This isn't true. The party did effectively (and rightly) say 'vote Labour without illusions', but it didn't ever go out campaigning for them.
As you say "(t)he main bulk of campaigners for George and other Respect
> candidates has always been supplied by the SWP, and they will not be so
> now". What I wanted to point out was that the same was the case with old
> Labour where, come elections, the mainly Trotskyist left, including the
> SWP,
> were the most active campaigners for every leader from Callaghan through
> Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock to John Smith.
This is also false. The SWP did not go round knocking doors for Neil Kinnock and John Smith.
Their presence in and ultimate
> departure from the Labour fold, voluntary or otherwise, however meant
> little
> in the end for the electoral success (or not) of Labour.
This is quite obviously because, as I stated, the Labour Party was and is a mass party with hundreds of thousands of members, a huge paid staff of professionals, church supporters, small business supporters, union memberships, mass funding, a tradition going back for over a century now. Now, these aren't insignificant differences, and your refusal to register them suggests that the analogy isn't offered in good faith.
The similarity lies in an opportunistic orientation towards labourism in
> both cases in the vain expectation of rapid growth.
There is no orientation toward labourism. Respect was and is an open coalition between revolutionaries and reformists, formed for the purpose of challenging New Labour's hegemony on the left vote, and providing an alternative based on radical policies. To which end, Respect has so far had some considerable success despite.