Manchester students organise to challenge Labour and the BNP - video

Photos.

Much as I admire the attempts of RESPECT to unite the left, there is a real danger that they will actually increase the risk of the BNP getting elected.

If the BNP get more than 10% of the North West vote, it's game over. Nick Griffin is elected and the whole of the North West gets a convicted racist to represent them for five years. The BNP gets Euro funding for a regional party office and builds on its success.

With less than 8% of the vote, the danger is averted. This really will require a postal ballot, a good campaign from the Lib Dems (so they get two seats not the one they have at the moment) and the BNP polling below the threshold. However, Searchlight magazine (January) predicts they will get 9% of the vote.

The grey area is 8 to 10% where it really depends on how the major parties get on. If the votes break down one way, it would lead to the BNP getting a seat, or a different breakdown then you end up with another (check out the D'Hondt calculator on 9 seats). What makes it much more difficult for them is if they finish as the 5th biggest party, with someone else pipping them to the post for the final seat. Who will that be?

The UK Independence Party - unlikely. Their largely right wing vote in 1999 came from disaffected Tories who wanted to vote against Europe and the Euro (Hague was wavering). The BNP may cannabilise a lot of their right wing (nationalist) voters.

The Green Party - probable. They got nearly 6% last time and have got a regional base with a councillor here in Manchester and loads of councillors in Lancaster. With GM foods scaring everyone, they probably have the widest reach of the "minority" parties. Their MEP Caroline Lucas was on Question Time last week, so they get national coverage.

RESPECT - possible. Galloway would have to run a convincing campaign. Clare Short would have to join. The base is too narrow, because a lot of decent anti-war voters will be already signed up for the Lib Dems (wrongly) and the strongly anti-war Greens.

Whichever of the two anti-war, anti-fascist options you would prefer, you have to follow the campaign and decide who is best placed to stop the BNP in the Euro elections, even if it is not who you would prefer to vote for.

That's just the start - let's make sure that we make sure that they get pushed out in local elections as well, by having independent anti-racist candidates standing against them.

In response to Dan's comment, I agree that there needs to be maximum left unity to avoid splitting the anti-Labour/BNP vote.

I don't understand why the Greens will not participate in a left COALITION for the Euro-elections, which is actually all that RESPECT involves. Nothing more, nothing less. The Socialist Alliance, a component of RESPECT, also has a base in Preston where Michael Lavalette is a councillor--just down the road from Burnley.

The origin of RESPECT is in the anti-war movement and we all know that most Greens were part of that movement. The Socialist Alliance (SA), like the Greens, could have said to themselves: we are an existing electoral organisation with a base in the region and we call upon the left to unite under our banner. But the Socialist Alliance didn't do this because it saw that a whole new layer of people had been mobilised into action by the Iraq War--especially the Asian community--which did not necessarily agree with everything that SA stood for. But it did agree with it on a whole range of questions related to war, racism and the neo-liberal agenda (e.g. privatisation). Bear in mind that the Asian community plays a big role in Britain's public services.

It was necessary, therefore, to create a framework that could facilitate a broadening of the base of the electoral alliance against Labour and the far right. The Greens, like the Socialist Alliance, can join the RESPECT coalition without losing any political independence. It can stand its candidate under its own Green banner as usual. But joining the RESPECT coalition would avoid the farcical situation of the Brent East bye-election where half a dozen left parties, with much the same policies, were stupidly splitting the left vote.

Given that the BNP is such a threat in this region, the only sane course of action is to establish a coalition of the left so that anti-racist and anti-war parties don't stand against each other.

The SWP are now trying to effectively shut down the Socialist Alliance to stop members of the Alliance standing in the elections against Respect. Don't be fooled. Both Respect and the Alliance have been/are largely vehicles for the SWP. The row is so bad that in parts of the country, SWP members have been forced out of the SWP when they have disobeyed orders from the centre and insisted as people who are also members of the Socialist Alliance, they have a right to stand for the Alliance in the elections.

RESPECT is an attempt to broaden the base of the left electoral challenge to Labour/BNP by establishing a coalition with people newly mobilised by the anti-war movement--in particular the Asian community. It also draws up on the strength of trades unions like the RMT which have been expelled from Labour for giving money to the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP)--the partner of RESPECT in Scotland.

During the Iraq war protests, the Stop the War Coalition created a firm bond of solidarity between the white British left and the Asian community. At the North West RESPECT Convention last Sunday there were many Asian people on the platform and in the audience (the whole event was videoed by at least three different people which will prove this). So our friend "Dogbert" is wrong to say that RESPECT is just the SWP--he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Unfortunately, part of the white British left in infected by Islamophobia and barely concealed (unconscious?) racist attitudes. They seem to find it hard to contemplate an alliance with the Asian community. They seem to be determined to maintain their little left sects as honkey-only zones--hence the resistance to RESPECT in some quarters of the left.

Demonstrations, protests actions and strikes will always be the most important methods of struggling against Labour and the BNP. But we cannot leave the electoral terrain to Labour and the BNP--it would be criminally irresponsible to do so in places like Burnley and Oldham where the BNP already have a substantial base.

To challenge Labour and the BNP, the left must get its act together fast and build a credible, well financed, electoral force. You cannot fight an election without money--that is why previous attempts have failed. The RMT has already given money to the SSP and been expelled from Labour for doing so. Other public sector unions in Scotland (CWU) battered by privatisation are threatening to do the same. The possibility now exists to gain the finance from trades unions that is essential to mount a real challenge to Labour/BNP.

We have never had an opportunity like the one we have now: both the trades unions AND the Asian community willing to unite with the left to fight Labour and the BNP. We must seize it with both hands.

The Socialist Alliance (SA) was a worthy effort but it never developed beyond being a coalition of the far left. Its future, in my view, lies in becoming a component of the broader RESPECT coalition. What is the point of standing SA candidates when an opportunity exists to mount a much more credible challenge together with some of the public sector trades unions and Asian community in RESPECT? Any attempt to build an alliance with wider social groups like the trades unions and the Asian community involves painstaking negotiations conducted with patience and the avoidance of arrogant ultimatums.

Unfortunately that seems a little too much for some on the left. Perhaps they will come round to seeing what is possible in due course.

And if you don't think that RESPECT is democratic enough then fight to make it democratic! If you don’t think its policies are to your liking then intervene politically to win it to your positions. That is better than sneering and sniping from the sidelines at the efforts of others--fiddling while Oldham and Burnley burn.

There are actually serious concerns that I have and, yes, opinions. One of my concerns is that any attempt at talking to people who may not have information about the relationship between the SWP/RESPECT and, to a lesser extent, the Socialist Alliance, are immediately treated as “snipers”, “sectarians”.
So, can we pass the point of labelling people, please and listen for once…
RESPECT refused to adopt a “no boundaries” policy relating to immigration/asylum. Why? There are indeed various political affilations going on within RESPEC T, but the major player is the SWP – whose party members were marching with many other people from many groups and spaces on Feb 15th. The SWP have always argued for a “no boundaries” policy…
But, if you want to be elected the obvious thing to do is compromise…
But within those people who might want to be part of RESPECT there are people (labour and lib dem politicians for example) who want immigration controls and all the shit that represents? so… what do you do if you are the SWP and are faced with having to make compromises. You drop the “no boundaries” policy (so, you as a revolutionary socialist party – the SWP, agree with immigration controls?)
RESPECT was pushed forward in such a timely way. One minute, Galloway is expelled, then we have RESPECT. But, at the founding of RESPECT, people (yes, it was those pesky sectarians again) said that RESPECT candidates who were actually elected should represent people politically for an average workers wage (rather than the rather super rich MEP payments and the rest). Seems fair, doesn’t it? Not to the SWP it doesn’t. It was openly said that George cannot be expected to receive a workers wage because he basically had more speaking engagements (i.e. is so important, politically, that his voice is worth so much more than anyone elses voice). And RESPECT will not stand up, even for Republicanism, as it is apparently “not a big deal” and basically, “immaterial”…
So, let me get this right, a Revolutionary Socialist Party is a major organisational player and participant in a new electoral group who, effectively, will stand in elections as a political party named RESPECT. RESPECT agrees, by default, with immigration controls and the instituation of the monarchy.
I could go on, and I really could but I am stopping myself here.
Ok, just for a moment.. because it so pisses me off.
“They seem to be determined to maintain their little left sects as honkey-only zones--hence the resistance to RESPECT in some quarters of the left”
Er, no. it is so pathetic to throw racism at people who are asking challenging questions about RESPECT. Talking about racism, it is also more than totally pathetic to pinpoint the absolute value of “one black woman”, when referring to paper sales.. and this was a central party comment. In terms of tokenism is that worth more or less in political points than a disabled woman? This kind of shit makes me sick.
So, it looks good now does it?
Almost the last question: RESPECT are against the BNP, and against the WAR. I hate the BNP and I have always been against the WAR (albeit not in this area but I come from Burnley and I know the shit that is going down, so don’t even start patronising me as a racist).
But, what positive policies does RESPECT have?
Is RESPECT for or against immigration control?? Does RESPECT have any positive policies to fight the BNP? – like policies on poverty, housing, benefits? What are you asking people to vote for?? NOT what are you asking people to vote against??

Tom

Tom—by all means express your criticisms about the RESPECT, but it would make more sense to do so while trying to build an alternative to Labour and the BNP. However, all we seem to get from him is negative carping and no alternative.

It seems to me that Tom has lost his sense of political perspective--his priorities are skewed. He is more interested in attacking the SWP and rubbishing RESPECT, before it has even got off the ground, than he is about focussing on the need to build a credible alternative to Labour and the BNP--about which he has little to say. What is HE doing to build such an alternative in the run-up to the Euro-elections? If RESPECT is not the answer, what is his alternative given that the election is only months away?

Perfect political organisations do not just fall, ready made, from the sky--sorry to disappoint you Tom. RESPECT has only just got off the ground.

I am quite sure that there will be all kinds of political problems with RESPECT--this is absolutely unsurprising and is bound to be the case with any attempt to reach out to new social forces in the trades unions and ethnic communities. And, of course, there are numerous political pitfalls which the far left--including the SWP--may make. These mistakes can be minimised by open discussion and that is exactly what is happening. Just today I received an e-mail from the Socialist Alliance (SA) office with the amendments to motions about how to react to new developments like RESPECT--how the Socialist Alliance should relate to it. The main concern in this debate--quite sensibly--is to establish policy which will avoid SA candidates standing against RESPECT in the Euro and GLA elections. It is evident from these proposals that everyone in SA is agreed that this needs to be avoided. Some propose, however, that SA might stand in local authority elections outside London where RESPECT is not currently standing until such time that RESPECT can field candidates in such elections. The tone of these resolutions and amendments is clam and rational. A decision will be reached at the upcoming SA conference.

RESPECT is very new and has only had time to put forward a rough outline of a policy platform. It is only in the PROCESS of deciding policy. Tom merely asserts, but does not substantiate, his allegations against RESPECT on immigration controls etc. Where is his evidence and substantiation? Either put up or shut up.

The Founding Statemement of Respect says:

"--Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship.

--The defence of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Opposition to the European Union’s ‘Fortress Europe’ policies."

There is a recall North West conference later this month to select candidates and a fully rounded manifesto will be decided at a national convention. Tom can intervene into this process if he wishes.

But Tom cannot escape from the fact that the far left is currently almost completely white and that the SSP and RESPECT have making an impact in the Asian community and the unions. How many Asian people are there in Tom's’s political organisation?

From World Socialist Website

At the convention on January 25, the total time allotted for contributions from the floor was less than two hours. Any one challenging aspects of the declaration was booed and hissed by the audience of mainly SWP members and voted down. An amendment proposing that the R in Respect should stand for Republicanism was rejected by the SWP on the grounds that one shouldn’t make a “big deal” about the monarchy; the issue is basically “immaterial” as France and the US are republics and who would think they are any the more democratic than Britain?
A motion proposing that the declaration specifies its support for open borders—an end to immigration controls—was also defeated.
An amendment proposing that Respect should commit itself to its elected representatives accepting only the wage of a skilled worker—“a workers representative on a workers wage”—was also overwhelmingly defeated. The SWP opposer argued that whilst “no one in this hall would not subscribe to this aspiration ... Respect is not a particular socialist organisation.”
He continued that there is “a danger that we would be exclusive if we carried this. What are we going to say to people like George Galloway? Are we going to make it a condition that they have to accept a workers’ wage? It would be to misconstrue what Respect is about.”
It most certainly would. Galloway has stated openly that he “has no time for the idea of workers’ representatives on a worker’s wage,” that he “could not live on three workers wages,” and that £150,000 a year is what he “needs to function properly as a leading figure in a party of the British political system.”
And then try..
 http://www.workersliberty.org.uk//modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1729
In fact, just type “Respect swp” into Google for an alternative view…
I am not actually, a member of any political party. I do not think, however, that the world needs one more SWP front which seems to be saying one thing, whilst making dodgy political compromises so as not to shock the people from mainstream political parties. One last question, if the point of voting RESPECT is to keep the BNP out of power, why not vote for one of the mainstream political parties who also condone immigration control, refuse to support republicanism and believe career politicians should be better paid then the rest of us poor proles for the difficult and wearisome job they do? It could be argued that a vote for RESPECT rather than one of the other political parties, will split the vote and allow the BNP in.
And all is not happiness and light in the world of the Socialist Alliance either as a quick trawl around the internet will show.