entirely logical for Respect to build a campaign that united all sections of the working class — the point of unity being over the question of Iraq. By focusing firstly on the war, and secondly on the broader issues of New Labour's rule, Respect was able to build support across working class areas in Bethnal Green & Bow, Muslim and non-Muslim.


I suppose you do not subscribe to any of the views of Marx and Engels coming from such Conservative backgrounds?  Marx and Engels argued the left should act as a poll of attraction, but with your holier than thou attitude you just repel them.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> With backgrounds like this, would you be surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


whereas your position is, "nobody unite, let's just argue about our differences!"


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> There is a lot of tokenism here a la Cameron's Tories - making an assumption background/gender/ethnicity of candidates is itself indicative of a political approach.
> 
> The whole point is that Respect would have been _ more _ likely to cut across communalist voting patterns had it advanced a more distinctive, combative class-based approach.
> 
> Saying that voting patterns in areas you were successful (overwhelmingly muslim-dominated) suffered marginally less from communalist discrimination then the mainstream bourgeois parties does nothing to vindicate your strategy _politically_.



There are no "overwhelmingly muslim dominated" wards contested by Respect.  There are a few wards in which the muslim proportion rises to just over half, but this does not constitute an "overwhelming" majority.  

As I've made clear elsewhere, the wards with the highest muslim population in the country are in Labour-controlled Blackburn, constituency of Labour Cabinet Member Jack Straw, a politician who makes a point of being seen as a "friend of muslims".  

While it is certainly true that many of the wards contested by Respect have a significant muslim population, typically 20-40%, there are some where Respect did well where the muslim population is much lower - such as Riversway in Preston (10% muslim - 11% hindu, 15% atheist and 53% christian) and Lockleaze in Bristol (4% muslim, 2% sikh, 22% atheist, 61% christian), both wards where Respect came second winning 25% of the vote (with white candidates);  these votes could have only been achieved by winning a significant non-muslim population to voting for Respect.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> With backgrounds like this, would you be surprised?
> 
> Managing directors and Barristers of the world unite?



Not the only ones of course ...



> "Salaried GPs
> Salaried GPs earn approximately £50,000 to £76,000, dependant on equivalent service, special experience, local job market requirements among other factors."
> NHS Careers - Salaries for GPs 2006
> http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/nhs-knowledge_base/data/5340.html





> Socialist Party member and GP, Jackie Grunsell scored a spectacular victory in the local elections standing for the Save Huddersfield NHS campaign.
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2006/439/index.html?id=np1.htm


----------



## articul8 (Jun 13, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> :I suppose you do not subscribe to any of the views of Marx and Engels coming from such Conservative backgrounds?  Marx and Engels argued the left should act as a poll of attraction, but with your holier than thou attitude you just repel them.



Marx + Engels were _ revolutionaries _.  How did they come to draw these conclusions?  On the back of the historical experience of waves of mass working class radicalisation - 1789, 1848 etc.  ie.  precisely NOT by the influence of melioristic, social-democratic style 'moderate' politics that tried not to scare off conservative elements.

And despite their own class origins, they were absolutely firm on basing the programme of revolutionary socialists on the interests of the working class itself.  They did not advocate a Galloway style 'pick and choose' programme according to the particular interests of middle class individuals (themselves included).  

This line from the SR report is interesting


> it was entirely logical for Respect to build a campaign that united all sections of the working class — the point of unity being over the question of Iraq.



come again?  Isn't the unity in question precisely the experience of the working class _ as a class _?  All manner of people were against war in Iraq - from right-wing Islamists, to liberal peaceniks; from far right parties, to concerned capitalists.  

Why does it follow that Iraq is 'the' point of unity around which to construct a political programme for socialists?  Sure, socialists can - and should - try to build a coalition around particular objectives (eg. the STWC) - but this does not mean they should water-down their wider political objectives in order not to frighten off the assorted detritus who might also happen to agree on that one issue.  




			
				Fisher Gate said:
			
		

> "Salaried GPs
> Salaried GPs earn approximately £50,000 to £76,000, dependant on equivalent service, special experience, local job market requirements among other factors."



most people will see a big difference between a General Practioner working in the NHS for substantially less than they could earn in the private sector, and the managing director of a private enterprise.

In any case
1) No-one in the SP - to my knowledge - has argue that GP's should be able to opt in and out of bits of its programme according to their class inclinations (see Galloway quote above), and
2) All their elected reps are committed to taking the average workers' wage, unlike a certain somebody who would be hard pushed to keep himself in his Armani's.  

and as for this


> there are some where Respect did well where the muslim population is much lower - such as Riversway in Preston (10% muslim - 11% hindu, 15% atheist and 53% christian



I really don't see just over 300 votes in a ward which the Respect candidate used to represent for Labour as a resounding success.  It certainly doesn't bode well for your attempt to get Cllr. Steven Brooks re-elected (or are you planning to switch him to a ward with more muslims )


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 13, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> I really don't see just over 300 votes in a ward which the Respect candidate used to represent for Labour as a resounding success.  ...




I think it depends on what your comparison is for your definition of 'a resounding success' which I never claimed it was - I would simply call it "a good vote for Respect"  (and obviously you need to take into account differing sizes of electorates and compare percentage vote and positions, rather than number of votes) :



> Stoke-on-Trent City Council
> Abbey Green Election Results
> Ward elections results for 4 May 2006 local elections.
> 
> ...





> Preston City Council
> 
> Riversway ward
> 1st Linda Crompton	Labour	501	ELECTED	40.5%
> ...


----------



## osterberg (Jun 14, 2006)

Articul8, where did you get your quotes about Karim and Jafar from?
 How big is Karim's company?
 How big was Jafar's role in the Kosovo war?
If you make claims you have to be able to back them up.

 By the way my uncle was in the British Army in Kenya during the crushing of the Mau Mau uprising but I've been able to forgive him.

And there have been left wing barristers.Micheal Mansfield for example.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 14, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Articul8, where did you get your quotes about Karim and Jafar from?



Karim info from council website register of members' interests.  Jafar's background fairly widely availible.



> And there have been left wing barristers.Micheal Mansfield for example.



Yes, and I've no problem per se with recruiting left wing barristers and fielding them as candidates - my problem is with pitching the politics of your programme around demands which are designed more likely to win the support of the liberal middle class than workers (muslim or white).  

As for Fisher_Gate's observation re Stoke/Preston Riversway, Abbott wasn't facing a challenge from another left independent, and an active BNP presence which makes like a fair bit harder.  Still, I suspect that the SP are somewhat disappointed not to have had Sutton re-elected. 

From what I know of the situation in Preston, it doesn't provide much evidence for your claims about winning support from across different ethnic communities.  To win Tulketh would be a different kettle of fish, and a real achievement were it to happen.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 14, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Karim info from council website register of members' interests.  Jafar's background fairly widely availible.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and I've no problem per se with recruiting left wing barristers and fielding them as candidates - my problem is with pitching the politics of your programme around demands which are designed more likely to win the support of the liberal middle class than workers (muslim or white).



 Thanks for that.I will go google Jafar for I am intrigued.

You do realise that Respect supporters will argue vociferously that Respect's programme is not designed to win the support of the "liberal middle class" as I'm sure they have at some length on these message boards.

 Could you give examples of what you mean?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 14, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Whilst there are obviously problems with Respect's chances of success being usually limited to communities with high muslim populations, to describe their stratagy as "communalist" is misguided.
> 
> I think the key element of communalism is to pit various ethnic or religious groups *against* each other (eg the BNP etc). This is blatently not part of respect's campiagn with merely demands equal rights and an end to discrimination. As far as I see it the problem is not that alot of Muslims vote for Respect but that hardly anybody else does.






			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> not necessarily.  A communalist politics is one which appeals to a particular, narrowly sectional group in isolation from the wider society.  I don't say Respect is entirely communalist - but there is an unmistakable element of a communalist appeal.


I think respect policies SHOULD appeal to progressive people.  I do not believe the Respect policies are specifically designed to appeal to one "Moslem community".  I don't think there is any such thing as a "Moslem community".  Moslems am not a homogenous block, they have divisions amongst them.
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9766

I think the comments from Joe, are more genuine.  The fact that the policies of respect have garnered support disproportionately from working-class Moslems is only a bridgehead, which MUST built upon, into all sections of the working class, if Respect is to be what SW hoped it would be.  (I don't think we should be surprised that those most under the cosh from new Labour, add the first to break from voting Labour.  Previously 85% of Moslems voted Labour)


----------



## Ave N. Ham (Jun 14, 2006)

Been away and tried to catch up on this thread. One thought struck me. Haven't you all got jobs to go to or lives to live? statistics statistics statistics


----------



## articul8 (Jun 14, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> I think respect policies SHOULD appeal to progressive people.


Define "progressive"....?

And there's no problem in appealing to all kinds of people who wouldn't call themselves socialists at this stage.  Indeed, it's essential.  But that appeal can be made on the basis of a clear class programme not on a "don't say anything that will scare that petit-bourgeois shop owner might not agree with" basis.      

My problem is taking the war as 'the' point of unity (see your SR article ), and emphasising as issue which is more likely to unite (muslim?) boss with (muslim?) worker, than taking 'class' as the basis for that unity.  


> I don't think there is any such thing as a "Moslem community".


Like Thatcher: "no such thing as society"  


> Moslems am not a homogenous block, they have divisions amongst them.


who has ever argued that members of a community must all have identical interests?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 14, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> You do realise that Respect supporters will argue vociferously that Respect's programme is not designed to win the support of the "liberal middle class" as I'm sure they have at some length on these message boards.
> 
> Could you give examples of what you mean?


Again, it's worth quoting Galloway,


> we don't bind a Muslim candidate in Yorkshire to the explicitly socialist parts of our programme…Many of them are small business people and wouldn't describe themselves as socialists and are not bound to accept it. And the same goes for other issues including tax



leaving aside the dubious idea that there ARE explicitly socialist elements of the programme , this shows the SWP's cynicism up for what it is. 'candidates fight on the coalition's programme, socialists within it argue "X, Y and Z".  Some others might hold a different view.'

But the whole emphasis and orientation of Respect in _ action _ is to play up a handful of themes (eg. Iraq, Palestine, Guantanoma - add a few LCD liberal demands about Britain eg. "don't criminalise our young people", and keep class demands down to a threshold so low that the imams/petit-bourgeois aren't unduly alarmed.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 14, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> Again, it's worth quoting Galloway,
> 
> 
> leaving aside the dubious idea that there ARE explicitly socialist elements of the programme , this shows the SWP's cynicism up for what it is. 'candidates fight on the coalition's programme, socialists within it argue "X, Y and Z".  Some others might hold a different view.'
> ...



 It's not the'SWP's cynicism' if you're quoting Galloway.
I beleive he's not a member of the SWP.
Remarks Galloway made as an individual in an interview are not necessarily Respect policy,are they?


----------



## articul8 (Jun 14, 2006)

that's just plain naive.  When people first got to vote for Respect, it had "Respect - George Galloway" on the ballot papers.  The two are indivisible.  

And it has suited the SWP so far.  Galloway tells muslim shop-keepers/small businessmen one thing, John Rees tells meetings of the left another altogether.  Suits both parties upto a point.  But with the election of a large body of non-SWP muslims with little political track record, this might start to come under some strain.

And of what use is a party's "policy" if it is contradicted in practise by its most prominent member amongst others?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 14, 2006)

Does no-one have any comments about my post on the Asian/Non-Asian bias in voting in Tower Hamlets?  As I'm trying to make clear, it's not something that is of Respect's making, but applies to all parties in Tower Hamlets to a significant extent.  

It's not something that happened significantly to Respect candidates in Newham by the way.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 14, 2006)

Some of the critics of Respect might be interested to hear that there concerns are shared by the guys who picket _Jerry Springer - The Opera_! -
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/islam8.html


----------



## mutley (Jun 14, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> Does no-one have any comments about my post on the Asian/Non-Asian bias in voting in Tower Hamlets?  As I'm trying to make clear, it's not something that is of Respect's making, but applies to all parties in Tower Hamlets to a significant extent.
> 
> It's not something that happened significantly to Respect candidates in Newham by the way.



Unfortunately the pattern is that ill-informed bullshit, once comprehensively refuted, will be abandoned rather than defended. What then happens is that a new line in ill-informed bullshit is trotted out, and the cycle begins again.

This is why taking time and energy to provide detailed refutations of aforementioned bullshit is rarely worthwhile. Soz.

A similar pattern is visible in the Socialist Party's ludicrous comparison of East London with the Northern Ireland in the early years of the trouble. I've argued against this, but the argument is ignored. However if something comes up where they feel on stronger ground there'll be no reluctance to post.

Part of the reason for this of course is that the comparison to N. Ireland is basically for internal consumption, rather than public debate.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 15, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> that's just plain naive.  When people first got to vote for Respect, it had "Respect - George Galloway" on the ballot papers.  The two are indivisible.
> 
> And it has suited the SWP so far.  Galloway tells muslim shop-keepers/small businessmen one thing, John Rees tells meetings of the left another altogether.  Suits both parties upto a point.  But with the election of a large body of non-SWP muslims with little political track record, this might start to come under some strain.
> 
> And of what use is a party's "policy" if it is contradicted in practise by its most prominent member amongst others?



 No,sorry you did refer to the _SWP's_ cynicism while quoting GG not Respect.

You're other points might have a grain of truth but time will tell.

 However I don't understand the resentment you have for the election of a group of councillors on a left of Labour,anti-war platform by a mainly working class vote with a sizeable amount of non-white votes(this is a good thing).

 Have ,for example,the SP achieved that?

 Criticism is fine but do acknowledge that Respect has had some success.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 15, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Have ,for example,the SP achieved that?



Yes. All of the areas where the Socialist Party has elected councillors are ethnically mixed. The crucial difference is that the Socialist Party has attracted votes in those areas on the basis of a class rather than a communal or religious appeal.

As for acknowledging that Respect has had some success, we can't speak for articul8 but the Socialist Party has always done just that. We not only acknowledge but welcome Respects (so far small scale) successes, which doesn't stop us from pointing to the limits to and flaws in Respect's approach.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 15, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> No,sorry you did refer to the _SWP's_ cynicism while quoting GG not Respect.



The SWP are cynical in accepting (and implicitly endorsing) Galloway's popular-front era Stalinist politics as the basis of Respect.  



> However I don't understand the resentment you have for the election of a group of councillors on a left of Labour,anti-war platform by a mainly working class vote with a sizeable amount of non-white votes(this is a good thing).



I agree with the SP on this.  I don't doubt Respect has made quite a substantial inrode in certain kinds of ward with higher than average muslim electorates - which include some of the most deprived areas of the inner cities (particularly in East London and Birmingham).  This is not insignificant, and if it was achieved on the basis of a clear class appeal it would be welcome indeed.   

The problems, however, are
a) this strategy of focusing on a narrow, sectional interest rather than the working class as a whole means that it offers very little in the way of an alternative for the many working class areas with low ethnic populations.  

b) the point is not just what 'programme' people are elected on (and even then 80% of it is stuff a Lib Dem could agree with), but what social forces they represent and the direction they will move _ in practice _.  Time will tell - and hopefully a stronger element of class politics will begin to emerge, and Respect might be one of the constituents in the push for a genuine mass alternative to Labour - but if it maintains its current direction and orientation, Respect is heading into a dead-end of 'muslim-bloc' politics.

(BTW - Mutley, I don't think the N.Ireland analogy was especially helpful - the dissimilarities are as striking as the similarities.  But the essential point that the left can make headway in uniting workers across entrenched divisions between communities - on the basis of class demands - is correct.)


----------



## dennisr (Jun 15, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> A similar pattern is visible in the Socialist Party's ludicrous comparison of East London with the Northern Ireland in the early years of the trouble. I've argued against this, but the argument is ignored. However if something comes up where they feel on stronger ground there'll be no reluctance to post.
> 
> Part of the reason for this of course is that the comparison to N. Ireland is basically for internal consumption, rather than public debate.



So others can decide for themselves if Mutleys version of the discussion is a fair one...

Pasted:
Respect and the elections

THE SOCIALIST, the Socialist Party’s weekly newspaper, carried an article in issue 439 by Judy Beishon on Respect’s election results. Some, particularly the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), the backbone of Respect, objected to the following statement in the article: "Respect declares that their twelve council seats in Tower Hamlets are ‘one more than the BNP in Barking and Dagenham’. This would be a cause for great celebration by the left as a whole, if it had been achieved on a clear class-based programme. But instead, unfortunately, Respect could unconsciously further the beginnings of a polarisation based on racial division, by not countering the growing perception that it is a ‘party for Muslims’."

The SWP made its objection in its ‘Party Notes’, which it distributes internally within their party. But why have they not publicly taken up the Socialist Party and others if they feel so strongly about our criticisms and, it seems, those of Bob Crow (of the railway workers’ union RMT)? The increased number of councillors for Respect is an important political development. It is related, in our view, to the manifestation in this election of a certain racial polarisation (see accompanying article). Socialists should do nothing, even inadvertently, to widen this divide, which is not wide or unbridgeable at present. This was the concern of the Socialist Party in raising the above criticisms of Respect and the SWP.

In their notes, the SWP wrote: "We have to take these arguments on and should not be defensive in the slightest. These people consciously ignore the excellent results of comrades like Jerry in Bristol, Maxine in Sheffield and Albert in Harlesden. Our candidates are not just Muslims – Olli Rahman, one of our councillors is a PCS activist, Abdul Sheik a councillor in Newham is an ex-shop steward at Fords in Dagenham and two of our key candidates in Newham are RMT members (Bob Crow didn’t know this! That maybe because he didn’t look beyond our candidates’ ethnic/religious origins)".

Are the criticisms of Respect and, by definition, the SWP made by the Socialist Party and Bob Crow inaccurate and unfair? The simple aphorism, ‘show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are’ applies in politics. In the 2004 European and London Authority elections, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), as Clive Heemskerk pointed out in the July/August 2004 edition of Socialism Today, "gave selective support to Respect, claim[ing] that support for Respect amongst Muslims was higher ‘in the five regions where MAB specifically recommended Respect candidates… endorsing the Muslim bloc phenomenon’. (MAB press release, First step in the right direction, 17 June 2004)."

Our article went on to state: "MAB’s aim is clear, to establish ‘a Muslim bloc’ to bargain for the ‘best deal for Muslims’ from any party, including pro-capitalist ones, rather than to join a drive for a new mass workers’ party that could address the needs of all sections of the working class. Respect, by portraying itself as ‘the party for Muslims’, unfortunately has not challenged this approach, which will advance neither the real interests of workers who are Muslims nor aid the development of working-class unity".

We also pointed out that if Respect represented a turning away from Labour, now a capitalist party, by Asian workers towards a more developed class consciousness, this would indeed be a positive step. But, unfortunately, under the leadership of George Galloway and the SWP, Respect has so far not acted as this bridge to a new workers’ party, but reinforced the idea of ‘Muslim interests’ completely separate from those of other sections of the working class. Neither the SWP nor George Galloway repudiated these criticisms at the time nor do they in their current statement.

Despite the protestations of the SWP it remains a fact that all the successful candidates for Respect were Asians. The SWP did not get a single member of its party elected in 2006 and now has just one councillor in Respect’s ranks, Michael Lavallette in Preston. He was elected in 2003 under the banner of the Socialist Alliance. The fact that some successful Respect council candidates were PCS activists, for instance Oliur Rahman in Tower Hamlets, does not, however, alter the political character of Respect.

During the ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland and now there were shop stewards in the ranks of Sinn Fein, some of whom were effective in the workplace, often representing workers from both sides of the religious divide. Some of these workers believed, no doubt, they could appeal to Protestant workers on a political level because of the industrial positions which they held. But the perception in the eyes of Protestant workers of Sinn Fein as an organisation based on one section of the Catholic community made it, and continues to make it, impossible for this organisation to reach over the religious divide to workers on the other side. That can only be done in Northern Ireland through a new mass workers’ party, bringing together Catholic and Protestant workers, which rejects the sectarian policies of the main parties on both sides of the divide. The Socialist Party in Northern Ireland has tirelessly worked for this goal at a time, by the way, when the SWP at times acted as uncritical supporters of Sinn Fein.

The situation in Britain is nowhere near that of Northern Ireland at the present time. But the Northern Ireland of 35 years ago was not what it is today. Before the Troubles, Catholic and Protestant workers came together in the Northern Ireland Labour Party, which managed to win 100,000 votes in the 1970 general election. Despite its limitations, this represented a bridgehead for the beginnings of a process for cementing class unity. Unfortunately, this prospect was shattered through the ‘troubles’ and the resulting sectarian polarisation which scars the lives of workers in Northern Ireland today.

The lessons of this conflict and how it began, as well as other examples from history of how the labour movement sought to overcome religious or sectarian divisions, is lost on the leadership of Respect and particularly the SWP. The fact that some non-Asian, SWP members received reasonable votes in the circumstances, is to be welcomed. But this does not undermine the perception among broad layers of the working class, not just ourselves, that Respect is narrowly based on one section of the community, including the perception by many Asians, Muslims in particular, that it is ‘their’ party. Respect itself did nothing to refute this.

Contrast the approach of the SWP and Respect to the successful campaign of Jackie Grunsell in Huddersfield. She stood on a ‘Save the NHS’ platform, a clear class issue, which cut across communal divisions. We wish that Respect had positioned itself and campaigned in the same way because, as we explained in The Socialist, if these electoral victories of Respect had been on a clear class programme and perspectives, the left would have welcomed this as a starting point for a discussion on a new mass workers’ party. Of necessity, this would also involve a discussion on the need for a federal approach towards a new workers’ party, something the SWP rejects.

However, despite our criticisms of Respect and George Galloway, we would still hope that, through a discussion – which involves honestly dealing with political differences – the basis could be laid for a common approach to assembling the forces of a new mass workers’ party in Britain. Because of its origins, its appeal to one section of the community, as well as its limited programme and internal regime, Respect – if it continues on its present trajectory – will not be able to break out of its present political cul-de-sac.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 15, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Yes. All of the areas where the Socialist Party has elected councillors are ethnically mixed. The crucial difference is that the Socialist Party has attracted votes in those areas on the basis of a class rather than a communal or religious appeal.
> 
> As for acknowledging that Respect has had some success, we can't speak for articul8 but the Socialist Party has always done just that. We not only acknowledge but welcome Respects (so far small scale) successes, which doesn't stop us from pointing to the limits to and flaws in Respect's approach.


 Respect would argue that they campaigned on the basis of class too.
Can you show any examples from their election material that shows a communal or religious approach?
 I also welcome the Socialist Party's small scale successes.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 15, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> The problems, however, are
> a) this strategy of focusing on a narrow, sectional interest rather than the working class as a whole means that it offers very little in the way of an alternative for the many working class areas with low ethnic populations.


 You really do have to prove this.I don't think Respect's  critics on this point have really done that. Is it because there are lot of muslim people in Tower Hamlets?
 If a party campaigning against the war is doing its job right it should pick up muslim votes.After all it is muslims that are bearing the main brunt of the state's attack on our civil liberties.An attack which is a consequence of the Iraq war.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 15, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Respect would argue that they campaigned on the basis of class too.



The truth or otherwise of your point is what the questions raised and resulting disagreements (between the various lefts at least) here has been about


----------



## dennisr (Jun 15, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> You really do have to prove this.I don't think Respect's  critics on this point have really done that. Is it because there are lot of muslim people in Tower Hamlets?



One of the difficulties of debating such a point is the constant attempts (yours is more subtle than Udo's) to equate any critisism with some form of veiled racism... 




			
				osterberg said:
			
		

> If a party campaigning against the war is doing its job right it should pick up muslim votes.After all it is muslims that are bearing the main brunt of the state's attack on our civil liberties.An attack which is a consequence of the Iraq war.



Yes, nobody disagrees with this point. It has been made a few times here already. Its an obvious point. The question is how best to unify working people, Muslim and non-Muslim, to provide an alternative to warmongers


----------



## osterberg (Jun 15, 2006)

Sorry,didn't intend to imply that anyone was racist.
Just wanted some proof for the assertion that Respect's vote inTower Hamlets was 'communal'.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 15, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Sorry,didn't intend to imply that anyone was racist.
> Just wanted some proof for the assertion that Respect's vote inTower Hamlets was 'communal'.



No worries mate - unfortunately some of the cruder defenders of the SWP have done this constantly and crudely - luckily the worst of the offenders seem to be posting less. They don't just detract from and as a result damage the SWPs arguements but give grist to the somewhat bitter mill of some of the less rational anti-SWP elements here. And every left ends up tarred with the same brush.

I have posted above re the question directly from the SP material - it is not a crude arguement that the Tower Hamlets vote is simply communal, something the SP has not stated. it is a genuine concern about some of the elements being pandered to, how the class issues (we both agree should be central to any genuine working class opposition) are raised and how the alliance of forces in Respect are affecting the raising of those clear class issues - ones which could unite working people regardless of religious leanings etc (which we would argue greatly assists any specific defence of Muslims in the UK at the present time)


----------



## osterberg (Jun 15, 2006)

Thanks,dennisr.A refreshing change from some of the wild eyed ravings on this subject.
 Only had a quick look at the statement.will spend more time on it later.
Of course MAB is not affiliated to Respect and if they call for a vote for Respect it doesn't indicate necessarily communalism on Respect's part as the statement seems to imply.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 15, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Of course MAB is not affiliated to Respect and if they call for a vote for Respect it doesn't indicate necessarily communalism on Respect's part as the statement seems to imply.



I would agree with you about MAB but i think the point is that sections of the Muslim community have already attempted to utilise Respect for thier own ends - a 'muslim bloc' as theyt call it. ie that a layer of Muslims clearly see Respect in this way.

The key thing in the statement is this:
"But this does not undermine the perception among broad layers of the working class, not just ourselves, that Respect is narrowly based on one section of the community, including the perception by many Asians, Muslims in particular, that it is ‘their’ party. Respect itself did nothing to refute this."

I would argue that perception clearly exists - among the other lefts, among the other posters here but (much more importantly ...) in the real world. It exists because of the visible representatives and self-appointed leaders of Respect (in the eyes of most and in the eyese of the media...) make statements saying this is so and a reactionary media loves them for it. This is dangerous and potentially divisive (despite all of the intended longer term aims of the SWP whatever they may be - they are seen as defending these 'leaders' very uncritically) at a time of already increased polarisation. I do not think that members of your organisation can pretend this is all simply a figment of other left cynics imaginations or a creation of media distortion (as much as that will play a role). The point is a need to counter this perception as clearly as possible.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 16, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Articul8, where did you get your quotes about Karim and Jafar from?
> How big was Jafar's role in the Kosovo war?
> If you make claims you have to be able to back them up.



Whatever Jafars role in the war in Kosova it should be made clear that unless he has changed his mind in the very recent past he continues to approve of the imperialist occupation of that country. We know this because after leaving his part time employment as a mercenary soldier he returned to Kosova as a liaison officer for the imperialist forces occupying Kosova.

Given that Jafar is a barriister there can be no question that his actions in supporting the actions of imperialism in Kosova are those of a naive man new to politics. Clearly Jafar is only an anti-imperialist when he is of the opinion that imperialismis acting in a manner detrimental to Muslim interests.

It should also be noted that contrary to claims made by Respect supporters Jafar is not a human rights lawyer but is retained counsell for the Muslim Association of Britain the very bourgeois peak body of the so called Muslim community in Britain. he is also an attendee at the City Circle a society of bourgeois Muslims working in the City of London as lawyers and financial shysters in which the well known tax avoidance lawyer Rashad Yaqoob is a leading figure.


By the way Osterberg Kenya was a long time ago and your Uncle was not an officer. Jafar was an officer and the imperialist occupation, which your group opposes, continues to this day. The description of Jafar as an anti-imprialist in SW is then, shall we say, not exactly true.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 17, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Whatever Jafars role in the war in Kosova it should be made clear that unless he has changed his mind in the very recent past he continues to approve of the imperialist occupation of that country. We know this because after leaving his part time employment as a mercenary soldier he returned to Kosova as a liaison officer for the imperialist forces occupying Kosova.
> 
> Given that Jafar is a barriister there can be no question that his actions in supporting the actions of imperialism in Kosova are those of a naive man new to politics. Clearly Jafar is only an anti-imperialist when he is of the opinion that imperialismis acting in a manner detrimental to Muslim interests.
> 
> ...



 All very well.He does sound dodgy but I'd quite like to hear the Respect side of the story.

 And how do you know my uncle wasn't an officer?Have you developed some strange telepathic ability?(actually he wasn't.)

 By the way there are dodgy characters in every political organisation(remember Derek Hatton anybody?)


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 17, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> All very well.He does sound dodgy but I'd quite like to hear the Respect side of the story.
> 
> And how do you know my uncle wasn't an officer?Have you developed some strange telepathic ability?(actually he wasn't.)
> 
> By the way there are dodgy characters in every political organisation(remember Derek Hatton anybody?)



As you are a member, I presume, of Respect you are well placed to make inquiries I would strongly urge you to do so. Hopefully Coun Safar will clarify his position with regard to the continued imperilaist occupation of Kosova and will explain why he chose to act as an official of the occupying forces.

Well i know you are from a proletarian background and presumed that your uncle shared a similar background. deductige reasoning. incidentally I do not know for a fact that Coun Safar was an officer but it is hardly concievable that a barrister would join the TA as a ranker is it?


Yes there are dodgy characters in every organisation of size and in many lacking any size too. But in a democratic socialist movement possessed of a marxist culture the influence of such figures would be insiginficant. It is evidence of a lack of such culture that adventurers and opportunists are able to rise to positions of leadership.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 18, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Yes there are dodgy characters in every organisation of size and in many lacking any size too. But in a democratic socialist movement possessed of a marxist culture the influence of such figures would be insiginficant. It is evidence of a lack of such culture that adventurers and opportunists are able to rise to positions of leadership.


Stalin.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 18, 2006)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> Stalin.



Way of the mark my friend. Stalin was the product of a party that operated illegally and lacked a democratic culture as a result of that fact. He owed all his steps up the greasy ladder to being co-opted not elected.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 20, 2006)

I note that Peter Tatchell of the Green Party who is a cheerleader for the occupation of Iraq, and has publicly declared that he is against withdrawing the troops now - is never criticised on these boards.

Jafar has worked for human rights for the people of the Maldives:http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7390, http://www.minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=1436 and was part of a 4 strong legal team that visited the Maldives to “form a view as to whether those proceedings [relating to the trials of pro-democracy disidents] conform to international standards of Human Rights.”

He may or may not have supported the occupation of Kosovo, but I should note that our friends from Workers Power supported the far more brutal imperialist Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan - but this wouldn't necessarily prevent me from working with them, and in Wales (where I live), more disgustingly, so called Left wing Plaid AMs  have come out in favour of a UN occupation of Iraq presumably a similar set up to those in the Balkans.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 20, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I note that Peter Tatchell of the Green Party who is a cheerleader for the occupation of Iraq, and has publicly declared that he is against withdrawing the troops now - is never criticised on these boards.
> 
> Jafar has worked for human rights for the people of the Maldives:http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7390, http://www.minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=1436 and was part of a 4 strong legal team that visited the Maldives to “form a view as to whether those proceedings [relating to the trials of pro-democracy disidents] conform to international standards of Human Rights.”
> 
> He may or may not have supported the occupation of Kosovo, but I should note that our friends from Workers Power supported the imperialist Soviet occupation of Afghanistan - but this wouldn't necessarily prevent me from working with them, and in Wales (where I live), more disgustingly, so called Left wing Plaid AMs  have come out in favour of a UN occupation of Iraq presumably a similar set up to those in the Balkans.



If you want to criticise Tatchell go ahead no one's stopping you. Just to get you started I think he's a very rude chap invading Churchs as he has done in the past.

As for Coun Jafars jolly to the Maldives note well that his task was to investigate violations of bourgeois rights by an errant bourgeois whom imperialism wishes to discipline. There is no evidence in your post that his trip was undertaken on the behalf of the working masses of the Maldives. Indeed there is no evidence that he has ever functioned as a human rights lawyer at all. Kindly name one case that he represented in court that is not connected to the eminently bourgeois MCB.

As for Coun Jafar support for imperialist intervention in Kosova, his very real support evidenced by his two tours of duty there, it is very real and not at all in question. I'm happy that your opposition to the Workers Power groups position with respect to Russia in Afghanistan does not prevent you sitting in the same room with them a decade later but it is hardly the same as Coun Jafars very recent and possibly contemporaneous support for imperialism in Kosova where it is British troops who are the invaders.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 20, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> I note that Peter Tatchell of the Green Party who is a cheerleader for the occupation of Iraq, and has publicly declared that he is against withdrawing the troops now - is never criticised on these boards.
> 
> etc etc



Udo - you are making the SWP look daft with your crude attempts at sidelining the issues being raised. Folk on these boards have not been told that the indervidual Tatchell is the 'new party of the left and everyone should get on board' - I don't disagree that the folk you have pointed out are wrong but people like you have set Respect up as this 'new force', people like you have pushed this new force as the 'way forward' so you had better be able to defend it when questioned.

I think there is the wider, and related, matter of a deep distrust by many folk on these boards for the SWP and its somewhat 'close' involvement with Respect - it might be more productive to answer these fears rather than reinforce them with attempted sidelining otherwise you will look like a typical untrustworthy politician in your refusal to answer the questions put to you or accusations made about the  organisation(s) you support.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 20, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> As for Coun Jafars jolly to the Maldives note well that his task was to investigate violations of bourgeois rights by an errant bourgeois whom imperialism wishes to discipline...



Ouch, nepro you really know how to swing that handbag, don't you


----------



## osterberg (Jun 21, 2006)

Thanks to Udo for the other side of the story.I knew there was one.

Whatever Jafar is or isn't I'd still support Respect as the only credible left alternative to new labour . 

The SP is stuck in the same small sectarian ghetto as most left groups in this country and the SSP is ripping itself to bits.

 So despite its imperfections that leaves Respect.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 21, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Thanks to Udo for the other side of the story.I knew there was one.
> Whatever Jafar is or isn't I'd still support Respect as the only credible left alternative to new labour .
> The SP is stuck in the same small sectarian ghetto as most left groups in this country and the SSP is ripping itself to bits.
> So despite its imperfections that leaves Respect.



That was a statement of faith rather than a reply to the critisisms leveled. Udo never gave any 'other side" - where did you see this 'other side', explain?

And what is this 'sectarian ghetto' you talk of?


----------



## osterberg (Jun 21, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> That was a statement of faith rather than a reply to the critisisms leveled. Udo never gave any 'other side" - where did you see this 'other side', explain?
> 
> And what is this 'sectarian ghetto' you talk of?



From Udo


> Jafar has worked for human rights for the people of the Maldives:http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...rticle_id=7390, http://www.minivannews.com/news/news.php?id=1436 and was part of a 4 strong legal team that visited the Maldives to “form a view as to whether those proceedings [relating to the trials of pro-democracy disidents] conform to international standards of Human Rights.”



 As for 'sectarian ghetto' its the SP,WP,AWL,anarchists and all the rest.The whingers,the backstabbers,the islamophobes.

 In fact just about everybody here.

And guess what? You're all irrelevant.


----------



## greenman (Jun 21, 2006)

Kettle, pot?

Mote, plank?

As for "only credible alternative"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 21, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> And guess what? You're all irrelevant.



Would that be more or less relevant than the ageing ex-student radicals of the SWP?


----------



## poster342002 (Jun 21, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Whatever Jafar is or isn't I'd still support Respect as the only credible left alternative to new labour .
> 
> The SP is stuck in the same small sectarian ghetto as most left groups in this country and the SSP is ripping itself to bits.
> 
> So despite its imperfections that leaves Respect.


That's a bit like saying "well, all the food in my fridge has gone off apart from that packet of rancid sausages which were rotten to start with - so I'd better eat that".


----------



## dennisr (Jun 21, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> As for 'sectarian ghetto' its the SP,WP,AWL,anarchists and all the rest.The whingers,the backstabbers,the islamophobes. In fact just about everybody here.
> 
> And guess what? You're all irrelevant.



Ourselves alone ehh? 

Well, good luck with the immence task you have ahead of you convincing just about everybody else of your mindless conviction.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 21, 2006)

No,ourselves with the working class.Not with you tossers.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 21, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> No,ourselves with the working class.Not with you tossers.



right... are the working class aware of this?

(re: tossers - arn't you the one performing the online wank here you sad wee feck )


----------



## dennisr (Jun 21, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> No,ourselves with the working class.Not with you tossers.



youre rick from the young ones and i claim my £5.00, wanker


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jun 21, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Would that be more or less relevant than the ageing ex-student radicals of the SWP?



Are you a bit bitter because the SP/Militant couldn't relate to 1968 and used to tell it's male recruits to get short back 'n' sides, and didn't get to grips with issues like womens liberation until well into the 90s, years behind the rest of the left - apparently they (Militant) regarded sexism as proletarian!

Peter Taafe gives public meetings about Vietnam when the SP didn't even participate in the biggest demo against the Vietnam war - what a hypocrite!

It's an interesting case of double standards from Neprimerimye, it's okay for Workers power to support the brutal helicipter gunship occupation of Afghanistan by the Russians, but Jafar who may (or may not) have illusions about the UN and think that intervention can solve the problems of Kosovo is beyond the pale.  Jafar incidentally did a lot of work helping Kosovan refugees in this country.

In his own words:

"‘I am standing to make a difference for working class people’

‘I’m 34 years old and a barrister working in human rights. I’ve been with Respect almost since its inception. 

I’ve always supported local politicians whom I thought stood for social justice and had a fair approach to international relations. 

When Respect came along it reflected all my beliefs – I was keen to join and commit myself to the party. 

I see it as part of a global movement to create a better world, the kind of world I want my children to live in.

It’s not just that Labour has an appalling record on international justice.

It’s everything – pensions, the treatment of poorer families, privatisations, everything that affects ordinary people. Labour supports the interests of big business and the multinationals.

We’ve got a beautiful local market that has sold fresh, healthy food for generations. Now the Labour-run council wants to hand it over to Asda. 

With the Olympics due to be held in London this kind of thing will keep happening. They won’t leave a lasting legacy for people in Newham, just empty shells.

Labour turns cohesive communities into wrecks. 

But Labour’s traditional support base, ordinary working class people, aren’t buying it.

If I won, the first thing I’d do is make sure Newham got the tens of millions of pounds it’s due from central government. 

For some reason we don’t get inner London funding. We pay inner London rates for service, but we receive £70 million less than we should. That causes a huge deficit.

I also think we should look at the position of the executive mayor. 

We think this system is undemocratic. Very few people voted in the referendum to introduce it. We think there should be another referendum to decide whether this is what people really want.’"


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 21, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Are you a bit bitter because the SP/Militant couldn't relate to 1968 and used to tell it's male recruits to get short back 'n' sides, and didn't get to grips with issues like womens liberation until well into the 90s, years behind the rest of the left - apparently they (Militant) regarded sexism as proletarian!
> 
> Peter Taafe gives public meetings about Vietnam when the SP didn't even participate in the biggest demo against the Vietnam war - what a hypocrite!
> 
> It's an interesting case of double standards from Neprimerimye, it's okay for Workers power to support the brutal helicipter gunship occupation of Afghanistan by the Russians, but Jafar who may (or may not) have illusions about the UN and think that intervention can solve the problems of Kosovo is beyond the pale.  Jafra incidentally did a lot of work helping Kosovan refugees in this country.



Grow up. Your claims regarding the Militant are bullshit and lies. At most the comrades suggested that their supporters be presentable and not alienate potential recruits. Bit silly perhaps but so too is a grown man wearing hair down to his arse.

As for the claim that the Militant did not attend the demonstration against the war in Vietnam it is untrue. They did very little to build it or the VSC but that is somewhat different. Their press most certainly carried articles denouncing imperialisms reactionary role in Vietnam their error was thinking that it was enough to build opposition to imperialism within the ranks of the Labour Party. An honest mistake in my opinion.

With regard to the WorkersPower group and Afghanistan I wouldhope that in future udo would not invent positions for me that I do not hold. For the record I oppose the position held by WP but the USSR no longer exists so it is of little but theoretical importance.

Unlike Coun Jafars work on behalf of the imperialist occupation of Kosova which still continues. As Udo is seemingly an expert on the life and works of Coun Jafar I would be interested to learn if he, Jafar, has done any work on behalf of Serbian refugees from KLA terror.


----------



## BarryB (Jun 21, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Peter Taafe gives public meetings about Vietnam when the SP didn't even participate in the biggest demo against the Vietnam war - what a hypocrite!
> 
> "



Wrong. Militant did participate. I suggest you are simply getting Militant confused with Gerry Healys Socialist Labour League. They didnt participate as far as I can remember.

BarryB


----------



## dennisr (Jun 21, 2006)

Udo Erasmus said:
			
		

> Are you a bit bitter because the SP/Militant couldn't relate to 1968 and used to tell it's male recruits to get short back 'n' sides, and didn't get to grips with issues like womens liberation until well into the 90s, years behind the rest of the left - apparently they (Militant) regarded sexism as proletarian!
> 
> Peter Taafe gives public meetings about Vietnam when the SP didn't even participate in the biggest demo against the Vietnam war - what a hypocrite!




This bollocks is simply not worth taking seriously. You could try honesty if you are to have any chance of convincing anyone the SWP are any thing other than a bunch of charlatans and bullshiters without a clue - 

thats the second idiot exposing themselves and the SWP today. Wankers


----------



## audiotech (Jun 21, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> This bollocks is simply not worth taking seriously. You could try honesty if you are to have any chance of convincing anyone the SWP are any thing other than a bunch of charlatans and bullshiters without a clue -
> 
> thats the second idiot exposing themselves and the SWP today. Wankers



Oh dear.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 21, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Wrong. Militant did participate. I suggest you are simply getting Militant confused with Gerry Healys Socialist Labour League. They didnt participate as far as I can remember.
> 
> BarryB



I'd suggest he wasn't even a twinkle in his mother's eye during these events - and knows even less of what did or did not happen except the lies he is spoonfed by his controllers. 

If the SWP had followed the same uncritical cheerleading role for the 'resistance' they have in more recent imperialist interventions (and they probably did...) they would have have ended up with the same result for independent working class politics in the country as folk ended up with in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was happy to physically wipe out the trotskyist and independant working class activity and connive with imperialism to ensure a bloody defeat for the post WW2 communes whilst the erstwhile trotskyist 'comrades' would be cheering this scumbag later on - with the honourable exception of the Militants


----------



## audiotech (Jun 21, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Wrong. Militant did participate. I suggest you are simply getting Militant confused with Gerry Healys Socialist Labour League. They didnt participate as far as I can remember.
> 
> BarryB



Wasn't Vanessa Redgrave prominent on the London demonstrations at the time and wasn't she a SLL member too?


----------



## BarryB (Jun 21, 2006)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Wasn't Vanessa Redgrave prominent on the London demonstrations at the time and wasn't she a SLL member too?



I havent access to my archives at the moment but IIRC she was on the first big London 1968 demo on March 17 but by the time of the October 28 demo she was with Gerry Healy. But dont take this as gospel.

Im sure my friend neprimerimye will know. He has the answer to everything else after all.

BarryB


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 21, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> I havent access to my archives at the moment but IIRC she was on the first big London 1968 demo on March 17 but by the time of the October 28 demo she was with Gerry Healy. But dont take this as gospel.
> 
> Im sure my friend neprimerimye will know. He has the answer to everything else after all.
> 
> BarryB



Your archive is superior to mine Barry and you were there so I trust your call on this.

I may have an answer to 'everything' but I have enough wit left in me to know that not all my answers are the right one's my friend.

Hopefully we'll have a pint together in the not too distant future.

Mike


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 21, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I'd suggest he wasn't even a twinkle in his mother's eye during these events - and knows even less of what did or did not happen except the lies he is spoonfed by his controllers.
> 
> If the SWP had followed the same uncritical cheerleading role for the 'resistance' they have in more recent imperialist interventions (and they probably did...) they would have have ended up with the same result for independent working class politics in the country as folk ended up with in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was happy to physically wipe out the trotskyist and independant working class activity and connive with imperialism to ensure a bloody defeat for the post WW2 communes whilst the erstwhile trotskyist 'comrades' would be cheering this scumbag later on - with the honourable exception of the Militants



Play fair Dennis!

For the record I should point out that the IS, organisational forerunner of the SWP, was one of very few voices raised in criticism of Ho Chi Minhs Stalinists during the struggle against imperialism in Vietnam. Chris Harmans  comments at a public meeting drawing upon him the wrath of those who adopted the uncritical viewpoint that the SWP has today with regard to the iraqi resistance.

The honour incidentally of being the first in this country to expose the crimes of Stalinism in Vietnam belongs btw to Al Richardson the founder of Revolutionary History journal. Al later edited two collections of articles and documents which are the best available record of the Vietnamese revolutionaries in English. Much missed in part because he was scathing about the kind of nonsense both Udo and to a lesser degree Dennis have treated us to.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 21, 2006)

But there were chants of "ho-ho-ho chi minh" coming from the VSCers on demo's right?  I confess I'm too young to have been there, but I've read it from a number of sources


----------



## mutley (Jun 21, 2006)

I'd have joined in...

The quote from Tony Cliff that sums up the IS attitude in '68 was 'if 50,000 people try to storm the American Embassy who the hell cares what they're chanting'


----------



## BarryB (Jun 22, 2006)

articul8 said:
			
		

> But there were chants of "ho-ho-ho chi minh" coming from the VSCers on demo's right?  I confess I'm too young to have been there, but I've read it from a number of sources



The Stalinists used to chant Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh how many Trots have you done in? Not Enough!". 

BarryB


----------



## JHE (Jun 22, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> I'd have joined in...
> 
> The quote from Tony Cliff that sums up the IS attitude in '68 was 'if 50,000 people try to storm the American Embassy who the hell cares what they're chanting'


At least in those days it wasn't 'Allahu Akbar!'


----------



## dennisr (Jun 22, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> The honour incidentally of being the first in this country to expose the crimes of Stalinism in Vietnam belongs btw to Al Richardson the founder of Revolutionary History journal. Al later edited two collections of articles and documents which are the best available record of the Vietnamese revolutionaries in English. Much missed in part because he was scathing about the kind of nonsense both Udo and to a lesser degree Dennis have treated us to.



Don't know about the nonsense i have treated you to? (beyond a wee bit of irritation with an idiot)

but anyway - yep, I found out most of this info from the Rev History journals and i have to accept the SWP may have done the right thing at some point. i would not know myself.

There is also the Ngo Van book "Revolutionaries They Could Not Break: The Fight for the Fourth International in Indochina 1930-1945" from Index Books


----------



## articul8 (Jun 22, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> I'd have joined in...



I'm sure the families of murdered Trotskyists would've approved of your attitude


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 22, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> At least in those days it wasn't 'Allahu Akbar!'



It's not now. It was Brian Grogan of the IMG who boated of chanting Allahu Akbar in Tehran in 1979.

The SWP tail the Islamists, hoping to use them but being used by them, but as far as I'm aware do not mimic them.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 23, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> It's not now. It was Brian Grogan of the IMG who boated of chanting Allahu Akbar in Tehran in 1979.
> 
> The SWP tail the Islamists, hoping to use them but being used by them, but as far as I'm aware do not mimic them.



 Well,Neppy,Grogan did admit later that it was a mistake.

Gosh,doesn't this thread just run and run?

Anyway I must go before that great intellectual giant ,dennisr , starts calling me names.

 And I need to go find an islamist to tail.

Neppy Akbar!


----------



## osterberg (Jun 23, 2006)

By the way Neppy.Are you calling this Jafar character we were talking about,an Islamist?I thought you were trying to give the impression he was a middle class right-winger.
 Do make your mind up.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 23, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Well,Neppy,Grogan did admit later that it was a mistake.



The deed was done and apologies even when sincere can never make recompense for the damage done.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 23, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> The deed was done and apologies even when sincere can never make recompense for the damage done.


 Oh I quite agree.And his current wee group slavishly supports Castro which is probably part of the same phenomena.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 23, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> By the way Neppy.Are you calling this Jafar character we were talking about,an Islamist?I thought you were trying to give the impression he was a middle class right-winger.
> Do make your mind up.



Coun Jafar is very clearly 'middle class' as a barrister and TA officer he can hardly be anything else can he?

As for characterising him as a 'right-winger' or 'Islamist' that is open to debate. The right-wing of what Osterburg? Obviously he is not on the right wing of the workers movement as he has no connections to the movement that are known. On the right wing of what then? No i see him as a petty bourgeois politician who represents a populist party in which Islamists are involved.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 23, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Oh I quite agree.And his current wee group slavishly supports Castro which is probably part of the same phenomena.



Yes tailism. The search for substitutes for the working class. Such as the 'resistance' in Iraq or the 'Muslim community' in Britain. Only a tendency in the ideology of the SWP but...........

Anyhow its a nice day and I'm off to buy my niece an icecream.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 23, 2006)

You lucky sod.I'm stuck at work.
Mind you its gone cloudy.
  I personally don't think there is such a thing as a homogenous 'muslim community'.
 But there are sections of the working class on the receiving end of a racism that uses islamophobia as a cover.
 And as socialists we should be in solidarity with those sections of the working class.If that's 'tailism' i'm a tailist.
Oh,as for Jafar,the TA is hardly the SAS is it?
I'm going to see how these councillors do in practice before rushing to judgement.
 By the way,the sun's just coming out.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 23, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Anyway I must go before that great intellectual giant ,dennisr , starts calling me names.



The smarmy, arrogance of this trolling comment (and all the other snide replies...) along with the inability to answer the critisisms put sums up an increasingly large percentage of the SWP membership. You really are a bit of a wanker arn't you?

If you found my reaction to your unproviked abuse petal then follow the point of one of your "comrades" (about the only one to actually engage people on these boards) advised on another thread "don't give it if you can't take it"


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 23, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> The deed was done and apologies even when sincere can never make recompense for the damage done.



The damage done was minor compared to the greater damage of the 'turn to industry' and the search for a political realignment with the Castroites.  

I chaired a meeting where Grogan gave one of his infamous eyewitness reportbacks from Tehran and I can recall it very vividly.  He explained about how the insurrectionary movement against the shah spread across the city, how (British made) Chieftain tanks were being petrol bombed by the masses and how an armed group of the Fedayeen movement captured a rocket launcher and turned it against the Shah's forces.  As the movement to overthrow the Shah gathered pace, at night the masses moved onto the roofs of buildings in the city to watch what was happening and chant slogans against the Shah.  The slogan that gathered momentum and resounded across the City as the insurrection ran its course was "Allahu Akhbar".  What Grogan actually said was the insurrectionary feeling among the masses was so strong and encapsulated in this slogan, that even he, a secular marxist, felt compelled to join in and shout it.  

Now, he may have been a little carried away in the heat of a real insurrection against one of the most powerful imperialist-backed armies in the world - who wouldn't? - but in no way did he endorse Islamic Fundamentalism.  It was only the looney sectarians of the Spartacists who constantly dragged this instance out to made it such an infamous thing.  

There was a scene in the film 'Reds' where John Reed (Warren Beatty) travels to Asia to speak for the Bolshevik revolution.  At one meeting his call for a class war is mistakenly translated as "Jihad" and the (muslim) crowd rises to its feet chanting "Jihad", with Reed looking embarrassed after it is explained to him.  I think the lesson is that any revolutionary movement has its positive and negative sides - there is no such thing as a 'perfect' revolution and those expecting it are going to lead a very disappointed life.

Personally I think Grogan committed far more heinous mistakes than the Tehran one.  He was also always a polite and well-thought out guy, even if wrong, rather than the nutter he is constantly portrayed as.  I gather though he did become a born-again christian much later in life.


----------



## Stevil (Jun 23, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> There was a scene in the film 'Reds' where John Reed (Warren Beatty) travels to Asia to speak for the Bolshevik revolution.  At one meeting his call for a class war is mistakenly translated as "Jihad" and the (muslim) crowd rises to its feet chanting "Jihad", with Reed looking embarrassed after it is explained to him.  I think the lesson is that any revolutionary movement has its positive and negative sides - there is no such thing as a 'perfect' revolution and those expecting it are going to lead a very disappointed life.



No the point was that it was _deliberately_ changed in the translation. The lesson being don't trust Bolsheviks of any kind. The needs of the party come first.


----------



## JHE (Jun 23, 2006)

Stevil said:
			
		

> No the point was that it was _deliberately_ changed in the translation.


Indeed - in the film it is mistranslated on the orders of Zinoviev.  (How closely this is based on a real incident or incidents I don't know.)


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 23, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Indeed - in the film it is mistranslated on the orders of Zinoviev.  (How closely this is based on a real incident or incidents I don't know.)



The point is Reed's embarrassment.  I think the lesson was don't trust Zinoviev rather than Bolsheviks.


----------



## JHE (Jun 23, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The point is Reed's embarrassment.


It's a long time since I saw the film - but, as I remember it, Reed's reaction was not mere embarrassment, but _indignation_ at Zinoviev's duplicity.

(And, yes, it certainly wasn't in general an anti-Bolshevik film, though Zinoviev is portrayed as a bit of a shit and Emma Goldman's anarchist criticisms get an airing, IIRC.)


----------



## JHE (Jun 23, 2006)

.


----------



## Stevil (Jun 23, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The point is Reed's embarrassment.  I think the lesson was don't trust Zinoviev rather than Bolsheviks.



But Zinoviev was a Bolshevik.


----------



## justuname (Jun 24, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> It's a long time since I saw the film - but, as I remember it, Reed's reaction was not mere embarrassment, but _indignation_ at Zinoviev's duplicity.
> 
> (And, yes, it certainly wasn't in general an anti-Bolshevik film, though Zinoviev is portrayed as a bit of a shit and Emma Goldman's anarchist criticisms get an airing, IIRC.)



At the moment Reed complains to Radek about the mistranslation of his speech on the train back from Baku they get attacked by counter-revolutionaries and Reed jumps out the train into the fight against them.

Seemed to me to be quite a moving portrayal of how we can argue with each other but we're up against the same enemy.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 24, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> You lucky sod.I'm stuck at work.
> Mind you its gone cloudy.
> I personally don't think there is such a thing as a homogenous 'muslim community'.
> But there are sections of the working class on the receiving end of a racism that uses islamophobia as a cover.
> ...




You may be interested to learn that the soldiers of the SAS are commonly accounted as amongst the most leftwing in the British Army. This is because of the large number of NCO's who are able to remain in the regiment for more than the single tour permitted commissioned officers. By contrast the TA is considered to be quite right wing in its sympathies. Moreover it is an effective fighting force not a bunch of amateurs as one might think.

I agree that we should act in solidarity with oppressed groups but forging alliances with socially reractionary groups such as the MAB is hardly the way to go about things.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 24, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The damage done was minor compared to the greater damage of the 'turn to industry' and the search for a political realignment with the Castroites.
> 
> What Grogan actually said was the insurrectionary feeling among the masses was so strong and encapsulated in this slogan, that even he, a secular marxist, felt compelled to join in and shout it.
> 
> ...



You're correct that the IMG made many worse errors than Grogan chanting Allah Akhbar. The point is that tailism is the essential method of the disUnited Sectarians and has been since before the destruction of Trotsky Fourth International.

You ask who would not have been carried away by the enthusiasm of the crowds in Tehran. It seems quite clear to me that revolutionary communists would not get carried away but would keep their own counsel and stick to first principles.

'Reds' is a fiction. As far as i'm aware there was no chanting of Jihad at the Congress of the Peoples of the East or the meetings leading up to it.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 24, 2006)

justuname said:
			
		

> At the moment Reed complains to Radek about the mistranslation of his speech on the train back from Baku they get attacked by counter-revolutionaries and Reed jumps out the train into the fight against them.
> 
> Seemed to me to be quite a moving portrayal of how we can argue with each other but we're up against the same enemy.



It's a fictionalised story ok? Reed made a short speech at the opening rally of the Congress that was translated into Turkish immediately after. Theres nothing in the avaiable accounts that could be easily mistranslated as jihad. he also wrote a longer spech that was never given.

As for the attack on the train it happened. But Reed was not such an idiot to leap out of the train to fight he had after all been a war correspondent in both Mexico and the Balkans. Give the guy some credit.


----------



## JHE (Jun 24, 2006)

On the trivial side issue of the TA and the SAS:

I think it is wrong to contrast them in the way a couple of people have here.  The TA is that portion of the Army which is part-time.  AFAIK, TA soldiers belong to a variety of regiments.  Some are in the SAS.  IIRC, Davis Davis, the ex-candidate for the Tory leadership, was in the SAS, but was never a full-time soldier.  He was a TA SAS soldier.


----------



## BarryB (Jun 24, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> .
> Personally I think Grogan committed far more heinous mistakes than the Tehran one.  He was also always a polite and well-thought out guy, even if wrong, rather than the nutter he is constantly portrayed as.  I gather though he did become a born-again christian much later in life.



Perhaps you could give us a taste of some of these "heinous mistakes". 

Ive heard the same story about Grogans later life. When i was at Porcupine Bookcellar I did buy a lot of Trotsky etc from him.

BarryB


----------



## BarryB (Jun 24, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> You may be interested to learn that the soldiers of the SAS are commonly accounted as amongst the most leftwing in the British Army. This is because of the large number of NCO's who are able to remain in the regiment for more than the single tour permitted commissioned officers. By contrast the TA is considered to be quite right wing in its sympathies. Moreover it is an effective fighting force not a bunch of amateurs as one might think.
> 
> I agree that we should act in solidarity with oppressed groups but forging alliances with socially reractionary groups such as the MAB is hardly the way to go about things.



Sorry Mike I dont understand the reason you give for SAS soldiers being amongst the most leftwing in the British Army. Can you elucidate? Im not saying your wrong but ive never heard or seen any evidence of any left wing sympathies amongst SAS soldiers. So where is your evidence?

BarryB


----------



## osterberg (Jun 24, 2006)

Deleted because I can't be bothered.


----------



## osterberg (Jun 24, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> You may be interested to learn that the soldiers of the SAS are commonly accounted as amongst the most leftwing in the British Army. This is because of the large number of NCO's who are able to remain in the regiment for more than the single tour permitted commissioned officers. By contrast the TA is considered to be quite right wing in its sympathies. Moreover it is an effective fighting force not a bunch of amateurs as one might think.
> 
> I agree that we should act in solidarity with oppressed groups but forging alliances with socially reractionary groups such as the MAB is hardly the way to go about things.


 Yeah,but MAB's not in Respect,is it?


----------



## osterberg (Jun 24, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> The damage done was minor compared to the greater damage of the 'turn to industry' and the search for a political realignment with the Castroites.
> 
> I chaired a meeting where Grogan gave one of his infamous eyewitness reportbacks from Tehran and I can recall it very vividly.  He explained about how the insurrectionary movement against the shah spread across the city, how (British made) Chieftain tanks were being petrol bombed by the masses and how an armed group of the Fedayeen movement captured a rocket launcher and turned it against the Shah's forces.  As the movement to overthrow the Shah gathered pace, at night the masses moved onto the roofs of buildings in the city to watch what was happening and chant slogans against the Shah.  The slogan that gathered momentum and resounded across the City as the insurrection ran its course was "Allahu Akhbar".  What Grogan actually said was the insurrectionary feeling among the masses was so strong and encapsulated in this slogan, that even he, a secular marxist, felt compelled to join in and shout it.
> 
> ...



 If you think the turn to industry was bad you should have tried carrying it out.
 The amount of badly organised,badly paid places I've worked in is beyond belief really.
And all the real action was taking place elsewhere like the civil service NHS etc.
 The only worthwhile place was in BT but after Grogan's lot split they pulled their comrades out of there and tried to get engineering jobs.
 Yeah,Grogan was a nice guy but I'd be surprised if he was a born again christian. But ther was a chap in Glasgow who went down that route and became a catholic preist.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 24, 2006)

osterberg said:
			
		

> Yeah,but MAB's not in Respect,is it?



Leading members are. MAB as an organisation has seen fit to endorse candidates from both Respect the populist coailition and the Liberal Democrats. Which is interesting.


----------



## JHE (Jun 24, 2006)

It's true that the MAB, as a whole, is not affiliated to Respec', but that's not due to the creators of Respec' having any disagreement with the MAB.  Both the Social Workers and GG tried very hard to get the MAB into Respec'.  The MAB just decided not to put all their electoral eggs in one basket.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 24, 2006)

BarryB said:
			
		

> Sorry Mike I dont understand the reason you give for SAS soldiers being amongst the most leftwing in the British Army. Can you elucidate? Im not saying your wrong but ive never heard or seen any evidence of any left wing sympathies amongst SAS soldiers. So where is your evidence?
> 
> BarryB



Don't take the term left wing to mean sympathetic with revolutionary or even reformist socialism! Think of it in a loose plebian egalitarian sense. As much as anything it is an attitude on the part of SAS men that they, not the officers, are the real elite. I refer you to similar attitudes within certain units of the Portugse Army in 73/75.

The evidence is anecdotal but nonetheless compelling for all that. It also seems, from discussions with former soldiers, to be quite widely held within the Army. EC is of the same opinion on this btw and his informants come, quite literally, from another class to my own.


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 24, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Leading members are. MAB as an organisation has seen fit to endorse candidates from both Respect the populist coailition and the Liberal Democrats. Which is interesting.



They endorsed Labour candidates such as Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, Alan Simpson, Harry Cohen and John McDonnell too.  In fact they endorsed more Labour Candidates than those of any other party; more than all the other parties put together in fact.  Which is also interesting.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 24, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> They endorsed Labour candidates such as Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, Alan Simpson, Harry Cohen and John McDonnell too.  In fact they endorsed more Labour Candidates than those of any other party; more than all the other parties put together in fact.  Which is also interesting.



Hey we an agree on something! And it is interesting that the MAB can endorse candidates standing for three different parties. Perhaps from their perspective the differences between the three are of little import?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jun 24, 2006)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> Hey we an agree on something! And it is interesting that the MAB can endorse candidates standing for three different parties. Perhaps from their perspective the differences between the three are of little import?



We agree something is interesting?  It was said with heavy irony, but it's about the only thing I think I'll ever agree with Tories on.

Have you ever considered the possibility that MAB might not be interested in the alleged differences between parties, but in the differences between candidates?  Like supporting the LibDem in Rochdale, where there is a large muslim population, against the pro-war sitting Labour MP for example?  (I'm not endorsing this approach by the way).  Given that they are not a political party but a pressure group, it's hardly revelatory stuff is it?


----------



## neprimerimye (Jun 24, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> We agree something is interesting?  It was said with heavy irony, but it's about the only thing I think I'll ever agree with Tories on.
> 
> Have you ever considered the possibility that MAB might not be interested in the alleged differences between parties, but in the differences between candidates?  Like supporting the LibDem in Rochdale, where there is a large muslim population, against the pro-war sitting Labour MP for example?  (I'm not endorsing this approach by the way).  Given that they are not a political party but a pressure group, it's hardly revelatory stuff is it?



The idea of the MAB being a mere 'pressure group' like road safety campaigners is amusing. Certainly it wishes to bring pressure to bear on the state but to what aim? Surely it's aim is the creation of a single Muslim Community in place of the many communities that are, often nominally, Muslim today? Which program cuts across and contradicts the socialist program of class struggle.

Given which it is no surprise that the MAB endorses candidates on non-class criteria that place the interests of this imagined community first and everything else a poor second. Given which it is no surprise that they are willing to endorse candidates from the three parties mentioned as for them the social question, that is class, is of no importance compared to community.


----------

