Socialist Resistance

This article by Nick Wrack will appear in the Summer edition of Socialist Resistance.

The acronym for Respect – Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community and Trade Unionism – is a little contrived, to say the least. But I like it. It locates the party in a particular political tradition, clearly of the left and identifying itself absolutely with the organised working class in the trade unions. Even with reduced union membership of 7.5 million members, this is still potentially the most powerful force in British society.

At Respect’s inception in January 2004 and in the years following, the P for peace was perhaps its most important political rallying call. Respect rightly emphasised this aspect of its programme, in order to give voice to the widespread anti-war sentiment. It was especially successful in winning support among Muslim voters in east London and Birmingham.

Over time, however, the war in Iraq has receded as an issue, although it looms large in the background and still has the capacity to force its way to the fore. In fact, Respect has an extensive programme on the whole array of political, economic and social issues normally dealt with by a political party. If it is to develop, Respect has to develop this wider political programme and ensure that its potential supporters know what that programme is.

The seven words of the acronym in fact sum up the political programme of Respect extremely succinctly. They indicate an aspiration for a better, more equal society, one free of exploitation, in which there is no discrimination on the basis of colour or creed; where there is no privileged or superior class lording it over everyone else.

Words like ‘respect’, ‘equality’, ‘peace’, ‘environment’ and ‘community’ could, of course, be used by any political party. Even New Labour and the Tories will claim to be in favour of peace despite having voted for war. Every politician will say they are in favour of ‘respect’ and of advancing the interests of the ‘community’. Which politician is going to say that people should be treated unequally? And nowadays it is axiomatic that every party is green, claiming to be concerned about the environment.

What makes these words have a very specific meaning in the acronym, however, is the fact that Respect is clearly identified as a working-class party. This immediately gives a specific ‘class’ content to words that would otherwise be vague abstract nouns, with little content, capable of meaning everything and nothing.

The first task of everyone in Respect is to build it as a party that stands for and defends working-class interests.

There will be progressively-minded people from the middle classes and even a few rich individuals who share our hatred of war, oppression, poverty and inequality and who will identify with the programme of Respect. But the starting political standpoint of Respect is to advance the interests of the working-class.

In this context, the words in the acronym become much clearer. We are talking about ‘respect’ for millions of working-class people who get none from the political classes. New Labour, especially, has taken a deliberate decision to disregard Labour’s traditional core working-class voters and to concentrate instead on trying to win the middle classes. What it fails to appreciate, however, is that its working-class base cannot be taken for granted forever. And more and more middle-class voters are finding they face problems that the neo-liberal policies of New Labour cannot solve – inflation, the credit crunch, the housing crisis, declining public services caused by privatisation and more.

‘Equality’ must mean more than fighting against racist, sexist and all types of discrimination, which is a position claimed now even by David Cameron’s conservatives. ‘Equality’ has almost become the great taboo word of political discourse. Everyone waxes on about ‘equality of opportunity’, while doing nothing to create the conditions for it to exist. But the idea of creating equality in society is one none of the mainstream parties argue for. It is now a position shared by of all of them that there is nothing wrong with inequality in itself. All the state should do, they reason, is to provide a very basic safety net for those at the very bottom and create ‘opportunity’ for those to get themselves out of this position.

For Respect, ‘equality’ has a much wider meaning – of trying to establish a society in which everyone is equal; where there is no division between rich and poor, the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’.

Thatcher famously said, ‘there is no such thing as society’ and she set about trying to prove just that by smashing up mining communities in the great strike of 1984-5. When Respect champions ‘community’, it is clearly understood to mean working-class communities and minority ethnic communities, those that suffer disproportionately from poor housing, unemployment and bad health – all problems stemming from poverty.

Most working-class people understand from their own experience that they live in a society divided sharply be class. There is an intuitive, if not scientific, understanding that the wealth of the richest in society is achieved only through the exploitation of the vast majority. While a few hundred thousand of Britain’s richest people enjoy a life without worry, millions of workers and their families live from week to week struggling to pay bills or to afford a holiday. Those millions are only ever a week or, at most, a few months away from poverty. Over-extended in credit, with mounting inflation and rising interest rates, most ordinary people are forced to work harder and for longer each week to make ends meet.

While newspapers, TV and films try to sell the mirage that anyone can achieve the lifestyle of the rich and famous, most understand how far-fetched this is. For ordinary working-class people there is no way out of the daily struggle to bring up their families. Only collective struggle at work or in the community can advance the interests of each individual.

Unfortunately, there are very few, if any, real examples of collective struggle to look to in contemporary Britain. The last great experience of collective working-class industrial struggle was the miners’ strike in 1984-5, over 23 years ago. In 1989-91, the anti-poll tax campaign, in which 14 million refused to pay the unfair and regressive tax, showed how collective struggle could defeat a hated attack on working-class people.

We now have generations who have not experienced such class struggle and solidarity. The lessons of collective struggle are, for the majority of people in Britain under the age of thirty-five, unlearned. It will only be on the basis of new struggles that working-class solidarity, in support of fellow workers in struggle, will be experienced firsthand.

But history is replete with examples of working-class struggle in Britain and internationally. While the class struggle is temporarily at a low point in Britain, and has been for a long time, we can look to other countries to see sharp struggles taking place. The experience of working-class people must be a shared one, learning from successes and defeats.

Today, we are only just beginning to see the first flexing of the collective muscles of public sector trade unionists over pay claims. After years of defeat and a feeling of weakness, below-inflation pay offers are forcing workers to stir. It is unlikely that, after years of limited industrial struggle, trade unions will rush to launch all-out offensive battles. This depends on leadership as well as the fighting spirit of union members. But slowly, the class will begin to recover its strength and its confidence.

When workers go into struggle everything is transformed. There’s nothing like a fight of one group of workers to bring the rest of the class to its feet; not just cheering on from the side-lines, but actively involved in picket lines, demonstrations, fund-raising and other acts of solidarity. Though such things may seem off the horizon at the moment, there is no doubt that the horizon will come into sharp relief.

That is why Respect must be involved in every struggle that takes place, big or small. It is inevitable that big battles will take place. The role of socialists is to point to the need for change, and to show how change is possible.

Workers have understood for centuries that they have to be organised in the workplace, through trade unions. Without this basic organisation the bosses will trample on all aspects of workers’ lives – pay, conditions, pensions, health and safety.

Similarly, outside work, workers need to be organised politically. This was understood by the pioneers who set up the Labour Party at the end of the 19^th Century. At that time, there were only two parties to vote for; the Tories and the Liberals. Both were parties of the bosses, the rich and the privileged. The Labour Party was created to give a voice for workers outside the workplace – to fight politically. There were inherent fault lines built into the fabric of the Labour Party from its inception, with the gradualism of the Fabians and the conservatism of sections of the trade union bureaucracy at odds with the aspiration for fundamental change that led many socialists and workers to support the Party. These contradictions have, so far, been resolved in favour of Labour’s liberal wing – New Labour – rather than the socialist.

So now we have a similar situation. New Labour, the Tories and the Liberals all represent the interests of the rich and privileged. They all defend an economic system that exploits workers to create vast profits which are only enjoyed by a tiny few. This system is capitalism. It exists for the benefit of the minority at the expense of the majority.

Respect stands opposed to the policies of neo-liberalism, which are supported by all three of the established parties. But there now needs to be a thorough discussion within Respect about what it stands for. To be against the policies of privatisation and pay restraint is absolutely essential. But we need to start saying what we are for. We cannot define ourselves just in terms of what we oppose.

We should not only be against the neo-liberal policies pursued in the interests of the capitalist class but against capitalism itself. And if we are, what do we want in its place?

This is where, for me, the key word in the acronym comes in. ‘Socialism’ has to be at the heart of Respect. This marks Respect out as being completely different from New Labour, the Tories, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.

It states that we believe there is a different, better, way of organising society. Instead of the majority of society working to create wealth for a few, production would be for the interests of all. There would be democratic decision-making about how the resources of society would be used. Would we really decide to spend £75 billion pounds to create a new generation of nuclear weapons, which will never be used; or to give £12.5 billion in bonuses to a few hundred City workers? Or would that money, in a rational society, be spent on other things – care for the elderly, the sick, and the young; housing for all; sports facilities for young people?

Socialists want to change society fundamentally. Until we are strong enough to effect complete change, the working-class has to fight to defend what it has previously won, and to fight for further reform. Socialists must be the best fighters for reforms, while all the time explaining why we must go further. In this period of capitalism, it will be even harder for capitalism to deliver real reforms, which will only be won by the most determined struggle.

So long as capitalism exists working-class people will constantly have to fight for improvements to their daily existence. But every victory remains at risk until we create a society in which we do not need to constantly fight. So, while we fight for reforms, those fights must be linked to a more fundamental change in the way society is run – for a society run by, and in the interests of, the working-class.

Respect must present a vision of a different society. That must be its distinct appeal.

In the context of a national swing to the right and in the aftermath of a recent split which has drained time, energy and resources, the Birmingham local election results can be counted as reasonably successful. Respect has survived.

Within that overall positive framework there is cause for celebration and some disappointment. The victory in Sparkbrook saw the share of the vote increase slightly. It gives Respect all three councillors and provides a springboard for future gains in that area. It is the result of hard work by the two incumbent councillors in maintaining a presence throughout the year, delivering improvements for local residents and campaigning for real needs such as more school places. This was allied to the continuing resonance of Respect’s name and Salma Yaqoob’s high profile. In the end it all delivered a thumping 43% of the vote. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this was delivered despite diverting resources out of Sparkbrook to help in other areas, notably Springfield.

Springfield was worked very hard last year, but was a big casualty of the split. Work stopped and the dynamic ceased. To add to the problems, a boundary change brought in more unfavourable areas. This year the gauntlet was picked up by Salma Iqbal, who led a very positive campaign which drew in many new helpers, including from out of Birmingham. In a six week period of intense work, the damage was repaired, so that in the end the vote dropped marginally from 26% to 25%, but was essentially maintained. The leaflets featured local, all-Birmingham and international issues, combining attacks on Britain’s war –mongering abroad with supporting local residents’ opposition to the “red route”. Full support was given to the local Council workers’ dispute over equal pay.

The feedback on the doorstep was positive and encouraging and towards the end, the window posters started going up again. Such was the feeling as we went around; we must be honest and admit some of us thought Salma could win it. In that sense there is of course disappointment. Yet, Salma deserves a big vote of thanks for her tireless efforts. Without the abuse of the postal vote system, by New Labour in particular, she could have come very close.
Mushtaq again, almost single-handedly, led the campaign in Nechells. Yet with scarce resources he came second on 19%, only a slight drop on last year.

Abdul Aziz managed 20% in Aston, a drop from 28% last year. Socialist Resistance supporters who worked for him reported that he suffered from a lack of resources; there was more support out there for Respect than he could physically tap into. More focussed and detailed literature would have helped.

The bigger disappointment was in Kings Heath. This was another casualty of the split. The work in the area collapsed in the previous period, the Muslim vote was not mobilised this time and despite a well organised, well run campaign, where the candidate made an impressive mark at the hustings, for example, the damage had been done. There was also more of a leftist Labour opponent to contend with. On a positive note, new activists in that area have come forwards and there is now the project of building a new branch and starting some serious local work. A vote of 5% is the baseline for future development.

During the campaign there was a very successful rally in the town centre, combining local council workers, teachers and other public sector workers. The several thousand strong rally and demonstration was leafleted by Respect giving its full support to the strikes.

So, Respect’s vital foothold in the city has been maintained. It now has the responsibility and opportunity to move outwards and become more of an all-Birmingham organisation.

The unending attacks on Muslims, Council workers, the unemployed and other oppressed layers will need countering. The big challenge of the next General election also awaits.

On the electoral level there is life outside of Respect in Birmingham, but not a great deal of it. The Greens went up from 14% to 16% in their one targeted ward of Bournville. The Socialist Labour Party went down slightly in Handsworth Wood to 13% from 15% and Raghib Ahsan managed 11% in Lozells and East Handsworth, down from 20% last year.

The Tories gained six more seats and so the ruling Tory - Liberal Democratic coalition will remain in power. The BNP vote either fell slightly or was maintained.

The task of building a political alternative to the neo-liberal mainstream and the far right is as urgent as ever. That is the task of Respect. Socialist Resistance will play its part in helping make it happen.

The New Labour project is falling apart at the seams. Its local elections results were the worst in 40 years, with only 24% of the vote and coming third behind the Liberal Democrats. This is a disastrous result for Brown. In London, the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor and the presence of a BNP member on the Greater London Assembly will disturb and depress all who value the multi-cultural diversity of the city.

The most immediate catalyst for the collapse of the Labour vote was the abolition of the 10% income tax rate (i.e. Labour attacking a large part of its core base), but looming large behind that is the economic crisis ­ the credit crunch, rising fuel and food prices set against continuing low wages for a big section of society. Added to this was Brown’s inability to spin the New Labour project in the way Blair could do it. All of this raises the prospect of a further electoral disaster in the European elections in 2009 followed by a drubbing in the general election of 2010 and the possible election of a Tory Government.

Against this background what are the prospects and possibilities for building a left-wing alternative to New Labour’s neo-liberal policies. What is the terrain and what can be achieved?

Firstly, nothing in the general political situation has fundamentally changed since the launching of Respect in 2004. Large numbers of traditional Labour voters remain alienated, disillusioned and demoralised by the right-wing policies of New Labour. Some seek solutions in a “change” and vote for the Tories. Many more abstain, casting a plague on both parties.

Such is the nature of party politics in Britain today, and the media coverage, that the rivalry between the main parties has become one of
presentation and personalities. Ideological differences have been left far behind as all the establishment parties support neo-liberalism to the hilt. Differences are miniscule, reflected by petty point scoring. In these circumstances voters can cast a vote for the opposition in order to register their dissatisfaction without, in fact, registering a vote for any fundamentally different policies.

At the same time, there is widespread anger at rising prices and the budget attacks on the poorest. There is opposition to privatisation and a fear about the future of the health service and education. The war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, although receding as an issue, remains of concern for millions.

Of course, not everything flows in the same direction. Fears about crime and the issue of immigration are factors used by the press and politicians to drum up support for right-wing views. In general, however, disillusioned working-class voters and the progressively minded sections of the middle class will not swing to the Tories. Some may be tempted by the social liberalism of the Liberal Democrats but most will withhold their votes unless and until they see a serious, viable, alternative. When the threat arises of a Tory win most of these will vote once again for New Labour with heavy heart and holding their noses whilst doing so. This was a significant feature of the Livingstone vote in the London Mayoral election. Such an attitude will be played upon by the right-wing trade union leaders to argue against “rocking the boat”, arguing that New Labour has to be supported to keep out the Tories.

In these circumstances, there are possibilities for building a left-wing alternative to New Labour but it will not be easy or swift. We may not like where we are starting from but every journey has to start from where you are.

The first point to register about the performance of the left parties in the recent elections is that they confirm that there is the basis of support for such a project. Although the experience was very limited, with only a few handfuls of good results outside of London, the results demonstrate that where consistent and patient work has been invested, support can be obtained for left-wing candidates.

Respect’s results confirm this. In Birmingham Sparkbrook, Respect’s Nahim Ullah Khan won 3,032 (42.64%) and became Respect’s third councillor in the ward. Elsewhere in Birmingham, Respect polled 25% in Springfield, 17% in Nechells and just under 5% in Moseley and Kings Heath. These are extremely significant results. They indicate the possibilities of obtaining very good votes in elections and demonstrate that it is possible to win. They augur well for Respect’s prospects in the city at the general election.

In Manchester’s Cheetham Hill ward Kay Phillips polled 14.4% following an energetic campaign that built serious links with the local communities. In Moss Side Respect polled 5.8% and in Wigan 6.7%. In Bradford Manningham ward Respect won 7.5% and in Walsall 7.6%. Of course, these are very few wards contested but are small indications of what can be obtained in the first instance if there were forces to contest more widely.

A few of the results for the Left List also demonstrated the same potential for the left. They received a very good 37% and 25% in Preston and Sheffield respectively to 12% and 10% in Manchester. It is worth mentioning that the result in Preston and Sheffield are the products of work over a long period of time with a commitment from the core activists to the building of a broad electoral left alternative; a completely different approach from that of the SWP leadership.

In London the most impressive result was the vote for Hanif Abdulmuhit in the City and East constituency. Here, Respect came third, polling 26,760 votes (14.59%), an increase of 7,085(36%) against the background of a polarisation of the vote between Labour and Conservatives. This was a tremendous vote, beating the BNP and consolidating Respect’s position in its east London stronghold.

Across London Respect’s vote did not fare so well. Respect did not stand any candidate for Mayor or in any other constituency apart from City and East.

Respect polled 59,721 (2.43%) in the London-wide list, a disappointment to the many Respect supporters who had hoped to win at least one seat on the Greater London Assembly by obtaining the minimum 5% required. Notwithstanding the high profile of George Galloway this was always going to be difficult in the circumstances. However there is no doubt that the response to Respect’s campaign, albeit limited by a lack of resources and any real presence in large swathes of the capital, confirmed the potential to build outwards from the success in east London.

This was not a bad result in the circumstances. There was a massive polarisation in London around the Mayoral election which no doubt squeezed smaller parties. Perhaps more importantly, the war no longer featured to anything like the same degree as in 2004. Although Respect has a broad array of policies covering the breadth of the issues facing the electorate it is probable that most people still see Respect as the anti-war party. This needs to be addressed. What exactly is Respect and what does it stand for?

There is no doubt that the split in Respect damaged the party’s prospects, both in terms of voters seeing Respect as damaged goods and weakening the party’s ability to campaign across London.

We did not have a Mayoral candidate, which meant that we did not get an entry into the booklet which went to every household in London. Nor did we have an election broadcast.

Unfortunately, with the exception of Newham and Tower Hamlets, Southwark, and some pockets in North London and elsewhere, Respect does not exist as an active force with an organisation on the ground. This is a consequence of four years of neglect, compounded by the split last year. The lesson of last years Southall by-election demonstrated again in these elections, is that Respect cannot expect to get significant support unless it carries out regular, consistent work in an area.

Respect was not able to overcome these difficulties. It shows that Respect has to be built across the capital, with branches in every borough, if we want to become a real force in London. The vote in City and East, however, demonstrates that we can build in other areas by developing an active base carrying out regular and consistent work within the local community. Of course, our priority areas are Tower Hamlets and Newham in the east where we have to continue to build and consolidate, but no national party can be built on the basis of support limited to two or three areas.

The London results

Neither the victory for the Conservatives, nor the election of a BNP member to the London Assembly, contradict the argument that there is a need and a realistic possibility of building a left-wing alternative to New Labour. In fact, the election results demonstrate the need for such a party more than ever. The neo-liberal policies of New Labour will lead some to try out the Tories and will even drive some working-class whites into the arms of the racist and fascist BNP. A party espousing policies that benefit working-class people, rather than big business is the only way to cauterise that flow.

An election is only a snapshot of political developments and these results should not be seen as a generalised move to the right. Given the absence of any authoritative left-wing party it is not surprising that many voters plump for the Œother¹ party in the hope that things may improve marginally.

But the vast majority of traditional Labour voters still vote Labour or abstain. There is a sizable proportion of working-class voters, especially newer immigrants in low paid jobs, who no longer have any allegiance to Labour.

Notwithstanding the election of Johnson and the election of one BNP member to the GLA, the London elections show that the situation is much more complicated -than simply being a reflection of a shift to the right. Livingstone’s 1st preference vote increased by 208,336. His combined 1st and 2nd preference vote increased by 340,358. While there was massive discontent with New Labour¹s policies and with Livingstone’s own performance, the fear of Johnson winning drove Livingstone’s supporters out in massively increased numbers. Unfortunately, this increased turnout for Livingstone could not match the increased Tory turnout, which added over half a million votes to their 2004 result. Following the election of Cameron as leader the Tories have cynically repositioned themselves towards the centre ground of politics to increase their appeal particularly to a new generation which did not know Thatcherism. Alongside this the selection of Johnson as Mayoral candidate has seen a confidence returning to the Tory supporters, especially in the suburbs. Livingstone appeared jaded, grey and on the back foot in the campaign and the Tories scented a huge scalp. They turned out in force to take it. This produced a fairly narrow Tory victory for Mayor. This shows that, notwithstanding the increasingly personal nature of political contest in Britain, there was still a clear left-right contest taking place. Voters for the most part understood this. No matter the serious concerns that many on the left would have with Livingstone, it was clearly understood that Johnson had to be beaten.

Whilst the vote for Livingstone went up in the inner city areas it could not compensate for the doubling of the Tory vote in some of the suburban constituencies. The Mayoral election was overwhelmingly a class vote. There was a clear ideological aspect to the vote, fuelled by the massive attacks on Livingstone led by the Tory-supporting Evening Standard. It was understood that the multicultural nature of London and its public services were seriously at risk. Johnson’s victory will demonstrate very quickly how justified that fear was. It was a huge victory for the Tories and a defeat not only for New Labour but also for all those to its left, - particularly when taking into account that the BNP are now on the Assembly.

Part of a wider trend

New Labour’s defeat came directly out of the New Labour project itself. It is part of a wider and more fundamental picture involving the direction of social democracy at the European level. Over the last two decades European social democracy, without exception, has abandoned its traditional roots and adopted the full neo-liberal agenda. Now, one after another, these parties are suffering the backlash from this and falling into disarray. Italy is the most recent example where social democracy, after a disastrous period of coalition with a centre right Prodi administration, has collapsed and now we have a Berlusconi government and a fascist mayor of Rome. France is another example of a centre left government opening the door to the right, bringing Sarkozy to power. In Germany at an earlier stage it resulted in the election of Angela Merkel.

Right across Europe social democratic parties have moved to the centre ground and the ideological difference between them and the centre-right parties has disappeared. Politics are reduced to sound-bites and spin. In Britain, New Labour comprehensively rejected its traditional electoral base and, initially, successfully reached out to middle England - to win three elections with such support. But such support can disappear as fast as it comes. Unless governments rest on ideologically-based core support they are continually vulnerable to the latest twists and turns of the political situation or stunts pulled by their opponents.

Does this mean the end of new Labour? No. It might mean the end of this particular phase of New Labour in the sense that they are heading from office at a rate of knots. But any idea that they might draw the conclusion that the neo-liberal path has been wrong and that they should now turn back towards some kind of old Labour model is unlikely to materialise. This will become clear enough when the new policy review is published in the next week or two. They are more likely to conclude that they have not gone far enough and the way to get their voters back from the Tory Party is to embrace the market even more.

The response of the left to all this right across Europe should be clear enough. The need to build broad parties of the left, based on broad
socialist policies, designed to embrace all those looking for a political alternative could not be more sharply posed. This is not an easy project. It requires determination, élan, openness, patience and consistency. But it has to be done.

The way forwards after the election

The basis for a broad pluralist party clearly exists, despite the current divisions on the left and despite a reduced vote in the London elections. If we take the very good results in Birmingham and East London, along with some of the other results outside of London and the 3.6% won by the various left parties on the London list, there is clearly the basis for a much bigger party of the left than has been built up until now.

Respect therefore has a two-fold task in the post election situation: to consolidate the important and central bases in Birmingham and East London and start to extend outwards into other areas with the objective of establishing a national spread for the organisation.

This requires a rapid turn back from election work to party-building work through patient but energetic and lively local activity together with strengthening our national profile. We need to recruit and consolidate new members and build branches where they don’t yet exist. The structures of Respect must be strengthened. The paper should be utilised to win more supporters and sympathisers. We should begin to prepare for a conference in the early autumn which can consolidate the organisation and reach out to others.

We must renew our approach to all those people in the communities with whom we have been working during the election but also find new areas to work in.

We must reiterate our commitment to reach out to and work with all others on the left who want to build a left alternative - the young people of the environmental movement, those opposing racism and islamophobia, and local community activists. This also means approaching trade unionists and other sections of the left to argue for a regroupment broader than Respect, which can reflect the full potential available to the left and which can more adequately address the crisis of working-class representation. We should participate in initiatives like the “Convention of the left”.

Forging links with serious organisations on the left will not come easily or quickly, but we must show ourselves committed to the project of working with others to build a bigger, united left-wing party.

In the meantime, we work to build our support in an open and inclusive way.

The local and London elections have been bad for the left and for progressive voters everywhere. The backlash against the Brown government, which many now feel has betrayed them on the economic and
social fundamentals, has pushed Labour’s share of the vote below the Liberal Democrats nationally. In London, Johnson is now mayor, although the final margin after second preferences was lower than many predicted. Much worse, the BNP got a first seat on the Assembly. The Liberal Democrats also had a bad day in London, with their vote down substantially and it was a pretty mixed picture for them elsewhere.

For parties to the left of Labour, results were also generally poor with some notable exceptions, particularly but not only in Birmingham. In London the best results were posted by Respect with almost 60,000 list votes, 2.43%, but this was still below the deposit saving level and less than half what was needed to get a seat on the Assembly. The combined left vote, excluding the Greens, was only 3.61% on the list.

On the positive side for Respect, winning another seat on Birmingham council was a sharp ray of light. This now gives us all three councillors in Sparkbrook. Another good result was both the constituency and list votes in East London, which clearly show we have built on our vote after a long period of internal difficulties. The constituency vote for Hanif Abdulmuhit increased by almost 7,000 from the 2004 result. The local roots Respect has established in East London checked the forward march of the BNP. Without Respect East London could have begun to look like the 1970s with the BNP pushing into third place. Instead, Respect is one of the two major parties along with Labour in parts of Tower Hamlets and Newham, we beat the BNP on the list vote and pushed the Liberal Democrats into fifth place.

There was clearly a massive turnout in some parts of the Tory suburbs, a vote with some pretty nasty racist overtones following a campaign of vilification against Livingstone and his support for ethnic minority communities in general and the Muslim community in particular.

There is little for the left to be celebrating after these results. Many Labour voters will be rightly gutted at what has happened. There will be many battles ahead against this big shift to the right. What we need to be doing now is regrouping our forces with a determination that the resistance starts here and starts now. George Galloway, Salma Yaqoob and Respect intend to be at the heart of that resistance pursuing the approach of building a plural left opposition. We also want to give a big thank you to all the candidates and supporters who worked so hard during an election campaign which has been lots of fun.

Full list of Respect election results

London - City & East: Hanif Abdulmuhit 26,760 (14.28%)
London - list vote: 59721 (2.43%)
London - Tower Hamlets (Weavers): Dilwara Begum 637 (16.78%)
London - Tower Hamlets (Millwall): Reza Mahbob 170 (3.87%)
Manchester - Cheetham Hill: Kay Phillips 502 (14.4%)
Manchester - Moss Side: Ali Shelmanu 153 (5.8%)
Wigan - Atherton: Stephen Hall 222 (6.7%)
Birmingham - Aston: Abdul Aziz 1406 (19.6%)
Birmingham - Moseley And Kings Heath: Ray Gaston 327 (4.91%)
Birmingham - Nechells: Mushtaq Hussain 781 (17.34%)
Birmingham - Sparkbrook: Nahim Ullah Khan 3032 (42.64%) elected
Birmingham - Springfield: Salma Iqbal 1920 (24.84%)
Bradford - Manningham: Arshad Ali 395 (7.5%)
Walsall - Palfrey: Arshad Kanwar 304 (7.6%)

Last weekend’s campaigning was a big success. The bus runs were the best yet and there were stalls, leafleting  and other activities in many parts of London.

We had a good involvement of groups of SR comrades on the bus on both days and other comrades doing stalls in various places. A number of comrades came into London from various parts of the South East.

This coming weekend ­- the last before the voting ­ is even more important. The bus timings are the same: 12.00 from Club Row on Saturday and 11.00 from Club Row on Sunday. We need to make the bus a big success again. Comrades from outside of London are again important in this ­ in particular Oxford, Brighton, and Southend.
Comrades coming into London from the east may wish to help with the City and East campaign - they are concentrating on street activity this weekend - stalls and leafletting. For this go to the campaign office at 11.00 Saturday and Sunday at 13 Upton Park, off Green Street, nearest tube Upton Park. For contact ring Hanif on 07921256766.

Activity during the week is also important ­ every day until May 1st. The bus will be out every day from 12.00 till 7.00. Either turn up at Club Row at 12.00 or ring Kevin on 07930 532952.
Contact local campaigns for details of local evening campaigning.

This is a big weekend for election campaigning in London! Respect’s campaign is going well but there are only two weekends left - this weekend the 19th and 20th and the weekend of 26th and 27th. It is crucial that we put everything possible into the campaign both at the weekends and during the week to maximise Respect’s vote.

This weekend

Every Socialist Resistance supporter should get involved in the campaign this weekend ­ either through local stalls and leafleting or by going out on the campaign bus.

On Saturday the bus will be in Tower Hamlets and Newham and will leave the Club Row office at 12,00 midday. Comrades should be there at that time to go on it.

On Sunday the bus will leave Club Row earlier at 11.00 and will go to a rally in Trafalgar Sq and then go campaigning from there. Be at Club Row by 11.00.

Birmingham

For Birmingham information, call:

or email: birminghamrespect@hotmail.com

salmacampaign@yahoo.co.uk or call us on: 07812172885

By Alan Thornett

Respect Renewal has done remarkably well in the four months since the split and its founding conference in November. True it does not yet have a national spread, but it has made some remarkable advances just the same. It has stabilised itself in its most important base in East London - which was wracked by the actions of the SWP in the course of the split. And a far better relationship has been built with its councillors than was the case under the SWP Respect. They are now getting a much better profile.

It has produced three editions of a monthly 24 page paper which has been well received and which has now been redesigned with new comrades involved, as well as an impressive free supplement for the recent anti-war demonstration. A series of highly successful meetings have been held in London, Birmingham and Manchester. And Respect Renewal is now gearing up for the May elections - the GLA where it will stand both on the list and in the City and East constituency, and in local council elections in Birmingham, Greater Manchester and Bradford. There is now the basis for an effective and successful election campaign.

Respect Renewal¹s leadership bodies have also developed well. Its National Council has been well attended and has had refreshingly open and genuinely democratic debates. This is very important. As Salma Yaqoob recently wrote “Our culture should be one in which disagreement is not seen as disloyalty and where inclusivity is not confined to those who sympathise completely with your own views”. Many of the organisations across Europe which have emerged to the left of social democracy have adopted this approach.

Respect Renewal has certainly established itself as the most important initiative towards a broad pluralist party of the left in England. This progress is important, since in the four years that Respect (Mark 1 and Mark 2) has existed, the need for a broad pluralist left alternative has become ever more urgent, the space to the left of Labour has widened, and the crisis of working class representation has become even more acute.

Emerging debates

A number of debates have emerged in the course of building Respect Renewal however, animated partly by articles in Red Pepper, about agencies for social change and about socialist strategy. They are also reflected in a number of contributions on the Respect Renewal website and are linked to a more practical debate about party building and media strategy.

One thing made very clear at the founding conference last November was that Respect Renewal does not define itself as “the” left alternative to Labour. Given the dispersal of the left in a wide range of organisations, campaigns, tendencies and movements - including the tens of thousands of people whose heart is on the left but who are not “in” something other than perhaps their union or local campaigns. Respect Renewal has to be the catalyst for an attempt to develop a wider framework for united left action on both the electoral and campaigning fronts.

This is crucial to its future development. It implies a high priority in developing better relations with, for example, the RMT leadership or the Morning Star, and why it was important to campaign for a broader left slate for the GLA elections.

The best conditions for Respect Renewal to act as a broader catalyst, however, is to build itself successfully, organise branches, undertake campaigning activities, get itself rooted in communities, in the trade unions, and in local and national campaigns. Without this everything else is difficult if not academic.

In order to build Respect Renewal we need a number of tools. These include some rather basic things like participation in demonstrations, organising rallies and public meetings and having a newspaper. Not because these should be fetishised and not because they are the be-all and end-all of politics, but because they are important in carrying our message beyond our ranks.

Surprisingly some of these basic forms of organisation have been contentious. It has been argued for example that going on the anti-war demonstrations has been a waste of time, that they marched through empty streets. But these demonstrations were a huge success - as was the whole anti-war movement which was built around them, and they had a real impact on the government and on the political situation. Blair in the end was damaged beyond repair.

The real audience of these demonstrations was the millions who either saw them on television and in the newspapers or became aware that they had taken place by one means or another. And in the campaigns to build those demonstrations thousands of people, in communities and the labour movement, in peace campaigns or just motivated as individuals, came to meetings to hear the anti-war message. Hundreds of thousands were moved to march themselves, and for many of them it was the first time they took any political action.

It was also argued that we had to break from “traditional forms of the organisation”. Not that anyone is against new ideas, of course, or against new ways of organising or getting our word out. We should grasp new ways of organising with both hands. But that is a very different thing from decrying existing forms of organisation simply because they have been around for a long time. In any case these calls for new forms of organisation have not been accompanied by much in terms of practical proposal as to what they should be.

There is no dispute about the significance and increased use of the internet of course. That is not the issue. Respect Renewal needs the best possible regularly updated and interactive website. It should use Facebook, YouTube and so on. We need a multimedia approach. But it would be a mistake to think that everyone spends a large amount of time on-line or that there is not an important role for printed media.

There has, however, been some dispute about Respect Renewal having a newspaper - despite its success. This has taken the form of a debate around whether it should be a multi-page paper with a full range of politics or a much more limited give-away broad sheet on immediate campaigning. In reality, however, much more a debate about what kind of organisation Respect Renewal should be than a discussion different choices of press.

In fact broadsheets and newspapers are both perfectly valid means of getting ideas across, they just perform different functions to that end. On a demonstration it might well be better to have a free broadsheet whilst for building branches and developing the organisation you need a more substantial and rounded paper. The broadsheet can reach out to attract new people and the paper can engage them politically and bring them towards the organisation.

What kind of party do we need?

The key debate is what kind of organisation Respect Renewal should be. If the task is to build a party with a national spread and profile which recruits into its ranks, builds branches, and provides the framework for the political development of its members, then a paper with a full range of politics is pretty important. If on the other hand the task is to relate to a specific electorate in a key area for Respect Renewal in preparation for the next election then broadsheets and leaflets might be more useful. In fact, however, both types of publication are equally important and should not be counterposed in any way.

There is general agreement that the electoral field is extremely important and should not be surrendered to our opponents. It is a crucial way of making a connection to those who have been deserted by new Labour and those in the unions and in oppressed communities who are looking for a way forward. The importance of having an MP and our group of councillors is obvious. Respect Renewal should have the objective of coming out of the next general election with two MPs - which would be a qualitative development.

But equally, to reduce Respect Renewal to an electoral organisation, or even an organisation principally concerned with the electoral field, would be a big mistake. Our objective must be to build an organisation which on the one hand fights elections but on the other responds to the direct needs of the working class and the oppressed - an organisation which takes the trade unions seriously, which is in the heart of the anti-war movement, which is in the campaigns defending civil rights, opposing discrimination, defending the environment, migrants and asylum seekers, the NHS and the public sector. Our parliamentary and local government representation needs to be integrated into this perspective.

For that we need a political party which builds itself into a national organisation and prepares itself politically on all these fronts. In the old Respect this question took the form of a debate around a party or loose coalition. In other words does the space to the left of Labour need to be filled by a temporary organisation, as implied by a coalition, or by an ongoing class struggle political party based on a comprehensive political programme and organising structure? A party which generates its own internal political life and collective experience as a means of development.

It has been argued that the only programme you need to build a party to the left of Labour today is anti-war, anti-racism, and anti-privatisation! This is reminiscent of discussions during the formation of Respect when John Rees argued that what we needed was a peace and justice party. This is turn might have reflected a tradition in the SWP of aversion to programme ­ “one strike is worth a hundred programmes” was at one time the mantra. Or was it 1,000 programmes? I can’t remember.

But you can’t build a party which presents itself as a political alternative at governmental level, on minimalist policies. It would have no credibility at all. Why would anyone vote for it? Lib Dems are in favour of peace and justice and many of them would have no problem with anti-racism, anti-war and anti-neoliberalism either. And what would be the point of it? There is no point in building an alternative which is not an alternative.

Such a stance would be to the right of the Greens, who have a comprehensive programme stretching from the re-nationalisation of the railways to the defence of civil and human rights and opposition to discrimination, as well as being strong on the environment. They are the most left-wing green party in Europe, and there is a very good reason why. It is because the only space they can occupy is to the left of Labour. For Respect Renewal to place itself to the right of them and not much to the left of the Liberal Democrats would be a big mistake.

Nor should the assumption be made that working class communities are only able to cope with a limited political agenda. As with other sections of society some will go for headlines and first impressions and others will want a lot more.

Pessimistic perspective

Some of the comments around programmatic profile seem to have been linked to a deeply pessimistic view of the current political situation. It has been argued that the anti-war movement had been defeated and that the whole of society is moving to the right.

This is wrong. The whole of society is not moving to the right. This view is over-negative on the unions and leaves out the anti-war movement, the environmental radicalisations and the global justice movement completely. The implication was that we should drop all this left-wing stuff, get real, and follow society to the right in order to keep in touch with it.

The overwhelming view projected from the conference last November that Respect Renewal has to reach out to the rest on the left, in particular the left in the unions and the Morning Star has also been contentious. It has been argued that such a left does not exist, hardly exists, or is so weak that there is not much point in relating to it.

This is a misunderstanding of the situation of the left and of its relationship to the trade unions. The fact is that if a group of trade union leaders made a call for a new party the response would be massive. Or if Bob Crow was prepared to back Respect Renewal and the RMT was prepared to affiliate to it, this would be a big step forward for the left in building a political alternative. It would also be a big step forward for the unions, since it is very difficult to regenerate the unions without a political dimension. That is why the Labour Party was formed in the first place.

Then there is the view that community work should be Respect Renewal’s overwhelming priority. And indeed it is extremely important, not least because Respect Renewal has some breakthrough bases in inner city communities in East London and Birmingham which at the present time are key to its development. But it would be wrong to counterpose these areas of work when they are in fact complementary and interlocking areas of activity.

Community struggles include the fight against racism and islamophobia, the struggle for decent, affordable and environmentally friendly housing, for municipal and healthcare provision for the elderly, for education, for the rights of the specially oppressed and ethnic minorities, for the rights and provision for the unemployed. There is a huge list - and they play themselves out as debates and struggles in communities and localities - even though the political issues involved are in the end national ones. These are all issues which should be taken into the trade unions.

Community activists are often active members of their unions and there are many instances where trade union and community struggles naturally merge and overlap. A classic case is the dozens of local campaigns against hospital closures and health cutbacks where the unity and interaction of organised workers and community campaigners is spontaneous. Such interaction only makes the struggle stronger.

Agencies for change

The issue at stake here is not whether community-based struggles and politics are important but whether such struggles have now replaced the organised working class as an agency for progressive social change. Community action, of course, is as much a part of the struggle of the working class as workplace action. And many of the big struggles of the future will be around environmental issues. But that is a different matter from the implication that the organised workers movement no longer has a key role to play as an agency for social change even if this is alongside other forms of organisation and action.

Internationally, the industrial working class has never been bigger, though much of it has moved East and South, to China, India, South East Asia and other “third world” or “newly industrialising” countries. As Paul Mason argues in his book Live Working or Die Fighting, it may be the actions of the millions of newly proletarianised workers in China and India who determine the outcome of the international struggle against capitalism over the next 30 years.

In no other country of Western Europe have the unions suffered the kind of defeats they suffered in Britain in the 1980s. In most Western European countries the unions remain a force to be reckoned with. In France they have rebuffed the right-wing offensive of Nicholas Sarkozy and are ready for the next round of struggle.

Trade union struggles in Britain, of course, remain at a low and level and on the defensive. The defeats inflicted on the trade unions the 1980s have not been reversed and their subjection to a neo-liberalist work regime in both the public and private sector is very dangerous. And it is hardly challenged, certainly at a national level. In part of course this is because all three major political parties are part of the neo-liberal consensus. But the issue here is not whether trade union struggle is at a low ebb now but can it re-emerge.

To this question we have to say yes ­ though it is not just one more heave, as the SWP imply. Class divisions have widened. And despite the current constraints hundreds of thousands of people are part of daily struggles in the workplace over their work conditions especially, over cutbacks and redundancies, and over pay and hours. Much of this is “invisible”, precisely because it goes on at a local level, does not often lead to national strikes, and is not reported in the national media.

The precondition for these actions is the existence, albeit often hobbled by hostile laws and right-wing leaderships, of the trade unions. And there are thousands of dedicated union activists, at a local, regional and sometimes national level, fighting against belligerent managements and in the face of the weary scepticism and resignation of many of their members.

And we face a sharpening of the political situation. Many observers argue that the economic crisis currently unfolding will be the worst since 1945. Whether this is true or not Gordon Brown has no option within the framework of pro-capitalist politics but to impose what are effectively wage cuts on millions of public sector workers and to cut back public spending. Tens of thousands of public sector workers already face the axe and the threat that their jobs will be deleted or replaced by agency workers. In the next period trade union struggle is going to become more important and not less. It would be very difficult to defend the historic acquisitions of the working class or the aim of progressive social transformation without a re-growth of the unions and of working class militancy.

This will be very difficult of it is confined to a purely trade union or syndicalist level ­ since freeing the unions from current shackles is as much a political as a trade union task. The crisis of political representation places a constraint on the development of the fight-back which itself needs to have a political dimension. One of the difficulties of overcoming the defeats of the 1980s is the historical weakness of the British working class ­ strong on organisation weak on politics. Something which began to be challenged in the 1970s but was knocked back again in the 1980s.

The building of a new party to the left of new labour therefore has to be a part of the process of regenerating the unions. It is not just a matter of uniting the left ­ uniting the left is a means to that end. This is why any perspective which fails to see the unions as a crucial agency for social change is missing the point.