Bethnal Green and Bow redux (Galloway, King, Trade Unions, Iraq)

Today's Observer carries a flurry of letters about Nick Cohen's uncomradely attack on George Galloway and his people. 'Respect is due' say all but one of the selection. This last one revels in Cohen's insight as strict muslims are expected to automatically back the political ambitions and machinations of godless revolutionary communists.

But one GG supporter insists that Respect's electioneering about Spearmint Rhino (apparently a 'lap dancing' establishment) stems not from pandering to muslim fundamentalists but from high principled feminism.

That'll be the same high-principled feminism which is striking a blow against the murderous patriarchy of the "Honour" code. That'll be the same feminism and high principles which sees Respect struggle for rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transexuals. They are silent on this too. Except possibly to say it's worth leaving it off the agenda.

While some Labour people are on a strict "don't mention the war" diet Respect are on a don't mention lots of socialist principles or your godless revolutionary communism diet. Huh, compromises!

And George has been in big trouble for cheer leading for nationalist insurgents who are attacking, killing or torturing the relatives of Iraqi refugees in Bethnal Green and Bow, fellow socialists, communists and trade unionists, westernised women and homosexuals, not to mention the workers in uniform of our own armed forces.

Having said all that ... if George was the properly selected Labour candidate in my constituency I'd be out working for him to be elected. If George was up against Oona in a two-way selection I'd pick George.

If Oona were picked though I would vote for her. Really for the interests of people and party members of Bethnal Green and Bow who I believe are better off with Labour representatives at all levels. I might even drop some leaflets and do some canvassing.

Though it must be said that aside from allowing a flock of Vote Labour posters to gather on our building in Salford I have not done any work for candidates who did not oppose the war.

*********

So how did Oona get selected? The facts are coming in nicely. She is of course a charming woman and of the eleven branch parties in the constituency five rubber stamped her being re-selected without a contest and five did not.

The eleventh branch is a bit short of active members and met alongside one of the others. On their own they voted for a contest. Making it 6:5 in favour of a contest. But regional office decided (after all) that they would be counted in with the other branch returning the running total to all square 5:5.

In Manchester Central none of our affiliated unions or socialist societies voted at all on the question of the Tony Lloyd candidacy. Their quarterly or occasional meetings rarely coincide. And besides they were very happy with Tony's record. He headed up the Labour-TU group in Parliament.

In BGB the Union votes came in steadily. Region suggested at least one of them (which voted for a contest) ought to have an all members vote instead of the exec deciding. But then enough "no contest" votes came in and that ruling evaporated.

Oona King was re-chosen without a contest by an even split 5:5 of local party groups, supplemented by a clear majority of trade union decisions against a contest.

Despite all this intrigue it must be said that having active units of residents and workers in each local area, and these having a say in picking candidates, well this is way ahead of other parties. This is perhaps the best way for SNWDWVF readers to make a difference in the medium to long term.

Become an activist. Join or rejoin. Get a vote on candidates great and small, on the constituency party representatives on the NEC (there are currently four Grass Roots Alliance reps), and before too long I hope on the Great Leader and Deputy Great Leader question. Don't give up. Take part and make a difference.

The Unions riding to New Labour's rescue, ignoring or not seeking members' views, does remind me of the last Labour conference.

Asked to agree a timed withdrawal from Iraq. Local party representatives voted for a timed withdrawal. I think so, or at least it was very close. But the unions whose official policies tended to range from "Troops Out" to timetabled withdrawal waded in to reject that by going 100% behind New Labour. Our constituency representative voted for withdrawal.

It seems as if good people should not only consider joining or rejoining Labour and get active but also participating in Trade Union activities and holding elected officials there to account.

During the course of this process the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions spoke up for continued troops in Iraq. But George Galloway and others renounced them as quislings. Soon enough some were murdered. And this has been another part of the hollowing out of the Stop the War Coalition.

I don't want to be sectarian. But I will say this. Every step I took marching against the war. Every hour I spent on vigils. Every bit of this does not mean I stick with the first thought that came into my head about the war. Once this war happened there are responsibilities to our forces and to Iraq.

It sometimes seems to me that persistently offering the "Troops Out Now" advice is rather like being asked for directions and replying "Well, I wouldn't start from here if I were you." There is no magic wand. No Tardis or de Lorean to go back and change the decisions.

We surely cannot just leave immediately. We surely cannot be cheerleaders for people killing our forces, ordinary citizens, co-religionists from differnt schisms, Iraqi trade unionists, feminists, gays and communists.

There are consequences of the March 2003 decision and just because we disagreed we cannot walk away. Continued support for the Iraqi people as a whole is now a requirement. The weak and floppy Lib Dems and the robust Respect have now got this wrong in my humble opinion.