From SWP to Cameron’s Tories

When the East London Advertiser splashed the story that councillor Ahmed Hussain had defected from Respect and the Socialist Workers Party to David Cameron’s Tories, Respect Renewal immediately issued a crowing statement: “This blows apart the idea that the wholly unnecessary and avoidable split in Respect had anything to do with George Galloway, [Tower Hamlets council group leader] Abjol Miah and Salma Yaqoob being rightwing” (February 13).

What was the response of Respect-SWP? Despite the fact that the Advertiser had carried a photograph showing Hussain surrounded by local Conservatives and shaking hands with group leader Peter Golds, it issued a counter-statement claiming that Hussain had reassured his ‘comrades’ that he was staying with Respect and even admonishing those irresponsible enough to spread stories to the contrary without checking their facts with Oli Rahman, the leader of the four breakaway Respect (Independent) councillors. Of course, by the next day Respect-SWP had to admit it was all true.

As our interview with Hussain demonstrates, the SWP is quite happy to have apolitical localists like him not only as Respect councillors, but as members of the SWP! It says a lot about the membership criteria of this ‘revolutionary Marxist’ organisation. Since the split the SWP has taken to claiming that the promotion of localists, ‘community leaders’ and businessmen within Respect was all down to the influence of Galloway. I suppose he was responsible for letting them into the SWP too.

The SWP may have admitted that Hussain has gone, but it has still not come clean over the fact that its version of Respect is barred from using the name in elections. This little matter is missing from both Respect-SWP and Socialist Worker hype about the forthcoming Greater London Authority elections. According to SWP leader and Respect-SWP national secretary John Rees, Carole Vincent’s 176 votes (7.3%) in the February 14 Leyton by-election for Waltham Forest council “puts Respect in a good position to fight the GLA elections in May” (statement, February 15). Socialist Worker described it as a “creditable result” (February 23).

What a joke! The SWP mobilised its disheartened membership as much as it was able to in both Waltham Forest and Preston (where Barry Hill won 84 votes, or 6.8%, in Tulketh ward on the same day). If Respect-SWP cannot even make 10% in one small ward when theoretically it had the entire London membership to call upon to help out, how does it expect to run any sort of campaign over the whole of Greater London?

“This was the first election Respect has stood in since the split in the organisation last year, and the fact the vote was similar to previous elections in this part of London shows that the appeal of Respect is still strong,” said comrade Rees. We will see how strong it is when the slate standing for the nameless SWP version is opposed by Galloway’s “progressive” coalition, including Respect Renewal - not to mention the Communist Party of Britain, which has just announced that its Unity for Peace and Socialism will also be contesting (see Morning Star February 16).

The Weekly Worker has predicted that the SWP will be forced to pull out of the GLA contest. The leaders know that they face certain humiliation, but they show no sign of admitting it - in fact the comrades are stepping up their publicity, particularly around mayoral candidate Lindsey German.

Rank and file SWP members should challenge their leaders over this pointless charade. Surely the time and effort of ‘revolutionaries’ can be put to better use than promoting a left populist ‘united front’ that has hardly anyone else on board and cannot even be named on the ballot paper.