Skip to main content

Vote 2005 and Respect

Vote 2005 is an interesting exercise. It involves an online debating forum with a large number of parliamentary seats identified. It is a better forum than the traditional usenet uk.politics.electoral which has been the online location generally where political activists debate from many places. Usenet, however, has a number of problems which means that it can take a lot of time to review matters.

George Galloway's - Respect the Unity Coalition not to be confused with respectcoalition.co.uk - the "lunacy coalition" have been floating around for some time now.

This is an attempt by the Socialist Workers Party to build an organisation that people will actually vote for. Previously they had Socialist Alliance which had some marginal success locally where they had hard working candidates.

Their plan was to turn the Stop the War campaign into a political party. In doing so they have lost a lot of the support and activists the SWP had without gaining that much.

Through the internal contradictions in the nature of the SWP and the rest of Respect they have now created a situation in which they are "considering" supporting Blairite pro-War Labour Candidates against anti-War Conservatives or Lib Dems.

To that extent they have now completely undermined their starting thesis.

They have also accepted that as with the Lib Dems they "support the Troops".

The difficult question, of course, is how quickly they end up falling apart on the basis of the internal contradictions. Personal loyalties do hold organisations together even when they lose their way (vide New Labour).

Sources of information: The resolutions at the Respect October Conference http://www.respectcoalition.com/pdf/041103_resolutions.pdf
which includes the text:
"Consequently we will not challenge anti-war Labour MPs and will consider calling for a vote for Labour in those areas where Respect is not standing and where there is no other credible left candidate. "

Comments

Will said…
Doesn't that Respect resolution say they are prepared to support anti-War Labour MPs, not loyal Blairites?
John Hemming said…
The resolution follows. Respect are not standing in all seats in which there are pro-War Labour MPs.

Hence "will consider calling for a vote for Labour in those areas where
Respect is not standing and where there is no other credible left candidate."

Applies where the Labour candidate is a blairite Pro-war as much as anything else.

I accept the adjective "consider" exists.




1. That we will enter discussions with all left candidates in order to avoid, as far as possible,
more than one left challenge to the establishment parties in the forthcoming general election.
We will pursue such electoral agreements whether or not other candidates are willing to call
for a vote for Respect in those constituencies where Respect is the only or the main left
challenger.
2. That, where there is no Respect candidate standing, we will call for a vote for those left of
Labour candidates that are willing to call for a vote for Respect in similar circumstances.
3. That the Labour Party is, unlike any of the other left parties, a mass party to whom millions
of working people still owe their allegiance. If Respect is to prosper it is predominantly from
among these people that we will need to gain support. Consequently we will not challenge
anti-war Labour MPs and will consider calling for a vote for Labour in those areas where
Respect is not standing and where there is no other credible left candidate.
4. That the decisions about who to support in those areas where Respect is not standing can
only be made after local discussions have been completed. The National Council will make
a final decision on this issue.
Bob Piper said…
Personal loyalties do hold organisations together even when they lose their way (vide New Labour).

And the SDP....

Popular posts from this blog

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.