Galloway sticks knife in over SWP sleaze

Further to yesterday’s post on the ongoing row over Respect/SWP leader John Rees accepting foreign donations from Tory “privateers”.

George Galloway (of all people) puts his oar in with a letter sent to the Secretary of the now tainted “Organising for Fighting Unions”, published last night on Socialist Wreakers & Splitters (use to be known as Socialist Unity).

Saint George, who of course, is that well known purveyor of truth and probity accuses Rees of being misleading, disingenuous, unaccountable, reckless, being obfuscation etc. Utterly unlike the gorgeous one himself.

Red Marie posted a comment yesterday about “schadenfreude”?

18 December 2007

Dear,
I have been sent a copy of a letter to you from John Rees, distributed by email to SWP members, along with an apology from the SWP Central Committee concerning the donation to OFFU of £5,000 from Dubai.

I think it would be appropriate for me to give you my side of this unfortunate story as John Rees’s letter is misleading. When a cheque arrived in January at the Respect Office made out to Respect from a person I did not know but who was clearly a foreign national who said he admired and supported me, I took the position obvious to everyone involved in these things, except perhaps the Labour Party’s former General Secretary, that we were grateful for the offer but we had to refuse it on legal grounds.

When John Rees suggested an alternative organisation for the money to be donated to, my assistant Kevin Ovenden had a discussion with him and with Elaine Graham-Leigh saying this might be potentially difficult with the Electoral Commission but that, if such a proposal were to be made, an obvious organisation to suggest was the Stop the War Coalition. This organisation had no formal links with Respect, pre-existed Respect and was an organisation, given the likely nature of the support of the individual concerned, which he might be happy to donate to. The Stop the War Coalition also has robust structures and would have been able to come to a collective decision over whether it might accept such a donation. Kevin, on my behalf, categorically argued against the suggestion by John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh that the cheque be reissued payable to OFFU.

There was no further communication between me or my staff and John Rees about this matter until the end of August. In particular, I and my office were unaware that John Rees had written back soliciting the donation for OFFU. He did not circulate that letter to me, to the officers of Respect, or, it seems, to the OFFU committee.

It is utterly disingenuous therefore to say that neither I nor John Rees knew of the company connections of the individual concerned when the donation was made to OFFU in June. I did not know the donation had been made to OFFU. It also seems to be the case that the committee and officers of OFFU were not told that a £5,000 donation from Dubai had been accepted in their name. A Google search after I did learn of the donation, in late August, established the unfortunate links which have caused so much embarrassment.

I did not include this issue in my letter to the Respect National Council in late August as I wanted to resolve matters concerning this donation as quickly as possible and without any possibility of it embarrassing either Respect or OFFU. It was however part of the my opening remarks at a meeting with SWP Central Committee members John Rees, Lindsey German, Chris Bambery and Alex Callinicos on 4 September. These remarks were made in the context of my accusation against John Rees of his lack of accountability and his recklessness on this and another matter. However, they were dismissed by John Rees as being a cover for a right wing attack on the left in Respect. At a meeting of 250 London SWP members later that week, Alex Callinicos referred to my having spent 25 minutes going on about an obscure cheque.

Despite this, I continued to deal with John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh on a confidential basis with regard to this cheque. I insisted on referring the matter to the Electoral Commission on the grounds that the donation might still have been illegal and, in any case, to demonstrate that we were complying with our obligations of transparency. However, my best efforts met with resistance and obfuscation all the way down the line by both Rees and Graham-Leigh.

I raised the connection between the Dubai donation and the Interserve privateers in an email to John Rees, Elaine Graham-Leigh, Alex Callinicos, Lindsey German and Chris Bambery three months ago – on 10 September.

John Rees breezily dismissed these concerns in an emailed response on 13 September. He wrote:
“…this was an individual donation not a corporate donatation (sic). Many people work for firms that do bad things~but accepting money from them as individuals does not imply either that they endorse the actions of their employers or that we endorse the actions of the firms. Consequently, the whole ‘anything in the world can be connected by six degrees of separation’ argument falls at the first hurdle.
“More broadly, why should any labour movement body not accept a bit of the profit coming back to the workers so long as there are no strings attached.”

I continued to press John Rees and Elaine Graham-Leigh to refer this to the Electoral Commission until finally I felt obliged, not least for my own reputation, having been the victim of a genuine witch-hunt over donations from the Middle East to the Mariam Appeal, to refer the matter myself. The Electoral Commission are currently looking into the matter.
Given how widely the SWP leadership raised this issue in their own organisation, it was only going to be a matter of time before the issue got into the press, and so it has proved. I am sorry that it has taken press exposure to bring the necessary action to bear on this issue, although I note that John Rees’s letter does not actually suggest the return of the donation, which is the recommendation of the SWP Central Committee.

It would certainly be my view that the cheque should never have been solicited for OFFU for two reasons. Firstly, OFFU was set up as a result of a decision by the Respect Officers’ Committee, its National Council and resolution of the Respect Annual Conference. Its leading officers were members of Respect and one of the signatories to the bank account was an employee of Respect. Respect employees were engaged more or less full time in arranging OFFU’s only conference thus far, a conference which lost £5,000. These are connections to Respect which made the donation to OFFU potentially illegal and certainly potentially politically embarrassing. The second reason is, of course, the fact that the major shareholder in the Dubai company is leading PFI privateer Interserve – a connection which is far from “tenuous”. The Stop the War Coalition might have felt able to accept that money – I cannot see how a body of trade union militants would.

I am very sorry that this embarrassment has occurred for all who are involved in OFFU in good faith, but it entirely vindicates my criticisms of the way in which John Rees has operated both with respect to Respect and OFFU.
With best wishes,
George Galloway MP

SWP Rees-pect apologises for PFI Tory donation

“Incredible”, “amazing”, “unbelievable”..... These are some of the astonished comments of SWPers following the unprecedented apology by John Rees, Respect (non-Jammaat) National Secretary and member of SWP central committee.

This apology was published in SWP notes and it is almost unheard of for any senior member of the central committee to admit to making a mistake and to say sorry. This apology was published in this weeks secret (ish) internal “SWP notes”.

Earlier this month, Ted Jeory, at the “East London Advertiser” had broken the news that Rees had solicited money for the SWP/Respect “Organising for fighting Unions”, and then accepted, a $10,000 donation drawn on a company cheque from the Dubai construction company, Khansahed Civil Engineering. This is owned by in the UK by Interserve, who is a leading Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contractor, chaired by Tory Peer and former Head of the John Major’s policy unit, Lord Norman Blackwell.

See the letter from Rees

12 December 2007

To the secretary, Organising for Fighting Unions

Dear.......

We spoke recently about the article in the East London Advertiser
regarding George Galloway’s accusations about the source of the donation made to OFFU by a Dubai businessman last June.

As you know the donation was originally sent to Respect last January but was returned to the donor because it is illegal for a political party to accept foreign donations. I did, however, in returning the donation suggest it might instead be made to OFFU as a campaigning organisation which has supporters from a number of different political parties within it and which is separate from Respect.

At the time that the donation was eventually made to OFFU last June neither I nor George Galloway knew of any link between the donor and a company involved in PFI schemes in Britain. It remains the case that the donation is an individual and not a corporate donation even though it is drawn on a company account.

I do however regret not having researched the link, tenuous though it is, between this individual, his company and the company to which it is connected in Britain. I hope this oversight on my part has not caused OFFU any embarrassment and I apologise if this is the case.

Yours fraternally,

John Rees,
Respect national secretary.

Is this his “swan song”, will he be the SWP fall guy and forced to confess and accept the blame for the "respect" disaster? I suspect that Lands End will soon have a new “Socialist Worker” newsvendor.

Myth of the month: if in doubt - just stick up a sign

The “Myth” of the month from the Heath and Safety Executive (HSE) is “Every possible risk needs a safety sign”. This is of course nonsense. This is what the HSE really say about it.

“The reality –Using too many signs just guarantees no one will read any of them.

Safety signs are useful when there’s a significant risk which can't be avoided or controlled in any other way. But that doesn't mean you should add a sign for every possible risk, however trivial.

Where there are serious risks in your workplace, don’t just rely on signs - take practical steps to deal with them. If you do need a sign, make sure it has the right symbol and is clearly visible”.

I think there is a genuine problem that in some organisations signs are inadequate, out of date or even non-existent! However, some employers seem to think that if they put up a “warning sign” this “covers” them and they don’t have to do anything else about the risk.

A good example is the workplace where the fire evacuation route has signs but they rarely test equipment, never practice fire drills or evacuations nor have suitable or adequate risk assessments.

2nd Newham Council Strike

Further strike action in support of sacked UNISON Branch Chair, Michael Gavan, took place yesterday in Newham. On the way into work I stopped off at the picket lines at the Council Folkestone Road depot and later outside the Town hall to show my support.

I was a bit late since I drove all the way to Tower Hamlets to give someone a lift to the picket. I forgot their exact address and the mobile phone didn’t wake them up! Pretty frustrating at 6am in the morning, but such is life.

It was very cold, dark and foggy. Pickets joked that that it was a pity that the Council couldn’t wait until the summer to sack Michael. Despite the cold and the early start people did seem in genuine good spirits. The London Regional Convener, Gloria Hanson (who is the Newham Branch treasurer) and the Regional Secretary Linda Perks were at the depot, while Vicki Easton, the Head of Local Government was outside the Town Hall.

Tom Nixon, the T&G Unite branch secretary was also at the depot with a number of T&G members who had refused to cross the picket line.

I was surprised how many agencies staff the Council and their contractors employ? Most were very sympathetic and a few did refuse to cross the picket but many said that they had been told they would be sacked if they did not turn up to work (illegal in my view if UNISON members but...).

There were also the usual weird and wonderful excuses offered by the (relatively very few) scabs over their behaviour, such as “I’m going to work since the unions don’t collect money for charity....”I am a member of unison because in case I get myself in trouble not to go on strike” (very ironic considering Michael’s circumstances) and the best was .....”I didn’t realise there was a strike on and I can’t go home since I have driven all this way”. One of them said they will get me arrested for speaking to them! Hmmm?

Michael himself was incredibility polite, softy spoken, courteous and even shaked hands with some (not all) of the strike breakers!

I couldn’t make it to the lunchtime rally but I have heard that it went really well. On Monday the branch executive will meet up to discuss what next. Check out the Newham UNISON website for further details.

On Wednesday the West Ham Labour Party Executive Committee agreed to invite Newham UNISON branch committee member, Bill Turner, (a Newham Council striker and Tower Hamlets Labour Party Councillor) to the General Committee meeting as a guest speaker to discuss “industrial relations in Newham Council”.

George Galloway: My part in his downfall

Yesterday I received a couple of jolly emails from comrades, who told me that the blog site Socialist Unity, had a post by its editor, Andy Newman, suggesting that “Dave’s Part” and “John’s Labour blog” are responsible for the current split within diss-respect!

Apparently the SWP Central committee are claiming, that one of the major reasons for the split, is that SWP members (who “had gone native” and supported George Galloway) in early September 2007, had “leaked” very sensitive information to the deputy editor of the East London Advertiser, Ted Jeory. This is why they expelled a number of long standing SWPer's and led to a complete and utter breakdown of trust between the Central Committee and the Gorgeous one

The Socialist Unity post refers to a draft article being circulated by a SWP Central Committee member, Chris Harman (who apparently who was the model for a character in a play by Tariq Ali called “Nutty Shardman... who menaces others on the left with whom he has theoretical disagreements” – yep, this figures).

“Nutty” Harman implies that the leak was by the now expelled SWP member and Respect national officer, Rob “where has the money gone” Hoverman.

If true, then of course this would have significantly contributed to the breakup. However, “Socialist Unity” is now a “born again” fervent supporter of the Gorgeous one. They claim that the pure and honest Hoverman did not leak the information; Ted Jeory got it instead from my blog and Dave Osler’s.

“Ted [the journalist who wrote the article] confirmed that he had picked up the letter on two websites, one run by sad sectarian Dave Osler and the other by right wing Tower Hamlets New Labourite John Grey (moi?). Ted had also read comment on the letter on those websites and the key paragraph five was based on what he had read there”.

I think my post that he is referring to is “Respect is cursed; moribund; weak; exhausted; amateur, mismanaged; unhealthy, irresponsible…says Galloway “ 2 September 2007
No further comment on the sources of this post.

Of course, I personally would have been very pleased to have contributed in anyway to the break up of diss-respect. I have been told that I will be awarded the Order of the “Silver Ice Pick" for some old reason?

However, the duplicitous old rogue Galloway is still a MP for now. I still think he is doomed politically. He may have got rid of the SWP and got some new “useful idiots” such as “Socialist Unity” for now. However, I think that he will just “use and abuse” them and they will eventually, just like the SWP, retire hurt licking their wounds. I know this is really political “la la” land, but just check out the posts at Socialist Unity even a few months ago about Galloway, when they all hatred him. Now (1984-ish) he is their hero.

For example... “Even were .....Galloway to have a damascene conversion, would anyone on the activist left trust them?.

It’s equally ironic and enjoyable to see Andy Newman “defending” Rob Hoverman. When in the past Andy (bravely to be fair) published this very personal retort from Rob about him.....

Andy....."You were a complete tosser the last time you flickered on to my radar and clearly nothing has changed. Now flicker off.”

East End Celebrations – real life rich tapestries

Last night I went to the Tower Hamlets UNISON branch crimbo meal at the Mez restaurant in the Isle of Dogs, E14. It was also a “surprise” 60th Birthday celebration for Branch Secretary, Jean Geldart, who is also the Chair of the UNISON Local Government service group.

Jean is due to retire next year and has worked for Tower Hamlets Council (I think) since she left university. She is also the daughter of the Phil Piratin, who was famously elected as a Communist Party of Great Britain MP for Mile End in 1945. Now, Jean and I, have not always seen “eye to eye” about various things (especially blogging) so I hope she doesn’t mind me mentioning her!

The branch had somehow persuaded the restaurant to play “The Internationale” as they bought in the birthday cakes. At the same time everyone stood up and most raised their arms in a red salute and sang along to the song (see photo). I politely stood up and raised my glass and of course took pictures. I’m not that sure what the mostly city clientele thought about this but they didn’t seem to mind (or perhaps comprehend?). Our table also didn’t really care.

The restaurant is built on the site of the old traditional docker's pub the “Queen” (also known as the “Queen of the Isle”) which was knocked down in 2004. I never went into it but was reliably informed by someone who should know, that it was the sort of pub that you would be out of place if you had two whole ears.

Earlier that day I had been to another crimbo Party, at an “elder persons block” in Bow. There was a singer/guitarist and an unbelievably impressive spread. As well as the usual wide range of different sandwiches, coat-tail sausages, meats, prawns, samosa, salad, ham and egg pie, dips, crisps etc. There was a massive tray of traditional jellied eels (sorry, I may have lived longer in the East End than any where else but please don’t ask me...) as well as fiery hot chicken curry.

The residents all appeared to be having a good time (I won’t say “a right old knees up”). Well done to the staff and volunteers.

In all a good day.

InFidelity comes over all coy while “bonkers” Caledonia joins Tory investors club

Labour & Capital blogger, Tom P, has had a reply from Fidelity Investments to his letter to them about their donations to the Tories (£95k this year alone). Tom and his wife pay into a Fidelity ISA towards paying off their mortgage and are very unhappy that they are indirectly contributing to Conservative party funds.

Click on the link to read about the frankly empty response that Fidelity gave to his letter. Keep up the pressure Tom!

It was also interesting to note that Tom also reports that Caledonia Investors has given the Tories £60k. Caledonia still has very strong links with their founders, the old money Scottish Tory lairds, the Cayzers. Read the “Scotland on Sunday” account about the “stark raving bonkers” family feud that the almost liquidated the trust in 2003. It makes UNISON conferences seem like “a walk in the park”.

While you are at it check out Fidelity Out of Sudan.

Further Strike Action in Newham over sacked Michael Gavan

On Thursday there will be another strike by UNISON members in Newham, East London over the sacking by the Council of their branch Chair, Michael Gavan.

Amazingly Michael was dismissed for representing his trade union members in disciplinary hearings (and in doing so “not acting in the best interests of the Council”) and convening a stewards meeting over privatisation without permission.

The branch is asking for supporters to join the picket lines before work on Thursday. There will also be a lunchtime rally in the Hartley Centre, next to the Bingo Hall in 267 Barking Road, E6.

There is also a rally at the House of Commons tomorrow (Tuesday) evening to support Michael, as well as the Unison strikers at Fremantle, Barnet, and Karen Reissman, sacked Unison activist from Manchester. This is at 7.00 p.m. in Committee Room 9, House of Commons (Westminster tube). If you're going, allow time to get through the House of Commons security

More information from the Newham branch website - www.newhamunison.com or telephone 020 8555-9351.

The “absolute nightmares” Where should they live?

“Authorities’ secrecy puts staff in peril” For the 2nd week in a row, Inside Housing magazine has had a front page story on staff safety. Talk about London buses – you wait for ages then you get one after another! I posted last week on their survey that found that 73% of front line staff have feared for their safety while at work. They printed a letter from me this week on the importance of an effective safety management system.

However, this week’s story actually has a wider appeal than just being of interest to hard pressed Housing association (or RSL’s) staff and their safety at work. The article claims that many Council’s deliberately withhold details of violent and dangerous applicants from housing associations, because it is feared that the RSL would turn down the application if they knew about their history.

One RSL only found out that one applicant was an arsonist “they must have known would be an absolute nightmare” by a chance warning by the local Police. Others complained that female staff are sent out by themselves with applicants to view properties, unaware that the applicant is a convicted sex offender.

Personally I would doubt that a Council would usually deliberately withhold information. Rather in my experience they will not have gathered the information properly in the first place. In most Council's you find that Housing, Education and Social work departments will not know or share information with each other about known potentially violent service users. Never mind giving this information to outside bodies such as RSL’s. This is despite the murder of staff in the past by violent offenders, who were known to pose risks, but the system did not pass the information down.

Many RSL’s do not even ask Council’s if they know of any risks and there are no guarantees that even if they are told the information that this is given to the front line staff that need to know.

The whole situation is a mess. Usually management will try to blame “Data Protection Act” (DPA) or “client confidentiality”. When there are in practice, clear exemptions in the DPA for protecting staff and providing information is securely passed over and retained, there should be no inappropriate breach of confidentiality.

Making safety an absolute priority and having in place a rigorous safety management system will resolve the issue of staff safety.

However, the “Inside Housing” article is actually based upon some very interesting research on “Problematic tenancies” by Bristol University on behalf of Shelter, the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation. They are probably a little upset with “Inside Housing” since the report is only a “draft”. However, it is obvious that there are really serious problems to be addressed.

It appears quite clear that in many parts of the country, RSL’s are refusing to house applicants with a history of anti-social behaviour. Perhaps this is understandable, however while a Council may have transferred all its housing stock to a RSL it still retains the legal responsibility to re-house someone if they are found to be “statutory homeless”. 80,000 families in England alone last year. A tiny but not insignificant minority of whom will have members who have “challenging behaviour”.

There are other issues such as due to what’s called “section 106” agreements, residents who have paid substantial sums for their homes are living next door to RSL tenants who need support (and often won’t get it) so they will complain about them. Also, a RSL had built a new block of 12 general needs flats and found out that the Council was planning to offer 8 of them to applicants who had known alcohol abuse problems. Think about it.

If RSL’s are refusing to house people that Councils have to re-house by law then what is the answer? Do we go down the Frank Field MP route of “sin bins” under motorways?

Going to work can make you sick

As already mentioned I was off for most of last week with the dreaded lurgy. However, I used some of the time to catch up on my reading of the “Safety and Health Practitioner”, which is the house mag of IOSH. Read a very interesting article (July 07) by researcher Zara Whysall that “Presenteeism” at work is a “larger drain on productivity than either absenteeism or short-term disability”. “Which can have potentially catastrophic effects on both individual and organisational health”! So much for “Sick note Britain”

It concludes that it is better for the individual (as well as the organisation) to stay at home and recover rather come into work and infect everyone else (and I suppose anyone sitting near them on the buses or train). They also tend to recover more quickly at home.

Fair enough this seems common sense– most of us have come across the saying “Coughs and sneezes spread diseases...” (This was first put on public information service posters in World War Two)

Controversially, she also thought that research showed that workers who come into work despite being unwell may mean that their illness is unnoticed and is allowed to become more serious. Research into male civil servants showed “.....those that did not take any sick leave over the three year study period were more likely to experience serious coronary events than those unhealthy employees with moderate levels of sickness absenteeism”.

You can imagine this happening in practice. Someone who is so worried say about losing their job if they are sick, would come into work and ignores chest pains and other early signs of heart disease. Instead of getting the condition controlled by timely treatment they carry on working and they have a serious attack.

Organisations which have too harsh sickness policies could actually being making things worse not only for their staff but also their own bottom-line.