SHERIDAN’S SOLIDARITY FALLS APART
From the BBC (thanks to a reader’s comment for bringing this to my attention.)
Solidarity’s only councillor has defected to the Labour Party in Glasgow, it has emerged. Councillor Ruth Black, who was elected in May to represent the Craigton ward, resigned from the party on Thursday.
She said her decision had come after weeks of talks with council leader Steven Purcell. It also comes days after Solidarity leader Tommy Sheridan was charged with perjury in connection with his News of the World defamation case.
Ms Black said: “Being part of the administration will give me an opportunity to assist with the equalities agenda.”
I AM GOING TO LEAVE THE COMMENTS OPEN, BUT PLEASE POST NOTHING THAT MAY BE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO SHERIDAN’S POSSIBLE PERJURY TRIAL.
The headlines a bit dramatic but I think we’ll see the SWP distnace themselves from Sillydarity to try and get hit by as little mud as possible.
Comment by Raphie — 20 December, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
Surely, Solidarity does not fit in with the SWP’s new line to justify the Respect split about the rightward drift of broad left formations.
Comment by Raphie — 20 December, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
I think it may be a little late for that.
Comment by Mobile Phone Mast Manchester. — 20 December, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
I dunno Raphie.
One of the national joint convenors has been arrested, their only councillor has joined Labour (a party that is both neo-liberal AND unionist), and in the latest SWP Internal Bulletin they say Solidarity is a failure.
Party over I think.
Comment by Andy — 20 December, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
I’m confused, Andy. Can you elaborate on what the title has to do with the councillor leaving for Labour? Has this episode caused Solidarity (the party) to collapse, or are you talking about solidarity between Black and the party? You should be a little more clear when selecting headlines, unless, of course, confusion is your goal. It could also be read as a thinly veiled sectarian jibe - a mock Freudian slip.
Comment by djn — 20 December, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
“and in the latest SWP Internal Bulletin they say Solidarity is a failure.”
Any details on that Andy? If thats a recent bulletin, Solidarity has had the textbook definition of a “bad week”
Comment by AJ — 20 December, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
Well djn, it is absolutely clear from the artcile in SWP pre-conferencne Internal Bulletin #3, “The Scottish Question” by the SWP’s Scottish committee, that the SWP both thinks that Solidarity is a failure, and that they intend to build the SWP instead.
With Sheridan arrested (and more arrests may follow of course) and Ruth Black joining Labour, then Solidarity is surely dead in the water?
Comment by Andy — 20 December, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
AJ
It is recent to me! But probably written a few weeks ago.
I will publish that contribution, over the next couple of days.
Comment by Andy — 20 December, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
I think Andys headline is perfectly clear.
Comment by Swinton Mobile Phone Records — 20 December, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
Just to clarify that no possible upcoming trial would be a libel trial. It’s called a defamation action in Scotland, and that’s what happened in 2006. Anything coming up would be a criminal trial for perjury.
Comment by Lynsey — 20 December, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Quite right - I will correct what I wrote.
thanks Lynsey.
Comment by Andy — 20 December, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
How can the defection of a Solidarity councillor be anything but a setback for the WHOLE of the left. I just do not understand SU’s glee at this event and the events surrounding Tommy Sheridan. It looks like SU is more interested in attacking others on the left than in building it.
And why do the first few comments use this to attack the SWP. I just despair at their logic. It’s probably the least interesting element in the whole sorry story.
Surly, if this proves anything, it is the need for those on the left who get elected to have some form of accountability for their actions. This is a problem for ALL left organisation who stand candidates. And we need to find the answer before the left tares itself apart.
I am not a member or supporter of Solidarity. But we should have some sympathy for the problems they are currently facing. They are problems that can occur in any left organisation.
http://www.solidarityscotland.org/
Comment by timothyMN — 20 December, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
timothy.
There is no glee.
the report is verbatim from the BBC, with no commentary from me, excpept for the headline, which I think is a fair summary of the situation.
Nor have we expressed any glee at the plight of Sheridan.
Indeed if you can find a comment where I express pleasure at Sheridan’s plight I will give £50 to Solidarity.
Comment by Andy — 20 December, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
Just to give a very different view from those in Respect Renewal and those outside who will support Tommy Sheridan 100%:
From Solidarity
Friends and supporters launch campaign in support of Tommy Sheridan.
Socialists across the UK and beyond have come together to launch a campaign and website in support of victimised Solidarity Convenor Tommy Sheridan.
Tommy Sheridan and his family have been subjected to an unprecedented campaign from the Crown Office and Lothian and Borders Police culminating in the outrageous scenes on Sunday when his wife and 2 year-old child were put through a horrendous ordeal in their home, at the hands of 9 police officers over seven hours.
RESPECT MP George Galloway, RMT leader Bob Crow, Socialist Party Councillor Dave Nellist, PCS President Janice Goodrich have been joined by Gerry Conlon and Paddy Hill in condeming the attack on Tommy.
George Galloway said:
“Tommy’s real crime in the eyes of News International is that he has spent his entire political life speaking truth to power.”
Gerry Conlon of the Guildford 4 said:
“The press play a huge role in the conviction of innocent people, our only strength is to stick together, solidarity for Tommy.”
Paddy Hill, Birmngham 6 and founder of MOJO added:
“they couldn’t spell justice never mind dispense it, they are rotten”
Full details of how to support the campiagn at: www.defendtommysheridan.org
Facebook support site at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6805078105
MySpace support site:
http://www.myspace.com/support_the_sheridans
Comment by outsidethebox — 20 December, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
This is a final warning. Do not post material relating to the possible perjury trial.
Comment by Andy — 20 December, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Andy:
Look at the topic title. £50 on the way to Solidarity I think.
Comment by timothyMN — 20 December, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Timothy grow up.
That is a fairly neutral and accurate summing up of the situation is it not?
Comment by Andy — 20 December, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Can anyone give an example of a Left splinter from a Social Democratic party that has been successful ???
New Zealand Alliance
Socialist labour (Militant)
Scottish Socialist Party
Galloway/Respect
all failed….unless someone can give me an example…you would have to conclude that electorially their is no room (electorially)outside the main political parties
harry
Comment by Harry — 21 December, 2007 @ 12:34 am
successes
Germany - Die Linke. 53 MPs and now highher than the greens in opinions polls
Portugese Left Block
danish Red Green Alliance
Dutch Socialistische Partij
Comment by Andy — 21 December, 2007 @ 12:48 am
And of course the other question is whether the formerly social democratic parties are still progressive in any way.
Comment by Andy — 21 December, 2007 @ 12:50 am
We’re calling the SSP a failure now?
Comment by Lynsey — 21 December, 2007 @ 1:23 am
Harry is - I am not.
but Lynsey, it would be fair to say that the SSP has taken a hell of a beating with the libel trial and then the election.
Comment by Andy — 21 December, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Oh certainly. But we’re still here and our poll ratings are rising again.
Comment by Lynsey — 21 December, 2007 @ 1:33 am
What do you think Lynsey, is it game over for Solidarity?
Who will build it now?
Comment by Andy — 21 December, 2007 @ 1:37 am
This is obviously very, very difficult for them and just compounds other events.
And really, that’s probably as much as I should say.
Comment by Lynsey — 21 December, 2007 @ 1:55 am
If Ruth Black had any political intregrity, she resign her seat and fight the subsequent by-election as the Labour Party candidate. (That’s if the local Labour Party selects her as their candidate, of course.)
Comment by Darren — 21 December, 2007 @ 2:24 am
Andy,
The SSP has been arguing for quite a while that Solidarity was formed by opportunistic elements in the SSP and had no long term future because its sole foundation was Sheridan’s perceived popularity, necessarily a temporary thing, and the splitters’ hatred for the SSP. It has been fairly evident on the ground that the SWP are not really bothered with Solidarity - they do their own stalls, sell their own paper and give out their own flyers without a single mention of Solidarity. So I wasn’t really surprised by you saying that their internal bulletin declared it a failure.
The CWI on the other hand, while definitely not loyal in principle to Solidarity, would, I think, be more willing to stay in for awhile, given their miniscule size.
As for the non-aligned Solidarity members, they are a mixed bunch so I think they’ll act in a variety of ways.
Comment by korakious — 21 December, 2007 @ 3:08 am
Like the first trial I will weight up the situation and then make up my own mind, I will support Tommy thick or thin but not blindly.The poorest people people in Scotland, including myself appreciate his role in the anti capitalist movement, especially around opposing warrants sales because people were in debt because of the poll tax. He went to jail for it.
The SWP will not come out smelling of roses out of as well and they will be dreading the day if it goes to court.
In scots law court cases can be put on hold by the lord advocate, its a junction called “Pro Loco” so in the meantime Andy is correct lets not get into this case for the obvious reasons.
Comment by Teddy Boy — 21 December, 2007 @ 6:37 am
The Dutch Socialistische Partij has nothing to do with a splinter from social-democracy, it’s always been an independat party. And the Left Block and the Red Green Alliance were formed from several left-of-social democracy parties, so they’re not really good examples either…
Comment by Alex — 21 December, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Korakious wrote: The CWI on the other hand, while definitely not loyal in principle to Solidarity, would, I think, be more willing to stay in for awhile, given their miniscule size.
Everybody on the left in Scotland is “miniscule” now. Ironically, if you were to look at the whole mess through a cynical, small group advantage lense, the CWI are probably the only people to come out ahead. They started off after the split with a dozen and a half people, slowly grew in the SSP, got out intact and now look to have inherited Solidarity as a periphery.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 21 December, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Alex
The description “splinter from social democracy” came from the right-winger harry.
It is more accurate to decsribe these all as broad socialist parties seeking to fill the space vacated by social democracy, but each has followed their own specific nationally particular path.
Comment by Andy — 21 December, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Germany’s “Die Linke” is not a left splinter from social democracy. It is a merger of the 1. not-particuarly left, not particularly social-democratic (or socialist) ex-East German ruling party; and 2. a party, the “WASG” which had a number of trade union bureaucrats join it and take leading positions, some of which were previously members of the Social Democrats. Ex-SPD leader Lafontaine (who was never very left wing, to be honest, and gets very angry when questioned on some of his views at party meetings) only joined-up once he was told he could become the joint leading candidate for the general election. I’m not even sure if he was actually a member of the WASG at all…
The majority of WASG members were not previously members of *any* political party, and - another proof of Die Linke’s success - a significant proportion of ex-WASG members nationally (around a third, I think, though it could be more) have resigned and did not join the new “merged” party.
Interestingly, the ex-WASG leadership have decided (last week) not to bring in the WASG’s funds into the new joint organisation, but to rename it (something else with the abbreviation WASG) and use it, apparently, for ‘political education’. Considering Die Linke has it’s own official political education foundation, the Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, this suggests all is not well in the top echelons of Die Linke.
When it comes to Denmark’s Red-Green-Alliance, I was told a number of years ago by the leadership of the Danish section of the (Mandelite) Fourth International, who are (were?) active members of it and shared offices with it, that it was basically dead, had no internal life, and relied for votes on the fame of one leading member. Sounds familar?
The Dutch SP is another, interesting, story, being made up mainly of ex-Maoists.
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 21 December, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
The Dutch SP is another, interesting, story, being made up mainly of ex-Maoists.
I meant to write “another, interesting and more positive story”.
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 21 December, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Thanks KMS
I don’t think we should get hung up on the formulatioon from the right winger harry, ” left splinter from social democracy”.
the big picture is that across Europe there is still a progressive electoral constituency, partly a legacy of the official communist parties, partly from the new radical left and partly from lleft social demomcracy, aand this is playing out in a number of ways.
It is of course ludicrous to refer to the PDS simply as the “ex-East German ruling party”. The PDS represents only a component part of the old SED (ruling party), and reflects the progressive aspects of the old DDR.
i think that what you have to recognise is that while Die Linke may be a failure in your IMO ultra-left terms, the party is in its own terms still on a successfukl trjectory.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me that we are due for a look at Die Linke on this blog again soon.
Comment by Andy — 21 December, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I would be fascinated to hear more from Ruth Black about New Labour’s ‘equalities agenda’. Presumably not the same New Labour presiding over the largest gap between rich and poor for 40 years, not only in income but life expectancy. More hope of retaining her seat presumably in New Labour. She won’t be the first class traitor and unlikely to be the last.
Comment by Doug — 21 December, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Sorry for being oh-so-ultra left. Is that at attempt at bullying? (That was a vague attempt at being amusing - I could insult you and your politics using ‘political swear words’, but I choose not to. I attempt to use argument, but this is how you react…..As you are on a very high horse on this subject, I suggest you attempt to be less insulting in the future?
If a Labour council - or, let’s play fantasy politics, a “Socialist council”, in Swindon was shutting libraries, swimming pools, cutting social services, privatising, forcing council employees on to the dole (and workfare - often doing their old job), selling off the family silver (e.g. water, electricity, savings banks) to big business and then keeping the terms secret (e.g. a guaranteed dividend for years to come, paid for by council taxpayers), attacking the unions, attacking workers’ rights in a range of industries…would you back that council? A massive increase of families living in poverty, while the party’s leading local politicians claim that “rents are too low”. And the other councils doing the same thing across the country?
Would you support those - within and without that party - who say this is not the kind of thing a self-proclaimed “left” or “socialist” organisation should be doing? Or would you just insult them as being “ultra left”?
It’s a serious question, Andy.
And would you draw a connection between these policies in practice and the halving of that party’s vote (in actual numbers) over one legislative period? And the rise of the far-right, on the streets and at the ballot box, taking the votes of some who previously voted “socialist”? And the massive increase in non-voters?
I would imagine that you would….if it was going on in Swindon. But abroad is a different matter, I suppose….
Comment by Karl-Marx-Straße — 21 December, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
From the Solidarity web site on Ruth Black’s defection
Solidarity, as a party, is filled with talented individuals and
respected campaigners. It is therefore no surprise that the big
parties would want to tempt our members with chances to advance their
career.
We now have a duty to those voters in Craigton ward who rejected
privatisation, racism, dawn raids and illegal wars. We will continue
to honour our promise to those voters and the 30,000 people across
Scotland who voted for Solidarity to fight along side them on those
issues.
ends
Very weak statement from Solidarity
“Solidarity, as a party, is filled with talented individuals and
respected campaigners.”
This is unwarranted boasting, when given the circumstances, humility
would be more in order. I don’t think many members of the public will
be impressed with this claim of Solidarity being filled with “talented
individuals” If they are so talented why did they put forward Black as
their candidate for public office. Obviously their “talent” does not
extend to sussing out charlatans. Maybe their talent lies in other,
less political, areas. Entertainment? The Edinburgh Festival maybe? Cue- the Impossible Dream. X factor beckons
sandy
” It is therefore no surprise that the big parties would want to
tempt our members with chances to advance their career”.
So Solidarity members have political “careers” to advance? Possibly an
unintentional admission here? And any chance of a class analysis
instead of this dross about big and small parties? Anything to say on
the corrupting nature of the labour bureaucracy or the need for firm
socialist principles. This statement reads more like a complaint by a small time
show business agent that their bigger rivals are poaching their acts.
Ever seen the film Broadway Danny Rose?
sandy
“We now have a duty to those voters in Craigton ward who rejected
privatisation, racism, dawn raids and illegal wars. We will continue
to honour our promise to those voters and the 30,000 people across
Scotland who voted for Solidarity to fight along side them on those
issues.”
How weak is that! How about at least calling on Black to resign her
seat and fight for it under her new colours
Sandy
Comment by sandy — 22 December, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
I deleted a comment from “watcher” that was refrring directly to the libel trial
Comment by Andy — 22 December, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Sandy wrote: “How weak is that! How about at least calling on Black to resign her
seat and fight for it under her new colours.”
Why bother? What is the likelihood she would take up the challenge? Zero. It is implicit in Solidarity’s statement that we think Black has lost her mandate. If she thinks people voted for her in ignorance of Solidarity’s election platform, then she is sadly deluded. She got elected on the back of Solidarity’s support, not inspite of it. She knows that. She knows that if she was to resign and stand again, she would lose. Her vote would return to the official Solidarity candidate. New Labour voters would stay at home, as they do whenever there are unnecessary by-elections. Rabid supporters of trident, anti-trade union laws, privatisation, slashing of pensions, imperialist wars, opposition to a referendum on independence would vote with their feet: in other words stay at home in protest at being asked to vote for such an opportunist. Additionally, she is likely to find that many New Labour activists would refuse to campaign for her, when they think they should be selected as the offical New Labour candidate. Black needs a few years to worm her way into the affections of New Labour activists, and she needs time for the voters to forget her bizarre conversion to the politics she stood against six months ago. In other words, calling for her to resign is utterly pointless.
Comment by Lee — 22 December, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Dear Folks, this is my first foray into this site in many years and it has happened just as I am in London visiting family that I discover Ruth Black has defected and the Scottish SWPs internal documents can be purchased for a zero fee!
I suppose I could illuminate some of the darkness spread by some of the speculative comments above given that I was the Glasgow Convener for Solidarity from December 2006 till June 2007 so was central to the party’s election campaign and branch organisation/coordination.
Firstly I echo the comments made that Ruth should do the honourable thing and resign but Lee is quite right that she will obviously not. I assume the reason for the limited political response from Solidarity so far is surely that it being Xmas, no one is around to gather the National Steering Group to make a detailed collective party statement; and Tommy’s and Aamer’s defence campaigns have been in full swing.
Ruth was one of the key movers in defence of Tommy inside the SSP, and her election was a great surprise to her more than anyone. But she struggled with the quadruple burden of being councillor, mother, Glasgow LGBT Centre Coordinator (they refused to allow her to go part-time as agreed before the election) and has caved into careerist pressure.
With Glasgow and South Lanarkshire being Scotland’s only two Labour controlled councils to survive the May 2007 election under PR/STV (most of the other 30 Scottish councils are SNP/Lib Dem coalitions); Purcell (who is an out gay man risen to the top on the back of a mostly very backward crowd of New Labour councillors) has moved to secure his narrow Glasgow City Council majority from a coalition of 22 SNP and 5 Green councillors. Ruth was prominent on all the summer strike picket lines in Glasgow but has been awol during most of the 7 week long daycare workers strike - when she was negotiating with Purcell.
It may be that Solidarity can make a complaint to the Election Commission to call a by-election since I believe she is the first councillor to defect under the new PR/STV electoral system.
But clearly this is more than a setback but a hammer blow to Solidarity. It also is a setback for the Left in Britain but we have only ourselves to blame. It is also a hammer blow for the concept of the broad, socialist multi-platform party of the electoral variety. This model is finished in the short term in Britain.
The far left keeps kidding itself and others that they are reaching out and being broadminded when in fact they act as narrow-minded and control-freakish as ever. The left as it is currently organised is incapable of keeping the unity they all call for or of acting in a revolutionary humanist way of tolerating difference of perspective and viewpoint.
Those who agree with our basic socialist principles are numerous in Scottish society but we know 70% of far left voters switched to the SNP in May 2007 to get rid of New Labour. To win back their confidence, we have to have leaders who can trusted and are accountable, independently minded rank and file activists and satisfy the democracy test.
What i read of what the SWP internal conference document posted here matches what I know to be the case from working with Glasgow SWP members. The written words match what has been said to me in terms of Solidarity not making the breakthrough, not having serious oritnation to the movements, and not being essentially different from the old party despite all the talk of ‘new-ness’.
The SWP find the CWI’s presence and over-sized influence inside the party intolerable, as I do, which is mainly why I resigned from Solidarity at the Conference on November 11th. The CWI’s pro-racist, pro-imperialist and Islamophobic positions on immigration border controls, Mohammed Atif Siddique, Israel/Palestine, caused great offence to me and many other comrades. I’m told that despite us all being called ‘apologists for terrorism’ in Iraq by CWI members at Solidarity Conference, sweetness and light still prevails within the party’s NSG. Solidairty at least had the virtue of a much better atmosphere than the previous organisation, at least until real policy-making differences were raised.
The CWI’s behaviour prompted several resignations including my own, while the SWP’s behaviour prompted council candidate anbd Bengali activist Akhtar Khan and Esther Sassaman (from both SWP and Solidarity)to resign.
But apart from the obvious negative impact of the 2006 split in the far left - the main political reasons for the project’s failure is the essential incompatibility of the SWP view of Solidarity as a broad coalition (much nearer the truth and to what’s necessary at this stage) with the CWIs’ very traditional workerist conception of a ’socialist party’
In reality we had a hybrid moving between the two, Solidarity being composed from 3 essential locations within the class struggle 1. trade unionists, 2. anti-war protesters; 3. community/anti-racist activists. Each sector representing legitimate sectoral or communal interests of part of the working class, and reflecting the recent political traditions and methods stemming from these legitimate experiences within those sections of the class that have been in struggle.
As a Black radical activist I insist that any new socialist project must not be yet another white; university-educated, middle-class, middle-aged-blokes club and must have a consistent understanding of race, gender, sexuality and identification of oppression as central to it’s conception. The response of the backwards elements in the CWI or those influenced by them, towards serious anti-anti-racist politics at Conference convinced me that Solidarity is incapable of developing along those lines or of making it a priority. If it’s not consistently anti-racist; it can’t be consistently socialist or revolutionary.
The SWP rightly view the lack of Solidarity’s development as symptomatic of a repeat of the SSP’s failures to reach out beyond its ‘bread and butter’-question comfort zones; or to orient correctly towards the anti-war and anti-racism movements. But they have been an essential part of ensuring this outcome once the unifying factor of an immediate election campaign was gone. It was impossible to motivate the CWI and SWP to act as Solidarity members first.
These two supposedly Marxist currents have refused to develop new ideas and ways of working to break down far left sectarianism - beyond the electoral questions - in order to attract the non-aligned socialist forces outside. The splits obviously further discredit the idea of socialism and left unity, and put the socialist revolution further into a future that looks uncertain and which ought to be a favourable environment for growth of anticapitalist sentiments in the working class.
The SWP is quietly on its way out of Solidarity despite having carried majority support for the resolutions it put forward at Conference and indeed worked hard to build the election campaign. The non-aligned sections of Solidarity are now too depleted to bear the dog-fights between SWP and CWI over trade union and student orientation. The CWI trade unionists in charge of Glasgow UNISON played an appalling role first opposing, then isolating the daycare workers strike. While they were right to challenge the CWI’s trade union record, the SWP were consistent in their reluctance to build Solidarity branches wherever it would cut across building the SWP’s branches.
Had they built Solidarity branches in areas where we weren’t able to mount much activity (in about 40% of Glasgow untouched by leafletting) we would certainly have got more councillors elected (we came very close with 800 votes and 4th place in East Centre ward. Ruth Black would not then have been 100% of our representation). Maybe even got those extra 2000 votes to get Tommy back in. Who knows?
The SWP tried from the start to limit Solidarity to being merely an electoral ‘united front of a special type’ given their opposition to an ‘SSP Mark 2′ and their move to more public political work by selling their paper. Anyone in Respect or the pre-Split SSP will be familiar with this pattern of SWP waining and fluxing interest.
Solidarity rightly had no ban on public platform material - a welcome change from the ingrained institutionalised sectarianism within the SSP. What was disturbing was not public CWI and SWP appearances but that they made little or no mention of Solidarity in their work.
More than once I mobilised locals and indeed Tommy along to postworkers picketlines to find SWP members (Glasgow Uni students and their SWP minder) there with no Solidarity identity or materials. I gave them some!
Tommy was as usual very warmly received by the workers and he arranged for a striker to come on his radio show. The posties were very generous in their welcome to the students (who had made iced fairy cakes which they liked!) but they obviously did not take this new ‘vanguard of the revolutionary party’ too seriously.
We were right to try to rescue something from the ashes of the SSP by forming Solidarity - and to the extent that Ruth Black helped us keep a flag flying for socialism we opened the door to that possibility of rescue. Had Tommy won election that possibility would have been greater but objective forces and pressures squeezing the Green vote as well as the far left’s support meant we could not float in a declining waters.
I could go on with these anecdotes but I won’t. My brief conclusion is that the solution to the crisis of the left cannot come from amongst Solidarity and SSP forces but from a credible and significant break to the left from outside of it - either from New Labour, the trade unions or even the SNP.
Ironically, some of the areas we agree on - building the Scottish wing of the National Shop Stewards Network, and the Scottish Network of Stop the War Coalitions - may bring us all into much closer cooperation than before.
Comment by Graham Cee Campbell — 23 December, 2007 @ 7:08 am
Here’s what the locals think about Ruth’s defection:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1920648.0.solidaritys_only_representative_defects_to_labour.php
Comment by Raphie — 23 December, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
The locals, of course, voted Ruth as a Solidarity candidate and rejected the SSP across Glasgow. The SSP’s Glasgow councillor, Keith Baldassara was outvoted in the council elections by Tommy Sheridan’s mum meanwhile Glasgow MSP Rosie Kane was beaten in the ward she stood with a local Solidarity candidate again polling far higher.
For the SSP to suggest that having a councillor elected who then defects is somehow worse than not getting a councillor elected is ridiculous.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 23 December, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Does that explain why the biggest swing away from Sheridan if you count Sheridan as the old SSP which you all claim was in Glasgow?
Or the diverse range of people who have a similar negative view on Ruth, Solidarity, Sheridan and people like you and John Wight who have become deluded apoligists. Read what the independent activist from the LGBT says. Check out the link I provided above.
Comment by Raphie — 23 December, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
#40
Graham,
I agree with much of your analysis. My own view, after much contemplation and my own experiences over the past year, is that the concept of left unity involving the participation of self declared vanguard formations is fundamentally flawed. The contradictions are insurmountable as the evidence of the SSP, Respect and, as looks increasingly likely in Solidarity, illustrates. I’m now erring towards the new Respect formation under Galloway, exluding vanguardist formations such as the SWP and CWI. Both are completely out of touch with working class consciousness. They are no better than cults, their analysis redolent of Trotsky’s admonition re mistaking the second month of pregnancy for the ninth. They organise according to a Leninist model specifically developed in response to material conditions which obtained in pre First World War One Tsarist Russia. Both repel more than they attract.
The SWP’s document was a tissue of lies and distortions. They claim credit for the entire Defend Aamer Anwar Campaign. It was a non-SWP member who came up with the idea of inviting Aamer to speak at the Solidarity conference. It was also a non-SWP member who organised the Defend Aamer Anwar meeting in Edinburgh recently.
The way ahead for the Left in Scotland and the UK is a genuinely democratic, transparent and broad formation involving vital and prominent figures such as George Galloway, Tommy Sheridan and Bob Crow. Independence cannot be allowed to become a litmus test for socialists in Scotland. In a UK-wide formation it could be dealt with by a commitement to a referendum.
Comment by John W — 23 December, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
John I agree with much of what you say in 44. Their model of Lenninism is nothing like the pre-civil war practice of Lenin’s party where party members could argue against the party’s line in the press. Where Lenin had to win the party over to his “permanent revolution”. Where Trotsky did not join till months before the October revolution. Where members who had argued against the October revolution were not castigated later for their wrong call. The SWP, CWI and other organisations’ version of “the party” is based on control and elevation of some theory as the divide between right and wrong. Their continued isolation from the class has led them down the road of the cult and an analysis which is detached from reality. This has not been helped by the defeats of the industrial working class at the start of the 1980s and a prolonged economic boom driven by new technology and the restoration of capitalism in a third of the world. I think a new party will come from the left of the trade union movement. I like you would advocate banning sects such as the SWP, CWI, CPGB, AWL and Workers Power. The ISG have shown how a group of revolutionary marxists should behave in building a broad based left party. John you are partially redeemed!
Comment by Raphie — 23 December, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
‘Or the diverse range of people who have a similar negative view on Ruth, Solidarity, Sheridan and people like you and John Wight who have become deluded apoligists. Read what the independent activist from the LGBT says. Check out the link I provided above.’
Raphie this is complete and utter garbage, betraying a lack of class consciousness. I asked you previously re the support for Tommy from the likes of Bob Crow, George Galloway, Paddy Hill and Gerry Conlon. You refused to answer me, so I’ll ask the question again.
Is Bob Crow, leader of 75,000 workers in the RMT, deluded? Is George Galloway, de facto leader of the international antiwar movement, deluded? Are Paddy Hill and Gerry Conlon, previous victims of the British State, deluded?
Please answer, otherwise be revealed as a cretin. The fact is you have no answer. The credibility of the aforementioned is inarguable. The credibility of those, on the other hand, such as yourself, who continue to confuse moralism with socialism, is in tatters and has been throughout.
Sheridan’s record as a fighter for his class, despite repeated attempts by you and others to airbrush him out of history, speaks for itself. He retains the affection and support of a broad swathe of the Scottish working class. And with good reason.
He will be vindicated in due course, of that I am convinced. I tell you one thing, he does not and will not stand alone in 2008.
J
Comment by John W — 23 December, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Also, John what I find surprising is how you can reconcile with your current analysis of the SWP - which I largely agree with - and your support for TS. Given the role that the SWP have played in whole saga.
Comment by Raphie — 23 December, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
Raphie,
On the split and TS I am in full agreement with the SWP. However, that does not mean that we are joined at the hip on every issue.
The role they played in the split and in solidarity with TS has been exemplary.
For that they have my deepest respect.
J
Comment by John W — 23 December, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
John that is an infantile reaction. You dismiss an argumnet as infantile and rest your case. That is not engaging in an argument. I could and have contructed a logical aguement on the whole saga which shows what really went on. And that to some degree or other is what most people do informally. And most when they take all the facts as the wole saga unfolds end up not supporting Sheridan. I would be quite happy sitting down with any of your big name class fighters and go over the whole thing and show them why I dont support Sheridan. There are people who you used to respect - Alan Armstrong - who hold similar views to me. I unlike many of TS supporters never been on the wrong side of the class divide. I don’t think I am now. But yes I could be wrong. If the premise on which Solidarity were true I would be right there with you. I feel sorry for you because like me you really want to help build a better world. But you are ending up looking like an idiot and will never be taken seriously. And it is such a shame because there are not many of your potential about.
Comment by Raphie — 23 December, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
#50 John I really liked you and respected you. But your assesment of the SWP’s role mean we are polls apart. And your assesment of the SWP as cult is a complete contradiction to how you see their role in TS.
I rest my case!
Comment by Raphie — 23 December, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
“Please answer, otherwise be revealed as a cretin”
John I will answer this later. I have worked out an answer. But yours is a ridiculous comment. It’s no way to engage in a debate and a sympton of what is wrong with the left and why so many workers are repelled. It stinks of 6th form elitist behaviour.
Comment by Raphie — 23 December, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
#44 “I’m now erring towards the new Respect formation under Galloway, exluding vanguardist formations such as the SWP and CWI.”
How about the CP-B then?
Given George Galloway used a column in the ‘Morning Star’ to announce his intention to lead the GLA list, such an exclusionist policy by his supporters reads a little like GPU-lite.
Comment by Alex Nichols — 23 December, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
John says(on SWP and CWI):
“Both are completely out of touch with working class consciousness”
“They are no better than cults”
“Both repel more than they attract”
“The SWP’s document was a tissue of lies and distortions”
and on their(SWP) role in the split:
“The role they played in the split and in solidarity with TS has been exemplary.
For that they have my deepest respect.”
Anyone else see the inconsistency in these appraisals?
Comment by Raphie — 23 December, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
No, just grown up politics. Its the nature of life that people can work together on some things and disagree about others. Attempts to embody absolute truth or monolithic unity in left organisations have only led to them becoming cultish and irrelevant.
Comment by Ian Drummond — 24 December, 2007 @ 1:12 am
Raphie, Its not the case of 2 versions of facts. I wish you well with yours.
However, the progressive movement represent more people that have historically supported their spokeperson no matter what their vision of anti-capitalism is.
Fanatical idealogists like the SWP make the mistake of imposing their damaging authoritirianism on a person or persons that the progressive movement have deemed their champions
The targeted voters of these parties are not stupid and will wait and decide once more if there is a verdict either way. The left will again lose credibility no matter what the result is.
By the way I am no one@s camp other than RR who see its about the progressive movement and not brand politics, in particular not the SWP,s
Comment by Teddy Boy — 24 December, 2007 @ 7:48 am
I’d be interested to hear how the SP/CWI can be described as “cultish”. That certainly isn’t my experience. Speaking as someone who’s been an independent for the majority of my time on the left, since I joined the SP two years ago I have not seen any evidence of a personality cult nor any expectation to behave in a moonie-esque fashion. They didn’t give me an implant when I signed up.
As for being “isolated” from the class, what does this mean? Again, in my experience the SP is an organisation composed mainly of working class people who are trade union activists, community campaigners, and pissed off workers. My branch does three or four stalls a week in the city centre for the express purpose of talking to normal people, and is heavily involved in two key local struggles. Hardly the hallmark of a 1917 re-enactment society, or a cult wanting to insulate its members from outside pressures!
Comment by a very public sociologist — 24 December, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Raphie, I have deleted some more comments from you.
I am going to have to close all comments on all articles about Scotland unless you stop.
Just stay away from the whole area of the libel trial, and the wisdom or otherwise of that course of action.
Comment by Andy — 24 December, 2007 @ 10:29 am
A VPS
It is true that the Militant tradition have always been very good at the things you describe, realting to working class people, and seeking to engage with their actual level of political consciousness.
Would it be true though that the SP still tends to have a self referential theoretical framework?
Comment by Andy — 24 December, 2007 @ 10:32 am
“Self referential theoretical framework?”
Comment by W ASP — 24 December, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
you all know fine well that the funny demise of left wing extremist parties is a cia and mi5 plot.colin sex is a sectert agent and is doing a fine job of killing the ssp.
Comment by mr clever — 24 December, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Andy wrote “With Sheridan arrested (and more arrests may follow of course) and Ruth Black joining Labour, then Solidarity is surely dead in the water?”
What has Tommy’s being arrested (and charged) got to do with the alleged collapse of Solidarity? Unless, of course, you are asking us to believe that Tommy is going to be found guilty. No innocent until proven guilty in this case, eh comrade? You cut out the posts of those defending Tommy, including members of Respect Renewal, but continue to pursue your poisonous pro-Murdoch, pro-state agenda. What a pathetic excuse for a socialist you are. It is noteworthy that you predict further arrests of Solidarity members, and remove their right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. When Tommy takes Murdoch to the cleaners, and the perjury case backfires on the state, I hope Tommy sues you. And the rest of the rats that have been infesting the socialist movement north and south of the border these last few years.
Comment by W ASP — 24 December, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Hi Andy sorry again. They keep trying to bait me. I’ll completely stop on the whole perjury/TS/Solidarity thing.
I’ll wait till it’s all over. Have a good break and keep the good work. Raphie
Comment by Raphie — 24 December, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
who or what is colin sex? and how is he killing the ssp? is mr clever one of the mr men?
Comment by W ASP — 24 December, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
RE. 61.
Tommy, is that you?
Comment by watcher — 24 December, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
#61
“You cut out the posts of those defending Tommy”
Actually no. I have applied no censorship of people defending Tommy Sheridan, except when they have been responding to other comments that I have deleted becausue they were criticising Tommy in a way prejudicial to any possible trial.
My position is absolutely clear, I support the SSP, I support the broad thrust of how the SSP leadership dealt with the libel case, although in hindsight it is clear that some mistakes were made, as they themselves would admit.
In the current situation I make it clear I do not want to see Tommy Sheridan gaoled, nor any other socialist.
There will be no criticism of Tommy Sheridan published here while the threat of gaol hangs over him.
Comment by Andy — 24 December, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
#WASP
Andy’s been cutting my posts and I am against Sheridan. But I understand why as I have been passing comment on the possible forthcoming perjury trial. I think we should all leave it alone and get on with some campaigning. Commenting on Solidarity is hard because that to relates to the past and possible future trials. But if you read post #40 and #44, the latter being from their press officer, the party(Scotland’s Socialist Movement) is over as we know it. Andy as ever a clairvoyant with his headline to the blog!
Comment by Raphie — 24 December, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Interesting to see that among the signatories to the defend tommy sheridan site are two people who informed sources expect to face charges.
Comment by watcher — 24 December, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
#67
Funny, I checked but couldn’t see the names of either Fiona McGuire or the one SSP witness that informed sources have told us could be facing charges. I assume that’s whom you are referring to Watcher - or whatever the fuck your name is.
The worst sort of specimen are those who write shite on blogs hiding behind silly pseudonyms.
Comment by John W — 24 December, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
But if you read post #40 and #44, the latter being from their press officer, the party(Scotland’s Socialist Movement) is over as we know it. Andy as ever a clairvoyant with his headline to the blog!
Reply:
And if you read every post by you, Raphie, it’s obvious that your head is stuck up your arse pal. Solidarity is far from finished. We are a party forged in struggle and despite any political differences we may have we are absolutely united over what the meaning of the word solidarity is. The SSP are now a rump, increasingly isolated as their actions meet with the revulsion of more and more socialists and trade unionists at home and abroad. I know the quality of those who remain in the SSP and I say a thank you every day that I am in Solidarity and not part of what is not better than a Socialist Taliban.
Please, now, provide a sensible answer to a question I keep asking but thus far cannot get a straight answer to:
Is Bob Crow, leader of 75, 000 workers in the RMT, deluded? Is George Galloway, de facto leader of the international antiwar movement, deluded? Are the likes of Paddy Hill and Gerry Conlon, previous victims of gross miscarriages of justice, deluded?
Oh, that’s right, if only you could sit down with them for an hour you’re sure they would see things you’re way after you’ve explained the ins and outs of the case to them.
hahahahahahahahah!
J.
J
Comment by John W — 24 December, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
”there will be no critcism of tommy sheridan here” bwahahahahahahah. those good old liberal and open minded socialists, they like their freedom of speech and all that but only when it suits them.
‘whats left?”
Comment by mr clever blue — 24 December, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
John you really are a joke and clearly losing it. I will make no more comments about any of TS possible trials until they are done and dusted but when the Solidarity press officer says this about the SWP and the CWI:
“Both are completely out of touch with working class consciousness”
“They are no better than cults”
“Both repel more than they attract”
“The SWP’s document was a tissue of lies and distortions”
And wishes to ban the SWP/CWI from any future left formation then you have to say Solidarity is finished. By the sounds of it Solidarity will be you and Tommy. Actually you are well suited to each other with your childish irrational behaviour. You are now officially in the land of Healy’s WRP and the Sparts.
Comment by Raphie — 24 December, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
re 68.
John, you don’t have informed sources. Solidarity’s official line a couple of weeks back was that the investigation had fizzled out.
Solidarity had no idea that Tommy was going to be lifted. And you have no idea who’s next.
Comment by watcher — 24 December, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
#68, John Robot
Erm, that informed source would be Jim Monaghan then? Leaking made up stuff to the press to make it look like Solidarity are going less down the pan that it’s clear to all they are? Dusny sound very informed to me.
Comment by Haha — 24 December, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
I am closing comments because Raphie and Watcher again broke the house rules.
I have again had to delete comments that refer to events connected with the Sheridan case.
Comment by Andy — 24 December, 2007 @ 9:21 pm