Talk:RESPECT The Unity Coalition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] RESPECT The Unity Coalition

Removed factually inaccurate statement about the name "having been adopted before the words it supposedly stands for were agreed." No evidence to support this view and it is in fact wrong.

The RESPECT name was widely reported on the far-left in about November 2003, long before the meeting to decide what it stood for. I've never heard anyone dispute this, which is why it doesn't have evidence beside it. If you really don't believe it, just search through one of the papers which reported on its formation, or ask anyone who was around when it was put together. Warofdreams 17:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be good if you followed your own advise and asked anyone who was around when it was put together - like me for example. Rather than relying on gossip in unsourced far-left papers you base your remarks on. If you can provide one single source from an organisation or person involved in the formation of RESPECT to back up your claims please do.

I really am intrigued as to how else you suppose the name was decided. Really wanting to include Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community and Trade Unionism in the name but deciding it was too long? Hey, wait a minute, we could use the acronym RESPECT! It's the only logical possibility. While most far-left groups do not support the coalition, reporting on how its name was decided (at a meeting) hardly counts as gossip or a criticism. If you really insist, I'll create a new section on the name of the group and can discuss how it was originally referred to (critically, by non-SWPers) as the "Peace and Justice Party", then George Galloway announced his Respect Unity Coalition (no mention of an acronym), which later became RESPECT - The Unity Coalition (to avoid the unfortunate RUC acronym), and finally the world was informed what RESPECT stood for, but it seems of perhaps marginal interest, so for the time being I've restricted that to this talk page. Warofdreams 11:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you are concerned (God knows why) to know how the name was decided you can read about it in George Galloway's biography: I'm Not The Only One by Galloway, George. Published/Distributed by Penguin. ISBN No: 0713998075.

Since you have this frankly implausible theory that the name is not a recursive acronym, please explain what it is - provide some evidence - since I doubt many people have access to that book.

If you are unwilling to research a topic before you post then you have no place on Wikipedia. The book is in print and available through all bookstores in the UK and online and contains a lenghty chapter on the formation of RESPECT including detail about the name from all people involved in the process.

Really? I have no place on Wikipedia? Says who? You have to accept that there are more views than just yours, and to allow the creation of an NPOV article. If you are familiar with this book and it provides the evidence you claim it does, please state it, otherwise I will have to suppose that it does not do so. Warofdreams 11:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The onus is upon YOU to provide proof for YOUR comments, not the other way around. Otherwise they are simply your bias point of view. Wikipedia is not a place where you make unsourced assertions and then challenged people to refute them. If you are too lazy to read up on the subject with the source I have provided then best you stick to editing the Green Party entries and leave RESPECT to people that dont have an axe to grind OK?

Tbone, please refrain from personal attacks. You haven't provided a source for your claim, all you've done is you referred to a book. You need to convince us that Galloway actually wrote about this subject, and you should quote what he writes. In any case, Galloway's account is not necessarily accurate, and it wouldn't justify removing the alternative account, it would only justify adding Galloway's account. But all this is pretty trivial anyway. - pir 12:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where have I attacked anyone? This is pretty trivial if you are uninterested in the truth. If I were to write that Charles Darwin was a peadophile you believe this should remain and be followed by an alternaitve 'opinion'. Come off it.

Tbone, why don't you just end all this bickering by quoting from Galloway's book? Your continued refusal to do so leads me to suspect that you either haven't read the book, or that it doesn't say what you're saying. - pir 12:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am happy to do so. I dont have it with me at work today. Marvellous how only the non-critical views of RESPECT require sources ;-)

[edit] Composition

Removed factually inaccurate statement "Few trade unionists other than those linked with the SWP have joined the coalition". No evidence to support this view and it is in fact wrong.

Well, a tough thing to quantify, so maybe best left out. Warofdreams 17:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about unsourced criticisms of RESPECT. This sort of stuff might take up space on every entry in Wikipedia if it were allowed but is best left on gossip websites like Indymedia not on a serious historical website.

Right then, I'll put sources in. Check out our NPOV policy - they are widespread criticisms and so should stay (along, of course, with RESPECT's responses). Wikipedia should provide a balanced overview of a subject, not a hagiography. The fact you don't like Indymedia is irrelevant. Warofdreams 17:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed comment about alleged reason for Greens rejecting RESPECT attempts at unity. The Greens never said it was because they felt they had a better chance of winnnig seats without RESPECT. Rather, they printed a statement on their website saying they would not be involved in a coalition that had the Socialsit Workers Party as a major component. This was cited as the reason. There was no mention whatsoever in the Greens statement about their ability to wins seats with or without RESPECT.

Fair enough. Numerous Greens said that (the "alleged" reason), and it seems quite logical, but it seems it was not an official line. Warofdreams 11:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History and electoral performance

Reinserted summary of Milwall by-election which is important in so far as it shows the evolving relationship of RESPECT with the Labour Party.

Yes, it's fair enough to mention the result, of course, but complaining that Labour split the vote by standing is highly POV and if included at all should be sourced. Warofdreams 17:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reinserted the word "Protest" in reffering to Muslim voters. There is nothing to suggest that the vast majority of Muslim voters have any cultural or religous basis for supporting hard left politics. Indeed religous & cultural values of family, enterprise and anti-gay/lesbian attitudes would suggest a right wing pre-disposition.

Reinserted "Breakthroughs in areas without relatively large numbers of Muslim voters has yet to be demonstrated." This is an electoral fact as can be demonstrated by any analysis of Office of National Statistics (ONS) population statistics either at electoral ward level or Parliamentary constituency.

Inserted a modifed comment around Searchlight and removed the "North West" qualifier as the "fourth party" effect was equally applicable across the UK. The original Searchlight Magazine article is no longer available but a copy can be found at the StopBNPorg website [1]

Expanded "Searchlight" to Searchlight(Magazine) and created internal Wiki link to it. Specified and linked the "D'Hondt method" proportional voting system used in the European Union.

Created section heading for "2004 Elections"

[edit] George Monbiot

Does anyone know what happened to George Monbiot? pir 05:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He is anti-marxist as far as I know. Secretlondon 10:30, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

He resigned on 13. Feb. resignation letter, Guardian article. pir 03:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SSP

Perhaps a note is in order detailing the relations, if any, between RUC and Scottish Socialist Party? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I imagine that it isn't settled yet. No-one actually knows what respect stands for apart from the very basics. This also needs to say who has joined and who hasn't. Respect is as much a coalition as the socialist alliance is/was - its broader (some would say less socialist) programme may well stop some groups from joining.

As far as I know:

[edit] In Respect

[edit] Not in Respect

Communist Party of Britain (refused to join)
Socialist Party of England and Wales (ditto)

It will be interesting to see how many of the current members of the socialist alliance join. Secretlondon 20:01, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. This all sounds more like The Life of Brian than a viable movement (splitters!) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Green Party refused to join.
Alliance for Workers Liberty (part of the SA) refused to join because of the involvement of Galloway.
Communist Party of Great Britain (PCC) (part of the SA) has joined but is critical because they dont think its socialist enough.
The Muslim Association of Britain was represented at the founding confrence and has encouraged its members to participate, but isn't actually part of Respect. The MAB has said that it doesn't participate in political parties but critics have said that its because of the part of Respect's founding declaration that says "Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on...sexual orientation."Saul Taylor 05:35, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As far as I kow, the Green Party were never asked to join and are none too pleased that the anti-war vote which might have gone to their MEPs and GLA representatives will be split. The founding statement was agreed on by a very small group of people (Galloway, SWP,..) and there was no possibility for other groups to have any real input - what one might call top-down and undemocratic. People from the democratic platform within the Socialist Alliance tried to make some amendments at the founding conference but had no chance given the large SWP presence. pir 05:58, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About the Green Party: Salma Yaqoob talking to the Guardian, mentions the Greens, Green Party member Hugo Charlton tells the Greens wont be joining Respect, Green Party member criticises the party for refusing to participate, Guardian article about StWC, mentions the Greens refusing to join. Saul Taylor 08:08, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

for more information on the possibilies of the Green Party becoming part of the RESPECT Unity Coalition : this is the RUC view , this is the Green Party view. pir 07:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RESPECT offered the Greens a pact - if the Greens are strong in one area, RESPECT wouldn't stand, precisely to stop the anti-war vote being split. The Greens refused to have any kind of pact, although privately many Green Party members have said this is lunacy: If groups can agree together where to stand and not to stand, everyone can win.

Socialist Review article critiquing the Green Party position

(William M. Connolley 12:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)) The Green Party POV (and I'm speaking as a member) is that all the policies of respect were essentially already GP policies: most obviously anti-war. Respect "offered" the GP a placve in the coalition: the GP reply was why should we join you: why don't you join us?

Now that William has revealed his Green Partisanship

(William M. Connolley 10:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You can keep your partisanship

I understand much better why he spends so much time trying to edit the history of RESPECT. The hostility from the Greens towards RESPECT is well documented.

Could you perhaps document the well-documented hostility of which you speak?

The Green Party reply to RESPECT was a little more specific than William cares to mention. It said they would not form any agreements with RESPECT because it was dominated by the SWP.

Perhaps the GP reply should be on the page then, rather than us relying on your paraphrase of it? And as to RESPECT being dominated by the SWP... well it is. Are you disputing that?

[edit] Did they actually get any seats anywhere?

I can't recall seeing any report about RESPECT actually winning seats anywhere.... -- Kaihsu 14:49, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

That's because they didn't. Warofdreams 17:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think they have a handful of councillors or so, all of them people who defected from the Labour party AFAIL. - pir 09:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reply above was re: the Euro elections. They have a councillor in Preston (elected as Socialist Alliance) and one recently elected in East London. I think that's it, but it's possible that there've been defections from Labour as well. Warofdreams 10:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Without wishing to get into a war with T Bone again: shouldn't the lack of seats be in the article? If no-one at all has been elected as RESPECT, that is quite relevant.

They have about 30 councillors (mildly abusive comment removed) --213.121.207.34 18:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We won 16 seats on May 4th.

[edit] Linda Smith

Is this the same Linda Smith? Morwen - Talk 22:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope. This Linda Smith, is treasurer of the London region FBU. --JK the unwise 10:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule

(William M. Connolley 16:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)) By my count, T Bone has broken the 3 revert rule today. Please don't do this.

[edit] Future election Plans

I deleted this as a policy: 'To attack other left parties, especially the highly successful Scottish Socialist Party, in standing against the SSP for the Scottish Elections in 2007, thus dividing the left and aiding the Scottish right.' The stuff about spliting the left vote could go in the critism bit, but I would like to know the sourse of the claim that Respect inteneds to stand against the SSP in 2007 as I don't think Respect has any polciy for the 2007 elections yet.--JK the unwise 12:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This point is an interesting one, although it should be left out for now. Although Respect has, as of yet, no policy about the 2007 elections, I think recently Galloway, in a newspaper interview, called on Tommy Sheridan to join him in a new leftist party, criticised the SSP, and said that Respect would stand in the 2007 Holyrood elections. Although no official line has been taken, with Respect neither confirming or denying it, the fact that a major figure made these statements is an interesting one. But yes, it remains officially unconfirmed, and doesn't seem particularly needed in the article at the moment, and so should be left out. --MullHistSoc 17:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, the newspaper in question is the Mail on Sunday, on the 5th Dec 2004. --MullHistSoc 17:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found stuff on this on the SSPs website. [2] It says they wrote to RESPECT to complain, wonder what the response was?--JK the unwise 13:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is some interseting discusion in the IST bulleten number 6. In particular this comment by Allen Green the nationjal secutary of SSP "despite our requests, RESPECT is still registered with the Electoral Commission to contest elections in Scotland (John Rees first put in writing that this was a mistake by the electoral Commission and Nick Wrack later put in writing that this is so no one else uses the name RESPECT in Scotland). Either way, it would be helpful for mutual relations if RESPECT were to respect the request of the SSP to remove the reference to RESPECT standing in elections in Scotland". Pg. 20 COMMENTS ON THE CHARACTERISATION OF THE SSP. I still don't think Respec' will stand in scotland. This seems to be the general impresion from the articles in the bulleten pgs 1 - 26. Nothing def' though.--JK the unwise 20:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the website of the evening standard, as part of an internet chat thingy, Galloway answered the question When do you foresee Respect actively moving into Scotland? by saying I don't - we are supporting the Scottish Socialist Party. [3].--JK the unwise 11:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Green Unity Coalition

I have set up a stub for the Socialist Green Unity Coalition, which the following organizations have joined:

Links to the SPEW's announcement page and the CPGB's article are there as well.

[edit] Best left electoral performance

I've removed this suggestion as it is not specific about who the "left" are. It ignores Labour and Green Party votes which would usually be seen as left, while not being specifically a socialist organisation - or anything to clearly place it to the left of them. Warofdreams 15:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

Given that (AFAIK) Respect isn't an acronym (maybe a backronym) - why is the title of this page in Capitals. Why does it use a Capital T for The. The use of upper case is just an affectation like the BBC's use of BBC ONE. On the website it is referred to as both RESPECT and Respect. Our BBC ONE page is hosted at BBC One. So I think this page should be moved. Jooler 08:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, do it. --Mrfixter 11:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment:A backronym is a type of acronym.--JK the unwise 12:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I, too, think that this should be moved to Respect - The Unity Coalition for readability and per WP:MOSTM. This looks like a cleared issue as far as discussion, but given that the discussion is so old, I wanted to call out before executing a move. ENeville 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "We"

I understand that aims, goals, etc. are from the organisation's website; however the inclusion of "we will" implies that the article is an endorsement of RESPECT. Unless the website is copyrighted, the ideas expressed need to be quoted precisely; if copyrighted, this can be done as much as "fair use" allows, if paraphrased, this should be stated as "the group calls for ...", not as "We call for ..." or "We oppose ..." Rlquall 02:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Think that some one just stright copyied it over. I have de-we-ified it, should be fine to use (fair use) as we are reporting their public statment. Alternativly you could undo what I have done and just put "They say" or somin' b4 all the sentances. Not sure it really fits the article as a list, perhaps it would be better if it reported their policies in a more encycolpedic style. The list was for the euro elections, they have since produced a mainfesto for the 2005 general election.--JK the unwise 08:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicated links

I honestly do not see the point of having duplicated links in the external links section, or why what John Rees says about the future of Respect on that site warrants its own external link. If someone wants to find out about Respects future, they can find it themselves on Respects site. Come on, be a little reasonable. Note also that I came to talk, and did not just delete that link again, good faith an all that. --Mrfixter 10:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It provides information that is directly linked to the content of the article. The respect site is big. I see no reason why we shouldn't link to spesific pages for reference information. Assuming good faith=good thing :-)--JK the unwise 10:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It is redundant and excessive to have a link to respects strategy for development. The size of the respect site is irrelevant to this article. The reason to not link to specific pages is because that policy would have no end. Why not link to every single press release? The respect website is already linked FOUR times in this article, we can afford to cut one, and to be honest we should delete the other duplicated link as well. This article is not supposed to be a campaign leaflet for Respect. --Mrfixter 11:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It is important to diferenciate ilistrative links (like the link to the partys site) from links for the purpose of supporting info' in the article, i.e. references. The fact that references come from the respect site doesn't mean they are redundant. The whole article needs a load of work, but no point doing much till after thursday and the election creates more info'.--JK the unwise 11:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

References can be made in the article, as they are when providing a list of RESPECT candidates. That serves some sort of purpose. The strategy link serves only to link John Rees and an obscure, irrelevant article written by him on a site that is already linked. Please. Time for RESPECT cruft to go, and what happens on thursday will not make this link any more or less respectcruft. --Mrfixter 19:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What does cruft mean?--JK the unwise 19:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

loose trans. fan boy irrelevance, eg making an Ashlee Simpson article on her tour is considered Ashlee cruft...weird word i know...i thought it was a misspelt Crufts and used it in a wholly inappropriate context...--Mrfixter 20:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's leave the link to the Rees article. It is a position paper concerns the party's structure and role in general. A series of links on individual campaigns would be excessive, this is general enough to be informative. If there were a Respect paper, we'd link to that too. DJ Silverfish 20:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

There are 6 links to the RESPECT site. Getting rid of one link, a position paper, is the least of it frankly. An external links area that has two links to the same site is utterly pointless. Why select this particular position paper? Is it only to give John Rees a mention? It is unencyclopedic in extremis. --Mrfixter 20:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The position paper deals with party function and how a leader of the party sees its work. It is a marker for a POV that may be challenged or fulfilled after the election and would be useful in rewrites. Perhaps some of the other links (which you haven't described) could be eliminated. Perhaps not. More not less information should be included, whenever possible. DJ Silverfish 21:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the last deletion. Note that other parties include similar information. Not always in the same format, but the information is there. See Scottish Socialist Party. DJ Silverfish 21:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Including the extra link to the position paper is not including more information, it is merely redundant. Your comment about a marker for POV is inscrutable at best, could you elaborate? Also, the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem articles do not feel the need to have redundant external links to obscure essays by party activists. This talk about before or after the elections is nonsensical. --Mrfixter 00:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Lots of the smaller party pages include links to manifestos and the like. Larger parties' pages may not do that because it can be assumed people know where they stand (or could even predict the language of the manifesto before they read it). I would argue that the pages for larger parties should include a policy paper link or two. If I can find any, I'll add them. My inscrutable comment on party papers being useful for determining party POV is acutally pretty straightforward. After the election result writers from different perspectives will produce post-mortems on Respect's perfomance. I would expect a few of those articles to be included in the External links and that, since Respect will produce its own post-mortem, that will be included. If claims in the paper will be undermined or upheld by the election result, then it would be handy to have the pre-game analysis to contrast with the post-game analysis. DJ Silverfish 16:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

WP is not in the business of being a link depository for various RESPECT essays on the RESPECT site. If people are interested in reading more, the link to the RESPECT site is ample. Why not provide a link to every obscure pamphlet produced by RESPECT? --Mrfixter 17:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to like the link, but if other people find it useful, then it isn't redundant. If Respect has a number of position papers on different topics, then these should be added under the heading "Respect publications." Your presumption to arbitrate what the project is about is beginning to sound like POV pushing. DJ Silverfish 17:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Lets try and keep civil, huh? I didn't realise excising totally redundant links was POV pushing, all I want is an encycolpedic article on RESPECT that isn't flooded with links to individual pages on a site that is already copiously linked to. --Mrfixter 19:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

We shall keep it civil, OK. I made sure the publication links lead directly to PDF documents. I changed the link names to make them more descriptive of what was being linked to. So its a little more informative. Again, the Labour Party (UK) entry has similar links, not as well separated. On the other hand, I agree with you (I think) that the footnote-like embedded links in the text could be eliminated. DJ Silverfish 21:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not convinced links are all redundent, see DJ silverfish's comments. Also remember Wikipedia is not paper so the prepumstion should always favour inclution. I have however removed some of the links from the main article and replaced with can be found on their website. The footnote like links however are references and as such should be left.--JK the unwise 16:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RESPECT a recursive acronym?

Sorry to nitpic but I'm not sure wether RESPECT is really a recursive acronym. I can't see the first letter referring to anything other than the concept respect (as in dignity -- not the party name) thereby there is no recursion. In contrast the recursive acronym, "GNU's not Unix", is recursive, because "GNU" refers back to the software (not the animal). I'd like to get some responce to this before touching the site. --Swift 00:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree.--JK the unwise 09:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Warofdreams 10:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually...Not sure Recursive acronym page seems to support what your saying except that it includes as an example BASS — Bass Anglers Sportsman Society which seems to be similar to RESPECT - Respect, equality, etc. However since as part of the def' of a recursive acronym it says the lack of a termination condition both seem wroung.--JK the unwise 10:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I have changed references to RESPECT to Respect as that seems to be how the whole world and her monkey refer to the party. See for example BBC article or article from Respects own page or Socialist Review article --JK the unwise 17:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manifestos and position papers

I'm endorsing the inclusion of Party publications in the External links section. Wikipedia entries for most other UK parties include this kind of information, and they should. It is true that the Rees articles are also presented in HTML format on the Respect website, but the site is hard to navigate and its difficult to find policy papers. We're performing a public service by posting them here. If someone wants to remove the links because he or she thinks they are "cack" then I presume s/he reached this conclusion by reading the statements via the wiki links. S/he ought agree to leave the links up so that others can reach their own conclusions. DJ Silverfish 14:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree (mostly). To be fair to Mrfixer they haven't been removing the links because they think they link to cack i.e. a load of rubbish rather because they think they are cruft which apparently means fan boy irrelevance.

As I see it there are two issules 1. Whether a web page should be considered one thing or a collection of things. If it is a collection then whats the harm in linking to the collection on whole and also particularly illuminating peices from the collection? 2. Whether the content of the article is fan boy irrelevance. This is hard to call. Personally I think an article by a leading member of any pollitcal party on the way forward for that party is definatly not cruft. The minutes of a region Respect meeting would be cruft. To give a non-political example: I dont think linking to an article by Ashlee Simpson's Manager (from the Ashlee Simpson page) about her future ambitions would nessisarly be cruft but linking to a paper on the same subject from a fan page would be cruft. --JK the unwise 15:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. IMO I think we should look towards the Labour Party (UK) article as a pointer as to what should be done about obscure and irrelevant party documents i.e. not link them. The link to the Respect site is enough. And why the obsession with John Rees? Anyway, I would like to build a consensus, nobody owns this article so lets work together. As a show of good faith, I will not revert or edit the external links section without previous discussion on the talk page. --Mrfixter 15:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to work toward consensus. It's appropriate to note that the Labour Party UK manifestos are linked via a non-party website: http://www.labour-party.org.uk/. That's OK, and it shows that Labour has supporters willing to shell out cash to host obscure and irrelevant party documents. So it seems there is interest in this type of thing. DJ Silverfish 17:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More info to put into the article

Tower Hamlets Councillor Muhammad Ghulam Mortuza joins Respect [4]

Newham Councillor Sarah Ruiz defects from Labour to Respect *[5] JK the unwise 15:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Labour Group leader on East Sussex County Council, Dave Hill joins Respect. [6]

--JK the unwise 13:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Greens

I have removed this line on why the greens refused to enter into an electoral pact with Respect

The basis of the rejection was that the Green Party had already selected its candidates via a constitutional democratic selection process which involved its members.

It was added by 20.138.1.245. It may be true (I've never herd it before) but it needs citation. Its not mentioned in this Green Party statment.[7]
--JK the unwise 18:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

20.138.1.245. readded this addition with the referance see exchange of letters in The Guardian Newspaper. I've done a bit of trawling but can't find this. I did find a quote from Green party chair Hugo Charlton. On the issule of a Green/Respect pact he said

Many in the Green party are very antipathetic to Respect. I've always argued for some sort of understanding with them, not least because we are both "fellow travellers" on the left, but the reality is that the closer you are ideologically, the more you compete for the same vote. So any agreement at a local level, in the Green spirit of devolution, is up to local parties, but a formal, national alliance is out of the question.[8]

20.138.1.245's explanation doesn't wash for a number of reasons firstly Respect had been approching the Greens for some time, secondly though the Green Party is federal the leadership would have had a lot of infulence if it put forward the suggestion that local groups consider non-aggretion pact.--JK the unwise 17:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

20.138.1.245: I've found the references in the Guardian. So the Greens were following a constitutional democratic process or not?

The quote from Charlton seems a bit strange. He's claiming that because they're competing for a similar vote, they're less likely to agree on a non-aggression pact or an electoral alliance? Surely it would be the other way around, like with the SDP-Liberal Pact - similar vote bringing the two parties loosely aligned to each other to maximise chances. Charlton's statement just doesn't wash, for me. I think there's got to be some deeper reason (although the references to "hard-left" and "Trotskyist" in the above linked Green news story suggest they're afraid really of being linked to people like the SWP and Galloway so they can appeal to more fluffy liberals) Still, perhaps that's just the cynic in me. --MullHistSoc 11:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] left-wing

I don't believe this part is socialist or left wing at all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.189.67 (talk • contribs) 7 Jan 2006.

Then read the manifesto.

[edit] neutrality dispute

there seems t be a prevalence of straw man arguments put into the mouths of Respect critics - these are conveniently knocked down. It seems the article is pro-respect with an attempt made to appear neutral. I would welcome any changes that rectify this. --Jimbobalina2005 13:06, 9 May 2006

Eg?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.108.219 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 May 2006.

The article can only discuss critisms that have been made, and it seems fair enough to have Respects replies. Would you like to point us to some sources of what you might think are stronger critisms.--JK the unwise 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now but tomorrow I will outline my stronger criticisms.--Jimbobalina2005 13.10, 10 May 2006

These have failed to materialise in the past 10 days, therefore the tag will be removed. -- Tompsci 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article fails to show any criticisms of the party. The truth is that much of the far left parties dislike Respect and their opportunist approach to win the hearts of Muslims and other minorities and preaching to them about Socialism. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... did u not see the 6 large paragraths?--JK the unwise 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha sorry. Obviously not! :) --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree, it appears that any attempt to write what Respect don't like gets pulled (no doubt they have a few members standing by the edit buttons!).Any attempt to label them "far left", gets pulled. Yet they are obviously not a mere "left wing" party (The Lib Dems and Labour are), but much further out, strange that the BNP is labelled (accurately) "far right" rather than merely "right wing", but applying the same criteria to Respect is not allowed.

[edit] Headquarters

The assertione in the last edit that "Its main headquarters is in Stukeley Road, Forest Gate, east London." is at odds with the infobox thingy. Which is true? -- Tompsci 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone with the one in the infobox, as this is the contact address given on the party website. Warofdreams talk 01:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Stukeley Road, i'm fairly sure, is the Newham Constituency office, whereas Club Row is the Tower Hamlets office, which doubles as the national one at the moment.

[edit] "Identity Politics"

Made some changes to the Identity Politics bit, pointing out more Respect success in 'white' areas, and the fact that Newnham and Tower Hamlets are, if anything, more Christian than they are Muslim.

However, I'm not sure about the validity of the section of the whole. Respect is indeed often accused or practising 'identity politics' or 'communalism', but the one piece of evidence doesn't seem to back that up. For one thing, how can you determined what 'common Muslim sentiments are'? What's more, the identity politics page defines it as a movement that "represent and seek to advance the interests of particular groups in society". The group in question here is Muslims, but how does the suggestion that Israel formulates US/UK policy advance the interests of that group? --RobGo 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia NPOV, the important point is that the critisms are made rather then that they are true. I agree with your change of "Respect has been criticised for practising identity politics" to "Respect has been accused of practising identity politics" as it is indeed a matter of some debate that this is the case. However, rather then adding sentences like "Such accusations, however, fail to explain Respect's success in areas with very small Muslim populations", which could be critised by people who dis agree with that POV it would be better to have a sentence such as "Supporters of Respect argue that these accusations fail to explain Respect's success in areas with very small Muslim populations".--JK the unwise 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ye I see what you mean, and was a bit unsure about the 'fails to explain' bit when I wrote it. I think a better phrase could be used, but at the same time, I'm not sure it needs to be along the lines of 'Respect supporters say...', because you don't have to be a Respect reporter to recognise the inconsitency of saying that Respect practices identity politics to get Muslim votes, but then picks up large votes in non-Muslim areas too. I dunno, any further thoughts? --RobGo 14:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't the the fact that respect picks large up votes in non-Muslim areas itself invalidates the criticism (or accusation) that Respect has been guilty guilty of identity politics in some cases including the cited example. The criticism was not that Respect practices only identity politics. I am removing the final paragraph, since it is not a response to the actual criticism which was made. Feel free to complain, revert etc. Zargulon 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point with removing the last para. But I think my other points still stand. Namely how can one determine 'common Muslim sentiments', but perhaps most importantly, even if these are 'common Muslim sentiments', how does that make them identity politics, which as I said, is defined on the identity politics page as a movement that "represent and seek to advance the interests of particular groups in society". There are plenty of non-Muslims who think the Israeli lobby has too much influence (see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html for example, which says "in a poll conducted several weeks after the Senate vote on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia, 53 percent of the [US] public agreed Israel has "too much influence" on American foreign policy", or http://www.foreignaffairs.org/public_agenda/foreign_policy_index_082005.pdf, which notes that 62% of Americans think that "US policies are too pro-Israel for the US to be able to broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians"). Surely if Abdurrahman Jafar's statement 'panders' to any opinion, it is simply anti-Zionist, or indeed anti-lobbying opinion, which is quite different to some kind of pro-Muslim favouritism. What do people think? --RobGo 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. The Identity politics WP article starts with "Identity politics is the political activity of various social movements for self-determination" . I think restricting identity politics to issues of self-determination is much too narrow a definition, and it also seems to be under active discussion on that article's talk page. I also thought having a citation for this criticism of Respect would help (maybe the original criticism used language other than "identity politics" which could throw more light on the argument) , so I put a citationneeded tag by it. I'm reluctant to prejudge the source but my guess is it will simply point to the correlation between being a Muslim and expressing the view that Israel lobby is too powerful (which is not contradicted by the existence of non-Muslims who also feel that way), and suggest that this correlation was being used cynically by the campaign, or that Respect projected one face to Muslims and a different one to the wider community. Zargulon 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms/composition

Moved the section on Respect's clashes with the Green Party from the section on 'composition' to 'Criticisms of Respect' on the basis that squabbles with the Greens are not a very accurate indicator of the actual composition of the Party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.67.71 (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removed section

Removed Section " Respect finished behind the Green Party in every region where both ran, and behind the BNP everywhere but London. However, in Tower Hamlets, Respect received more votes than any other party.

European candidates were put up contrary to Searchlight's analyis and advice (Searchlight Magazine, January 2004) which showed that support for a fourth party would generate "some scenarios in which the BNP might get elected with just 8%" StopBNPorg. This is as a consequence of peculiarities of the D'Hondt method proportional represention voting system. " from 'Elections 2004' on the basis that this is not information directly relevant to the actual electoral acheivments of Respect nor is it information which is directly associated with only the Respect organisation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.67.71 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Total number of councillors

anyone know how many councillors they have now... there's a post from '04 saying 30 - but I guess they've made gains since then...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/s/Talk%7ERESPECT_The_Unity_Coalition_b71c.html"