SWP: Central Committee climbs down on Khansaheb donation
Posted on Tuesday 18 December, 2007
Filed Under Socialist Workers' Party
The latest edition of the Socialist Workers’ Party bulletin Party Notes includes what must be history’s only recorded instance of a Central Committee climbdown.
It relates to the story of an illegal foreign donation from Dubai-based Khansaheb Civil Engineering to Respect the Unity Coalition, which at the instigation of national secretary John Rees, subsequently found its way into the coffers of Organising for Fighting Unions, an SWP front organisation.
It later emerged that the donor is a subsidiary of a group owned by one of Britain’s biggest private finance initiative contractors, headed by a Tory life peer who was a senior policy adviser to the John Major government. The backstory’s here, if you are not up to speed.
Just to underline how serious this cock-up is, the item is even headed ‘an apology’:
An apology
Last week the East End [sic] Advertiser published an article raising serious allegations about a donation made to OFFU.
The CC has produced the following statement:
”The Central Committee is very concerned to hear that a donation to Organizing For Fighting Unions has links, even if tenuous, to companies involved in privatization and PFI schemes in the UK. Although the money was taken in good faith, from an individual with a proven record of supporting anti-war and pro-Palestinian causes, the coming to light of these links with big business means that we believe it is inappropriate that OFFU should have received these funds. Should the OFFU officers decide to return the donation, we will work with them to help raise the money.”
I’m sure the comrades want this to have the widest possible labour movement circulation. Not.
I’m also sent the following correspondence between Respect national secretary John Rees and OFFU chair Mick Gavan:
12 December 2007
To Michael Gavan, secretary, Organising for Fighting Unions
Dear Michael,
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.
Incidentally, can a political donation drawn on a company account be an individual donation? Does anyone know how electoral law stands on this issue?
[Hat tip: email informant]
<<Go back
Comments
26 Responses to “SWP: Central Committee climbs down on Khansaheb donation”
Doesn’t that intentionally miss the point.
Galloways allegation relates to the fact that the donation came from abroad and the OFFU was part of respect.
Nothing to do with PFI.
I addition,Galloway claims not to have known till August.
Rees implies June.
Odd.
Well, what about company law, never mind electoral law – the PPRE Act states clearly its an offense to try and circumvent its provisions, a la Abrahams. Given the financial arrangements between OFFU and Respect the situation gets even murkier (ISTR the donation was used to offset costs to the campaign that respect would have otehrwise borne).
Just looking at the electoral commission’s site, apparently, the SWP has donated £13K to respect since icneption (including staff wages) – of scourse, the SWP as a non-registered political party can take its donations from anywhere…
Mind, I bet some of the individual donors may have passed round a collection hat first as well, the sums look like that sort…
I presume that the Leninists who, previously**, thought taking money from such obviously dodgy sources was somehow acceptable will recant now? or will they be spinning on a six-pence?
**[see the previous thread on the topic
http://www.davidosler.com/2007/12/khansaheb_civil_engineering_bu.html#comments
]
Taking this money was clearly wrong and unprincipled. Typical of Rees one might say and his cavalier attitude towards other peoples money. As for the legalities of theaffair they are of very little real importance.
What is important is that the editor of Party Notes hass seen fit to issue an apology for a deed the responsibility for which cannot be laid at the feet of any other than john Rees. In other words some of the fault for the fiasco of the last few weeks has finally been attributed to the person who should be carrying the can for that fiasco.
But Rees still cannot bring himself to tell the whole truth.
In his letter he says
That is literally True, but only becasue George did not even know that the donation had been made to OFFU in June. And therefore had no reason to check the nature of the company making the donation.
In contrast Rees did know about the dnation, and made no effort to check into the company. It seems hardly credible to anyone reading this who has not utterely suspended teir critical faculties that this was an individual domation drawn upon a corporation’s bank account. One wonders whether Rees is intentionally implying embezzlement?
He only discovered that in late August. What was known was that it was a foreign donation. Now had that foreign donation been given to STWC there would have been no great need to worry about the links with PFI.
As soon as Galloway did know the funds had gone to OFFU, which only had paper thin legal separation from Respect (a point Rees seems unable to understand or accept) then a google search revealed the connections, which then became a major issue at the face to face meeting between George and SWP CC members on 4th September.
The SWP’s lack of grasp of grown up politics can be shown by Callinicos describing this in front of 250 London SWP members on the following Friday as “George going on bizarrely about some obscure cheque”.
To clarify, when i wrote:
“He only discovered that in late August. What was known was that it was a foreign donation. Now had that foreign donation been given to STWC there would have been no great need to worry about the links with PFI.”
This means George only discovred in late August, not Rees.
I remember when Respect was getting hassle from the electoral commission for not filing an annual account (their auditors were being difficult, IIRC) SWPers would meet my questions with bemusement, along the lines of ‘Why should such things matter’ – I think we’re seeing that sound financial management does matter, quite a bit…
So, Andy is taking George Galloways word about when he knew about a cash issue.
Thats a leap of faith.
The whole thig seems to hinge around the relationship between Respect and OFFU.
The PFI issue is a red herring for both sides.
Galloway’s response here:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1343
Yes Tim the PFI issue is entirely subsiduary, but the SWP are using it as a smoke screen to cover their retreat over an illegal foreign donation.
It does seem Andy,remarkably, that Galloway is telling the truth.
Given the new truth serum,could he now tell us which constituency workers he funded from the Big Brother money.
Because nothing has ever been declared.
ModBlog, What is it with you and ‘Leninism’?
If you want to have a go at the SWP, have a go at the SWP, not ‘the Leninists’. Unless, of course, you have allegations that every other Leninist group has taken similar dodgy coin. Or maybe an interesting theory that every political group that takes money from dodgy sources – say, Labour, or the Tories – is in fact secretly Leninist? Or perhaps you can point to a previously unread section of What Is To Be Done? where it advocates take money from creeps like this.
I wonder what is wrong with some of you?
The SWP are socialists. I’m a critic of the SWP but, like any proper Left would defend them against any legal action and would not dream in a million years in providing of suggesting any info to the forces of the state to use against them (and my line is exactly the same about Sheridan).
It’s perfectly legitimate and necessary to publically debate things, like whether a donation should be accepted from X.
But when you go beyond that and suggest illegalities have taken place, you cross class lines and can but be designated by a short-hand term as, well, scum.
And the blog owner should delete any such posts that cross this line.
At least with Tim he doesn’t try and pretend not to act, in effect, as a State tout.
Don’t be silly Southpaw.
Sheridans behaviour cost the left a shot at power in Scotland.
People like him and Galloway do the same damage as Aitken and Archer did to the Tories.
Just 4 mins to get a response, Tim.
You really are in fact 3 Special Branch officers working consecutive 8 hours shifts in Scotland Yard monitoring all relevant blogs for mentions of the SWP, Galloway or similar and ready at your keyboards to spread poison aren’t you, Tim?
As Darren (Inversk Street Ingrate) said – Google Alert is good and fast, but Timalert is faster.
faster than a melting Tommy alibi.
Janine wrote:
ModBlog, What is it with you and ‘Leninism’?
I was pointing out the obvious logical disparity between this thread and the previous one
and how some British Leninists are apt to justify almost anything on the basis that “Lenin did it too”, which in my view, is a very poor argument and really doesn’t convince any non-Leninists, does it?
now if you wish to argue that all other political parties take money from dodgy sources and so the Left can’t too choosy, then fine, but be honest about it, again that’s not a terribly good argument when you pull it apart
I just wish politicos would engage in a bit of humility every now and again, so when money from an obviously dodgy source is taken, admit it, disown it, but don’t try to justify by reference to Lenin, Engels or Marx
Tip of the iceberg, anyone?
Who ‘runs’ “Party Notes”, it used to be the National Organiser’s weekly task? The earliest posts are spot on about how this represents the only historic climbdown in SWP history. If the money-trail is followed more vigorously there’ll be no end to the rotten schemes that have propped up the “full-timers” in realising their ‘project’ for the British left.
There’ll be more of this, much more, as the dissolution continues.
I’m waiting (without holding my breathe) for the issue of “Party Notes” that announces the firing of Rees, German, Smith and their ilk and the call to a conference entitled “WTF! Why did we let it go on so long?”
Mod, that’s a fair enough explanation, but how anyone was supposed to know that if they hadn’t read the previous thread I don’t know.
I wasn’t in the least bit arguing that it’s OK for the left to take dodgy money cos other parties too. I was arguing that the fact that other parties do illustrates that taking dodgy money is not a ‘Leninist’ trait.
Janine wrote:
Mod, that’s a fair enough explanation, but how anyone was supposed to know that if they hadn’t read the previous thread I don’t know.
that’s WHY I included in a link to the previous comments and the **s
I never suggested that it was a Leninist’s trait, self evidently that is not the case, as anyone who can remember the Major government, dodgy peerages and money sloshing around, will attest.
My point was orientated more towards some British Leninists who would invoke Lenin, Engles or Marx in lieu of a robust argument, as if they are minor deities, and as I said, it is not very convincing.
I would have thought that Healy, the WRP and the Libyan scandal were enough to convince people of the errors of taking money from such sources, but apparently not.
Modernity rightly point out, again and again, how often British elftists rely on, Lenin etc did it so it’s fine. This Lenin-Standard is pretty feeble at the best of times (Lenin set up the Cheka, so let’s have one too.. to cite just an obvious flaw in this kind of argument), but what on earth it has to do with right political ethics is beyond all human understanding. The Bolsheviks are alleged to have coined in the dosh from seductions of wealthy heiresses, and are known to have got money from bank raids (Stalin – see Lenin on Guerilla Warfare): so let’s do that as well…
Another odd thing is that Galloways supporters seem to have overlooked Georges links with businessman Fawaz Zureikat.
Who according to Sideshow Ron McKay is dealing with the US in Iraq.
Yet whom George recently flew out to campaign for in Zureikats election Campaign.
Anyone would think George owed Fawaz.
Southpaw,
romanticism aside, this isn’t about the SWP v. the state, but an internal matter of how workers’ organisations – which have traditionally suffered at the hands of the light fingered, control their finances. It is important.
For those with long memories, this case recalls Liz Davies’ concerns about the Socialist Alliance cheque book – I know all organisations have a hard time managing money, but there does seem to be a lack of concern over financial control.
Beyond that is a grasp of politics that seems shaky, never mind common sense.
Funny that the chicken’s seeem to be coming home to roost elsewhere as well:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1346
Cheque Mate
Readers who haven’t been following the story of the $10,000 cheque donated to Respect in January of this year can pick up the story here….
It may not be wise for Galloway to go on too much about links to Middle East cash.
This is a slightly forgotten episode where George was involved with two associates of Osama Bin Laden.
Saad Al Fagih and Mohammed al Massari.
The former has been named as an Al Queda Terrorist associate after his credit card paid for a satellite phone used in the East African Embassy bombings.
The latter,a vicious anti semitic Islamist who had been trying to set up a London base for Bin Laden.
Both Afghan vets.
Galloway seems a little,err unclear on the true nature of his finacial relationship with the pair.
And heres some lying spiv action.
This time for Bin Laden associates al Fagih and Al Massari.
“Last year the Saudi opposition hired a hall in Westminster, and as the MP sponsoring it I had to pay for the hire; they then paid me that money back. Those are the only circumstances in which a single penny changed hands.”
Sunday Times 1996
actually.
” I have now had the chance (having paid for the privilege) of studying my Visa Card records going back to September 1994.
Or course it is impossible to say with absolute certainty what each and every transaction from that long ago represents. But for the Committee’s interest, I list herewith transactions which strike me as having been likely to have been paid by me, by Visa, and reimbursed by Dr Sa’ad and Al Fagih of the CDLR.
19/5/95 British Airways £120.00
26/5/96 Open Flight Ltd £490.00
31/5/95 James Richardson Ltd £ 95.15
27/9/95 British Airways £122.00
28/9/95 British Airways £ 91.00
11/11/95 Open Flight Ltd £553.90
30/11/95 American Express £135.00
12/12/95 Open Flight Ltd £824.00
19/2/96 American Express £ 30.00
26/2/96 Sime Malloch Ltd £440.62
”
Evidence to a House Of Commons Committee
1997
“
Actually the major point is not the alleged illegality. It is possible that the donation is not illegal since OFFU is not officially a Respect organisation (in fact when their conference was being organised it was touted as a broad front conference, why even Dave Nellist was speaking! of course another lie).
The real crime is the political one of an organisation about fighting unions taking money from a company involved in privatisation. You couldn’t make it up but it represents another step in the political degeneration of the SWP.