No Vote for Galloway - An Open letter to the Left

[Android]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this.

Below is 'An Open Letter to the Left' (http://infantile-and-disorderly.com/2011/05/02/no-vote-for-galloway-an-open-letter-to-the-left/) which is signed by left activists who argue against support fo Georger Galloway in the upcoming elections in Scotland.

I should add I am posting this as a favour for a friend and I don't agree with some of the formulations in it.


On May 5th, George Galloway will be standing for election to Holyrood. The former Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow and Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin is heading the George Galloway (Respect) – Coalition Against Cuts list. He has the backing of Solidarity, the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party in Scotland. On his election website, Galloway pledges to “oppose every cut to schools, hospitals and public services” and “fight for a parliament with the powers to tax the rich bankers and big business to help pay for jobs and decent public services.” It sounds fine, but there is no way those on the left can extend any level of support for George Galloway.

Galloway is a supporter of the Islamic Republic of Iran. When questioned at a recent public meeting, Galloway denied ever supporting President Ahmadinejad and even offered ￡1000 to anyone who could prove his support. However, while interviewing the Iranian President on his Press TV show, The Real Deal, last August Galloway stated that he requires “police protection in London from the Iranian opposition because of my support for your election campaign. I mention this so you know where I’m coming from.” In fact, while Iran’s 2009 election is widely accepted to have been rigged, Galloway has stated in his Daily Record blog that the electoral count “was awesome” and the million+ protesters took to the streets because “too MANY people were allowed to vote” (his emphasis).

The Iranian regime incarcerates, tortures and executes political opponents, including leftists, trades unionists and leaders of the radical students’ movement. It does the same to those found guilty of “war against god”, a charge levelled at political dissidents. Confessions are extracted under torture and duress and at times broadcast on state TV channels, including Press TV. Those found guilty of adultery and homosexuality can face the death penalty. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani (called “the so-called stoning case” by Galloway on Press TV) was sentenced to death by stoning in a court speaking a language she didn’t speak herself. George Galloway denies that homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran. On The Wright Show, Galloway stated that “the papers seem to imply that you get executed in Iran for being gay. That’s not true.” He then inferred that the boyfriend of gay Iranian asylum seeker, Mehdi Kazemi, had been executed for “sex crimes” against young boys and not for being gay.

It’s unsurprising that Galloway publicly supports the Islamic Republic. He is an employee of Press TV, the Iranian state propaganda channel. While serving as a MP, Galloway was forced to declare his earnings from Press TV, which ranged from between￡5000 and￡20,000 for his various shows.

As pro-democracy protests engulf Syria, it’s worth remembering that Galloway has previously heaped praise upon the Syrian regime and authoritarian ruler, Bashar al-Assad. Addressing Damascus University in late 2005, Galloway said: “For me he is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of the remaining dignity of the Arabs”. Galloway has expressed approval for other dictators too, once describing Parkistan’s General Musharraf as “upright sort”. Far from a consistent democrat, after the 1999 coup brought Musharraf to power, Galloway told The Mail on Sunday that “Only the armed forces can really be counted on to hold such a country together… Democracy is a means, not an end in itself and it has a bad name on the streets of Karachi and Lahore.”

Galloway’s Christian beliefs have influenced his views on abortion and stem cell research. He doesn’t believe in evolution. In The Independent on Sunday in 2004 Galloway said “I’m strongly against abortion. I believe life begins at conception, and therefore unborn babies have rights. I think abortion is immoral”. He was absent from all votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (which included attempts to reduce the abortion time limit in the UK). His notable absenteeism extends to many LGBT issues and euthanasia. Then again, Galloway always had fairly lamentable levels of parliamentary participation. As a Respect MP, Galloway only participated in 98 out of 1288 votes. In 2006, he claimed more expenses than any other backbench MP in parliament.

Galloway’s egoism has always been astounding. While most socialists consider it standard for workers’ representatives to be elected on a workers’ wage (not an impoverishing amount, but the salary of a skilled worker), Galloway has declared he couldn’t possibly live on “three workers’ wages”. And what else other than pure vanity can have driven an appearance on Big Brother, which discredited whole sections of the left? Finally, it’s worth remembering that Respect’s own councillors in Tower Hamlets have voted through cuts to public services.

We call on socialists to offer no support for Galloway’s election campaign.

Moshé Machover (Israeli socialist) – Torab Saleth (Workers Left Unity – Iran) – Mehdi Kia (Co-Editor Middle East Left Forum) – Charlie Pottins (Unite and HOPI Steering Committee) – Rosie Kane (Scottish Socialist Party) – Nima Kisomi (Iranian socialist) – Sahar G (Iranian socialist) – Suran Badfar (Iranian Socialist) – Vicky Thompson (HOPI) – Tami Peterson (National Union of Students LGBT Committee, Bi Rep ’09-’11) – David Broder (Commune) – Steve Ryan (Commune) – Barry Biddulph (Commune) – Sinead Rylance (Communist Students) – Ustun Yazar (Communist Students) – Reyhaneh Sadegzadeh (Communist Students) – Alex Allan (Communist Students) – James O’Leary (Communist Students) – Sebastian Osthoff (Communist Students) – Komsan Duke (Anarchist Federation) – William J Martin (Batley and Spen CLP) – Elsie Wraight (Manchester Labour Students) – Rachael Howe (Love Leveshulme Hate Cuts Campaign) – Karen Broady (Unison) – Ste Monaghan (GMB) – Edd Mustill (NUJ) – Dan Read (NUJ) – Pete Cookson (NUT) – Joe Broady (BECTU) – Raphie De Santos (The left banker) – Andrew Coates (Socialist blogger) – Michael Leversha (Student activist) – Beth Marshall (Student activist) – Nima Barazandeh (Student activist) – Democratic Socialist Alliance (organisation)

[Kronsteen]

He has the backing of...the Socialist Workers Party

!?

That's the first I've heard of it, and it seems highly unlikely.

From the signature list - plus the general tone and focus on Iran - it looks like a CPGB document.


He doesn’t believe in evolution.

He's a creationist too? Not that the evidence presented even mentions evolution.


Galloway’s egoism has always been astounding.

I think we can all agree on that one. Personally though, I'm a little surprised anyone needs to "call on socialists to offer no support for Galloway’s election campaign".

Galloway's a dead duck, and good riddance.

[IndependentCitizen]

I'm almost certain Socialist Party (Scotland)'s not backing him, and I don't think the SWP are either....

Edit: SPS is...*sigh*

[Manic Impressive]

why wouldn't the SWP support him? I thought respect was an SWP front?

[Madvillainy]

why wouldn't the SWP support him? I thought respect was an SWP front?

nah the respect/SWP lovefest collapsed like 4 years ago.

[Android]

From the signature list - plus the general tone and focus on Iran - it looks like a CPGB document.

I am pretty sure there are no members of the CPGB on the signatures list. I think what you are referring with the 'focus on Iran' reference is that a lot of the signatures are involved in the Hands off the People of Iran (HOPI) campaign.


and what is it to do with 3 or 4 iranian (and isreali) socialists"".

As far as I am aware some of the Iranian and Israeli socialists who signed are based in Britain. But that is really beside the point and irrelevant when confronted with such an odious sentiment. What a parochial mindset that outsiders as you pretty much call them have no business commenting on the political situation in Britain.

[Crux]

So what do the signatories offer as an alternative? Galloway certainly has his shortcomings, but then again we will never have perfect allies. Here is the Socialist Party Soctland statement on it: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4977

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Anti-cuts and Socialist election challenge launched in Scotland
From Socialist Party Scotland, 31 March 2011
Nominations have closed for the May 5th elections to the Scottish parliament. While current polls indicate that Labour is marginally ahead of the incumbent SNP government, the election outcome is too close to call. What is certain is that this election takes place at a time of unprecedented cuts. Public spending in Scotland has been slashed by £1.3 billion for the year 2011-2012 by the SNP – who have meekly passed on the Con-Dem cuts. Local councils across Scotland of all political colours are carrying out savage cuts to jobs and public services.

Whichever combination of party’s form the next Scottish government, it will be a government that will attempt to carry through the deepest cuts in decades. But as the colossal 500,000 plus demonstration organised by the TUC in London on 26th March shows, trade unionists and working class communities will not accept this savagery without a fight.

The Socialist Party Scotland is taking part in these elections on a fighting anti-cuts programme. We will be standing in 7 of the 8 regions in Scotland as part of the Solidarity election challenge. In North East Scotland – which includes the cities of Dundee and Aberdeen – Socialist Party Scotland member Jim McFarlane, Chair of Dundee City Unison and a local government worker will be the lead candidate for Solidarity. Likewise in West Scotland which covers areas including Clydebank, Paisley, Greenock and Inverclyde, Socialist Party Scotland member Jim Halfpenny, who is a teacher and an EIS rep, is heading the Solidarity list.


In Glasgow SPS members are taking part in a joint list with George Galloway and others in Solidarity as part of the George Galloway – Coalition Against Cuts list. This agreement with George Galloway follows detailed negotiations based on an anti-cuts programme put forward by the Socialist Party Scotland. A programme that includes opposition to all cuts, support for needs budgets and a pledge that any MSPs elected from the list will vote against all cuts in the Scottish parliament.


This was agreed with George Galloway and has allowed us to form a short-term electoral agreement for the elections. There exists the possibility that George Galloway could be elected in Glasgow on a clear and principled anti-cuts programme. A programme which is being advocated by the Defend Glasgow Services and the Scottish Anti-Cuts Alliance. A good vote for the Coalition Against Cuts list would represent a major boost for the anti-cuts movement in the city and across Scotland.


Brian Smith, a Socialist Party Scotland member and branch secretary of the 11,000 strong Glasgow City Unison branch and the convener of the Defend Glasgow Services is standing on the list. As is Ryan Stuart who is a college student and a member of Youth Fight For Jobs and well as the SPS.


While this will be a difficult election for Solidarity, following the jailing of Tommy Sheridan at the end of January, it is important to put down a marker for a fighting opposition to the cuts. In part to prepare for a much wider anti-cuts challenge in 2012, when the local council elections will be taking place. Socialist Party Scotland will be working to try to build a widespread anti-cuts challenge we hope as part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC)


As well as putting forward a fighting programme against the cuts we will also be popularising the socialist alternative to cuts and the capitalist crisis. Below is an article written for the March edition of Socialism Today, before a final agreement was reached with George Galloway, that sketches out the political backdrop to the Scottish elections and our tactics.



The 2011 Scottish elections – what approach should socialists take?

The Scottish parliamentary elections due to take place on 5th May 2011 will be conducted against the backdrop of the most severe cuts in public spending in generations. The Scottish government, in an act of supreme irony, succeeded with support from the Tories and the Lib Dems in implementing, a savage cuts budget in February. The result is a £1.3 billion reduction in funding for public services in Scotland for 2011/12. Whichever of the establishment parties wins the election in May, further cuts of another £2 billion are planned over the next three years.

The consequences for jobs, services and working conditions are horrendous. Thursday 10th February – so-called Super Thursday – saw the majority of Scotland’s councils set cuts budgets amounting to the slashing of more than £500 million from local government over the next year. The GMB trade union estimate that 10,000 jobs will be lost in Scotland’s public services. This will prove to be an underestimate when you consider than Glasgow city council alone plan to implement a minimum loss of 3,500 posts over the next two years.

On top of this are the cuts at a UK level that directly affect the welfare state including Scotland’s share of the £18 billion in benefit cuts and the slashing of civil service jobs, which will add billions more in cuts to the Scottish economy.

These attacks are being implemented with hardly a whimper of opposition from Labour and Scottish National Party (SNP) councillors and members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs). The mere suggestion that they should stand-up and oppose the Con-Dem austerity programme has barely registered with the overwhelming majority of them. Rather than take the Liverpool road, set needs budgets and build a mass campaign for a return of the £1.3 billion stolen by the Con-Dem government, they have been prepared, without exception, to vote for cuts in one form or another.

A whole book could be written cataloguing the spinelessness of the ironically termed ‘opposition’ parties. Labour in Glasgow have slashed £100 million from the budget over the next two years. North Lanarkshire have axed £55 million, including 600 job losses in what the Labour leader, Tom McCabe, described as a ‘socialist’ budget – because it spread the pain evenly! The SNP/Lib Dem coalition in Aberdeen demanded a 5% pay cut on all workers on over £21,000 a year: when this was rightly rejected by the trade unions, the council then came back with a proposal for 900 compulsory redundancies. In Fife, the SNP/Lib Dem coalition have voted to privatise all the council’s residential care homes. While in Dundee the SNP council have imposed cuts of £15 million, including privatisation of services and major cuts to education.

The SNP’s new social contract

Across Scotland the local government employers’ body, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), have already imposed a three-year pay freeze, ie a pay cut, on all council workers, which will result in a 10-12% cut in living standards. The SNP’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, has declared, “If people are willing to accept pay restraint, then we will do our bit to protect family budgets and job security”. Public sector workers will rightly reply, how can you protect family budgets when faced with year-on-year wage cuts? How can job security be protected when tens of thousands of jobs are being slashed from the public sector pay-roll?

Salmond wants to see a new version of the discredited ‘social contract’ for Scotland. In other words an agreement between the government, employers and workers that cuts to pay and terms and conditions should be accepted in order to avoid compulsory redundancies and to defend the ‘social wage’. Like the social contract proposed by the right wing Labour government in the1970s, this is nothing more than a cover for cuts. In reality only a determined mass struggle by workers and local communities to defend every job, oppose wage cuts and all attacks on services can the parties of cuts and privatisation be defeated.

This has not stopped the right-wing trade union leaders in Scotland from embracing the social contract idea. A recent document presented with no prior notice to the February meeting of the Scottish Council of Unison proposed that the union should sign up to an agreement with CoSLA and the Scottish government – a framework agreement that the STUC has already put its name to. ‘The Public Sector Workforce Framework’ argues for “the pursuit of the goal of no compulsory redundancies in exchange for agreement to real and meaningful working practices that allow employers to generate the package of savings required to fund this goal”.

The vast majority of the Unison branches were outraged by both these proposals and the Scottish Unison leadership’s advocation of the agreement. Following the debate during which Socialist Party Scotland (SPS) members played a leading role, the Framework document was overwhelmingly rejected by Unison.
This defeat for a ‘partnership’ agreement that accepts the inevitably of cuts comes after the union voted in December to call on councils and the Scottish government to set ‘needs budgets’ that protect jobs and services. It was also agreed by Unison that coordinated strike action across the public sector was necessary to build mass opposition to the cuts – again these policy positions were put forward by SPS members and were passed overwhelmingly.

The successful launch of the Scottish Anti-Cuts Alliance (SACA) at the end of January 2011 is a very significant step forward for the building of an anti-cuts movement with a fighting programme. One hundred trade unionists and anti-cuts campaigners representing 23 trade union and anti-cuts organisations agreed to launch SACA on a clear opposition to all cuts, for the setting of needs budgets, and that politicians who want to take part in the anti-cuts movement must vote against all cuts. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) sought to water down the founding principles of SACA to allow Labour and SNP politicians who voted for cuts to participate in the campaign – but this was rejected by the conference. In contrast the Right To Work (RTW) campaign set up by the SWP does allow politicians onto their Scottish steering committee without ‘checking their credentials’, including an SNP MSP who voted for cuts.

Political representation.

With all the main establishment parties implementing the Con-Dem savagery, increasingly trade unionists and wider sections of working class communities will be looking for a political alternative to the parties of cuts and privatisation.

However, the temporary lack of a major left force in Scotland as well as a desire to protest against the Con-Dem cuts will probably see Labour emerge as the biggest party in Scotland after the May elections. This will partly be a continuation of the ‘lesser evilism’ that predominated in the 2010 Westminster elections – with the added advantage for Labour that they are now out of power in Westminster and Holyrood. They are attempting to absolve themselves from any blame for the cuts by posing as an ‘opposition’ to the SNP government in Edinburgh and the Cameron/Clegg coalition in London.

The effective collapse of the Scottish Socialist Party in 2006, due to the political mistakes and degeneration of the leadership of that party (who left the ranks of the Committee for a Workers’ International in 2001), has left a very bad legacy. The SSP lost 90% of its vote between the 2003 and 2007 elections and is finished as a viable electoral force.

The SSP has weakened its position even further as a result of their leadership being widely seen as having played the central role in the conviction and subsequent jailing of Tommy Sheridan on charges of perjury in January. Incredibly, the vendetta carried out against Tommy and Gail Sheridan was only possible through an unholy alliance of the SSP leadership, the police, the legal establishment and the Murdoch Empire. SSP members actively encouraged the perjury investigation, including the selling of a video to the News of the World for £200,000 and the handing in of SSP Executive Committee minutes to Lothian and Borders Police, both of which formed a key part of the state’s case against Tommy. In all twenty four SSP members gave evidence for the prosecution during the longest and most expensive perjury trial in Scottish legal history.

A colossal £4 million of public money was squandered in this political prosecution of Scotland’s best-known socialist. Socialist Party Scotland gave and continues to give our full support to Tommy Sheridan and his family as well as the Defend Tommy Sheridan Campaign

As well as working as part of Solidarity, Socialist Party Scotland have also encouraged the development of the Scottish Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (STUSC). Our preferred option for the upcoming May elections was for a Scottish wide challenge under the banner of STUSC – with Tommy Sheridan heading the list in Glasgow. However, given the limited nature of the coalition at this stage, reflected in the lack of the engagement of wider forces in the coalition, this will not be possible. At present STUSC involves the forces around Solidarity, one branch of the RMT union, and the Lanarkshire Socialist Alliance.

There is a temporary mood amongst a layer of trade union activists on the left in Scotland to hold back from engaging in the political field at this stage, which necessitates a left challenge to Labour and the SNP. This has been reinforced by the coming to power of the Con-Dem coalition with a savage cuts programme, which the Labour-supporting trade union bureaucracy have used to bolster their case that the alternative to the cuts involves building support for Labour. However, another factor is also the legacy of the SSP’s disintegration and its leadership’s role in the jailing of Tommy Sheridan, which has tarnished the idea of building a socialist electoral alternative among a layer of workers – although this will change in the period we are moving into now.
Despite this temporary situation STUSC will continue and in particular prepare for the 2012 local government elections in Scotland. Whoever wins the elections on May 5th either a Labour or SNP led government will be a government of savage cuts. This will allow for a wider and stronger electoral challenge by STUSC for next year.
With the exception of Glasgow, we are supporting and calling for a vote for Solidarity in the other regions of Scotland.

George Galloway

George Galloway’s declaration that he will stand for a Glasgow list seat was followed in late January by an approach to Solidarity about the possibility of a short-term electoral agreement for the May elections.

The Socialist Party Scotland were not opposed to discussing with Galloway to see if a genuine agreement was possible on the basis of a consistent anti-cuts and left platform for the elections. The Socialist Party in England and Wales did discuss with Galloway and the SWP in 2004 prior to the formation of Respect. The Socialist Party had previously discussed with George Galloway and advocated that he should announce his intention to launch a new left party at the height of the anti-war movement in 2003, on the day when over one million marched to Hyde Park in London.

This he did not do until the formation of Respect in early 2004. Nevertheless, we were prepared to go through the process of discussion, while making our position clear on the need for a principled programme and orientation for Respect. In the end this was not possible due to significant differences over programme and the democratic functioning of Respect, which was dominated by the SWP and George Galloway.

Socialist Party Scotland drew up a list of minimum proposals that would form the basis of an acceptable agreement to stand on a joint list in Glasgow with George Galloway. To refuse outright to even discuss with Galloway would not have been understood amongst a wider layer of trade unionists as well as youth.
However, unlike the SWP who in 2004 put no political conditions to an agreement to establish Respect – taking part in effect in an unprincipled ‘lash-up’ – we adopted the opposite approach. Our minimum proposals for an electoral bloc include a fighting programme for the anti-cuts movement, support for needs budgets, as well as a guarantee that any elected candidates, including George Galloway, will not vote for cuts in the parliament or take part in a coalition with Labour. These have been agreed to. On that basis George Galloway, Solidarity, Socialist Party Scotland, will stand on a joint list for Glasgow under the name George Galloway (Respect) – Coalition Against Cuts.

This election platform would represent an opportunity to strengthen the anti-cuts movement in the city. For example the leading figure of the anti-cuts movement in Glasgow, Brian Smith, the secretary of the Glasgow council Unison branch, who is a Socialist Party Scotland member is taking part on the list.

It is clear that George Galloway intends to run an anti-establishment and left campaign in Glasgow. If he is prepared to adopt the programme of the anti-cuts movement in the city (in which the Defend Glasgow Services Campaign plays the leading role) this campaign could be used to strengthen the anti-cuts movement. This list is also certain to emerge with the largest left vote in Glasgow since the height of the SSP’s support in 2003.

In the concrete case of the situation in Glasgow there is no possibility of any other ‘left’ figure or party being elected to the Scottish parliament. The Socialist Party would of course have preferred Tommy Sheridan to have won his court case and been available to stand, but this is not an option.

George Galloway is, despite the important political differences that exist between us, widely seen as an anti-establishment figure. Moreover, if he runs a left campaign, which is much more likely with a joint list with Solidarity, he is likely to gain the ear of tens of thousands of working class people in the city. This campaign can have a potent impact and is also an opportunity to deepen and strengthen the anti-cuts movement, a vital requirement to ensure that any electoral agreements to fight the cuts are kept to and implemented in practice.

The Scottish electoral system means that around 6-7% of the ‘list vote’ for Glasgow will result in the election of an MSP. There is a good chance that Galloway could be elected on an anti-cuts platform, which would be a significant boost for the campaign. Even a strong vote for such a list would bolster the case for a wide scale anti-cuts electoral challenge for the 2012 local elections, with nothing that may transpire subsequently negating the fact that the vote achieved in Glasgow was because of the principled position on the cuts and a fighting left programme.

During the campaign the Socialist Party can also energetically put forward our wider programme for a socialist solution to the capitalist crisis, including the vital task of building a new mass workers' party, which can be widely propagated through leaflets, posters, paper as well as the major public rallies that will be held during the campaign.

Flexible tactics

This is not the first time that Marxists have had to confront such questions. Temporary agreements and blocs, even with political forces that we have major differences with, are not new. This applies in the trade union field where in some cases socialists are obliged to work in broad lefts with people who are in opposition to them on other political issues. Especially on the electoral plane, agreements with parties, groups and individuals who socialists have political differences with are inevitable at certain stages.

The CWI has a rich experience of this type of work, including most recently our participation in the United Left Alliance in Ireland. In all these cases, and numerous others, it is a question of applying a united front approach, even of a temporary character, that can help strengthen the independent interests and voice of the working class – as a step towards building a new mass workers’ party. At the same time this must go hand in hand with the promotion of a clear socialist and Marxist programme, and building support for organised Marxists, that in the tumultuous events that will engulf Scotland will become a pole of attraction for increasing numbers of workers and young people.

The minimum demands for an agreement with George Galloway proposed by the Socialist Party Scotland

That any joint campaign for the Glasgow list seats between George Galloway and the forces involved in Solidarity should include:

Fight the cuts

Opposition to all cuts in jobs, services, benefits and pensions, whether carried out by the Con-Dem coalition or Labour and SNP here in Scotland.


Oppose privatisation and support for public ownership.


Support for councillors and MSPs who refuse to do the Con-Dem’s dirty work.


Support for the setting of needs budgets that protect jobs and public services.


Support for the Defend Glasgow Services campaign and clear opposition to the cuts of the Glasgow Labour council.


That any coalition campaign will not advocate a vote for any Labour or SNP candidate in Glasgow for the constituency section of the elections unless a Labour or SNP candidate supports the anti-cuts stand as outlined above.


We won’t pay the price for the bankers crisis

Tax the rich and big business.


Democratic public ownership of the banks.


Scrap the council tax – make the rich pay.


Support for ending the anti-trade union laws.


Democracy

Support for a referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future.


Support for extending the powers of the parliament.


Agreement

Leaflets and election material should be agreed between the coalition partners.


An agreement that any candidates elected will vote against all budgets presented to the parliament that would result in cuts to jobs and services, and only support legislation and bills that are in the interests of working class people.


An agreement that any candidates elected will not participate in any formal or informal coalition with either Labour or the SNP, but will only vote on a case by case basis for progressive legislation.

[Android]

Jimmy Haddow (SPS) - was there a point you wanted to make or did you just decide you wanted take up some space by posting something vaguely relevant that your group has published.

[Sam_b]

Absolutely nothing wrong with posting a statement Ronan, especially since your initial post is a statement in itself. Jimmy is posting what SPS have said in regards to why they are supporting the campaign.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yeah, lets get more bourgeois candidates...herp Iran derp.

Id still vote for Galloway, and I dont particularly enjoy his autgortarian ways.

[Sam_b]

I have been working closely with the Galloway campaign and will be voting for the Coalition on Thursday. Disappointingly, the statement only mentions Galloway and not the number of other candidates standing on the list - such as Angela McCormick who is number two and has a fighting chance I would argue of getting a seat if the vote is high. Brian Smith who is third is a solid union activist.

The idea that we should only be supporting polished revolutionaries with 100% spot-on politics is absurd given the chance the list can get elected representatives on it, the list itself being a broad and diverse range of anti-cuts candidates. That signatories who have signed the document are supporting, or have degrees of support with such organisations like Labour shows up the hypocrisy of the statement in my opinion.

[Tommy4ever]

Well I plan on voting Solidarity on Thursday (in Edinburgh). I assumed that the only real hope to get a socialist in Holyrood was Galloway getting in in Glasgow?

Do you guys really think we can hope for any better?

Consequently this is my first ever election - I'm sure a lifetime of disappointment awaits. :D

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Ronan, Please read the material that I posted, as Sam b said it is an explanation of why the SPS are in a short term electoral Coalition with certan individuals and other Left parties for the Scottish Parliamentary election. What is important is that Galloway agreed to stand on an anti-cuts banner and support the Defend Glasgow Services campaign to fight to keep the jobs and services that are being cut by Glasgow's Labour Council. Which means he is under the Coalition Against Cuts.

This May Bank holiday weekend I was in Glasgow campaigning with the Coalition Against Cuts and at the Sunday May Day march. While I live in East Lothian I will also be voting Solidarity which will be my first Scottish Parliamentary election ever and the first Election in Scotland I have had a vote since the horrendous day Thatcher was elected in May 1979.

I am personally for the establishment of a Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, TUSC, which I consider will be a far better avenue to build for workers' representation and, hopefully that is what will take place.

[Sam_b]

You were? We might have bumped into each other Jimmy, you never know.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Could the folks supporting this campaign inform me as to what concretely they expect to change if he is successful in his pursuit of office? Since some of you are intelligent, generally respectable people, I'm genuinely interested to know how you think his election would represent progress toward the abolition of wage slavery.

[Q]

From the signature list - plus the general tone and focus on Iran - it looks like a CPGB document.

Actually, going from this podcast (http://cpgb.podbean.com/2011/05/02/george-galloway/) it seems the PCC is going for a critical support vote. While I can agree with this podcast, and the SPS statement, that we will not get "perfect allies", this Galloway figure really does seem shady. The question I think should be whether he'll make a good case for socialism when elected?

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

"You were? We might have bumped into each other Jimmy, you never know."

Sam b, Yes I saw the International Socialist group (Scotland) in the Square and on the march. I have also read your Statement, as well as your resignation letter and Chris Bambery's resignation letter, but I am confused and I have a little query? For the life of me I do not see any political/theoritical difference to your former organisation, the SWP. To me there is no formal politcal disagreement to the SWP's theoritical and political programme. So I would be grateful if you could enlighten me on this. I would suggest that you go back to the Chris Bambery resignation letter rather than use this post as it is on something completely different, fraternally, Jimmy.

[freepalestine]

As far as I am aware some of the Iranian and Israeli socialists who signed are based in Britain. But that is really beside the point and irrelevant when confronted with such an odious sentiment.what odious sentiment?
What a parochial mindset that outsiders as you pretty much call them have no business commenting on the political situation in Britain.
eh? is that because i mentioned the swp backing labour- thats a fact,no need to be rude.
as for george galloway,why are iranian and a former-isreali socialist mentioned at the top in slating him.
i wondered why they have a beef with galloway ,why is that?over him working for presstv?personaly i dont agree with what i have heard him say about iran.
.having spent the past week in glasgow,(not mcr; ) it sounds like he may get a seat in the scots parliament.just saying

[L.A.P.]

]'An Open Letter to the Left'[/URL] which is signed by left activists who argue against support fo Georger Galloway in the upcoming elections in Scotland.

Won't be signing that.

[Q]

Won't be signing that.

1. As someone not living in the UK, why would you sign?
2. What reasoning do you have for not signing, if it would be applicable to you in the first place?

[Sam_b]

Jimmy, rather than resurrecting an old thread i'll send you a PM.

[Jimmy Haddow (SPS)]

Sorry, Sam b, but what is a PM. Remember you are talking to an boring old person and I am not up with the lingo, Jimmy

[Q]

Sorry, Sam b, but what is a PM. Remember you are talking to an boring old person and I am not up with the lingo, Jimmy

A private message. Watch your inbox (http://www.revleft.com/vb/private.php).

[Android]

what odious sentiment?
eh? is that because i mentioned the swp backing labour- thats a fact,no need to be rude.
as for george galloway,why are iranian and a former-isreali socialist mentioned at the top in slating him.
i wondered why they have a beef with galloway ,why is that?over him working for presstv?personaly i dont agree with what i have heard him say about iran.
.having spent the past week in glasgow,(not mcr; ) it sounds like he may get a seat in the scots parliament.just saying

Right, I don't care if Galloway gets a seat or not.

Reference to the odious sentiment and parochial mindset was to do with your comment that it wasn't the business of foreigners to be commenting on the political situation in Britain.

[freepalestine]

Reference to the odious sentiment and parochial mindset was to do with your comment that it wasn't the business of foreigners to be commenting on the political situation in Britain.hey if youve misread what i wrote,then i apologise.
what i meant is what is the link to iran?why are they using that to slate him?i.e. because he worked for presstv and has defended to an extent iran ,or whatever?
also i couldnt care less where the socialists are from- i wondered why the names of activists against iran,had particular mention for those who made the statement.

not being british myself ,i better not share my opinion either,ronan.

[Feodor Augustus]

I can understand the reasoning behind a political front that is not restricted to 'polished revolutionaries with 100% spot-on politics' (Sam b), and it seems the SPS have bound their support to a reasonably firm set of conditions. This is to be commended, and I wish you the best. On the other hand, the opening post shows why Galloway is something of an embarrassment who is often a much larger hindrance than help. He just seems to lack honest principle, and thus makes many principled people who associate with him end up looking unprincipled.

I think Galloway the individual is much more of an issue than the tactic itself, but that he chose to stand in Glasgow makes the other responses (in favour or against) a response to a situation out of their control: i.e. Galloway's ego.

[Q]

The Weekly Worker also published the open letter in the OP last week, for the sake of debating on it. In this week's issue (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004393) there is a report of their aggregate on this topic:


Agitation for independent working class politics
Electoral tactics was the main topic on May 8 at the CPGB's all-members' aggregate meeting in London. Alex John reports

Opening the discussion on the May 5 local elections, Provisional Central Committee member Mike Macnair reaffirmed that the organisation had been right to call for a critical vote - without conditions - for George Galloway and the Coalition Against Cuts list which he headed in Glasgow. It would have been wrong to make our support conditional on Galloway renouncing his support for the Islamic Republic of Iran and his involvement with the regime’s Press TV, as some comrades had argued during the run up to the election, just as it would have been wrong to make our support for candidates conditional on their calling for troops out of Afghanistan, because the key issue for the mass of the population was public service cuts - not Iran, and not war.

A resolution upholding this policy (see below), and critical of the open letter calling for no vote for Galloway because of his support for the Islamic regime (Weekly Worker May 7) was carried unanimously, after debate and a number of amendments.

Drawing on the arguments in his recent three-part series of Weekly Worker articles on electoral tactics, comrade Macnair sketched out a communist understanding of bourgeois democracy as the background for our method of tactical intervention in bourgeois elections. The bourgeoisie is not a democratic class, and universal suffrage has been won by working class struggle. When the working class is organised, then the bourgeoisie can only rule with its consent. Working class consent must be gained.

The early workers’ movement gave electoral support to one or other of the bourgeois parties. The concept of independent working class politics and independent working class parties was brought into the workers’ movement through Marxist intervention, and mass workers’ parties were built on that basis. But the bourgeoisie was able to capture the mass socialist parties through nationalism and bureaucracy.

Communist intervention in bourgeois elections, comrade Macnair said, is essentially agitation, in Plekhanov’s useful definition: presenting a few ideas to many people - as opposed to propaganda: presenting many ideas to few people. The “few” ideas we are offering are (a) independent working class politics, and (b) the need for an independent party of the working class, a communist party.

In the present dire situation, lacking any mass party based on independent working class politics, we have little or no purchase on the results of an election. So how to intervene? Our method is to identify the dominant political issue and seek to drive a wedge into the mass electoral conversation, in order to open it up for our communist ideas. Our electoral tactics to this end are diverse, because of changing political circumstances.

In 2005 the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been the dominant political issue, and we had made our support for Labour Party and other working class movement candidates conditional on them taking a public position for immediate withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. Today the cuts in public services dominate the terms of public debate, and can be expected to do so for the immediate future. That is what determined our decision to make public service cuts the basis of our electoral tactic this time.

Our “framework position”, he said, was to critically support (a) those Labour Party candidates publicly opposing the cuts, and saying that they will not implement them; and (b) (where there is no Labour anti-cuts candidate) candidates of left platforms who say the same. In this way we seek to engage with the supporters of such candidates and to insert the idea of a Communist Party and programme around the anti-cuts question.

We made no general line on which of the multitude of non-Labour left anti-cuts platforms to support, in the event that they were standing against each other, leaving that for comrades to weigh up locally. But we did explicitly call for critical but unconditional support for the Galloway-led Coalition Against Cuts list which, besides Galloway himself, was a left unity list in which various left organisations in Scotland - Socialist Workers Party, Chris Bambery’s McCounterfire, Socialist Party Scotland and Solidarity - participated.

Comrade Macnair said that the open letter had made a serious political error because, while it condemned Galloway’s support for the obnoxious Islamic regime in Iran, it failed to mention imperialist sanctions and the threat of imperialist war. If the CPGB had chosen to make conditions for electoral support with respect to Iran, we would have said ‘Don’t support the imperialist war drive’, rather than ‘Don’t support the Islamic regime’ - because the immediate enemy of the British working class is the British state, which operates globally as an imperialist state. The main enemy is at home.

Some CPGB members had been involved in campaigning for signatories for the open letter against Galloway, said comrade Macnair, but had withdrawn their own signatures before it was published, because support for the Galloway list was an agreed action of the organisation. This showed their commitment to the organisation, and to the principles of democratic centralism. If CPGB comrades had let their signatures remain on the open letter that would have been a breach of democratic centralism, which requires that we all pull together in action. Workers do this in a strike action: you may vote against strike action, but then you abide by the majority decision. This is essential for the political democracy of a party.

In the discussion, comrade Farzad said that she agreed with our “framework” anti-cuts electoral tactic, and that she had declined to support the open letter. However, she was critical of the organisation - and self-critical - because we did not adequately investigate and elaborate its concrete application, particularly given the circumstances in Glasgow. Galloway is not simply a supporter of the Islamic regime: he has a close relationship with Press TV, which is directly involved in the persecution of political prisoners, putting torture victims on display to make forced confessions.

Much more could have been done. CPGB comrades in Hands Off the People of Iran should have explained how the framework fits the present situation. ‘Vote Galloway, but ...’ was a difficult position to argue in Glasgow. We needed to directly address local Iranians who are in danger from the Islamic regime. The regime has people following students in Glasgow. The election of Galloway would have encouraged the harassment of Iranian exiles by supporters or agents of the regime. We should have been sensitive to the growing anti-Galloway feeling in Glasgow, and perhaps produced a local leaflet explaining our approach. Nevertheless, she said, the AWL’s social-imperialist anti-Galloway campaign had been the worst evil.

Comrade Tina Becker emphasised that critical support should indeed be critical. We do not have a problem criticising Galloway during the election campaign, and much more of this should have been done. He has many other faults besides his support for the regime. For example, his opposition to abortion rights. We had castigated him for this previously, in Respect, while calling for a vote for him. Comrade Nick Rogers said that it was correct for the motion to be critical of Hopi supporters who had signed the open letter. In the united front principle, he said, it was a duty to openly criticise our allies. Unity in action must not mean diplomatic silence.

Comrade John Bridge backed this approach, saying that critical support is our way of engaging with our allies. He reminded us of the pregnant man image with which we had spoofed Galloway’s opposition to abortion rights - while supporting him electorally. However, it is legitimate to make an exception to our framework tactic in concrete circumstances. This should not be ruled out in principle, but in this case there was nothing new. We had given critical support to Galloway before, in the full knowledge of his shortcomings. It was important that our motion criticises Hopi signatories to the open letter, he said.

Study

The meeting also accepted, without opposition, the PCC’s decision, after the March 26 TUC demonstration, not to proceed with the immediate publication of an anti-cuts pamphlet, as had been agreed at the February 13 aggregate. First, the PCC - and the organisation as a whole - will undertake longer-term serious research and study, aimed towards a deeper, concrete assessment of the crisis of world capitalism, as the basis for developing an effective anti-cuts strategy. Our analysis will be developed through Weekly Worker articles tackling different aspects of the question.

Comrade John Bridge pointed to the TUC’s March 26 anti-cuts demonstration. It was certainly very big, but the political level was low. On the demo, although we handed free copies of Weekly Worker to those who showed an interest, they were not snapped up. The PCC estimated that if we had produced a pamphlet, we would have not sold very many. However, the public service cuts are only just beginning, and the inevitable mass fightback by the working class is likewise at a very early stage. Comrade Bridge reminded us that we are a “left unity organisation”, aiming to establish a Marxist party by going through the existing left. A deeper analysis is necessary than anything currently on offer.

Furthermore, a CPGB pamphlet must give the view of the organisation, whereas Weekly Worker articles give the views of the author. At present, leading PCC members have differing assessments of the room for manoeuvre open to the capitalist class in the present crisis. John Bridge considers that, faced with a powerful working class fightback, they have room to make Keynesian concessions, whereas Mike Macnair believes they are adopting austerity measures because they have little elbow room. However, these are “underdeveloped differences” and should be tackled by research and study. Likewise, comrade Macnair casts doubt on the appropriateness of the organisation’s current policy of calling on local councils to refuse to implement cuts and set illegal budgets, suggesting that a study of the history of the mass social democratic parties of France and Germany, among other things, may cast useful light on this issue.

The aggregate set the launch date for the CPGB’s Summer Offensive annual fundraising drive for June 11 - to coincide with the projected launch date of our new website. And the initial draft plan of topics and speakers for Communist University 2011 (Saturday August 13 to Saturday August 20 inclusive) was briefly reviewed, with an open invitation to comrades to make fresh suggestions.

Aggregate resolution

1. We recognise that the motivation of the ‘Open letter to the left’ arguing for no support to George Galloway in the Scots parliament elections is a legitimate disgust at Galloway’s support for and organised links to the tyrannical theocratic regime in Iran. This support is directly opposed to the interests of the working class, and it was justified that these criticisms should be made during the election campaign.

2. Galloway’s support for the theocratic regime in Iran is not unique to him. It is a scab policy widespread on the left. Galloway’s particular role arises merely from his personal prominence. It is necessary to combat this policy in order to promote the political independence and international solidarity of the working class.

3. However, the CPGB considers that the open letter was a political mistake.

4. Hands Off the People of Iran has throughout its existence insisted on a two-sided policy in which opposition to imperialist war threats and sanctions has to be accompanied by support for the workers’, women’s and democratic movements in Iran, and conversely support for the workers’, women’s and democratic movements in Iran has to be accompanied by explicit opposition to imperialist war threats and sanctions.

The open letter, which focussed solely on Galloway’s support for the theocratic regime in Iran without clearly opposing the operations of the imperialists, being signed by people who identified themselves as Hopi supporters and as members of Communist Students as such, risks associating Hopi and Communist Students with the Eustonite/Alliance for Workers’ Liberty camp. By doing so, in our view it undermines our ability to win supporters of an anti-war position away from the scab policy of political support for tyrannical regimes targeted by imperialism.

5. In particular, if the CPGB had called for a position on Iran to be a condition of our calling for a vote for candidates in these elections, the condition we would have put forward would have been opposition to imperialist sanctions and war threats against Iran. The UK state is an active party in these sanctions and war threats, and the first responsibility of communists in the UK is to oppose them.

6. In fact, the main question facing the working class in Britain at the May 5 elections was not Iran, but the vicious cuts assault of the coalition government. The CPGB’s position was to vote for working class candidates who committed themselves to oppose and, if elected, vote against all cuts.

7. For these reasons the CPGB dissociates itself from the open letter and reaffirms that it was correct to call for a critical vote for the ‘George Galloway (Respect) - Coalition Against Cuts’ list in Glasgow.

8. We self-criticise for the late expression of a clear CPGB line on specific votes in these elections, though our main line and orientation were expressed in our perspectives document adopted in March; we also self-criticise for weaknesses of discussion in our press of the concrete issue of the ‘George Galloway (Respect) - Coalition Against Cuts’ list in Glasgow and of criticisms of George Galloway in this context.
While the election is of course over, I think it raises some valuable points regarding a communist method in elections and supporting non-party candidates under certain conditions.

Any thoughts?

[Wanted Man]

I think it's a pretty interesting discussion, but it's fairly academic, since the left generally don't have a chance of making a big splash in these elections. Looking at the Scottish parliament, the left options were basically the following:


Respect: led by a "celebrity" who may have a tiny chance of getting elected, but who is controversial for his opinions as described in this thread.
SLP: Scargill, for the good old days...
SSP: for people who also support independence, but they aren't supported by parts of the left after they turned against Sheridan.
Solidarity: w00t, another "left celebrity", we totally need more of those competing against each other.
CPB: almost everyone who is not already a CPB supporter will vote for one of the other parties listed above.


In other words, all choices are pretty flawed. None of them had a massive chance of getting elected, and if any of them had won a seat, they would probably not have had much of a plan to build from there, and they would have pissed it away during the next five years, just like the SSP and Respect pissed away their seats in the past.

These five left parties were competing against each other more than anything, and they were a mere sideshow to the SNP spectacle. So in that case, one has to wonder why they should bother participating at all. I think that question, as well as the manner in which these five parties ended up participating, is much more relevant than endlessly weighing the pros and cons of a "critical vote" for some controversial lefty celebrity guy or another.