Permanent Revolution 2008 Event 27-29 June
- Thread starter cockneyrebel
- Start date
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
Yes, I would agree that the SWP was utterly humiliated and reduced to the status of the other Trotskyist groups who set up stalls around their annual "Marxism" event.
OK, let's compare the results with 2000 -- for the City and East seat.
Here's 2000:
John Biggs (Lab) 45387
Syed Kamali (con) 19266
Janet Ludlow(LD) 18300
Peter Howell (Green) 11939
Kambiz Boomia (SA) 3908 (3.96%)
And here's 2008:
John Biggs (Labour) 63,635
Philip Briscoe (Con) 32,082
Hanif Abdulmuhit (Respect George Galloway) 26,760 (14.59%)
Robert Bailey (BNP) 18,020 (9.82% )
Rajonuddin Jalal (LD) 13,724
Heather Finlay (Green) 11,478
Thomas Conquest (Christian) 7,306
Michael McGough (UKIP) 3,078
Graham Kemp (National Front) 2,350
Michael Gavan (Left List) 2,274 (1.24%)
John Griffiths (English Democrats) 2,048
Julie Crawford (Ind) 701
Spotted the difference? In 2000 the candidate (a non-Bengali, probably an ex-Muslim) used the word "Socialist" on the ballot paper and on his election leaflets. He gets 3908 (3.96%) votes. In 2008 the candidate (a Bengali, not mentioning the word "socialist", campaigning in and around the local mosques) gets 26760 (14.59%) and comes third. The SWP/Left List candidate (a local "white" trade unionist) gets 2274 (1.24%).
I think this shows that the extra votes were not "left" votes and that the Respect George Galloway party was only buoyed up d by "muslim communitarian" votes. A "broad left" party can't be built on this basis. To try, will just split the working class and has already spawned a "christian" party (which in all other constituencies did better than Respect and got more votes overall than Galloway's "muslim" list). In fact, in view of this nature of its core voters, I'm not sure that Respect should be regarded as a left party at all.
As I said, if you deduct the 20,000 or more Muslim votes for Galloway the overall result was rather humiliating for him.
Yeah,but I just went off what I saw on the telly.
Although it does occur to me that Respect's vote in 2005 was concentrated on two or three constituencies whereas the CP ( judging from what I saw on that programme on the '64 election) was more evenly spread.
Also Respect's vote was largely from opposition to the Iraq war which cuts across class and the CP's vote was based on working class support I'd imagine.
Yes I know they're Stalinists , I know they tail-ended right wing TU leaders but they were far more rooted in the working class than the fragmented , bickering little left groups are today. And that includes all of them , the SWP ,the SP , the ISG ,RR , whatever .
I'd like a few constructive suggestions about how we move on from this please .
There were a lot of good individual activists and trade unionists in
the CP in the 60's depite the Stalinist leadership. Respect renewal hasn't got the same roots that the CP had.
So yes , I would .
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Complete and utter bullshit.
... especially in the light of your comparison with the Communist Party in 1945.
One of the two MPs, Phil Piratin, elected in 1945 for Mile End (part of current day Bethnal Green and Bow constituency) was a jew and the CP had strong support among the large local jewish community.
Are you saying that votes of jews and muslims do not count? That the CP pandered to the jewish vote? That the jewish vote in Mile End was not a left wing vote? There were plenty of people around who argued there was a jewish/communist alliance, most of them were in the fascist and far right movements.
By discounting the votes of "20,000 muslims", you are perpetuating a racist ideology.
Muslims are disproportionately poor, live in the worst housing and have the worst job prospects of all Britain's minorities, as a report from the Home Office itself a couple of years ago showed.
Can you not see the minor event that changed things between the 2000 and 2004 election results you quote? I'll give you a clue - 2 words, four letters and three letters each, first word begins with I, second with W. First word ends in q ... got it yet? I'll let you fill in the missing letters ...
I**q W**
The difference between 2000 and 2004 was that before then muslims had voted overwhelmingly en bloc for Labour. The W** (not to be mentioned) changed all that ...
There is one big difference between Piratin and the CP in 1945, and Respect and Galloway in 2005 of course. The CP in 1945 supported Winston Churchill and the Tories to run the government! Galloway may have his faults but he'd never go so far as to support Tories. [Of course for one SWP member who was a Tower Hamlets councillor and resigned from Respect as a "left wing" split, that wasn't such a jump was it? Rumour has it the other one is about to join New Labour by the way, the party of privatisation and cuts in Tower Hamlets.]
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
You must be mixing me up with someone else. I never brought up the Communist Party in 1945. But I do know that at that time the CP did enjoy the support of many ex-Jews (I don't think the CP sought the support of rabbis and canvassed synagogue-goers, did they?). I think one of the last of them, Monty Goldman, was on the "Unity for Peace & Socialism" list for the GLA elections which, standing on the old CP programme of the 1950s, was really, really humiliated.
Of course not. I was merely questioning whether votes obtained by pandering to Muslims can be counted as "left" votes.
No doubt, but are you saying that there are not any rich Muslims in Britain and that Respect is not supported by some wealthy Bengali businessmen?
I think you are giving a hostage to fortune here as you can't guarantee that Respect George Galloway councillors won't behave in the same way. It's really a question of who's using who here: Are the leftists in Respect using the muslims to build a vanguard party or are muslim businessmen and other opportunists using the leftists to become local councillors? Time will tell and, it seems, has already begun to in Tower Hamlets.
cockneyrebel
New Member
I agree my cynical friend that he does zone in on me quite a bit (a tad obsessively), but there are definately others. A general obsession with Workers Power is also there.
Anyway fun or otherwise my point is that why would anyone have a debate with someone that is constantly on a wind up?
Also try to get your tongue out from other posters backsides. It's embarassing seeing insecure people trying to make themselves feel better by grasping on to other people's coat tails
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
interesting that 'Jean-Luc' thinks that muslims cannot be left-wing. That is, after all, the only logical consequence of his argument re Galloways vote. It's a pretty right-wing argument as well, that doesn't even really make sense in its own terms, let alone any wider ones.
I agree my cynical friend that he does zone in on me quite a bit (a tad obsessively), but there are definately others. A general obsession with Workers Power is also there.
Anyway fun or otherwise my point is that why would anyone have a debate with someone that is constantly on a wind up?
Also try to get your tongue out from other posters backsides. It's embarassing seeing insecure people trying to make themselves feel better by grasping on to other people's coat tails
He does make some great posts, as you know well. He just has a sense of humour as well. Nice to see your psychological analysis of posters is still alive and well.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Don't get defensive mate, tis fun
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
If I was in the Fifth International, I'd be flattered that someone is prepared to make the effort.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Everyone is interested in THE FIFTH INTERNATIONAL......who ever said the left are a tad too grandiose with their titles?
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
I never said that "muslims", or rather people of muslim background, can't be leftwing. Of course there can be. I'm sure plenty are. There is even a council of ex-muslims. What I was questioning was the methods employed in East London (and I imagine in Birmingham and elsewhere) to get votes for Galloway, ie appeals to the "muslim community" (as if this wasn't divided into rich and poor), working the mosques and dealing with "community leaders" (generally local businessmen). My argument is that votes gained on this basis are more "muslim communalist" than left votes.
This is not a "right-wing argument" as one of the features of being left is being anti-clerical and for a secular state, ie against mixing religion and politics. Here of course Galloway himself, as a fundamentalist catholic opposed to abortion, etc, fails.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Apologies - it was Osterberg who brought up the CP.
You were the one who ignored by comment about the good Respect vote in a Barking & Dagenham ward.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Presumably standing outside the local Tescos on a saturday leafleting for socialist causes is also wrong, as you are supporting large capitalist retailers. And we all know that some rich people shop in Tescos, as well as poor ones, so you would be tail-ending them too.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
FG,
Surely your torturous analogy only works if you go into the Tescos itself and get the management to call on its employees and customers to support and vote for the socialist leafletting outside?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
As does Tony Benn.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Certainly you would complain if management called the police. You obviously have never leafleted mosques where the Labour Party are very active.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Few people have.
Similar threads
