Respect are obviously very pleased that the pseudo-acronym they chose as their name is such a useful word. In the last few months they certainly haven’t missed an opportunity to display its potential for double meanings. Thus we’ve been told that ‘pensioners deserve Respect’, whilst their candidates make slightly cringe-worthy statements like ‘we all deserve Respect’ or ‘Hackney South deserves Respect’. The tendency has culminated in the rather confusing slogan ‘It takes Respect to get respect!’

Their manifesto, released on 18 April, follows a similar pattern, with the titles of most of its sections starting ‘Respect for…’ It works quite well for chapters such as ‘Respect for Young People’, less well with ‘Respect for Peace’ or ‘Respect for Decent Housing’. But word-play aside, the manifesto does contain some content of interest to the left.

The twelve election priorities are inevitably headed by a call for an end to the occupation of Iraq, whilst the introduction is titled ‘against war and privatisation’. The other priorities are exactly those which left activists have been campaigning on for the last few years. This is not, then, as Nick Cohen and the Alliance for Workers Liberty would have us believe, the manifesto of an unholy alliance between a part of the far left and some vaguely defined current of ‘Islamo-fascists’. From the evidence of this manifesto, it is rather that a significant proportion of Muslim opinion has for the first time decided to identify itself with what can only be described as a far left project. We should welcome that step.

The devil, of course, is in the detail.

Since the foundation of Respect, various people on the left have claimed it is a step back in terms of radicalism. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) has argued that Respect shouldn’t write into official policy things like scrapping all immigration controls or the abolition of the monarchy which are too left-wing and would apparently alienate potential working class support (at least that’s my understanding of their argument). Critics have alleged this is a sop to get ‘reactionary’, or at least mainstream, Muslim organisations on board.

European and by-elections have seen Respect do well in certain areas such as inner east London and central Birmingham, though not in other places, such as Hartlepool. In this election most television news is covering the fight in Bethnal Green and Bow, billed as a straight contest between New Labour’s Oona King and Respect’s George Galloway, in some detail. In this regard, and in the level of community support and canvassing in certain areas of the country, Respect are miles ahead of the Socialist Alliance in 2001.

Clearly this is down to an objectively changed situation. The extent to which it is also due to Respect’s different approach is difficult to say. In terms of the manifesto, though, the most obvious comparison to make is with ‘People Not Profit’, the Socialist Alliance’s 2001 manifesto.

The first thing to notice is that the designers of the Respect manifesto haven’t been any less enthusiastic about including pictures of people waving placards. And on economic issues, there seems to be very little difference as well. The ‘where will the money come from?’ section of Respect’s manifesto seems to have been simply copied and pasted from People Not Profit, so similar are they. Policies on public services; health, education and transport are largely the same. There are generally fewer demands in the Respect manifesto, and more introductory text, but the demands that are missed out are not generally the more ‘radical’ ones. From support for decent council housing to a good deal for pensioners, Respect’s economic policies add up to about what any socialist might demand whilst standing in a bourgeois election in the context of a low level of social struggle over economic issues.

On what might be described as social issues, there is a more noticeable difference. As expected on asylum, there is no call for an end to immigration controls (writing in the Morning Star, Galloway argued that ‘no serious person’ was calling for this). But aside from this, Respect takes a fairly strong line on defending asylum seekers. That doesn’t mean that it’s a particularly coherent position, however. They seem to have settled on an amnesty for all those currently in the UK illegally, plus rolling back New Labour’s abysmal record, such as dispersal, detention centres and attacks on the right to political asylum. What happens then is not really dealt with. On what basis are people allowed into Britain after the amnesty is over?

Since the manifesto doesn’t tell us, are we to assume that Galloway’s argument (in the same Morning Star article) that we should allow economic migration on the basis of economic need is Respect’s position? Unfortunately, that is also what I heard the political editor of the Sun, Trevor Kavanagh, arguing on the news this evening. It certainly seems like a policy which puts the needs of corporations before those of human beings, and as such is very problematic. One could argue, that since even in Respect’s wildest dreams it will only get a couple of seats, the ‘campaign’ demands which it has offered us are all that’s needed for now, rather than a fully worked out policy. All we can say for certain is that they’re all we’re going to get.

Another contrast is over homophobia. Under the heading ‘No compromise on equality’, People Not Profit talked about the fight against racism, sexism and homophobia. Respect talks about an end to discrimination and ‘social oppression’. To be fair, most of the demands on homophobia in People Not Profit have belatedly been met by New Labour – partnership rights, an equal age of consent, the repeal of section 28 and employment rights all went through in Labour’s second term. But legal rights alone do not determine equality, and a mention of homophobic violence and rights to asylum on the basis of the threat of violence because of your sexuality might have been mentioned.

One welcome development, on the other hand, is that whilst People Not Profit gave disability discrimination a bullet point, Respect gives it a whole section. The text suggests that the author might be a campaigner and expert on the issue. The same cannot be said for some other sections, such as that on globalisation.

Contrary to the expectations of some of Respect’s critics, and in distinction to Galloway’s views on the matter – which indicates perhaps we shouldn’t take everything he utters to be Respect policy – the manifesto states clearly that they are for defending a woman’s right to choose.

Another major omission from Respect’s manifesto is the Socialist Alliance’s call for the legalisation of drugs. In fact, the sole mention of drugs is a call to increase treatment centre resources in the ridiculously short crime section (which luckily isn’t called ‘Respect for Crime’). Unlike some of the issues which have slipped away in the slimming down of demands since People Not Profit, the legalisation of drugs can hardly be described as marginal. Despite reclassification, cannabis remains illegal and our drug laws serve to criminalise a huge section of the population, with the working class bearing the brunt. Decriminalisation is a working class issue, and such an important one that its omission can only be significant. In the absence of any other policy, again we can only go on George Galloway’s comments that ‘we should have a war on drugs instead of a war on Muslims’. There’s nothing like a false choice to make a politician stand out from the crowd.

These problems aside, the Respect manifesto is a firmly leftwing document. It may not look that great, and reads in places like its been thrown together in a hurry, but taken in isolation the Respect manifesto is something any socialist not plagued by pedantry could support. It’s certainly near enough the mark to ensure they get my vote in Tottenham.

East Ham candidate Abdul Khaliq has said that he sees Respect not as a radical party, but as a democratic one. Perhaps he wasn’t aware of what was to be included in the Manifesto, as Respect certainly is a radical party in the context of Britain to day. When Khaliq says it’s democratic, though, he inadvertently raises that other issue which has left a substantial section of left activists cold when it comes to Respect – its internal democracy. Cautious after the experience of the Socialist Alliance, and certainly not reassured by reports of Respect’s first proper conference, such activists would certainly see some irony in the Respect manifesto’s call for society to be organised ‘in the most open, democratic, participative and accountable way’.

In certain areas Respect have managed to achieve the kind of reach that represents the best progress for the radical left in a long while. On the evidence of this manifesto, they seem to have done so without dropping too much of the radicalism. But unless they can start to command the electoral loyalty of a bigger section of leftwing opinion, in the way that Rifondazione Comunista does in Italy, it may not look so rosy after the election. And in order to do that, they have to make a real (and humble) effort to show they can be ‘open, democratic, participative and accountable’. On that challenge, this manifesto has no answers.