Respect in Tower Hamlets.

[Fisher_Gate]

...

I will be charitable and assume that you are confused about his affiliations after he left the Socialist Party. He became an independent and sat with a group of independent councillors. The independents briefly formed an alliance with the Lib Dems (a thoroughly unprincipled thing to do) but he did not join the Lib Dems. He remained an independent and stood in the next election as one, losing his seat. ..

No. After leaving the SP, he described his affiliation to the council as "Liberal Democrat" - that's what I meant by "joining the LibDems". Every councillor has to describe their affiliation to the council officials and they publish it - originally it was "Labour Party", then it was "Socialist Party", later it was "Liberal Democrat", it was also "Independent", before and after the LibDem phase I believe, and he stood unsuccessfully for reelection as "Independent". It may have only been for a brief period he described himself as LibDem (even briefer than his membership of the SP), but that's what he did and it's untrue to pretend otherwise.

Fortunately Google has cached the council website and I can prove it if I need to, but it should not be arguable - it's just that you are trying put the best gloss possible on a sorry situation. His first name on official council literature is different to the one he uses on a day to day basis by the way, and it may be that you have been confused by that. He is Charles officially, Dave in public.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

And is getting a left winger elected to a not particularly high profile talking shop the most important consideration as far as you are concerned? More important, say, than doing everything possible to encourage the trade union movement to take political action? Isn't this a situation where "strategies and policies" on a wider level trump the outside chance of getting someone elected to a meaningless post?

...

Winning elections where possible is an important task for the left at the moment, though not the be all and end all. I've seen that in Preston and you yourself have commented on how useful having Joe Higgins in the Dail was. The GLA may itself be a meaningless talkshop but so are all bourgeois institutions; the left can use getting elected as a strong platform for opposing the war and Brown's onslaught on public services and trade unions. Since Respect came so close on the list vote last time, and since the electoral system is so stacked against left wing victories, it would seem foolish to allow petty sectarianism to come in the way of what ought to be a comfortable left victory.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

If he was briefly described on the Council website as a LibDem (and he may well have been - I neither know nor care), that was a result of the unprincipled alliance the independents struck with the LibDems. He was never however a member of the Liberal Democrats at any point. His movements were as follows: He left the SP, became an independent, became part of a Libdem-independent alliance, stopped being part of that alliance, stood in the election as an independent and lost his seat.

The only "sorry situation" which I have any investment in was his decision to join the Socialist Party and then to quickly leave. What he does after he leaves the SP is his own business. We have no control over our ex-members, and many of them I'm afraid to say have gone on to do substantially worse things than joining a Libdem-independent alliance on a town council.

That really is the final thing I have to say about this on this thread by the way as its an issue you have repeatedly dragged up to distract from the main issues on this thread.

 

[fanciful]

Nigel Irritable indeed. Or more accurately Nigel Rude. Or maybe Nigel Gumpy.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Winning elections where possible is an important task for the left at the moment, though not the be all and end all. I've seen that in Preston and you yourself have commented on how useful having Joe Higgins in the Dail was. The GLA may itself be a meaningless talkshop but so are all bourgeois institutions; the left can use getting elected as a strong platform for opposing the war and Brown's onslaught on public services and trade unions. Since Respect came so close on the list vote last time, and since the electoral system is so stacked against left wing victories, it would seem foolish to allow petty sectarianism to come in the way of what ought to be a comfortable left victory.

1) There is no evidence to suggest that Respect has progressed in London since the last Assembly elections. The council results were impressive in parts of East London but were actually down on the previous Assembly percentages, were they not? And by all accounts, not least those given by your co-thinkers in the ISG/SR, Respect is in a very poor and worsening organisational state in the capital. It may be that Respect are in with a shot at a seat but that's all. And of course if the RMT are standing all bets are off - whatever leftist vote Respect got last time it would have more competition for this time.

2) Winning minor electoral posts is useful but it is always subordinate to real struggles and real political developments. Having a member of parliament provides a useful platform, that's about it. A member of parliament is very useful, whether in Britain or in Ireland. A GLA member is significantly less so - it is widely and correctly seen as a meaningless job carrying little or no political weight and I suspect that few people in London could name a single one of them. The platform it provides is not remotely on the same scale as that provided by an MP or TD.

3) The above are however side-issues. The main point is that if a section of the trade union movement makes a move to challenge New Labour in the political arena, the left, in current circumstances, has an obligation to do everything possible to encourage rather than obstruct that. A single revolutionary in reformists clothes on a glorified county council, even if one could be guaranteed, would not in any way, shape or form be worth jeopardising or hindering a move forward by even a small section of the organised working class. It's a question of priorities. Which matters more: Lindsay German as a solitary super-councillor or a national union moving to stand against New Labour?

To anyone but the most hidebound sectarian, the answer should be blindingly obvious.

 

[fanciful]

True Respect hasn't progressed, but neither has the CNWP. They have both failed in their attempts to build a reformist alternative to Labour.
Isn't it about time them to consider things a bit more strategically rather than simply comparing who has the best electoral record, when both electoral records are hopeless?
The SWP and SP in fact have an identical method, they want to adapt to some non-revolutionary "left" force, in the case of the SP its the left of the TU bureaucracy in the case of the SWP its the "anti-imperialist movement", generally speaking Muslim people.
All they're divided about is who to adapt to, not whether they should in the first place.
This is then combined with an almost religious assertion of the immanence of capitalism's collapse or stagnation (see Lynn Walsh and Chris Harman).
In fact both of them say they can't predict anything about the short term, but what's important is that in the long run (unspecified duration) capitalism will fall to bits of its own accord.
It's a sort of distorted version of Kautskyism for the 21st century, except without any of the good bits.
Better I think to try to develop a concrete i.e. real assessment of where captialism's at today and then demonstrate in practice why socialist politics are still applicable to the class struggle as it actually is.

 

[TremulousTetra]

SW critisised 4 being controling, SW critisised 4 NOT controling RESPECT

 

[TremulousTetra]

True Respect hasn't progressed, but neither has the CNWP. They have both failed in their attempts to build a reformist alternative to Labour.
Isn't it about time them to consider things a bit more strategically rather than simply comparing who has the best electoral record, when both electoral records are hopeless?
The SWP and SP in fact have an identical method, they want to adapt to some non-revolutionary "left" force, in the case of the SP its the left of the TU bureaucracy in the case of the SWP its the "anti-imperialist movement", generally speaking Muslim people.
All they're divided about is who to adapt to, not whether they should in the first place.
This is then combined with an almost religious assertion of the immanence of capitalism's collapse or stagnation (see Lynn Walsh and Chris Harman).
In fact both of them say they can't predict anything about the short term, but what's important is that in the long run (unspecified duration) capitalism will fall to bits of its own accord.
It's a sort of distorted version of Kautskyism for the 21st century, except without any of the good bits.
Better I think to try to develop a concrete i.e. real assessment of where captialism's at today and then demonstrate in practice why socialist politics are still applicable to the class struggle as it actually is.

PROB. I think SP would rather work with muslims than SW.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

PROB. I think SP would rather work with muslims than SW.

I'm not sure what you think this "witty" aside has to do with the thread?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm not sure what you think this "witty" aside has to do with the thread?

Isn't it true?

Would nigel be happ in The Socialist RESPECT Party?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Isn't it true?

Would nigel be happ in The Socialist RESPECT Party?

That would depend on the politics, the democratic structures and the context. I've been in joint organisations with the SWP twice before and quite obviously have no problem in principle with it. Now really, what does this have to do with this thread?

What, by the way, is your view on the approach Respect should take to any possible RMT initiative?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

1) There is no evidence to suggest that Respect has progressed in London since the last Assembly elections. The council results were impressive in parts of East London but were actually down on the previous Assembly percentages, were they not? ...

No, No, No No!


This claim is yet another 'urban myth' to rubbish Respect perpetuated by the Labour Party and sectarian leftists, not justified by the facts!!

Don't claim rubbish like this unless you have looked at the data!!!

In those 50 wards contested by Respect in 2006, the change in proportion of the vote between the 2004 GLA List vote and Council elections went up in 40 of them,80% of wards!!! It went down in just 10 wards (one of which Green Street West in Newham, Respect still had a high enough vote to win all three seats despite the vote going down slightly!!).

The reason for the confusion is that Respect 'won' (ie topped the poll) some wards in the GLA that it didn't win in the Council elections. But this was because in Tower Hamlets, in particular, the LibDem vote collapsed into Labour, which was why Labour narrowly held onto control of the council. The proportion of the vote won by Respect actually went up.

In the GLA list election, what matters is share of the vote, not who tops the poll.

If Respect can maintain the improvement in vote from 2004 to 2006 into the 2008 elections, then Respect is in with an excellent chance of winning a GLA seat.

Get that fact firmly embedded into your skull, before you start to rubbish Respect's chances!

The change ward by ward in order was as follows:

Rank (improvement), Council, Ward, 2006 Council % (average vote method), 2004 GLA List Member %, Improvement 2006 vs 2004 (-ve means a decline)
1 Tower Hamlets Shadwell 46.4% 28.8% +17.6%
2 Camden St Pancras & Somers Town ward 22.9% 13.1% +9.8%
3 Ealing Southall Green ward 21.0% 11.4% +9.6%
4 Westminster Church Street ward 21.3% 12.3% +9.0%
5 Brent Harlesden ward 16.7% 7.7% +9.0%
6 Newham Boleyn ward 31.9% 23.2% +8.7%
7 Haringey West Green ward 20.1% 12.1% +8.0%
8 Newham Stratford & New Town ward 20.4% 12.7% +7.7%
9 Newham Plaistow North ward 31.9% 24.9% +7.0%
10 Newham Forest Gate North ward 21.5% 14.5% +7.0%
11 Tower Hamlets Mile End & Globe Town 24.6% 18.3% +6.3%
12 Southwark Faraday ward 9.7% 3.7% +6.0%
13 Haringey St Anns ward 19.4% 13.7% +5.7%
14 Newham Custom House ward 10.6% 5.1% +5.5%
15 Newham Forest Gate South ward 33.2% 28.0% +5.2%
16 Tower Hamlets Bromley-by-Bow 28.5% 23.7% +4.8%
17 Newham Royal Docks ward 9.7% 5.5% +4.2%
18 Newham Plaistow South ward 16.9% 12.8% +4.1%
19 Tower Hamlets Bow East 11.5% 7.6% +3.9%
20 Tower Hamlets Bethnal Green South 28.2% 24.3% +3.9%
21 Newham West Ham ward 16.7% 12.9% +3.8%
22 Tower Hamlets Bethnal Green North 19.1% 15.6% +3.5%
23 Tower Hamlets Blackwall & Cubitt Town 12.4% 9.1% +3.3%
24 Lambeth Vassall ward 8.3% 5.0% +3.3%
25 Hackney Clissold ward 13.2% 10.4% +2.8%
26 Newham Canning Town North ward 11.8% 9.0% +2.8%
27 Newham East Ham Central ward 28.9% 26.4% +2.5%
28 Tower Hamlets Limehouse 25.4% 22.9% +2.5%
29 Newham Canning Town South ward 7.7% 5.5% +2.2%
30 Tower Hamlets East India & Lansbury 16.9% 14.7% +2.2%
31 Tower Hamlets Bow West 12.9% 11.0% +1.9%
32 Newham Beckton ward 17.0% 15.2% +1.8%
33 Tower Hamlets Millwall 12.2% 10.5% +1.7%
34 Hackney Queensbridge ward 10.0% 8.7% +1.3%
35 Tower Hamlets Mile End East 24.6% 23.6% +1.0%
36 Newham East Ham South ward 13.5% 12.5% +1.0%
37 Newham Green Street East ward 30.4% 29.8% +0.6%
38 Newham Manor Park ward 30.6% 30.1% +0.5%
39 Tower Hamlets Whitechapel 33.8% 33.2% +0.5%
40 Tower Hamlets St Dunstan's & Stepney 27.1% 26.7% +0.4%

41 Newham Little Ilford ward 23.8% 23.9% -0.1%
42 Tower Hamlets Weavers 17.4% 17.6% -0.2%
43 Newham Wall End ward 20.0% 20.6% -0.6%
44 Hackney Cazenove ward 10.3% 14.6% -4.3%
45 Hackney Leabridge ward 14.6% 19.2% -4.6%
46 Newham Green Street West ward 41.1% 46.3% -5.2%
47 Newham East Ham North ward 34.2% 39.4% -5.2%
48 Waltham Forest Markhouse ward 15.0% 20.5% -5.5%
49 Waltham Forest Leytonstone ward 11.4% 17.6% -6.2%
50 Tower Hamlets Spitalfields & Banglatown 20.8% 33.2% -12.4%

 

[fanciful]

I think you've just proved my point Fisher. So what?
The fact is that what both the SWP and SP share is a method based on ditching revolutionary socialist politics in order to adapt to whoever is the flavour of the month. Their only disagreement is who is the flavour of the month.
This is then combined with a quasi-religious assertion of capitalism's immanent demise - although they then cross themselves and say - "of course we can't say exactly when" but the just *know* its about to happen.
As I said check out Lynn Walsh or Chris Harman's latest piece in the ISJ.
It is a method lifted pretty well lock stock and barrell from the decline of the Fourth International after WWII.
Instead what we really need is a concrete assessment of where capitalism's at in order that we can apply socialist politics to the real situation - not the made up one they wish were the case.
All of this bickering between Respect and the SP about who's done best in the elections is really beside the point (they've both done terribly) and obscures the really important thing that beneath it all they share a common, deeply flawed method.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I think you've just proved my point Fisher. So what?
The fact is that what both the SWP and SP share is a method based on ditching revolutionary socialist politics in order to adapt to whoever is the flavour of the month. Their only disagreement is who is the flavour of the month.
This is then combined with a quasi-religious assertion of capitalism's immanent demise - although they then cross themselves and say - "of course we can't say exactly when" but the just *know* its about to happen.
As I said check out Lynn Walsh or Chris Harman's latest piece in the ISJ.
It is a method lifted pretty well lock stock and barrell from the decline of the Fourth International after WWII.
Instead what we really need is a concrete assessment of where capitalism's at in order that we can apply socialist politics to the real situation - not the made up one they wish were the case.
All of this bickering between Respect and the SP about who's done best in the elections is really beside the point (they've both done terribly) and obscures the really important thing that beneath it all they share a common, deeply flawed method.

Piss off back to your anarcho-syndicalist commune then if you don't believe elections are of any importance. People died in struggle to give you the right to abstain.

 

[the button]

Piss off back to your anarcho-syndicalist commune then if you don't believe elections are of any importance.

Anarchosyndicalists don't live in communes, they're involved in concrete struggles, replying on direct action instead of expecting elected "representatives" to sort their problems out for them.

People died in struggle to give you the right to abstain.

People died in struggle to defend and improve working class living conditions. Unfortunately, their struggles were co-opted by a bunch of self-serving parasitic vermin to further their own interests.

Ah well.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Anarchosyndicalists don't live in communes, they're involved in concrete struggles, replying on direct action instead of expecting elected "representatives" to sort their problems out for them.


People died in struggle to defend and improve working class living conditions. Unfortunately, their struggles were co-opted by a bunch of self-serving parasitic vermin to further their own interests.

Ah well.

that's right Wolfye Smith, the left are the enemy.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think you've just proved my point Fisher. So what?
The fact is that what both the SWP and SP share is a method based on ditching revolutionary socialist politics in order to adapt to whoever is the flavour of the month. Their only disagreement is who is the flavour of the month.

the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, but the dominant ideas in any society are those of the ruling class. These apparently contradictory REVOLUTIONARY Marx statements explain why your statement above is rubbish. Far from ditching revolutionary politics, making every effort to work with each strand of the working class is the essence of revolutionary politics.

All of this bickering between Respect and the SP about who's done best in the elections is really beside the point (they've both done terribly) and obscures the really important thing that beneath it all they share a common, deeply flawed method.

You are right that the bickering is pointless, but if people keep telling lies it is sometimes hard not to respond.

 

[fanciful]

Yeah let's all get on the knocker...what I like most about council meetings is that they deal with the real issues that effect people's lives, not airy fairy stuff like the class struggle. Only recently there was a discussion about whether or not the councillors should get free rich tea biscuits. Not sure what the outcome was but I know it was really important.
Funnily enough I saw councillor Rania Khan at the climate change meeting where she concluded "...this was one issue...", at which point she paused and smiled at the Tory, Liberal and Green MPs/MEPs/assorted representatives, sat with her on the panel..."which was far too important for party politics."
And they of course, nodded along sagely agreeing. And Chris Nineham loudly clapped from the upstairs balconey. (He was sat behind me.)
Which on reflection has made me think again.
I was hasty...I do hope you'll except my apology....Let's get busy on the ballot box, too right Fisher, when's the next election?
As for Respect ditching revolutionary politics, this isn't a case of quotes from Marx. It's rather a case of a lack of quotes from Marx. I take you have read their manifesto?

 

[the button]

that's right Wolfye Smith, the left are the enemy.

At last he's catching on.

 

[fanciful]

And to quote another famous anarcho syndicalist;

"...action by the masses, a big strike, for instance, is more important than parliamentary activity at all times, and not only during a revolution or in a revolutionary situation. "

And he's another from the same anarchist;

"Criticism -- the most keen, ruthless and uncompromising criticism—should be directed, not against parliamentarianism or parliamentary activities, but against those leaders who are unable—and still more against those who are unwilling -- to utilise parliamentary elections and the parliamentary rostrum in a revolutionary and communist manner. "

Got you from all sides I reckon.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

And to quote another famous anarcho syndicalist;

"...action by the masses, a big strike, for instance, is more important than parliamentary activity at all times, and not only during a revolution or in a revolutionary situation. "

And he's another from the same anarchist;

"Criticism -- the most keen, ruthless and uncompromising criticism—should be directed, not against parliamentarianism or parliamentary activities, but against those leaders who are unable—and still more against those who are unwilling -- to utilise parliamentary elections and the parliamentary rostrum in a revolutionary and communist manner. "

Got you from all sides I reckon.

Bollocks! Lenin was talking about a situation in which Soviets existed alongside parliamentary elections. Where the fuck are the Soviets in Britain today?

Even in those conditions he argued:

"Of course, anyone would be in error who voiced the outmoded viewpoint or in general considered it impermissible, in all and any circumstances, to reject participation in bourgeois parliaments. "

and went on to say:

"In Western Europe and America, parliament has become most odious to the revolutionary vanguard of the working class. That cannot be denied. It can readily be understood, for it is difficult to imagine anything more infamous, vile or treacherous than the behaviour of the vast majority of socialist and Social-Democratic parliamentary deputies during and after the war. It would, however, be not only unreasonable but actually criminal to yield to this mood when deciding how this generally recognised evil should be fought. In many countries of Western Europe, the revolutionary mood, we might say, is at present a "novelty", or a "rarity", which has all too long been vainly and impatiently awaited; perhaps that is why people so easily yield to that mood. Certainly, without a revolutionary mood among the masses, and without conditions facilitating the growth of this mood, revolutionary tactics will never develop into action. "

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yeah let's all get on the knocker...what I like most about council meetings is that they deal with the real issues that effect people's lives, not airy fairy stuff like the class struggle. Only recently there was a discussion about whether or not the councillors should get free rich tea biscuits. Not sure what the outcome was but I know it was really important.
Funnily enough I saw councillor Rania Khan at the climate change meeting where she concluded "...this was one issue...", at which point she paused and smiled at the Tory, Liberal and Green MPs/MEPs/assorted representatives, sat with her on the panel..."which was far too important for party politics."
And they of course, nodded along sagely agreeing. And Chris Nineham loudly clapped from the upstairs balconey. (He was sat behind me.)
Which on reflection has made me think again.
I was hasty...I do hope you'll except my apology....Let's get busy on the ballot box, too right Fisher, when's the next election?
As for Respect ditching revolutionary politics, this isn't a case of quotes from Marx. It's rather a case of a lack of quotes from Marx. I take you have read their manifesto?

firstly, I'm not sure of your political persuasion, but surely diverse approaches to the problem of social evolution is the best methodology? Why do you want to impose on the left everybody using the same method?

Respect isn't a revolutionary organisation. A revolutionary organisation does not control respect. This thread illustrates that. Respect is a coalition between revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries

 

[TremulousTetra]

At last he's catching on.

says the leader of the mass movement of one.

 

[the button]

says the leader of the mass movement of one.

My god, it's almost spooky how much you know about me.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That would depend on the politics, the democratic structures and the context. I've been in joint organisations with the SWP twice before and quite obviously have no problem in principle with it.

I think the politics, the democratic structures, come out of the struggle. the democratic structures cant be too bad, if on a regular basis SW is not able to get who it wants elected.

You have to start from where the working class is, surely? there is no point in having the perfect revolutionary socialist electoral party, without the working class, is there?

Now really, what does this have to do with this thread?

I don't know. I was just initially responding to something somebody else said in the thread.

What, by the way, is your view on the approach Respect should take to any possible RMT initiative?

don't really know much about it. I agree with some of the things said above. Think it would probably best if the RMT sponsored one of the parties already mobilising for this.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Returning to the point of the thread ...

East London Advertiser

Galloway's Respect party hits back at quiitting councillor's 'immature & self-serving' jibe

13 July 2007
By Ted Jeory

MP George Galloway's Respect party has hit back at one of their former Tower Hamlets councillors who quit last week.

Party leaders said Shamim Chowdhury's attack on them as "immature and self-serving" came as an unpleasant surprise.

He wrote to Respect bosses after his attack in last week's East London Advertiser saying he felt forced to resign as a councillor in Shadwell ward because of 'despicable' rumours allegedly spread about him by his former colleagues.

But Respect's Tower Hamlets chairman Glyn Robbins said Shamim's logic was so 'flimsy' he found it difficult to take him seriously.

"If people involved in serious politics reacted to every rumour and piece of gossip about us, we would never get anything done," he wrote back.

"The things you are now saying about 'the leadership' (and I note you don't mention any names, but I can only assume you include me) are completely without foundation.

"If you are a man of honour, you should withdraw them immediately."

In a separate statement, Respect leaders revealed that Shamim had never even attended any branch meetings to set out his 'vision'... as to how we could 'improve the lives of the residents of Tower Hamlets'."

The statement listed a catalogue of topics on which they claim to be leading the way, such as English language classes for foreigners, civil liberties, the NHS, workers' rights and council housing.

It added: "If Shamim Choudhury can think of a more pressing agenda than that, or a better way to fight for the rights of ordinary people, we challenge him to share it."

Meanwhile, Labour's former council leader Michael Keith has been picked to try and reclaim the Shadwell seat he lost to Respect at the local Tower Hamlets elections last year.

The by-election set for August 9 promises to be a classic that could even herald the end of Respect's influence in the East End if their new candidate Harun Miah fails to keep Labour out.

Tories have picked Duncan Crossley, while Lib Dems have selected Rosie Clarke, a former aide to Mid Dorset MP Annette Brooke.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....y=newsela&itemid=WeED13 Jul 2007 16:28:21:760

 

[Udo Erasmus]

According to the East London Advertiser, Harun Miah has a stand selling Ice Cream at a local market and occasionally Bengali snacks.

He's not the only leftist to go down the culinary route:
http://www.barbequewithbobbyseale.com/

 

[Fisher_Gate]

According to the East London Advertiser, Harun Miah has a stand selling Ice Cream at a local market and occasionally Bengali snacks.

...[/url]

That practically makes him a member of the big bourgeoisie, yet alone the petit bourgeoisie ...

 

[fanciful]

But the point is Fisher show me where Respect advances revolutionary politics?
as Lenin pointed out
"Criticism -- the most keen, ruthless and uncompromising criticism—should be directed, not against parliamentarianism or parliamentary activities, but against those leaders who are unable—and still more against those who are unwilling -- to utilise parliamentary elections and the parliamentary rostrum in a revolutionary and communist manner. "

That's got nothing to do with the situation at all. Its pointing out that people who are unable or unwilling to utilise parliamentary institutions in a revolutionary manner cannot be trusted and should be got rid of.

Which covers the entirety of Respect pretty well, I'd judge.

 

[mk12]

When has parliamentary action been used in a communist manner?