GLASGOW EAST - MORE SIGNIFICANT IN SCOTLAND THAN IN LONDON?
Last night I took part in the somewhat retro ritual of staying up to watch the by-election result on the TV.
The BBC coverage was a little lack-lustre, though the SNP was represented by the always impressive Nicola Sturgeon. The Labour Party had the oleaginous Douglas Alexander on the platform, who personifies all the reasons why Labour are in trouble.
It was funny to see the panellists getting text messages and e-mails on their blackberries, while the BBC link man floundred with no sources of information. At one point the BBC were reduced to reading out a Press Association release from the newswire, as for some reason they were not getting feed from their own journo at the count.
There are three aspects to this election. In terms of Westminster politics, the impact should be relatively limited. Labour still has a thumping majority, and governments midway through a second term simply do lose by-elections. Even though Labour lost Brent East in 2003 they went on to win the 2005 general-election.
Nevertheless, the dismal showing of Labour, after an extremely energetic campaign will certainly strengthen the hands of the union leaders at this weekend’s National Policy Forum in Warwick. But I suspect that many have already decided that the next general election is lost, and are looking for the changes in the party to be made over the longer term.
The impact in Scottish politics is much greater. As Nicola Sturgeon said on TV last night, this is the first by-election in history where two governments have been running against each other. And in a safe Labour seat, the voters preferred the record of the Scottish National Party.
But Labour were also somewhat discredited by the fiasco of their candidate selection, and then chosing Margaret Curran, a member of the Scottish parliament the boundary of whose Holyrood seat is completely contained within the Glasgow East Westminster constituency. Given the geographical distance between London and Edinburgh, she simply couldn’t have done both jobs effectively.
The third issue is the constitutional one. There is little direct evidence that can be gained from this election over attitudes to independence, but clearly Edinburgh and Westminster are on diverging paths, and in one of the most deprived working class constituencies in the country, voters prefer the SNP government in Edinburgh to the Labour government in Westminster.
By the way - congratualtions to Frances Curran and the SSP, who performed very creditably given the fact that Solidarity were also on the ballot paper, and given the squeeze on minor parties. This result is further evidence that the SSP has the worst of its troubles behind it and can hopefully look forward to a bright future.
As an aside, I didn’t have access to the internet last night, and would have preferred to watch the coverage of the election there rather than on TV. I was interested to see that Socialist Unity blog has been included in the feed for the new Politics Home site, the editor in chief of which is Andrew Rawnsley.
Politics Home looks like it is going to be an indispensable resource for those of us who prefer to get our news from the web rather than the TV or newsprint, as it will aggregate all news sources.
It also suggests that there may be a self-reinforcing dynamic that will promote those few blogs who are on the edge of interacting with the mainstream media (MSM), and a widening gap away from the majority of political blogs who don’t achieve that.
Socialist Unity has also just been included in another MSM aggregator, Politigg
You’ve been on Politics Home for ages, Andy - as well it should be.
This is easily the best far left blog in the UK: interesting articles, lively largely uncensored debate, not aligned wholly with one sect, a good range of commentators…
Comment by David T — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:10 am
while the snp have a famous victory
the Tories will claim credit for this in England
and thats how the press will spin it…not as some like to say a vote for the Left but a vote for the Tories
ok so its an English problem, but a Tory England is no good for Scotland either, esp as it is doubtful that the people will vote for full independance
Comment by Steve — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:10 am
I think that this has more implications at Westminster than Alexander or Brown would like to admit. As the third safest Labour seat in Scotland and 25th safest in the UK it is a message for New Labour that their core support can no longer be counted on in their former heartlands. People in one of the most deprived areas in Britain have given up on a Government that raises their taxes (abolition of 5p rate; attacks “inflationary” wage demands by trade unions; allows power companies to walk away with record profits and company directors to grow ever fatter on massive bonuses whilst the low paid whistle.
The combined socialist vote (SSP + Solidarity) was higher proportionately than the SSP vote in 2005 despite the fact that smaller party votes are normally squeezed tight in a two horse race. In 2007 Solidarity had five times the SSP’s vote in the same area (East End of Glasgow) and I assume Jim Monaghan will explain why this decline is a triumph in several future posts.
The important thing is that working class folk were prepared to vote socialist even though they knew it was “wasted” (in the sense that neither party had a hope in hell of winning). That means that the prospects for the next Scottish Parliamentary election are looking brighter for the SSP. This is one to build on.
Comment by Bill Scott — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Scotland not vote for independence?
Just wait until Cameron is resident at Number Ten with a landslide English victory and see the dynamic unravel towards the 2011 Scottish Parliament Elections.
As for last night. Labour’s vote is now crumbling away and in 2010 is going to be under theat from a variety of directions. None of this is likely to either help Labour nor prevent a Tory victory but we may well see a record number of SNP and Plaid MP’s returned, a couple of Green MPs, two or three Respect MPs, some independents, and the BNP.
With Labour’s vote crumbling Respect’s prospects in Bethnal Green, Poplar and Hall Green are improved IF we can establish ourselves as the credible and principled alternative. Our entire focus should be towards this, yet in London there seems to be little momentum, we need a real sense of urgency and priorties.
2-3 Respect MPs won’t change the world nor stop the political juggernaut of the Tories returning to power. But it would at the very least point to an alternative as Labour seeks to recover from defeat. This is THE opportunity for Respect, we need to grasp it.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:23 am
nothing is likely to guarantee a yes vote in a referendum on scottish independence more than there being a very right wing govt in london when it takes place! That is why salmond is scheduling it to take place on st andrews day 2010 - a little while after the tories general election victory!
English lefties need to face up to the fact that the british state is set to break up - the old tartan tories’ jibe against the snp doesnt wash with anyone anymore. Lets hope GG is now reflecting on his despicable piece in the daily record ‘telling’ voters in glasgow east why they should vote for the rabid war monger margaret curran in the by-election!
Comment by leigh — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:27 am
ssp/solidarity could have come a good fourth with a combined vote, which would have been pretty solid. if only the leadership could just say sorry to each other, which the left doesn’t seem to be particulary good at doing in the UK (renewal and left list anyone?) you can say the SSP are on fighting form but solidarity are just as good, and together they’d be much better.
Comment by definitely not gordon brown guise — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Not convinced that the break of the UK is by any means inevitable.
The SNP is doing what RESPECT did, with very limited success: i.e. court the Muslim Brotherhood, in the hope that they’ll deliver a communal vote.
However, the SNP is known for other things: i.e. hating the English, generally. Allying with the Muslim Brotherhood locally is only a very small part of that, and it is consistent with the ‘hate the English’ agenda.
RESPECT is really only known as the party for Islamists. And hating the English won’t play as well in Englanda as it does in Scotland.
(Yes, I know RESPECT has other policies as well, but nobody knows/cares about those….)
Comment by David T — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Leigh #5:
“Lets hope GG is now reflecting on his despicable piece in the daily record ‘telling’ voters in glasgow east why they should vote for the rabid war monger margaret curran in the by-election!”
I would have thought you would be congratulating GG on supportiing the pro-choice Curran over the anti-abortion evangelist Christian, John mason.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:37 am
The very similar scores of the SSp and Solidarity surely should lead to more reflection than the rather bizarre comment in the main post. It is clear that neither organization has collapsed, but neither is on a purely “onward and upward” trail either. Is there really a political difference? How are the publications of the two parties doing?
Comment by John Mullen — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:37 am
As for David T: DONT FEED THE TROLL DONT FEED THE TROLL DONT FEED THE TROLL DONT FEED THE TROLL DONT FEED THE TROLL DONT FEED THE TROLL DONT FEED THE TROLL DONT FEED THE TROLL.
Comment by definitely not gordon brown guise — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Leigh, the break-up of the British state wouldn’t bother me, though my general view is that it would be a case of “meet the new boss - same as the old boss!” and I don’t really see an independent Scotland or Wales delivering workers even the reforms what the British working class won for all British workers in 1945 given the kind of politics the nationalists espouse. I also believe that nationalism mystifies over class division and blunts the edge of class struggle.
But what evidence do you have for your contention? It is clear that the rise of the nationalist parties is due to them adopting some of the policies that Labour has abandoned. People are voting for these vaguely old labour policies rather than the nationalist polcies that they also espouse. Of course, given that since Labour has abandoned its traditional supporters, SNP and Plaid can now get a hearing from many workers who previously were repelled by them, and this means that nationalism can expand from a previously very narrow base. But all the evidence suggests that the majority of Scots and Welsh oppose independence.
Comment by Adamski — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:49 am
JOhn.
My statement was that the SSP has the worst of its troubles behind it. They lost all their MSPs, they have just one councillor, and they had a damaging split with Seridan - all in the past.
Solidarity now have no elected representatives, after their councillor in Glasgow joined labour, and they have a court case for perjury hanging over the heads of their leading members. they also have the disadvantage that many of their members owe their primary alleigance to the SWP or CWI. So many of their troubles are in the future.
The elections result also shows that voters don’t really have much preference for either party - this despite the fact that Solidarity used Tommy Sheridan’s name on the ballot paper. This is a change ferom the situation last year when Solidarity did much better than the SSP. Iit suggests that the celebrity factor of Sheridan is declining.
Of course I am not there, and the SSP certainly still has some major challenges to overcome, but Solidarity are in a weaker position than they are, and really needed to get a convincingly better result than the SSP in this election if they were going to keep on track. they didn’t.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:52 am
I don’t know if the far right racist supremist zionist david t merits a reply,
but can he tell me how many Scottish Muslims voted in yesterday’s Glasgow East End by-election?
Could he also provide evidence that voters yesterday voted for the SNP becuase they hate the English?
I live just a few miles from the constuency myself so this will all be very interesting news to me indeed about my own community, if what david t claims is at all true.
Comment by joe90 — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:53 am
No. 10 definitely not gordon brown guise
Sorry, I didn’t see your warning in time!
Comment by joe90 — 25 July, 2008 @ 11:54 am
The SNP has brought the MB activist Osama Saeed into the fold. But it is a tiny issue.
The only point I was making is that RESPECT consists of:
- some trots, who don’t win elections, and who nobody listens to or cares about; and
- some Islamists who sometimes manage to pull together enough of the communal vote to get themselves elected.
My point is essentially that it really doesn’t matter what else RESPECT stands for, because the issues that exercise RESPECT supporters on this blog just aren’t any real part of the dynamic which brings RESPECT its electoral success.
Put it this way. If you went door to door, telling people that RESPECT is the real party of social justice, and will herald the way to true socialism, you wouldn’t increase your vote at all.
Your only real chances of getting candidates elected lie with the likes of Salma Yaqoob who can say “Hello, I’m Salma from the local mosque, vote for me and I’ll protect you from the huge worldwide Zionist onslaught on Muslims from Chechnya to Palestine to Kashmir”.
Comment by David T — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Looks like the Newsnight programme last night was being run from London, which explains why the show was so piss poor on the information front!
The local news team were out on the floor of the count and were getting information, but not once did we see any of them on camera. I noted Catriona Renton speaking to the Tory team about the result just after the candidates were told of the count. Did the programme switch over to her? Did it f*%k! She had the information ready to go, but she was part of the Reporting Scotland team, not the Newsnight one.
As for John Sopel being the main anchor for the show, with poor Glen Campbell having to play second fiddle. WTF was that all about? Surely this should have been a Scottish run show with the main anchor being Glen Campbell?
I loved how Nicola Sturgeon put wee Dougie over her knee time after time and gave him a good spanking. He tried to make out his wee sis was an innocent victim and it was the bad SNP that had done for her. As an onlooker, it appeared that the SNP backed off big time when they realised there was a danger of her having to resign. She was making such a pig’s ear of everything she touched and spoke about that she was a top electoral asset for the SNP, so why would they want to be rid of her?
It is just great to see the people of Glasgow East wakening up to the Nu Labour project and finding a better alternative.
Gordon is now on Sky News so I’m away to hear him spin this one away!!!
Comment by John A Thomson — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
You know I’m right!
Comment by David T — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Well, can I just say well done to SU and esp. Andy for being included in Politics Home and Politigg.
Regards to Labour losing…it is wipe-out time and I wonder how many NL apparatchiks will lose their seats at the next election. Actually, I don’t think they care.
I doubt that many of them will be boo-hooing to Brown as I am sure some will have a cushy number lined up at some trendy corporate org, private equity or lecturing about marketisation and screwing poor on the lecture circuit and being paid fabulous amounts of money.
Comment by Louise — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
#12 Solidarity had Tommy Sheridan’s name on the ballot paper, but SSPs candidate was someone who had actually been an MSP, I would think that gives the candidate some electoral credibility to voters, and personally, would have expected SSP to have done much better than Solidarity as a consequence. What’s unfortunate is the combined vote of the two left parties was more than the LibDems, if their forces had been combined they probably would have achieved a larger vote. To be honest, there seems less political difference between Solidarity and SSP, too my mind, than the two sides in the Respect split.
Comment by Adamski — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Anyone who thinks the difficulties between the SSP and Solidarity can be resolved by both parties just saying “sorry” to each other has no understanding of the realities of a perjury trial, and no understanding of what actually happened in 2004-2006.
And was obviously not there on the campaign trail when Solidarity members stood in front of SSP stalls telling members of the public that we were scabs, and that if they took that “scab leaflet” then they were scabs by proxy.
Comment by Lynsey — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Adamski
you claim the SNP has adopted policies from New Labour, such as?
Anti-trident perhaps?
Anti-NATO maybe?
Anti-British imperialist?
Which one of these is right-wing?
The SNP has always been centre left - but people continue to repeat New Labour propaganda that the SNP is right-wing and has only shifted from there purely for opportunist reasons which is completely untrue.
And yet, British Trade Unionists are going to have a meeting with the far-right New Labour Party soon!
Comment by joe90 — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
DON’T FEED THE TROLL DAVID T……… PLEASE JUST DON’T.
Comment by definitely not gordon brown guise — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
#18
Louise thanks. Don’t overlook the fantastic contribution you make to SU blog.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
#20
Lynsey.
I agree with you. But until the perjury trial is over i am not prepared to host any discussion of the issues behind the split, because it cannot be seperated from discussion of the vents that led up to the perjury charges.
I beleive this was also the instruction from the leadership of the SSP to members - not to discuss via e-mail or via blogs. That is why I have taken out of the public domain all of the artciles explaining the issues about the NOTW trial.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
I don’t think a referendum held a few month into the new Tory admin. would deliver a vote for independence, and I suspect the SNP are well aware of that. It will take a while for the desperation to build up. A year or two into a Cameron admin. (unless he really is a nice guy, however, would see an almost unanimous vote for independence. So I think the choice of date will suggest how serious the SNP are about independence. I hope they don’t opt to hold the referendum at a time when it would be rejected, to avoid holding one at a time when it would be passed. I personally don’t want to see the break up of the UK, and I seriously doubt that Scotland will be better, and fear it could be much, much worse, after independence, but I feel it may come to be considered the only honorable option by the Scottish electorate, and they should have a genuine chance to go for it.
Comment by Jock McTrousers — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
JOhn #16
Nesnight may have been from London, but the lectioon coverage I watched was on BBC Scotland, and was from Glasgow.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
I perform a useful function here
1. Ensuring that this isn’t simply an amen corner, or a fight between the two losing sides in the RESPECT collapse.
2. Pointing out how incredibly bad you’ve been in making alliances with a clerical fascist party.
3. Reminding you that Trotsky v Stalin really isn’t the live issue in British politics, and that each new development in the political landscape actually isn’t about “an exciting new opportunity for RESPECT” etc.
Comment by David T — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
The Labour pundits are using the term ‘disappointing’, which we all know is a euphamism for ‘disaster’. This is Labour’s worst by-election result in living memory (and my memory goes back a few years).
It is unlikley that the economy will turn around in time for Brown to regain support - given that the US economy is getting worse. Fake noises are being made about protecting the poor, while nothing is being done to deal with the inflation causing factors - the oil monopolies, for one.
Without getting into the SNP and Scottish angle, I don’t think this result is in any way about Scottish independence, rather about Labour incompetence - had the by-election been south of the border, we would ahve seen a Tory victory. As Brown won’t depart, and more importantly Labour will carry on with more of the same (with a few anti-immigrant sound bites for good measure, we should expect to see more calamities up till the general election.
Comment by Howard T — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
#21 I didn’t say that the SNP had adopted policies from New Labour. I said “It is clear that the rise of the nationalist parties is due to them adopting some of the policies that Labour has abandoned.”
The SNP is contradictory, however, I understand that SNP councils carry out massive cuts of local services, and the party cosies up to big business etc. That their big idea to revive the Scottish economy is to court multinationals by slashing corporation tax. The nationalists in Britain are too the right of Thatcher and Brown when it comes to taxing big business, it is pretty clear in my mind that nationalists in power in an independent Scottland would act little different to New Labour in Britain.
Comment by Adamski — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Newsnight is always too early for by-elections - polls have closed but nothing has happened; it’s better if they deal with the day’s other news, which included some international reports last night. I watched the by-election coverage for a while on BBC News 24 before midnight and after something else, and it was okay. I didn’t stay up for the declaration though.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
#20 I didn’t say that the differences between the SSP and Solidarity could be resolved easily. Subjective factors divide them considerably, from a long way from Scotland, objectively I don’t see the organisations as being much different. Maybe, activists from Scotland will tell me that while their formal programmes are very close, their practice and methodology is different and their are differences that I have missed.
Comment by Adamski — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
@Andy #27
I didn’t say it wasn’t in Glasgow nor on BBC2 Scotland. Let me expand on my thoughts and belief - it felt like a show organised by and with the pre-production decision being made in London.
Explain to me why Glen Campbell was playing 2nd fiddle to John Soppel if this wasn’t a network run gig? If this show was owned, organised and run in its entirety from Scotland then do you think they would have choosen a London based presenter as anchor? Thought not!!!
Comment by John A Thomson — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Andy can you please ban David T and his racist Zionist supremacist writings, which do nothing but whip up anti-Muslim prejudice, xenophobia, and racism? David Toube is a nasty little shit and he should bugger off to Harry’s Place, where he can revel in the discussions of how voting BNP “will give a shock to Labour” and should be tried, and how Muslims should be banned from the UK, etc.
Comment by SayNoToZionistRacism — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
It’s the strange mixture of obsequious crawling towards Andy (who, to his credit, seems to ignore it) and the multiple trollish comments that makes David T’s contributions here so particularly icky.
Comment by Ed — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Yeah, yeah, Andy is really going to want SU to become an echo chamber, where you constantly call other people racist who point out that you’ve been in alliance with the Islamist far right, and where you’re constantly surprised that revolutionary socialist principles, and your non-Islamist trot colleagues, can’t get themselves selected let alone elected.
I mean, seriously. Is RESPECT nothing more than a fan club for the occasional successes that the cliques in the Birmingham Central Mosque have had?
Is that what you want to become?
Comment by David T — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Ed #35
this sort of split personality in blog comments is reasonable common.
Look at Adamski - sometimes he contributes to sensible debate - albeait still a bit ultra-left; at other times he seems to be deliberately trolling.
david T does tend to obsess a bit about Respect - but other times he makes sensible comments.
Once you start banning people, rather than moderating individual comments based upon content, it is a slippery slope and hard to avoid banning everyone!
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Appears that #20 has lost the plot again. During the campaign Solidarity did not on the streets or in our elction leaflets make any mention of a certain organisation.
Solidarity supporters from Inverness to Stow, from Ayr, from Lanarkshire, from Edinburgh, Paisley, Dundee, Stirling, Newtongrange, Irvine, Kilmarnock, and a number of places in-between joined with Glasgow comrades in helping fight the campaign on behalf of Tricia McLeish and Solidarity.
We remain without doubt Scotland’s biggest socialist organisation, able to bring together comrades from different socialist traditions in order to fight a united campaign.
We are genuinely a Scotland wide party, with active members in all parts of the country.
In Tricia McLeish, we had a candidate rooted in her class and her community, who has been a credit to this party, to herself and to socialism.
Comment by Solidarity — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
#32 says -
I didn’t say that the SNP had adopted policies from New Labour. I said “It is clear that the rise of the nationalist parties is due to them adopting some of the policies that Labour has abandoned.”
- Adamski mate, they haven’t and you haven’t provided evidence they have, or even that they are right-wing.
Here on SU I said this, just the other day, about the SNP when asked to prove th SNP’s centre-left credentials I compiled this short list -
The Daeth of Labour - comment 16
comment made 22 July 2008
Why people on the British left continue to be unwitting mouthpieces for New Labour propaganda I can’t imagine.
In the whole of its existence the SNP they have never been right-wing - they have either tried to be independence-fundamentalists above British Parliamentary party strife and all that, or centre-left (with some concerted attempts by the ‘79 Group’, Jim Sillars et al to turn the SNP in a more socialist direction as far as I can make out).
all the best mate!
Comment by joe90 — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
#37 Yeah, but you troll your own blog and posts sometimes! That’s hillarious
Comment by Adamski — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
I know Adam, I should be banned.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Before giving my thoughts on the result I have to answer lynsey’s claims about ’scabs’. That didnt happen. The only report we had of that was a member of the public saying it, who then came over to the solidarity stall.
As for Bill’s comments about the SSP overturning a 5 to 1 vote in favour of Solidarity, I cant answer that because it simply isnt true. Solidarity had about 2 and a half times the vote of SSP in the council elections in that area, and nationally.
This is a by-election so we cant take too much from what this means overall as Solidarity also beat the Lib Dems in the council vote in the East of Glasgow. The SSP and Lib Dems were able to throw all of their membership, as all parties did, at this by-election, so national elections are a far better guide than by-elections, as the parties have to spread their activists across the country. But, that aside, I think this is a significant result with some questions and lessons for the left.
The SNP won this seat on a much higher than expected turn-out, I don’t expect them to hold on to the seat next year. This was a vote against New Labour and Brown rather than for the SNP, although their candidate is a councilor in the area and has the highest ‘first preference’ vote of any councillor in Scotland, so therefore has strong local support.
I dont agree with Frances Curran’s assessment that this means anything re independence, the polls dont show a rise in support for independence that matches or even comes close to this.
But, the left vote was split, not just between the SSP and Solidarity, the SNP are clearly picking up potential left voters as votes in opposition to Labour. That was the case in last year’s national election and still the case last night, although the by-election opportunity to kick Labour probably had a big influence on that. I met people at the polling station, and I am sure the SSP did too, who said that they would vote for us but couldn’t as they wanted Labour out.
The squeeze for the smaller parties was obvious, with the Lib Dems losing their deposit and the tories just holding on to theirs. When this seat is contested at the General election we will get a clearer picture of which parties were squeezed and to what extent.
For the SSP this is obviously a good result and it had to be. They put forward their newly elected leader, someone who had been an MSP and claimed in her own leaflet to the most “high profile’ challenger to Labour. They had lost to Solidarity (and the SLP) across Glasgow and across Scotland last year so they needed this to be a good result.
In the circumstances 555 votes was a good total. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But the SSP high from this result is mainly the consequence of it being vital for them to turn or stem the tide, something that they done in this by-election, no doubt, but it reamins to be seen overall.
For instance, during the campaign they enjoyed the support of the Scottish Sun and fell out with the FBU, so there are down sides to the campaign that will have long term effects, despite the good vote.
As for Solidarity, it cant be celebrated as a victory as we fell from 4th to 6th compared with the council votes last year, being overtaken by the Lib Dems and SSP. But we did poll 512 votes and the difference between us and the SSP is neglible. Overall, we have had a great campaign and are happy with the result, but would like to have finished above the SSP obviously.
When we arrived at the count there were feverish rumours spreading that we had beaten the Lib Dems into fourth but it soon became clear that wasnt the case. After a quick check I noticed that their bundles were clearly about twice as big as ours.
We have brought new members into the local branch, had a great turnout from members and won a lot of new support, I am sure. An SNP MSP that I know told me that over the campaign we appeared to have more activists out then Labour. That was a positive aspect.
I think that some of our voters (dont know how many) decided that giving Brown and Labour a kicking was the priority and I dont consider those votes lost by Solidarity in the long term.
Also, we have had a hell of a year with arrests and everything so for our vote to hold up like that in a by-election squeeze was pleasing.
The combined left vote would have come fourth, perhaps, but would still have lost the deposit so I dont see what merit there is in that really. If two parties or one are campaigning on a socialist programme in the constituency it amounts to much the same re the long term future for the left and socialist ideas.
The SSP/Solidarity was and is a side issue in the campaign and in the results. The real story here is that Labour lost a safe seat that seemed impossible to lose and voters are sending the message to New Labour that they want them out. The question is how do the left respond to that. Is it a chance to move labour to the left? Do we have to finish labour off? How do we combat pro-business parties like the SNP capitalising on the dissatisfaction with labour?
The story for the left parties, in my opinion, is that socialist parties carried over a thousand votes and beat the Lib Dems despite the Lib Dems enjoying full media coverage as a “main” party, and mobilising a national effort. The Lib Dems, dont forget, were in coalition govt in Scotland for 8 years up until 2007 so that is an achievement worth looking at.
I am pleased, Solidarity are pleased, Brown got a kicking, our vote held up despite the stuff that has been thrown at us over the last year.
To be honest, it would have been the icing on the cake if we had beat the SSP too, for the obvious petty reasons that most won’t admit to, but the diference in beating the SSP or losing to the SSP by a handful of votes doesnt mean much really, it amounts to less than one person per polling station or less than one fifth of one percent.
But I agree that the SSP can consider this a good result and it gives them cause for a wee bit more optimism, although saying it represents any kind of pattern is overstating it, in my opinion.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Joe90, unless I am confused, you are confused about what Adamski is claiming.
He is claiming that nationalist parties have adopted some of the LEFT wing policies that new Labour has abandoned. :-S
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
“Appears that #20 has lost the plot again. During the campaign Solidarity did not on the streets or in our elction leaflets make any mention of a certain organisation.”
Yeah, that’s just a blatant lie and there’s nothing else I can say. But I guess the five or six people who witnessed that on the SSP stall, as well as the members of the public who were on the receiving end of the comments, are just suffering from a mass delusion.
And the rest of your post is just well, the usual guff.
Out of respect for Andy’s blog I’m not going to get into a big rammy here. The results speak for themselves, and we both know what the truth is about numbers, effort and attitude during the campaign.
Andy, I understand about not wanting people discussing any perjury trial and I do respect it; I was simply saying that in terms of the political differences between the SSP and Solidarity it is not as easy as people saying sorry to each other, and that a perjury trial hanging over us makes it an even sillier suggestion.
Despite my aggravated tone I’m in a great mood this morning; we’ve greatly increased our vote, are in fifth place again and have energised ourselves. All in all, a good basis to start properly building things up again. Roll on the election for John Mason’s council seat!
Comment by Lynsey — 25 July, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Can someone please enlighten me as to what, if any, policy or straigic/tactical differences there are between the SSP and solidarity?
Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
#45
JOseph
It isn’t easy. There are no real differences, except over attitudes and behaviours that surrounded the Sheridan libal action against NOTW, and given that these events are now tied up with criminal charges by the state, then I am not prepared to host a discussion about it.
Lynsey, I understand your point, and am largely in sympathy, but as people in the SSP have said, like Gregor gall and John McAllinon, at some stage there will have to be a process of reconciliation - even if some of the people most involved in the core events are not included in it.
But - for sure - nothing will happen until after any trial.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
I dont think there is any need to carry on the petty stuff lynsey, I could easily point to SSP leaflets re perjury etc but that does us no good when analysing what this result means.
“Andy, I understand about not wanting people discussing any perjury trial and I do respect it; I was simply saying that in terms of the political differences between the SSP and Solidarity it is not as easy as people saying sorry to each other, and that a perjury trial hanging over us makes it an even sillier suggestion.”
I agree, it is far from a case of saying sorry to each other. I dont know ehether the perjury trial is hanging over all of us, it reamins to be seen what the SSP’s involvement will be in the trial, if it gets to court.
Apologies might be something to some people but to a lot of us, we didnt leave the SSP over the original civil trial, but left an organisation that had broken down on s steady basis from 2003 onwards and, to me and others, was broken beyond repair. So saying sorry about the results of tabloid gossip wont mean much to me, from either side. The split was unavoidable in my opinion.
“Despite my aggravated tone I’m in a great mood this morning; we’ve greatly increased our vote, are in fifth place again and have energised ourselves. All in all, a good basis to start properly building things up again. Roll on the election for John Mason’s council seat!”
percentage wise you have increased your vote polled about the same as you did in the relevant council wards, but I agree, it is a good vote for the SSP and will energise the party and give you a lift.
I dont think that we will be seeing a council by-election though, as Mason will probably want to remain a councillor. He knows that by-election results can be a misrepresentation and he might lose the seat at the next general election.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
#45 This article by Mike Gonzalez raises some criticisms of the SSPs terrain around the time of the split, as I am not in Scotland I have no way to judge the acuracy of the critique.
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=247
If I interpet his article correctly:
Among other things he complains about the SSP preferring SSP-led/controlled campaigns to united fronts
Gonzalez seems to imply that the SSP trade union approach had an affinity with the old CP approach, that the SSP trade union work was orientated to building relations with trade union officials with a view to affiliation, rather than a rank and file movement of militant trade unionists
He also says that the party was orientating to much electoralism
Other facets of his criticisms seem to be general SWP criticisms of SP/Militant practise (ironically the SP is in Solidarity). For example, having separate “socialist” contingents on demonstrations.
Comment by Adamski — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Adam
How ridiculous.
Adam: “Among other things he complains about the SSP preferring SSP-led/controlled campaigns to united fronts”
the SWP prefers to have front campaigns that it controls as far as possible for example UAF, and sadly in many parts of the country STW.
Adam: “Gonzalez seems to imply that the SSP trade union approach had an affinity with the old CP approach, that the SSP trade union work was orientated to building relations with trade union officials with a view to affiliation, rather than a rank and file movement of militant trade unionists”
the SWP industrial organiser admits that Postworker is not a rank and file paper, but partly exists to help the left officials get their message accross. The SWP prioritised OFFU that revolved around general secretaries on the platforms, and limited participation from the floor. Don’t get me started on the whole issue of jane Loftus again!
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
The SSP does not have a platform that is campaigning to defend a convicted rapist by talking about how his victim was drunk and had her “demeanour questioned” for one.
Stuff like this isn’t good for my health.
Look, Jim and Solidarity are lying when they say that the scab comments didn’t happen, but there’s no use in me getting into it with them.
It’s a good day for the SSP, and while I celebrate the great result for us I’m also off to help prepare for tomorrow’s SSY Legalise Cannabis demonstration which should be an absolute belter.
Comment by Lynsey — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Can someone please enlighten me as to what, if any, policy or straigic/tactical differences there are between the SSP and solidarity?
Reply:
In terms of policies, probably no intrinsic difference. However the one key difference between both parties is huge. To be honest, if you can’t see that given the events of the past couple of years then I suggest you haven’t been following it with sufficient attention.
Jim is right with regard to the FBU. The fact that a major trade union, one of the most politically conscious at that, has nailed its colours to the mast with respect to the split and the court case is massive. The fact that the likes of Bob Crow, Gerry Conlon, and Paddy Hill have done the same merely emphasises the fact that the SSP are considered a tainted organisation by the most class conscious sectors of society and, in fact, increasingly untouchable.
As for Andy’s offensive comments re a ‘Sheridan celebrity cult’, this is an insult to the trade union movement, which has weighed in with its support of Tommy Sheridan, and the very individuals I’ve just mentioned - Bob Crow, Gerry Conlon, Paddy Hill, et al.
Are you saying, Andy, that they are somehow blinded by the Sheridan cult? How does that place you with regard to George Galloway in that case?
Maybe it’s just that the principle involved is really very simple. In a fight with the ruling class and their representatives, socialists should never cross class lines.
Comment by John W — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Oh, and by the way, I’m not “obsequeous” to Andy.
I think Andy is very wrong, politically, in all sorts of ways. However, he’s manifestly not a sociopath or a wanker: unlike … well, you can fill in your own blanks.
Comment by David T — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
#52 JOhn W says:
“As for Andy’s offensive comments re a ‘Sheridan celebrity cult’, this is an insult to the trade union movement, which has weighed in with its support of Tommy Sheridan, and the very individuals I’ve just mentioned - Bob Crow, Gerry Conlon, Paddy Hill, et al. ”
I scratched my head about this. can anyone find that alleged comment I am supposed to have made abut “Sheridan celebrity cult’”????
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
“I think Andy is very wrong, politically, in all sorts of ways. However, he’s manifestly not a sociopath or a wanker: unlike … well, you can fill in your own blanks.”
Morgoth? Simon Evans? Wardytron?
Comment by Darren — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
The difference between solidarity and SSP will be different to different people Joseph. There were many reasons for the party falling apart in the years leading up to the split and many people made the split for differing reasons, and many people chose to leave the SSP but not join Solidarity.
I agree with Mike Gonzales’ analysis of how the SSP operate and that problems with that.
To me and our branch it was a different matter of an ever-more centralised and less democratic party. Eventually we couldnt see a way out of that, other than either leaving or embarking on an internal battle that could be equally, or even more damaging.
So, although policy differences are small, the difference is in approach and the set-up of the party. Solidarity are a much looser organisation with less centralised control and bureaucracy.
That allows the platforms and regions and individuals to be free to campaign as, or as part of, separate organisations as well as being part of Solidarity. We can have more than one approach and strategy to other groups and campaigns being exercised by Solidarity members at the same time.
Whether this works in the long term or not remains to be seen, it might evolve into something else, but it is certainly working re trades unions where our supoort and membership is growing. There is room for trade unionists to be part of solidarity without being under pressure to represent the party in the trade union, instead the can represent their union views in the party.
My branch, for instance, is semi-autonomous from the party and is based round a TGWU branch in the main. Comrades can be members of Coalfields Solidarity without being a member of Solidarity, some choose to be members of both. Those who chose not to join Solidarity are members of a group that is affiliated to Solidarity in a loose way where we support Solidarity at elections, support their aims and can take part in Solidarity structures. We also have members in England and Wales.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Touche
Comment by ID — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
#55 This sounds interesting as a structure, what exactly is Coalfields Solidarity and what does it do?
Comment by Adamski — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
#59 Sounds like a pretty cool organisation, where do I sign up?
Comment by Adamski — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
One of the reasons given for Labour wanting a recount last night was that they suggested that some of Margaret Curran’s vote went to Frances Curran by mistake. If there is any truth in this , wouldn’t it make the Solidarity/SSP score about even?
Comment by skidmarx — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Andy:
#12- ‘It suggests that the celebrity factor of Sheridan is declining’.
What is this if not an attempt to imply that Sheridan’s popularity is merely down to celebrity. He is held in such affection by the vast majority of his class because of his credentials as a class fighter, because of his willingness to stand up for the most maligned, oppressed, and poverty-stricken people in society. That’s why he is well known. To try and diminish that record by describing his popularity as being based on something as ephemeral as celebrity is shameful, Andy.
Re the possibility of a left realignment in Scotland, I agree with those on both sides who rightly say that this is a long way off. The split is just too deep, too acrimonious on either side for any meaningful reconciliation to work. The few voices advocating such a reconciliation, though well meaning, are very much in the minority at this point.
The simple fact is that now in Scotland we have two socialist organisations of more or less equal size. This means that in elections like Glasgow East they will only succeed in cancelling each other out, with hardly any votes to choose between both. The resolution to the ongoing legal case may help clarify things, but I agree with Jim when he says that the vast majority of left leaning support has been hoovered up by the SNP. They are seen as a progressive force in Scotland, despite being pro-business, and the hard truth is that for most voters neither Solidarity or the SSP are currently seen as electorally credible due to the acrimony of the split.
Comment by John W — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
JOhn
Your indignation is completely uncalled for.
In electoral politics celebrity is a good thing, especially celebrity that has been hard earned through the commitement to the class struggle that Tommmy has given over many years.
In the same ay salma yaqoob’s achievement in being voted the Birnimgham Post’s 11th most inlfeuntial person in Brum
These are good things.
Comment by Andy Newman — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
On a reduced turnout and squeeze the socialist vote held up. Solidarity a young party not yet 2years old and standing for the first time in this seat gained 512 votes. The Scottish Socialist Party had a reduction of 564 votes from 1096 to 555.
During the campaign Solidarity held public meeting of 50 in Shettleston and 17 in Easterhouse - the majority non-members. These may have been the only public meetings held by any political party during the campaign.
Comment by Solidarity — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Brooder #57:
I am no longer a member of Solidarity, so I can no longer be accused of being a ’spin doctor’ for the party.
Re Solidarity’s demise in a few months, the SSP and people like you have been saying that since the party was formed in 2006. It has yet to happen and won’t. Despite the doctrinal differences between groups like the SWP and CWI, and some early teething problems, they’ve bedded down and are now coming together with ever more cohesiveness as time passes. The court case unifies the party, as does elections such as the one just passed.
Tommy’s radio show was an unmitigated success. Where else would you get commercial radio shows covering issues such as the anniversary of Che’s death; the rise in the number of industrial accidents in the country; Palestine; the housing crisis; the deepening gap between rich and poor. Sure, he interspersed these issues with ‘lighter’ issues, but not everyone is political and Tommy’s ability to reach people at the level of consciousness they are at is incomparable. I went to see his comedy show and didn’t like it. In fact, I was cringing. But that was just my opinion. Others did enjoy it.
But the important point is that you and others, who claim to be socialists, would jump for joy if this man was sent to prison for daring to expect solidarity from fellow socialists in a battle with the Murdoch Press. Maybe you can square this fact with attempts at intellectual gymnastics, but for me your argument doesn’t stand up to a moment’s scrutiny.
That said, there’s little point in covering old ground. I clearly won’t change your opinion, nor you mine.
The ultimate loser in all of this is the Scottish working class.
Comment by John W — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Brooder is right that I was nowhere near the court case. Solidarity is not all about the court case as many suggest, the problems in the SSP were highlighted when the resignation and civil case came up, so it had an effect on all of us, but I, like many SSP members, was a spectator re the ins and outs of the tabloid gossip and subsequent defamtion trial, and victory, for Tommy. The victory of the NOTW is a central event in the split, but the SSP was falkling apart anyway in my opinion.
From 2003 onwards they ceased to be a party of activists and instead became a support group for a small group of MSPs.
The SSP can go on about their vote compared to last year, but the SSP vote in elections and by-elections was also collapsing long before the split.
Coalfields Solidarity came out of work that Rosemary Byrne did with a group of open cast miners when we were still in the SSP. A newly organised trade union branch in the coal industry were supported by the SSP and a whole section of their stewards and others followed this up by wanting to join the party. This was at the time of the court case and the subsequent split so it never happened.
When Solidarity started the members of the Cumnock branch and Clydesdale branch of the SSP had left the SSP and started to work closer with the members of the union in the open-cast coal industry. It made sense to look at forming a branch and the subsequent arrangement grew out of the miners looking for political autonomy but having a party to fight alongside.
We have about 160 members, about 40 are also Solidarity members. Of the 160, about half are miners in Scotland, 25% miners in England and wales, 25% not miners but live in ‘coalfield’ areas and so share an interest in the industry. Of the Solidarity members over 3/4 are members of the TG Unite Scottish Coal Branch. Only a few of us are not in the industry and choose to work in this branch rather than a geographical branch.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
#66 Oops
“The victory of the NOTW is a central event in the split, but the SSP was falkling apart anyway in my opinion.”
Should read “the victory OVER the NotW is….”
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Oops #66 should read #63
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Brooder, I wish the SSP well and hope to see them down in Manchester at the convention of the left in September. I have always supported Tommy Sheridan for his principled stance and leadership as we are short of in your face politicians. I have been blessed to have met rarities like him and George Galloway.
I do have some friends in the SWP, I think. And in no small way was I influenced in joining Solidarity through them however their SWP cc actions in RESPECT and other groups put me completely off their leadership role.
The present state of SSP and the decline of Solidarity puts the progressive movement on the back foot we need a rose by any other name, not Solidarity or the SSP . Attend the convention of the left in Manchester
Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Larry, it’s a bit much to call a by-election result a decline. Solidarity’s membership is not in decline, nor our activity. Whether our vote is in decline remains to be seen and I suggest that one by-election result is not a large enough sample to go on.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
“Overall, we have had a great campaign and are happy with the result, but would like to have finished above the SSP obviously.”
The Socialists in Scotland should be ashamed of themselves for continueing this battle - A real alternative was devoloping in Scotland - but basically due to personal issues between former comrades they have lost sight of the whole point of the exercise.
I am surprised by the approach of the CWI and hope they can use their influence to bring a bit os sanity back into the mix - the SWP is not a group you would want to work together with - especially after their actions in the SA and Respect.
Its good to see the working class in Glasgow rejecting New Labour and I can live with them supporting the SNP.
But come on - even with a divisive nature of the two ’socialist’ parties they stood got over 1 1000 votes in an election to give New Labour a beating.
Comment by Roy — 25 July, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
No you’re not ‘obsequeous’ towards Andy, David, you’re obsequious.
I mean that you’re noticeably careful to praise Andy every now and again, before launching into a series repetitive allegations about the bad behaviour and bad political practice of various bad people. It’s almost as if you’re trying to keep the host of this blog sweet so that you can continue with the sneering allegations and cheap point scoring. That’s what I meant. It’s just a little bit obvious and a little bit sort of creepy.
I don’t think you’re a horrid person David (I’m sure you’re glad of that) and sometimes I almost (almost) root for you when some of the more rabid allegations of racism and ‘fascism’ are thrown at you. I understand that you feel strongly and sincerely about certain things. But I think its a bit of a stretch to say that your contributions on this blog are ever constructive. Look at the post where you announce your ‘function’ on this blog - a piece of mischievous, grandstanding mud slinging.
Comment by Ed — 25 July, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
#68 “The Socialists in Scotland should be ashamed of themselves for continueing this battle - A real alternative was devoloping in Scotland - but basically due to personal issues between former comrades they have lost sight of the whole point of the exercise.”
The “real alternative” in Scotland stopped developing in 2003 Roy. The combined vote of the two main left groups in 2007 was almost exactly as it was in 1999 and would have seen the same result, the election of one MSP (tommy sheridan). The 2003 election was a blip and they gained voted from the SNP mainly.
But the split can clearly be seen to be only a part of that result as the Greens had exactly the same result, after a rise in their vote at the expense of the SNP in 2003, they fell back to almost exactly the same as 1999, without any splits or court cases.
I don’t agree, for reasons already outlined, that the split was about personal issues. There is no doubt that personal issues are the main focus for some, but the SSP had failed as a united left project.
The new SSP, more of a unified party, but without the idea of unifying the factions into one coalition, has to be allowed time to see how that plan develops. I cant see it working but who knows. People say a week is a long time in politics, but it isnt, it is less than 2 years since the split and that is just a short time in my opinion.
However, it has now been 7 years that the SWP and CWI have worked together in Scotland in one electoral unit. For all the attacking of Scottish comrades, that has to be something that the other comrades can look at as unique in terms of left unity.
The project of uniting various factions and campaigns into one electoral fighting force is now the work of Solidarity, it remains to be seen whether that can be done. Solidarity are attempting to bring in the paltforms without strangling them and bring in trade unionists without dictating to them and patronising them. It is basically the same goal as the SSP pre-2003 but using a looser method, to see if it can be done another way. That has had a mixed success so far.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Two days ago, Margaret Curran, the Labour candidate in the Glasgow East by-election, promised she would “wipe the smile off Salmond’s face”. It’s safe to say that particular mission has not been achieved.
The size of the votes for the SSP and Solidarity isnt really a factor in any serious analysis of what this election means for Scotland for the UK. Both socialist parties will remain in the electoral shadow of the SNP for the foreseeable future.
The ramifications of this are much more than a by-election protest vote against Labour. This was also a vote of confidence in Alex Salmond’s Scottish government in one of the most deprived inner city seats in the country, and a clear signal that the main unionist stronghold in Scotland - Glasgow - has begun to crumble.
Political commentators have fallen over themselves to stress that this vote had nothing to do with Scottish Independence. Many on this blog seem to agree with them. Despite the primary objective of the SNP being an Independent Scotland.
It is at times like these it is important to remember that there are almost NO independent political commentators in Scotland seen on national TV, or in the mainstream. John Curtice aside, who specialises in opinion poll banalities, almost every media commentator in Scotland works for a corporate media organisation with explicitly stated - or in the BBC’s case, de facto - opposition to Scottish Independence.
It’s unlikely the lame duck British Prime Minister will resign immediately. For the simple reason that New Labour have no one to replace him with. They’ve packed out or rigged almost every selection process for over a decade and a half with faceless Blairite Yes Men and Women. Now they simply dont have anyone with either a recognisable personality or a fresh political orientation to take over from Brown. In short, they’re pretty much screwed.
Where this by-election’s real significance lies is that we have moved one big step closer to a popular and populist SNP administration in Edinburgh preparing to do battle for the future of Scotland against a David Cameron-led Tory administration in London.
The first round of the battle will be when the SNP brings the Independence Referendum Bill before the Scottish Parliament in 2010.
For reasons I explained in my blog on 8th May this year*, reasons which none of the mainstream media commentators seem to have grasped yet, I fully expect that Referendum Bill to be passed overwhelmingly, supported by all the political parties in Scotland.
This by-election result brings Scotland’s impending Democracy Day - probably as someone else said above on 30th November 2010 - so much tantalisingly closer. That’s the most important factor in the analysis of this by-election.
*
http://kevinwilliamson.blogspot.com/2008/05/may-8th-as-reality-of-2010-sinks-in.html
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 25 July, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
#40 ‘The SSP does not have a platform that is campaigning to defend a convicted rapist by talking about how his victim was drunk and had her “demeanour questioned” for one.
Stuff like this isn’t good for my health.’
Your right stuff like this is not good for your health. Beyond that I have no idea what you refer to.
Enjoy the demo.
Comment by Solidarity — 25 July, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Andy:
Your indignation is completely uncalled for.
In electoral politics celebrity is a good thing, especially celebrity that has been hard earned through the commitement to the class struggle that Tommmy has given over many years.
In the same ay salma yaqoob’s achievement in being voted the Birnimgham Post’s 11th most inlfeuntial person in Brum
These are good things.
Reply:
I apologise if I misconstrued what you meant. I thought you were being disrespectful.
Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Comment by John W — 25 July, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Well, Jon Sopel really was amazingly useless. It’s time to habd over these kinds of things to Michael Crick, who’ll liven things up a bit.
I’d like to know, as would we all, what the New Labour strategy now will be. Get rid of Brown? As if Miliband or Milburn or Purnell or whoever would be any better? Are the MPs willing to have a civil war that will destroy the party to unseat him? If they don’t, they’re going to get annihilated at the next election. This is a problem of staggering proportions. This is not a Brown problem, but that’s how it’s being touted; this is 11 years of awful neoliberal economic policy deluging New Labour as an election is coming up. It looks like New Labour will veer further and further to the right to get Tory and reactionary vote. The Labour Left will probably go along with it, for fear of total implosion. Implosion is guaranteed and so is a huge Tory majority.
How far to the right New Labour goes is the only unknown. It’s likely (and I hope there will be) there’ll be a complete purge of the Labour Left. The only way the Labour Left will leave Labour is by being chucked out, so I’m cheering on the reactionaries who want to oust the Labour Left once and for all. It’ll be the mantra of “we were held back from being bold by the old lefties”. With the New Tories doing a better job of New Labour policies than Brown, what’ll be the point of New Labour?
Comment by Tawfiq Chahboune — 25 July, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
I find the facile way that both the SSP and Solidarity dismiss the significance of their own paltry votes is very worrying.
The “tomorrow belongs to us” school of thought is always comforting, but there are certain problems with it in this case.
This is one of the most deprived constituencies in England, Scotland or Wales.
Yet the two warring factions of the Scottish Socialist Party combined, poll less than the Tories!
Comment by prianikoff — 25 July, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
“But the split can clearly be seen to be only a part of that result as the Greens had exactly the same result, after a rise in their vote at the expense of the SNP in 2003, they fell back to almost exactly the same as 1999, without any splits or court cases.”
The original SSP came about from the profile and bedding down of the comrades into the class from the Poll Tax struggle onwards (Something in Scotland the SWP opted out of by the way). This is not the same organic reason as the rise of support for the Green Party.
The problem is that even comrades who take the workers wage can still be seduced by the status and other trappings that come from entry into parliament or Councils or leading comrades positions in the Trade Union movement - It becomes more important to keep you personally in a position of ‘power’ and against those who may threaten your status. That the interests of the class become secondary.
This fortune telling from the paragraph above - ignores the solid foundations that can be built in the class by left wing organisations and perhaps could be an argument about the lack of solid community activity that needed to be kept up.
1000 votes say something that show some kind of awareness of the class in Glasgow - a little bit more than the squabbling leadership of the two ’socialist’ parties currently on offer!
Comment by Roy — 25 July, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Solidarity, check out the website of the ‘Democratic Green Socialists’.
Comment by Lynsey — 25 July, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
The SSP’s atonishing result in yesterday’s Glasgow East constituency is probably largely attributable to voter confusion over candidate names.’Frances Curran’ was probably very often confused with ‘Margaret Curran’ in voters’ minds. Voting papers containing similar names have been proven to consistently and significantly confuse voters.
The situation is similar and comparable to the Glasgow North East UK parliamentary election result in 2005. On that occasion the Socialist Labour Party achieved an amazing 4,036 votes and a total share of 14.2%. They achieved this high local vote despite no noticeable local campaign and not having stood in the constituency previously.
A trawl through other by eletion results reveals a similar boost for candidates from small parties who share a surname with mainstream establishment parties.
Most Glasgow activists know that the SLP are not a meaningful political force in Scotland - they are effectively a ghost party with no visible campaigning presence on the city’s streets or trade union branches. Nobody has really ever heard of them, their candidates or what they stand for. Their profile in the Sottish media is neglible. Obviously a party operating with that level of real electoral support would be capable of building a national network of branches; have a mass membership; have elected local councillors and national presence at Holyrood. But the reality is that the SLP only really resonate by defualt at elections when they become a misdirected voting option for confused Labour party supporters.
It is probably more accurate to use the Scottish parliamentay election result in 2007 in Glasgow as a reliable measure of SSP’s present support. On that occasion they operated at level of less that 1 vote for every 3 Solidarity votes.
THe ‘Curran Confusion Factor’ (CCF) could arguably explain more than 300 of the SSP’s final tally in Glasgow East last night. I know that many electorally long experienced New Labour party activists believed that without the impact of the CCF on voting intentions their candidate might just have held on to the constituency by a tiny margin. Ultimately the SNP won Glasgow East - previously considered one of Labour’s safest seats - by 365 votes.
For what it’s worth the next set of general election results in Scotland will probably clarify the standing of the two rival socialist parties with Scottish working class. In 2007 the SSP held twelfth position in Glasgow region (behind two small Christian parties and the SLP among others). However more important issues like the billions being spent by Gordon Brown’s New Labour Party on the ongoing bloody occupations and wars in Iraq and Afghanistn perhaps need to be the focus of attention for socialists.
The 2005 general election result in Glasgow North East was:
Michael Martin, Labour 15,153 53.3%
John McLaughlin, Scottish National Party 5,019 17.7%
Doris Kelly, Socialist Labour 4,036 14.2%
Graham Campbell, Scottish Socialist Party 1,402 4.9%
Daniel Houston, Scottish Unionist 1,266 4.5%
Scott McLean, British National Party 920 3.2%
Joe Chambers, Independent 622 2.2%
Comment by inf4mation — 25 July, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Roy, the SSP became a more serious force AFTER the SWP joined. Although I am not an SWP member, that is when I saw it as worth supporting, and I am not the only one. I dont differentiate between the “original” SSP and the SSP that won six seats in 2003. I think the difference in the arties outlook and stratgey came with the election of the six MSPs.
You are right about politicians who are earning the workers wage, they can still be seduced by the trappings, that is what happened to the party when the six MSPs were elected. All of a sudden there were another twelve people on top of the MSPs whose jobs were this parliamentary arrangement. The whole party then became centred aroubnd these 18 people and their ambitions and positions.
The SWP were not part of that and not what went wrong with the SSP.
In Scotland the CWI and SWP still work togather in the same group with hundreds of others who are members of neither. That gives me hope that we can still build a strong left electoral grouping as it doesnt happen anywhere else.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Lynsey, I share you view on the campaign you mention that the DGS are involved in publicising, but I dont really know anything about it. What I dont like, is the language used and have said so, either here on UKLN, can’t remember which.
MOJO are also involved in that campaign so I assume that you will treating John McManus, Paddy Hill etc to the same attacks as Solidarity.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
Hilarious stuff as always John:
“In electoral politics celebrity is a good thing, especially celebrity that has been hard earned through the commitement to the class struggle that Tommmy has given over many years.
In the same ay salma yaqoob’s achievement in being voted the Birnimgham Post’s 11th most inlfeuntial person in Brum
These are good things.”
Good for who? The celebrity in question? As they bask in the spotlight of the corporate media for their fifteen minutes of fame?
Do tell.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 25 July, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Inf4mation - the SLP got so many votes in Glasgow North East because they were the only party standing with the word “Labour” in their name in a very traditional Labour seat!
Contrary to your results listing, Michael Martin was not a Labour candidate - he stood as speaker of the house of commons and under a reactionary ‘convention of the constitution’, speakers do not stand on party political labels nor do the other main parties stand against them. The Labour Party did not do any campaigning for Michael Martin nor even describe him as their candidate.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 25 July, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
The official descriptions of candidates in Glasgow North East 2005.
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/YourCouncil/Elections_Voting/Election_Results/Westminster_Election_2005/ConstituencyResults.htm?constituency=13&constituencyname=North%20East
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 25 July, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
“It is probably more accurate to use the Scottish parliamentay election result in 2007 in Glasgow as a reliable measure of SSP’s present support. On that occasion they operated at level of less that 1 vote for every 3 Solidarity votes.”
Thats interesting, generally when you analyse the present level of political support of a party you compare it to the most recent election and not one over a year ago.
In terms of the “CCF”, to compare it to the SLP result in 05 is flawed, as mentioned above there was no Labour candidate standing in that case.
This time round a Labour machine defending a crucial seat made sure their material mentioned which box specifically was Margaret Curran.
As did the SSP in its material, making particular focus of differentiating between the two Currans,
http://www.scottishsocialistparty.co.uk/new_pdfs/election_pamphlets/polling_day.pdf
Comment by Andy — 26 July, 2008 @ 12:35 am
Kevin #81 - why not for a change take your dope addled heid oot yir airse and read who’s posting what? the comment you gleefully attributed to me was in fact posted by andy.
how’s the bannockburn re-enactment society going these days anyway?
Comment by John W — 26 July, 2008 @ 12:53 am
Good point Principo - it might have been better support the point to consider other recent election performances where name confusion affected the parliamenatry result in Glasgow. For example, the Almanac of British Politics (2002) states:
“One curious feature of the 1997 General election result in the Glasgow Maryhill division was that it supplied the best result anywhere for the yogic Natural Law Party. The only conceivable reason for this aberrant behaviour is the name of their candidate Blair. Several hundred of Maryhill’s electors must have thought that they had a chance to vote directly for the leader and inspiration for New Labour. Even deprived of these misled individuals, the more famous Mr. Blair could count on this very safe seat in that year as well as subsequently.”
The BBC observed:
“This is yet another Glasgow seat with a history of loyalty to Labour, held by the party since 1945. A curious aspect of the 1997 election was that the Natural Law Party got its best result in this seat, polling 651 votes; the reason for this may lie with the name of their candidate, Blair.”
1997 UK Parliament Election Result - Glasgow Maryhill
Maria Fyfe Labour 19,301 64.9%
John Wailes SNP 5,037 16.9%
Elspeth Attwooll Liberal Democrat 2,119 7.1%
Stuart Baldwin Conservative 1,747 5.9%
Lorna Blair Natural Law 651 2.2%
Mandy Baker Scottish Socialist Alliance 409 1.4%
Jahangir Hanif ProLife Alliance 344 1.2%
Roderick Paterson 77 0.3%
Steve Johnstone Independent 36 0.1%
Comment by inf4mation — 26 July, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Glasgow East: What a result !
By SSP Glasgow East campaign organiser Richie Venton
http://tinyurl.com/56vc5f
Comment by Eddie Truman — 26 July, 2008 @ 1:48 am
“The Socialists in Scotland should be ashamed of themselves for continueing this battle - A real alternative was devoloping in Scotland - but basically due to personal issues between former comrades they have lost sight of the whole point of the exercise.”
There can be no end to the battle until the Sheridan trial is over, in my opinion, and even then, SSP members will find it hard to forgive solidarity for what they have done up here.
I dont liek it this way,but it is the way things must be
As to Glasgow East, total humiliation for the Respect Renewal backed Labour canddiate here
Comment by JimPage — 26 July, 2008 @ 11:14 am
@82 Prinkipo: In 2007 parliamentary election “The Labour Party did not do any campaigning for Michael Martin”
False they did - they were frustrated at the fact that the Speakers seat was being challenged and ended up running a fairly energetic local campaign. It’s bit bizarre that you should say otherwise but maybe uou don’t have enough local knowledge.
@84 Andy: “the SSP in its material, making particular focus of differentiating between the two Currans”
Exactly Andy - the SSP actively anticipated and recognised the potential impact of the CCF on the result. Richie Venton draws particluar attention to (though does not accept) the point in his post match analysis. Given the typical level of impact of an individual flyer on voting intentions during a parliamentary by-election this is unlikely to have overcome the full impoact of the CCF. Paradoxically for many voters the significance CCF may actually have been enhanced.
Venton’s post match analysis claim that “every vote for the SSP was an extremely conscious vote for socialism” seem fairly disingenuous given the electoral results I cite above (see @86 and @78). But many readers will remember that the current SSP leaderhip have an estbalished history of producing misleading propaganda material for their members
Oh and one related observation: On approach to polling station on Thursday, Venton (and another SSP organiser) briefly mistook one of their own activists dressed in a suit and red rosette distributing campaign materials to which you refer as working for New Labour’s Curran candidate. The CCF worked in mysterious ways.
Comment by inf4mation — 26 July, 2008 @ 11:17 am
#71
Kevin Williamson is one of the original leaders of
the SSP project who has moved on and taken the dynamic of the SSP to
its logical conclusion. A self styled “left libertarian” who now
supports the Scottish Government in its it battle for “Scottish
freedom” At least his open support for the class enemy is frank and
as honest as you can expect from a nationalist. It must be
increasingly difficult for the leadership of Solidarity or the SSP to
attempt to justify their present politics by reference to the Marxist
classics or the Marxist tradition. Kevin has the advantage in that he
does not have to try to square the circle in that respect. However his
claim that the bye election result in Glasgow East was a vote of
confidence in the Scottish government is stretching credibility. Most
objective observers (those who are not walking around in a
Scottish nationalist dream world) realize the result was not a popular
endorsement of the SNP government but rather a protest at the anti
working class record of the labour government
sandy
Comment by sandy — 26 July, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
‘Glasgow East: A Disaster for Gordon Brown and New Labour
Following New Labour’s catastrophic by-election defeat, Solidarity Co-Convenor Tommy Sheridan said;
“This is a historic victory in Glasgow East for the SNP and I congratulate John Mason. Let us be clear it is a victory for a left of centre party which carries on Glasgow’s radical tradition. It is also a disaster for Labour if they don’t learn the lessons and stop attacking the poor, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and get rid of Trident then next time it wont just be in Glasgow East but in the whole of Scotland where they will suffer.
Of course in this close election the socialist vote was squeezed and many Solidarity voters no doubt voted SNP to help defeat Labour. However we ran a good campaign with an excellent local candidate and we will now prepare for the Council bye election where in last years Council elections we did very well.”
Solidarity candidate Tricia McLeish said; “I would like to thank all those who voted Solidarity and I know many more socialists voted SNP to help defeat Labour. The media, who have descended on Glasgow East for the last three weeks will now leave the constituency and ignore the good people of the area just as they have always done. Solidarity and myself are here to stay however. Unlike any other party in Scotland we held our conference in Shettleston last year and with the new members that the party recruited during the campaign we will bolster and build a vibrant and campaigning Solidarity branch in the area campaigning on the issues that really matter and raising the banner of socialism.” ‘
Comment by Solidarity — 26 July, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Following New Labour’s catastrophic by-election defeat, Solidarity
Co-Convenor Tommy Sheridan said;
“This is a historic victory in Glasgow East for the SNP and I
congratulate John Mason. Let us be clear it is a victory for a left of
centre party which carries on Glasgow’s radical tradition.”
Aye that will be right- John Mason carries on Glasgow’s radical
tradition!
What a sick joke. Mason is a anti working class nationalist and a particularly right wing one at that- see his position on abortion.
Socialists have to struggle to preserve the memory of the historic battles and traditions of working class.
In contrast careerists and sell outs have to struggle to forget
“So let us be clear” (to use the words of big baw heid quoted above) -The SNP is a party of big business. Its aim is the creation of a neo liberal Scotland where the welfare state is history. It draws much of its support from the most reactionary section of the Scottish establishment. Of course it uses populist rhetoric to gain support for its anti working class project of an independent neo- liberal Scotland but that rhetoric is largely transparent. Check out its actions on Aberdeen Council. Souter, Sir George Mathewson,Crawford Beveridge,Jim McColl etc are clear (more detail here http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9274)- the independence project has as its aim the ending of “dependency culture” This is ruling class code for removing what is left of the welfare state. The independence project of the SNP which is backed by the left nationalists of Solidarity and the SSP is anti working class to its core. The aim is to divide the historic unity of the british working class along national lines. A weakened working class will then feel the force of the new Celtic Tiger. The exploitation of the working class will be ratcheted up. The left nats (Solidarity and the SSP) are trying to obtain political careers by providing a left cover for this anti working class project. It worked for a while. They jumped on the nationalist bandwagon. However the left nationalist bandwagon lost it wheels. If you are pushing a con trick you need a good con man to front the project. The problem for con men is that sometimes they are exposed as charlatans and tricksters and then there is no way back. People wise up
The socialism of Solidarity is fake. The nationalism isn’t
what is needed is a party that fights for the interests of the british working class- a british wide socialist party that fights all forms of nationalism and that can generate the level of working class solidarity necessary to defeat Capital
sandy
Comment by sandy — 26 July, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
No 78 and 89 from (mis)infm4tion seems to be suggesting that Glaswegians are dim. Even the New Labour spin-doctors and media have not tried to hide behind this excuse. Such was the scale of publicity during the campaign from Labour, the SSP and the media explaining the differences between the the two Currans that, of the 42 per cent sufficiently political to go out to vote, it’s unlikely that by polling day more than a handful would have made a mistake with their ballot paper. No more, certainly than might have been misled into voting Solidarity because Tommy Sheridan’s name was on the ballot paper (and the only party in this election which deliberately set out to cause confusion was Solidarity, as they do in every election). Anyone who was in Glasgow East knows why the SSP out-polled Solidarity and the Greens - because they had the strongest campaign, the most activists, the highest visibility, the best candidate, the most effective election material etc etc etc.
Comment by Weegie — 26 July, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
The immediate and urgent priority for the left should be to stop the break up of the UK, otherwise the working class both north and south of the border are going to be hammered. That rules out the SSP, Solidarity and possibly the SWP (at least until they clarify, or harden, their position on independence).All that’s left in Scotland, for such a campaign to coalesce around, is the Labour Party.
Don’t underestimate the importance of this. If Scotland leaves the Union the Labour Party is finished as a parliamentary force, no matter how right wing it tries to be. England will be left with a permanent tory government which, with no effective opposition will move to the right.Scotland would face an economic war waged by England, just like the Irish Free State did.
What’s the chances of Galloway and the Labour Party reaching a raproachment over this?
He left the Labour Party over the Iraq war.A change of president the USA might make that problem go away.Galloway is the only person I can think of who is up to the task of derailing the SNP bandwagon. It might seem an extraordinary move for the Labour Party but the prospect of a future without a cat’s chance in hell of forming a Government, no cosy cabinet posts, no comfy ministerial mondeos might just be sufficent incentive to make the party leadership do the unthinkable.
Comment by popular demand — 26 July, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
No 94 - So Ireland should have stuck with the Union should it, to prevent the economic war waged by England?
And maybe Cuba should also have behaved itself to stop the US waging economic war against it for the last 50 years? Maybe even applied to become a state of the USA?
Comment by Weegie — 26 July, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
I agree that Scottish independence will be a major set back for the working class- north and south of the border
However as a marxist I would strongly disagree with any campaign to “save the union”
Such a campaign would be inevitably based on a form of british nationalism. . What is needed is a campaign to defend the unity of the british working class not the unity of the british state. We need a campaign which will stress that the working class in Britain has only won social advance when jointly engaged in a fight against British Capital and its state. In the past the threat of social revolution has produced concessions from the british ruling class. Any campaign around the theme “Scotland is British” would be reactionary and a mirror image of the scottish independence movement or more likely something much worse
The most practicable step we could take to defend and advance the unity of the working class in britain would be a campaign for a british wide socialist party which would help organise the working class fightback against the present offensive of British capital. The fight for the political independence of the working class from the forces of capital is the fight to defend the unity of the working class against all forms of nationalism
sandy
Comment by sandy — 26 July, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
When did the ‘Militant’ left in Scotland move to support Scottish independence and how did they attempt to explain the volte face?
#94 An eceonomic war waged by England is bad news for Scottish workers. The SNP leadership has made their vision of an independent Scotland clear enough. A low rate of corporation tax and a business friendly environment. Those two factors taken together will mean lower wages and worse conditions for Scottish workers. You may think that’s a price worth paying for some nebulous idea of ethnic freedom. I don’t.
Comment by popular demand — 26 July, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
#96 Meanwhile in the real world the SNP push for independence will gather momentum while your search for a perfect exposition of the true Marxist line will lead to factions, counter factions,in fighting and splits.
There’s two years until the SNP intend to hold their referendum but their campaign has to be challenged immediately and on a massive scale.
If the Labour Party was awake it would realise that bursting the SNP bubble is far more important than winning the next general Election.
Comment by popular demand — 26 July, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
@93 Weegie: “of the 42 per cent sufficiently political to go out to vote, it’s unlikely that by polling day more than a handful would have made a mistake with their ballot paper.”
Coming for a SSP position I appreciate why you might need this to be true but I don’t think you can really believe it to be the case. For you to suggest that there may have been as few as five or six misguided votes in Glasgow East would be an amazing outcome and buck all historical polling evidence and trends. The confusion factor is typically far, far more significant. It is far more useful to you consider the two Curran’s vote it in the light of all avaialable polling evidence when candidates with similar surnames are placed on the same ballot paper.
The “scale of publicity” during the campaign from the media barely registered and did not focuss on the name confusion between the two Curran candiadtes. A simple Lexis Nexis search proves this point. The big question for the mainstream media was whether general disaffection with the New Lsbour project would realise itself in defeat for Gordon Brown in the one of the safest Labour seats in Scotland - their traditional heartland.
Also Weegie for you to suggest that Glaswegians might generally be being considered to be ‘dim’represents an insulting and desperate analysis. The SSP need to get out of denial mode with their members and attach appropriate significance to the CCF.
Comment by inf4mation — 26 July, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
When did the ‘Militant’ left in Scotland move to support Scottish independence and how did they attempt to explain the volte face?
After the defeat of the Bennite movement in the labour party and the defeat of the miners strike -the old labour project of transforming the labour party into a vehicle for socialism was not credible. With the collapse of the Stalinist bloc much of the old left was demoralized.
Exiting the Labour party during and after the poll tax struggle the Militant looked for a new vehicle. The “movement for scottish self determination” seemed to fit the bill of providing an alternative way forward. The Scottish socialist Alliance was launched in the mid 90s around the populist figure of TS. Initially it put forward the slogan of “for scottish self determination” but that soon became “for an independent socialist scotland” and then implicitly for an independent capitalist scotland.
The justifications for this “turn” has evolved- first it was that workers in scotland were in advance of workers in england and therefore could establish a socialist republic which would act as a beacon of socialism to workers elsewhere.
then it became the break up of britain would be a blow to world imperialsm even if an independent scotland was capitalist and then it became- we are a rich nation and you are stealing our oil which could fund a welfare state for all Scots etc
A lot more to it but it is saturday and i am going out for a drink so i will return to this later
sandy
Comment by sandy — 26 July, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Weegie, saying that there can be voter confusion is not the same as saying people being dim. Frances Curran said in BBC radio interview during that campaign that lasy years result, when solidarity outpolled the SSP by 2 and 3 to 1, was down to confusion, she then added that things were “clearer” because people had been cgharged with perjury. I dont think Frances was saying that people were thick.
I dont think the leaflets issued by the SSP and Labour that dealt specifically with this were saying that people were thick, they were trying to prevent a possible problem.
Out of the 44 spoilt ballot papers, 40 were down to this specific problem.
So it is nonsense to reject the possible effect on the vote, only a delusional partisan would do so.
However, dont think that Labour’s version, that it was enough for the SNP to win, or In4mation’s guess that it was in the hundreds is likely, but it is about as likely as your idea that every single voter knew what one to mark and were not confused, otherwise we wouldnt have had the spoilt papers.
My guess is that would have been smaller number, not enough to change the overall vote.
But your idea that SSP ‘beat’ solidarity because they had more activists out is nonsense, An SNP MSP told me on Thusrday that, to them, Solidarity looked to have more activists the Labour for most of the campaign and anyone who was there knows that they had far more than SSP.
Your argument that Frances Curran was the best candidate is a matter of opinion, certainly one shared by the SUN who gave her 8 out of 10, their top ranked candidate.
But the SSP finished behind the SLP, BNP, pensioners party, two christian parties, in last years scottish elections, all of whom had far less activists campaigning that the SSP. The result clearly doesnt give us an indication of activist numbers.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 26 July, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
#98 any campaign with around the theme Defend the British union will be reactionary
Look at Browns british jobs for british workers call etc. If you would be happy marching with the orange lodge and the Tory party defending the union I have to ask you to count me out of any such campaign. It would be a pile of crap and would probably encourage any decent person to vote for independence
the best and only progressive answer to the forces of scottish independence is a major successful fightback by the british working class against british Capital. Brown and the labour party represent British capital so any campaign with them is self defeating. We have to campaign against brown and against new labour and for working class unity -not for british unity
there is no easy way forward but the possibility of building a mass socialist party does exist. it may take time but there is no other way
sandy
Comment by sandy — 26 July, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
The Scottish Sun political editor - who in the past has given very positive and favourable coverage to Tommy Sheridan - gave Frances 8 out of 10 for her performance at the hustings. I wasn’t there, but it doesn’t surprise me - anyone who knows Frances Curran knows that in track record and ability she’s head and shoulders above the rest, including the Labour and SNP candidates.
The Sun also launched a vitriolic attack on Frances Curran under the headline ‘Out of Her Head’ accompanied by a hostile editorial because she opposed the SNP’s policy of increasing the price of drink to solve Scotland’s alcohol problem. You’re earlier suggestion that the Sun backed the SSP is misinformation.
And you’ve not explained why Tommy Sheridan’s name was on the ballot papper when he wasn’t even standing, or tried to quantify how much confusion that might have caused.
Comment by Weegie — 26 July, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
I wasnt aware that I was under any obligation to explain the reason that Solidarity continue the tactic first adopted by the SSP, of including Tommy’s name on the ballot paper.
It was done, as always, to help alleviate confusion so that people know ‘which one’ we are. Richie Venton used to try his hardest to get all branches to add Tommy’s name to the ballot paper, at that time he said it was to stop confusion between us, Labour and the SLP.
You have not explained how, when 40 ballot papers were spolied due to confusion between the two currans, you rule out the possibility of even one voter making that mistake.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 26 July, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
Why not follow the SNP’s lead?
The SSP might actually have won it, if they’d stood
this bloke
Comment by prianikoff — 26 July, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
The national council of the SSP voted to discontinue this in 2002 - although two regional organisers - who are now in Solidarity - refused to discontinue it. It was only used temporarily because in 1999 there had been confusion between the SSP and the SLP on the regional lists. At no time did the old SSP ever use Sheridan’s name on ballot papers for council elections, as Solidarity have done everywhere, whether or not the SSP or any socialist party is standing.
I did not rule out the possibility of one voter making a mistake. Read my post more carefully. I suggested that the numbers would not have been any greater than the those who might have voted for Solidarity under the mistaken impression that Tommy Sheridan was the candidate. His photo and message was the main front page of the Solidarity leaflet, his name was on the ballot paper.
I think you should whingeing about confusion to explain the SSP result and acknowledge the fact that as the Daily Record today reported ‘In the battle of the left, the Scottish Socialist Party won.’
Much more important is that the left could’ve done much, much better better if it had not for the insane split dictated by one individual. The socialist vote would have been higher than 2005 general election, despite the massive squeeze by two huge party machines, and above the Lib Dems. Sheridan has a lot to answer for, as do those who followed him like sheep. Though he’ll probably now jump ship and try to join the SNP, if his comments after the election are a guide
Comment by Weegie — 26 July, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
“Exiting the Labour party during and after the poll tax struggle the Militant looked for a new vehicle. The “movement for scottish self determination” seemed to fit the bill of providing an alternative way forward. The Scottish socialist Alliance was launched in the mid 90s around the populist figure of TS.”
The SWP were very much late co to the SSP only jumping on the bandwagon after the hard work was put in to gain recruits.
I am not aware of any openly card carrying SWP member standing as a candidate for the SSP before the split.
The Scottish Militant comrades were in favour of an open turn becuase of the class awareness and support that was in evidence in Glasgow.
People have got carried away with electoral ’success’ not other measurements of class advancement.
Comment by Roy — 27 July, 2008 @ 4:19 am
John - if yer wondering how the “bannockburn re-enactment society” is going, presumably as compared to the Russian Revolution re-enactment society you have been immersed in all yer life - then the cause of Scottish independence is doing pretty well while Leninism is the political equivalent of the dodo.
And if you differentiated between your own comments and other people’s using quote makrs then it’d easier to work out who was saying what.
As it is, you endorse the cult of celebrity politicians by putting Tommy Sheridans name on the ballot paper.
Andy, if you endorse the cult of celebrity politicians then frankly thats ridiculous and laughable.
Leaders & Followers is a tired, pointless, and bourgeois political game that genuine political radicals should have no truck with.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 27 July, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Jim - invoking Richie Venton’s name to justify celebrity politics cuts no ice. In this respect Richie Venton was part of the problem back then, when SSP 1.0 (between 1999 and 2004) - myself included - justified the cult of celebrity socialism because there was a celebrity at hand who could be “used” - although who was using who didn’t become apparent until much later.
Some of us sobered up and realised this was both opportunist and anti-liberationist. Others well… they still cant seem to see beyond leadership cults - be they individuals or small left wing parties.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 27 July, 2008 @ 10:21 am
‘Two bald men fighting over a comb.’
Comment by popular demand — 27 July, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
No 108; Nice line about the Russian Revolution re-enactment society. Fair points on celebrity politics too. But the party Kevin Williamson now supports - the SNP - do celebrity politics in a more extreme form than the SSP ever did. Cult of personality? Alex Salmond could teach Mr Sheridan plenty. And at least Tommy Sheridan was only a figurehead - Alex Salmond decides pretty much everything within the SNP.
Comment by Weegie — 27 July, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
#107 ‘I am not aware of any openly card carrying SWP member standing as a candidate for the SSP before the split.’
30+………….
Comment by Solidarity — 27 July, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
http://www.democraticgreensocialist.org/
Comment by Solidarity — 27 July, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
#112 Pat Smith was a list candidate for the SSP as was others. Angela McCormack was also a candidate in council by-election and others stood as council candidates.
Comment by Anonymous — 27 July, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
The SWP joined 2 years after the formation and many years after the roots of the SPP had been laid with formation of the Socialist Alliance and the SML. ‘The so called open turn’
The leadership of the SSP (ISM) clearly called the tune in the SPP from the off set and felt confident enough to invite the SWP to join in 2000 - this they did after the SWP had to compromise greater to join the band wagon and also notably changed their long standing position on standing in elections.
The rationale of the IMS was that the SWP did not have weight of numbers and were concentrated in just a few main cities. The IMS very likely thought it was useful to have a larger bloc against the CWI - effectively under some degree of control.
In the meantime the SPP was starting to achieve notable results in Glasgow and in the Labour Movement and Tommy Sheridan was gaining a status of a national figure.
The SWP as they did in England and Wales did not want to be left out in the cold and no doubt was hoping to gain the control at some stage - a cynical but unsurprising approach by these masters of opportunism.
Comment by Roy — 27 July, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
SPP should be SSP
Comment by Roy — 27 July, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Hi Kev,
As it happens I think that your analysis of the likely scenario in 2010 isn’t far wrong. Labour will be massively defeated in the coming Westminster election and I think that there’s a fair chance that a very large number of Scots, if given the chance in a referendum, will say “Bugger this for a game of soldiers! We’re off” and will vote for Independence from neo-con England.
But that’s why I think we do have to think about what state the Scottish “left” or “liberal progressive forces” (or whatever other name you want to give those that oppose repression and further impoverishing of the poor) is in at that time.
Hence my hope that alongside the growth in support for indepencence the “left” can appeal to significant sections of the Scottish population. My pessimistic side however says that the state, the media and the pro-union parties will do everything possible to prevent the break-up of Great Britain Ltd. Who will take them on in that contest? I have more doubts about the SNP (not their ability but their willingness) than you do.
Comment by Bill Scott — 27 July, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Are there any sections of the Scottish left opposed to independence?
Comment by popular demand — 27 July, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
In terns of organised groups and in no particular order -Communist party of Britain- the AWL- CPGB- the workers unity tendency of the SSP- Socialist Appeal- the Campaign for a Marxist party- the Socialist Equality Party
sandy
Comment by sandy — 27 July, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
It was far more important for Solidarity to do well in this election than the SSP. After all Solidarity was launched promising to be ‘bigger, bolder and better’ according to Tommy than the SSP.Tommy went on television in the run up to the 2007 election claiming that over half of the SSP’s members had left and that Solidarity was poised to elect 8 M.S.P’s. It seems that far from being bolder, bigger etc Solidarity appears to be diminishing. Instead Solidarity appear beset by not just the obvious iceberg on the horizon but by controversial resignations, real hostility between its factions and I believe no week to week activity in the actual name of Solidarity.
The SSP’s past financial problems have been well publicised as have attempts to bankrupt the Party by individuals within Solidarity. Yet the Socialist Voice is still being produced and I believe that they still have offices and paid staff. This suggests a relatively healthy subs base.
The CWI and the SWP widely reported the imminent demise of the SSP following on from the 2007 election and yet we see no sign of this happening. Instead the SSP managed to have an effective campaign and beat solidarity and also the greens in Glasgow East. The SSP, despite many setbacks, appears to be recovering from last years low.
The fact that the SSP, despite being dismissed and regarded by those in the leadership of Solidarity as a busted flush, defeated Solidarity who appeared to promote Tommy more than their own candidate, is an achievement when you cast your eyes back over the last 16 or so months.
I was unable to look in on the election in Glasgow East to see what was happening on the ground. However the question that most intrigues me is why Tommy never stood? Was he worried about his electoral chances?
Thanks, Selkirk Steve.
Comment by Selkirk Steve — 28 July, 2008 @ 1:48 am
There is not the old charamastic pull with Sheridan other than mostly from camp followers .
On the street people see sad Tommy as damaged goods or much maligned.
Tabloid readers are either with him or against him and that must detrimentally effect his electoral base. There is no Tommy bounce, come to your senses and get used to it
Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 28 July, 2008 @ 6:17 am
Hi Bill.
Contrary to some of the opinions expressed here I don’t have any political allegiances to any political party. Its an issue by issue thing with the SNP government.
The SNP promised the people of Scotland they would deliver a parliamentary bill for an Independence Referendum in 2010 and to date they havent reneged on that, quite the opposite, they have prepared for it as effectively as anyone could ever hope for. That’s the main reason I will back them at present.
After the Referendum Bill is passed by Parliament and by the people then a re-assessment and political reorientation will be the order of the day.
On other key issues the SNP government have done some things that I support wholeheartedly:
* They continue to oppose the War in Iraq and call for the troops to return home.
* They have stopped the sale of council houses in Scotland.
* They have drawn a line in the sand against a new generation of nuclear reactors being built in Scotland.
* They have frozen council tax levels and are pressing ahead with scrapping it.
* They continue to oppose nuclear weapons at Faslane.
* They have cut prescriptions charges and have timetabled their complete abolition.
* They reversed New Labour’s decisions to close key Accident & Emergency Services.
* They abolished student tuition fees.
* They’ve extended personal care services for the elderly.
In other words they have earned my conditional support at this juncture for their progressive social agenda. It is for the above reasons that the SNP won Glasgow East by-election not just a mid-term protest vote against Labour.
The left are having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that even on limited resources the SNP government are pursuing a radical social agenda in government and actively preparing the ground for the break up of the UK.
Where this leaves progressive Scottish radicals and the Scottish left is a good question. One thing is clear though. For as long as the SNP pursue such a radical populist agenda at national level, and for as long as the question of Scottish independence remains unresolved, then standing against the SNP at national elections is a pointless exercise for the left. It is mere grandstanding.
The SNP have an obvious Achilles heel though. It is at community level. It would seem common sense for the Scottish left to leave the national elections to the SNP and direct all their efforts into community building: socially, economically and culturally.
You don’t need to be a member of a political party to do this. Some of us are doing this every week.
Mmy own small contribution is a weekly radio show done free gratis promoting Scottish culture: bands, music and writers).
Feel free to check out http://www.MySpace.com/thescottishpatient/
Political parties tend to shy away from this sort of activity because they are afraid that they are out of their depth and there are no short term gains for themselves.
And also because doing these things under the banner of a political party is a drawback because most people are suspicious of political parties and distrust them: assuming they are only involved to recruit members and garner votes.
In your case Bill I’m saying what you already know. And in Jim Monaghan’s case too, as he used to do some great cultural work down in Ayrshire. Maybe still does I dont know.
But I’ve still to see many signs that the supposedly progressive leftist parties understand what is meant by the hive mentality and the need to break free from it, and act as equals rather than political opposrtunists when it comes to community building.
I hope this changes. As I said, community level is where the SNP are at their weakest - and as a result they are electorally weakest at local government level - and this is where long term lasting work can be done by progressive forces; the sort of preparatory work that is necessary for a real change in the nature of society.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 28 July, 2008 @ 8:40 am
That link should have been:
http://www.myspace.com/thescottishpatient
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 28 July, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Kevin,
I agree with your point on the referendum Bill, the SNP haven’t went back on anything on this issue, they have preceeded exactly as they said they would, it is only feverish spin by Labour that has even managed to get this view of running away from labour accepted in some eyes, byut the opposite is the truth.
Kenny Gibson was telling me about that labour members were telling pensioners on the door-step that the SNP were taking their free bus pass from them. Most of the scare stories are labour-led propaganda and lies.
As a minority govt the SNP will struggle to get all of their programme through, but the sight of the opposition MSPs voting against SNP action and then saying that SNP have reneged on a promise when the opposition unite to defeat them is sickening and will probably drive more people to vote SNP in the long run.
But I have to disagree on two other points, they havent stopped council house sales in Scotland. Some councils have stopped sales of houses to new tennants, not retrospective for exisiting tennants, others have stopped sales in targetted ‘pressure’ areas.
Also I totally disagree with the decision to ’save’ the A&E at Ayr.
That unit is useless and has operated four consultants short for years now, they will continue to run like this and send patients to other hospitals as consultants are unlikely to take a job in a hospital with so little challenging work for them.
The choice was between a decent A&E at Killie and an understaffed one at Ayr, or the alternative proposal which was for a better A&E at Kilmarnock and minor injury units (the most common use of A&E for the majority of patients) at Ayr, Cumnock, Girvan and Irvine. The SNP decision means people in my area still have to travel great distances even to get a football injury or kitchen accident seen to. While the tory-led campaign to save ayr means that Ayrshire’s most affluent areas get to keep an underused service to themselves, if their posh children accidentally get their head stuck in the kettle.
My father died last year in Victoria Hospital in Glasgow after Ayr hospital ‘held’ him until he could be sent to another hospital that could treat him, that is the norm at Ayr A&E.
Monklands probably had a better case for staying open but the Ayr one was a populist decision that wasn’t thought through and was opposed as it was a Labour idea. Ayrshire now has to continue with a poorer service and do without the sensible improvements that were planned by the local NHS and backed by the Lab/Lib executive.
As for the SSP/Solidarity thing, I agree with you that it was unimportant in the context of this election result and there is no piint in me commenting further as this thread will disintegrate into the usual constant repetitive caricatures of Solidarity and it’s members. I have said my piece on it and there is nothing to add that would improve the debate here, the usual reaction to me would waste the real debate on this issue in this thread.
Love the show mate but it needs a bit of Nyah Fearties!
Jim
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 28 July, 2008 @ 9:37 am
# 120 Selkirk Steve
Thanks for that Steve, as I’ve said on this blog before the real tragedy is that there have been two rival left factions fighting each other, which hardly does anything for attracting support.
Bad enough at elections but also for building a left alternative on day to day activity.
I can’t say I know much about the real nature of the split, but I’ve become skeptical about the explanation given by the Sheridan faction as being about the exposure of his personal life, whatever etc in the shit rag NOW !
But that’s history, now we see the SSP much diminshed (and also Solidarity); the point is to rebuild.
I don’t think support for seperation is going to help. Sorry but it’s a real hoary ‘worker’s unity north and south of the border’ that seems more to the point.
As for NL being trashed, how can any socialist even think of shedding a tear, not that I’m feeling good either with no solid left alternative.
Comment by Halshall — 28 July, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Halshall, Steve is an SSP member who gave you a very biased version of events. The SSP have no interest in building bridges with the SWP, CWI or the non-aligned members of Solidarity, that is clear from their constant attacks.
Basically the SSP at it’s peak consisted of three main groups, the ISM (probably the largest in numbers) the SWP and CWI, with a thousand or so non-aligned members of the scottish left. There were also some very small groups such SRSM, RCN and AWL.
The idea that brought people like me to the SSP was bringing the strong left factions together in a strong electoral party. The SSP as it stands now is just one left faction and some independents that support them. Solidarity are two left factions and some independents.
I think that Solidarity are the better placed to keep the idea alive and part of that is the looser arrangement allowing party members freedom to organise as their own groups outside of party campaigns. So when Steve talks about a lack of solidarity activity, that is not the same as solidarity members being inactive. It is a method of working that is based on learning from past mistakes and so far has worked pretty well. Where else in the UK will you see SWP and CWI members throwing themselves into an electoral campaign together?
Solidarity are clearly far stronger in terms of the trade unions who, in my opinion, will be the key to any long-term broad left project.
In the long run it might be that the left have to make another new start, or that SSP and Solidarity will re-merge or that one or the another survives or even that the status quo goes on. But we have to get on with it and see how it pans out.
I prefer the looser way of working, less party lines, less central control, less bureacrats. If wokers are seeing more leaflets from SWP and CWI than Solidarity on picket lines, then it doesnt matter as much to me as workers being supported and hearing socialist arguments. A strike shouldnt be a recruitment drive or a test of whether SSP or Solidarity can get their banner on TV, it should an action based on worker’s solidarity and offering support.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 28 July, 2008 @ 9:54 am
“Where else in the UK will you see SWP and CWI members throwing themselves into an electoral campaign together?”
But for how long? The SWP leadership are in a tail spin over the idea of joint working and how long before that position is imposed in Scotland?
Comment by Roy — 28 July, 2008 @ 10:06 am
#127 But for how long?
7 years now.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 28 July, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Kevin Williamson,
imagine if it were an avowedly up front left-wing party that had managed to carry out what the SNP has managed to do, in such a short space of time, and as a minority government
- the left wing would be falling over themselves with effusive praise.
I can’t help wondering that this ‘left-wing’ care more about their own little world, than about getting together and helping ordinary people and our communities improve their lives, against the right-wing american fascist parties of Westminster.
Jim Monaghan,
I’m sorry to hear about your dad!
Round my way, A&E closure over at Monklands would’ve been a death sentence, I think, for serious accident victims and other such emergencies as they would have had to have been driven all the way over to Wishaw General just up the road from me.
all the best you pair!
ps
Kevin you forgot to mention the SNP are in the van of anti-Islamophobia
pps
Like Kevin, I’m a leftie and can’t wait to see the Scottish Left get its act together, as it is stuffed with decent, honest folk whose hearts are always in the right place!
Comment by joe90 — 28 July, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Roy #127 - The SWP, despite attempts to paint them as such on this list, are not one monolithic bloc in which the centre wields a rigid control over the rest of the country at all times and over ever political decision. I know for a fact that sharp debates took place with regard to their orientation towards Solidarity between the Scottish SWP comrades and the London comrades. There were disagreements, as there are in any political organisation, and the Scottish comrades played a key role in ultimately leading the SWP’s orientation towards Solidarity. Ultimately, they understood that the political terrain in Scotland is different to that in England and had to be factored into their decision to support Solidarity, despite misgivings at the start. Those misgivings were only to be expected after the negative experience of the SSP.
Solidarity, as Jim rightly says, is not a party in the sense that every member has to campaign week in week out under the banner of Solidarity. Why shouldn’t the SWP and CWI be allowed to campaign on their own behalf in campaigns of their choosing? In a perfect world every socialist organisation would campaign together on every issue. It’s not going to happen, however, and Solidarity has adapted to that reality by developing organically within a less rigid structure to allow for the doctrinal differences and differences in orientation towards the various campaigns that exist. It has developed into an electoral alliance, which in the current period seems to me the way ahead.
In terms of the national question in Scotland, I think that events in Scotland have definitely wrong footed a lot of socialists and socialist organisations, such as the SWP and CWI, with its implications for class-based politics. The SNP have gained momentum as a progressive mainstream political force not only in Scotland but throughout the UK, where their policies have resonated since being elected to power in Holyrood. The role of the far left in Scotland today is not to try and stand in front of this moving train, but to try and push the SNP further left, to pressure them to keep to their manifesto promises and concretise their antiwar and anti-Trident positions with less talk and more action - ultimately to to help in the immediate task of driving a stake through the political heart of New Labour in Scotland, which would help in doing the same throughout the UK.
Those socialists who continue to support attempts to reclaim the Labour Party are hopelessly deluded. Blairism is Thatcherism taken to its logical conclusion, which is in economic terms the ’shock therapy’ devised by Dr Evil himself, Milton Friedman, and that coterie of economic gangsters otherwise known as the Chicago School. New Labour are the enemy of all working class people, which means the enemy of everyone except the billionaires, international investors, and corporate oligarchs in whose interests they govern.
As for the SNP’s ideological bona fides, there shouldn’t be any doubt that despite a socially progressive integument, they are a pro-business, free market party with Ireland as their template for Scotland. This so-called Celtic Tiger has some of the worst social indicators of any country in the EU, due to its obscene low rate of business tax and a concomitant lack of investment in public services, low wages and pensions.
The recent debacle over the Donald Trump affair in Scotland should set have set alarm bells ringing even among those romantic former socialists now turned nationalists that independence, based on the present trajectory of the SNP, will not mean waking up to the sound of bagpipes every morning in a Millenarian Scottish paradise. Unless socialists and progressives start trying to influence SNP policy now with regard to issues such as public ownership, progressive taxation, and reinvestment in social housing, the NHS, and so on, then we will be on the sidelines while Scotland continues down the road to political sovereignty without the economic sovereignty without which the Scottish working class will merely be at the mercy of global corporations, and thus competing for crumbs with workers throughout Europe in a race to the bottom.
Constitutionally, we need to be drawing attention to the role of the Monarchy in a future independent Scotland. There has been an ominous lack of the word Republic since the SNP came to power, and this should be a cause for concern. The Crown Powers exist and should be understood as a pernicious hangover from the feudal history of the nation’s past. The Privy Council, a shadow government in waiting and not merely a benign symbolic artifice, is another example of the consitutional ties that will have to be broken if independence is to mean more than changing the Union Jack for the Saltire above Edinburgh Castle. Alex Salmond currently sits on this body, which is significant.
As for the ongoing SSP/Solidarity issue, repeated attempts to lay the blame for the split at the door of one man are as tired as they are politically unsustainable. The split was coming for a long time before the court case. It was only a matter of when not if.
Comment by John W — 28 July, 2008 @ 11:14 am
…the Donald Trump affair in Scotland should set have set alarm bells ringing even among those romantic former socialists now turned nationalists that independence, based on the present trajectory of the SNP, will not mean waking up to the sound of bagpipes every morning in a Millenarian Scottish paradise.
John W,
tell me exactly what the British left-wing has been able to do to help ordinary people struggle against the rampant right-wing policies of Westminster?
In what ways, in concrete and practical terms, has the left managed to improve peoples’ lives and how many people lives have been improved as a result?
Now the unromantic former-British left-wing failures want to jump on the successful SNP bandwagon, it seems.
I am a socialist and left-wing which is why I support what the SNP is doing, and why I have always supported the re-claiming of Scottish sovereignty.
Naturally, I believe in solidarity but I don’t believe much in large-scale collectivisation and centralisation, as far as left-wing politics is concerned.
The SNP hasn’t allowed British ConLabourative capitalism to go unchallanged, but has organised itself and worked hard to present progressive alternatives to British nationalism-imperilaism and rule from Westminster.
I can’t help thinking the SNP really doesn’t need the kind of help and advice on offer from a British left that has been unable to do anything much that is positive or constructive, as far as rolling back the British state and its attacks on the weakest and most vulnarable in our communities is concerned.
all the best John W!
Comment by joe90 — 28 July, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
John
While not disagreeing with the basic thrust of your arguments I would take issue with this inherently flawed idea:
“Unless socialists and progressives start trying to influence SNP policy now with regard to issues such as public ownership, progressive taxation, and reinvestment in social housing, the NHS, and so on, then we will be on the sidelines while Scotland continues down the road to political sovereignty without the economic sovereignty without which the Scottish working class will merely be at the mercy of global corporations, and thus competing for crumbs with workers throughout Europe in a race to the bottom.”
Why should socialists progressives expend time and effort trying to influence SNP policy at this juncture?
The historical role of the SNP was to deliver a majority vote for Scottish independence. This has been significantly modified in the last four years.
Now, the policy of the SNP has been amended and can be summarised a) deliver a referendum on Independence through the Scottish Parliament b) to deliver a Yes vote c) to negotiate an Independnece settlemnet with Westminster.
It is important for the left to not only understand this but to understand the timescale involved, and how and when to intervene in this process. Timing is the key to intervention.
With the exception of the usual middle class ultraleftists who want everything NOW! (just like wee babies demanding whatnot from their parents) activists with any sort of tactical or strategic acumen will realise that different campaigning strategies are necessary at different periods over the next few years.
Right now its a case of giving support to the SNP government and continually reminding them that the reason they have such popular support is because they have doen well with the radical populist measures they have taken.
The tricky part of this means showing a degree of patience and political maturity - which is often missing on the far left who put their own wee organisations interests before the bigger picture.
The unionists will unite with the entire Scottish media and with the British state to oppose this. Which is why between now and the actual referendum in November 2010 - assuming ti gets through Parliament - the left will have to ditch their dogma and fight a united fight for Scottish Independence.
Let the SNP try and win a YES vote for Scottish Independence across class lines. If the left is uncomfortable with appealing to the interests of big business or the middle classes to vote YES then dont. The left can concentrate on delivering a YES vote among the workforce, the poor, students, pensioners, and among the local communites they live amongst.
That’s where we are at.
If a YES vote is delivered in 2010 then a realignment in politics will begin. Then will be the time for progressives and socialists to differentiate themselves from the SNP - and do political battle with the SNP - with regards to monarchy, economic policy, private ownership of the oilfields, membership of NATO, nuclear weapons, and any attempt to have British or US military on Scottish soil.
Surely this is ABC stuff. Once Independence is secured the SNP will split into various compoent parts, nothign is surer, with the main partbeing virtually indistinguishable from the New Labour.
There are only two reasons why anyone should seek to embroil the supporters of Scottish independence in a divisive ideological battle over monarchy and economic policy, etc, BEFORE we win the biggest battle of them all in 2010. One of them is tactical immaturity. The other is more sinister.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 28 July, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Joe90:
tell me exactly what the British left-wing has been able to do to help ordinary people struggle against the rampant right-wing policies of Westminster?
In what ways, in concrete and practical terms, has the left managed to improve peoples’ lives and how many people lives have been improved as a result?
Now the unromantic former-British left-wing failures want to jump on the successful SNP bandwagon, it seems.
Reply:
Well, Joe, how about the successful fight against the Poll Tax for starters? Then how about the Bill in the Scottish Parliament to abolish Warrant Sales? Or how about the focus on the hated Council Tax, which before the Bill for its replacement led by TS with an income-based alternative wasn’t even on the radar of SNP policy?
How about that?
What about the antiwar movement? What about the Scottish-wide campaign for a No-vote on stock transfer of Council Housing? What about the campaign against Islamophobia?
Have you been asleep over the past 20 years or so, Joe?
Rather than the British left wing failures that you describe, the fact is that the left has led the way in grassroots campaigns in which SNP activists are about as rare as hen’s teeth.
Comment by John W — 28 July, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Kevin
To expect socialists to suddenly forget, or place aside, the issue of class in a society that is intrinsically and at bottom divided by class, is to turn your back on reality and focus on form rather than content.
Independence, the form it takes, has a different connotation to different sections of the population, according to the prism of class through which they view the world. The fact is you can exert influence on a movement without sacrificing your politics in the process.
Independence to me is a tactic not a princciple, as it is with you, an avowed former and anti-Marxist. For me, as an internationalist, it is all about doing our part in helping weaken the common enemy of humanity, US imperialism, through breaking up the British State. However, the fact that I, or any other member of the Scottish working class, has more in common with a single member of the English, French, African, or Chinese working class than we do with the likes of Brian Souter, Fred Godwin, Sean Connery, and the execrable Donald Trump cannot be placed on hold in pursuit of bringing into being a quantitive change in the composition of the British State that will turn Scotland into a haven for global corporations.
To argue otherwise is reflective of political degeneration never mind immaturity.
Comment by John W — 28 July, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
It isn’t a very big list John W, or one that is exclusively the provenance of the avowedly nationalist British left-wing.
poll tax
- The SNP were in the van of the non-payment campaign of the Poll Tax.
What about the antiwar movement?
- What about the SNP’s opposition inside Westminister, just for instance?
What about the Scottish-wide campaign for a No-vote on stock transfer of Council Housing?
- What about the SNP-minority government scrapping tenant’s right-to-buy scheme?
What about the campaign against Islamophobia?
- What about Osama Saeed, SNP candidate for the Glasgow Central in the next elections to Westminster?
Here is his blog -
Rolled Trousers
And here is the foundation he helped set up and recently launch -
Scottish Islamic Foundation
Islamophobia is one of the tactics used by zionist racist supremists New Labourites, such as the scum and dregs you find over at Harry’s Blog, when they want to criticise the SNP.
If the British left-wing have been such a roaring success over the past 20 years then how do you acount for the abject failure since at least Thatcher came to power in 1979?
What the SNP have been able to do, in just under a year and half of minority government in Scotland compared to the ’successes’ of the British left in the past 30 years, doesn’t compare too well I’m afraid.
I can see why many in the SNP might not want to rely on help and advice from the British left given their track record to date, and who could blame them.
all the best!
Comment by joe90 — 28 July, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
JOhn W:
“the fact that I, or any other member of the Scottish working class, has more in common with a single member of the English, French, African, or Chinese working class than we do with the likes of Brian Souter, Fred Godwin, Sean Connery”
So JOhn, if you had to spend an evening with Sean Connery, you would find that you don’t speak the same language? hadn’t seen any of the same films or books? had no common cultural framework, no shared knowledge of history? No shared taste in food or drink, or music?
But if you spent an evening with any random working class person from Anglola for example, you would have more in common?
This seems a remarkably unlikely claim to me.
Does this seem likely?
Comment by Andy Newman — 28 July, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
I quite agree with Kevin WIlliamson,
after independence left-wing politics in Scotland will be really interesting.
Can’t wait!
Comment by joe90 — 28 July, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Andy, inexplicably for a socialist, you are arguing that nationality binds us more than class, than our relationship to the means of production. This argument has been used since the dawn of monopoly capitalism to keep the working classes divided against themselves, it was the argument that lay at the root of the ’social patriotism’ line taken by most socialist organisations within the Second International prior to the First World War, thus precipitating its complete collapse as so-called socialists joined forces with their own respective bourgeoisies in the carnage of the First World War.
It is a disgraceful line to take. Worse than that, it’s despicable.
Divisions of culture and language are as nothing when compared to the commonality of the struggle for existence that is class. It is precisely this understanding and the internationalism which it spawns that so frighens the international ruling classes, who by the way are conscious of their own common interests. It frightens them so much that they expend so much energy and resources in propagating the false divisions of nationality, culture, gender, sexual orientation, and religion within society.
Andy, seriously, your political compass has been all over the place of late.
Comment by John W — 28 July, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
JOhn
You are the one that is all over the place. Indeed you have elevated an ahistorical understanding of internationalism to a form of religious faith that defies the evidence in front of your own eyes.
It ceratinly seems ludicrous to me to argue that class is a more fundamental aspect of someon’e sense of their own identity that gender or sexual orientation. That really is dave Spart territory.
It quite simply is untrue that people who share the same class interest automatically have more in common with each other. Life is more complicated than that.
Internationalism and class solidarity across national boundaries and between different cultures is a political aspirations that must be consiously worked for by socialists and trade union militants winning an argument that is sometimes counter-intuitive. If you say “we have the same class interests as an Anglolan worker” you are correct, if you say ” British workers share more common culture with an Angolan worker than with a British boss” then you are self-evidenetly silly.
The fact that there is often cultural similarity between those who have antagonistic class interests is simply self-evidently true.
Comment by Andy Newman — 28 July, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Andy, let’s dissect this, because you’ve just responded to a different post than the one I wrote.
YOU WRITE:
It certainly seems ludicrous to me to argue that class is a more fundamental aspect of someon’e sense of their own identity that gender or sexual orientation. That really is dave Spart territory.
It quite simply is untrue that people who share the same class interest automatically have more in common with each other. Life is more complicated than that.
REPLY:
In terms of their relationship to the means of production, it is self evident that they do have more in common - that is if you have a Marxist analysis of the world we live in. Our primary purpose as socialists or Marxists is to make that argument. The fact that many, in fact the majority, of working class people are not conscious of this commonality, or at least not conscious of it all the time, is self evident. How does that change the necessity of trying to bring them to this understanding?
So, not complicated, Andy, just difficult.
YOU WRITE:
Internationalism and class solidarity across national boundaries and between different cultures is a political aspirations that must be consiously worked for by socialists and trade union militants winning an argument that is sometimes counter-intuitive. If you say “we have the same class interests as an Anglolan worker” you are correct, if you say ” British workers share more common culture with an Angolan worker than with a British boss” then you are self-evidenetly silly.
REPLY:
Please go back and re-read my original post on the issue of culture v class. I said that similarities of culture and language, etc., are as nothing compared to the struggle for existence that is economic class. Put more simply, if you are unable to feed yourself and your family then what fucking use is culture.
Comment by John W — 28 July, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
JOhn W
“Please go back and re-read my original post on the issue of culture v class. I said that similarities of culture and language, etc., are as nothing compared to the struggle for existence that is economic class. Put more simply, if you are unable to feed yourself and your family then what fucking use is culture.”
Well for example, a working class person in Glasgow who loses their job will be relativley poor, but woudl still have access to health care, education for their children, public libraries, housing benefit, etc.
A working class person (even those actually in work) in rural china woul probably not be able to afford wither health care or education.
Few people in Scotland are actually in a position where they are “unable to feed yourself and your family “. In Angola, most children die before they are ten.
So it is simply not true that there is a huge and self-evident similarity in their economic conditions.
A gay person in Scotland would certinlay have a very different experience from a gay person in Nigeria or Iran, irrespective of their economic class.
Comment by Andy Newman — 28 July, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Frank #142
Not simplistic just logical, based on the view that the economic system in any given society comprises the foundation upon which culture, political systems, legal systems, moral codes and social conventions ultimately rest. Our identities aren’t complex given that what unites us as human beings is far more powerful than anything that divides us. Those identities are made complicated by the struggle for existence in a world divided into rich and poor, powerful and powerless. It’s a struggle that gives rise to racism, sexism, religious fundamentalism, and so on.
The fact you seem unable to grasp that is neither here nor there.
As for your sneering, infantile comment re Solidarity, yes, this is the same John W who was a Solidarity press officer, and, yes, the same John W who stated that Solidarity is the main socialist party in Scotland.
I still believe that, even though no longer a member. What of it? In fact, it is not a question of subjective opinion, it is an objective fact, based on the level of trade union support and endorsement which Solidarity enjoys, and based on the involvement of Solidarity members in various local and national campaigns compared to the involvement of other socialist parties.
Comment by John W — 28 July, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Andy,
The more you post on this the worse it gets, mate. To compare poverty in relative terms as you have is to completely miss the point.
It is about consciousness. Being a socialist, you should obviously be aware of our own government’s role in the absolute poverty which has ravaged Africa and the developing world. Then, as a socialist, you would no doubt be aware that the same economic prerogatives responsible for that are responsible for a growing income gap in this country, attacks on public services, immigrants, wages, pensions, etc.
Are you still with me, Andy?
The fact that relative poverty is different is not the issue. The issue is that it is the same economic system responsible for both. The only reason workers in this country have access to libraries, a health service, public parks, etc., is due to the class struggle waged by previous generations. You seem to be suggesting that we have these things due to the benificence of our betters. Doesn’t the fact that we have far less in terms of services, real wages, pensions, and a social wage than previous generations set alarm bells ringing at all?
Solidarity means exactly that, Andy. Yes, as I have already said, the vast majority of people do not view the world this way. But isn’t what we’re fighting for a world in which they do? And isn’t this vision based on our understanding of the fact that what unites us is far more important than what divides us?
Comment by John W — 28 July, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
JOhn
Wow, capitalism is bad! No shit, I only wish somone had told me earlier.
The question is how we build a political movement to combat capitalism, and starting from the real world understanding that the mass of the population have of their condition and not just dismissing it seems a good place to start for me.
Comment by Andy Newman — 28 July, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
What have the people in Angola ever done to deserve the attentions of the political car-crash that is the washed-up British nationalist left-wing, I don’t know.
John W without doing a thing already, has started on his sectarian left-wing divisive politics by criticising SNP patrons and donors such as Sean Connery!
The brit-nats have the gumption, gall, hubris chutzpah to presume they have the right to give the SNP help and advice - the SNP, is a highly successful political party carrying through beneficial policies to help the weakest and most vulnearble in our community.
Well, if you have so much in common with Angolans John W,
why don’t you go there and give them some of the same advice and help that has helped make the British Left and British society what it is today?
I have lots in common with my fellow sisters and brothers in the Global South but activism and solidarity begins at home, not abroad.
To use stale, banal, left-wing rhetoric about ‘internationalism’ in order to undermine real achievements and a political party that is in place and is already helping real people in our own community that need it, I think is quite irresponsible.
Comment by joe90 — 28 July, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Joe90:
John W without doing a thing already, has started on his sectarian left-wing divisive politics by criticising SNP patrons and donors such as Sean Connery!
Reply:
Joe, you seem like a nice guy, but it’s obvious from reading this and previous posts that you are to politics in Scotland what John Greig was to the overlap.
Comment by John W — 28 July, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
No. 144
“Solidarity, the main socialist party in Scotland.” You’re having a laugh, mate. Average attendance at their SINGLE Glasgow branch - FOUR, according to one very recent defector from Solidarity. On the ground and in the communities - certainly in Glasgow and Clydeside - the SSP are miles ahead of the disintegrating Solidarity.
The dwindling SWP are certainly fanatically active in every national campaign they can latch onto - and they always will be, even when they are down to their last ten dogmatic diehards. Take 30 super-active SWP members out of the equation - and it looks like they’re going to take themselves out of the equation first - and Solidarity is smaller than the Communist Party of Britain, never mind the SSP.
Comment by Weegie — 28 July, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
When is the left in Scotland going to sort itself out. No wonder the left, with its rallying cries of ‘unity’ and ’solidarity’ is such a laughing stock. Too be honest both the SSP and Solidarity are pretty insignificant in Scottish politics. Too see both of them sticking their chests out and boasting about who is the biggest socialist outfit is quite sad. Sometimes I get the impression that the ones who make these claims like the Monaghan’s and Whites of this world on the Solidarity side, and the anti Sheridan brigade on the SSPs side, punch above their weight politically. Where are the moderates? where are the ones who can see the bigger picture? Is there someone out there from either organisation who is going to be brave enough and stick their head above the parapet and say that neither Solidarity or the SSP holds out much hope in being a genuine socialist/social democratic alternative?
Comment by Frank Williams — 28 July, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
John - there isnt a single person agreeing with you in this thread. Do you not suspect that perhaps, maybe, there’s the remotest chance that you might just have got things completely wrong?
And for what its worth I feel I’ve got more in common with Sean Connery than the working class dicks in the next stair to me here in Wester Hailes who keep trying to tan ma door in, and who attacked the fire brigade last weekend after they set fire to the bins.
In fact I’d quite enjoy a chat with Sean Connery about Scotland, its culture, its history and its future as well as about movies and the Irish accent he got away with by the skin of his teeth in The Untouchables.
It isnt an amorphous class that counts in the final analysis but the actions of individuals - specifically whether people are progressive and helpful and act in the common interests of their fellow human beings. (Corporations and Big Government don’t, which is why they’re the problem).
But if you base the future on the actions of an idealised proletariat though, educated and led by the chosen few, and you’ll end up all alone surrounded by a small coterie of increasingly disillusioned dogmatic zealots… not much different from the scientologists and the 7th Day adventists.
You say: “The fact that many, in fact the majority, of working class people are not conscious of this commonality, or at least not conscious of it all the time, is self evident. How does that change the necessity of trying to bring them to this understanding?”
So thats what your all about. Educating the great unwashed into thinking just like you. Good luck to you mate. If you stopped and listened instead of lecturing everyone you’d find that perhaps its you that needs educating by the very people you think are ignorant.
And as for the idea that “Our identities aren’t complex given that what unites us as human beings is far more powerful than anything that divides us.” Not much I can say about that. Except that our identities are very complex and very different from each other.
It must be a laugh being you, always looking at the poorest in society as pawns on a political chess board rather than complex and complicated individuals who are continually trying to express themselves as best as they can.
Political progressives and radicals will try to listen in to other people’s perpetual desire to express themselves and try and encourage and nurture other people’s talents, rather than going about trying to recruit them to organisations where individuality is choked and suppressed in favour of a “political line”, a catch all -ism, and a utopian dogma.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 28 July, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Kevin,
And what are you doing if not lecturing and posturing as Scotland’s radical cultural maestro? Everything you do, from your own blog to a radio show to publishing, is done with the sole aim of serving your own self aggrandizement. Truthfully, in the company I keep you are considered a laughing stock, and that is no lie.
But let’s not get personal, let’s stick to politics. I have no illusions whatsoever about the state of the working class in this country, or shall we say underclass if we’re talking about those who comprise the lowest strata of the class and populate the country’s poorest housing schemes. Many of them are scum, incorrigible lowlifes who’d steal the eyes out your heid given half a chance. I know that because I am one of them. But that doesn’t change the fact that they - we - are casualties of a class war that is a necessary concomitant of capitalism.
And talking of utopias, listen to yourself. You are waiting for the dawn of a Scottish paradise if only we could shake off the clutches of the bastard English. For that is what independence is to you and yours, be honest, nothing more than a rabid and irrational anti-English crusade founded on a Celtic obscurantism which holds Scotland as a plucky little romantic nation in which people once roamed the Highlands dancing through the heather to the skirl of the pipes.
Tell that to those (metaphorically speaking of course) on the other end of those pipes in the Americas, Africa, India, and Ireland as those plucky Scots tramped their lives and their liberty underfoot in service to a British Empire from which previous generations of Brian Souters, Fred Godwins, and Duke of Buccleuch’s profited. Tell that to them, mate.
The truth is that your brand of politics is nothing less than extreme nationalism packaged as post modernist, libertarian, de centralised, abstract horseshit.
I really couldn’t give a fuck about being Scottish. Perhaps this a result of living overseas for a number of years? I don’t know. What I do know is that as a result of that experience, I learned in a personal not just theoretical way that I have far more in common with those who hold to a similar worldview than I do with those who happen, by nothing more than an accident of birth, to have been born in the same country.
Comment by John W — 29 July, 2008 @ 12:10 am
“That is no lie”.
That’d be a first for you. Give yourself a pat on the head.
Freedom For Tooting.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 29 July, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Weegie: “You’re having a laugh, mate. Average attendance at their SINGLE Glasgow branch - FOUR, according to one very recent defector from Solidarity.”
Not a very well informed defector mate, as there isn’t a “single” glasgow branch, perhaps he is talking about the Glasgow region which had a metting or two that a poor turnout as do all organisations, never as low as four though.
If I were you I would be wary of this person as anyone who was in Solidarity would know that there are several branches in Glasgow including two very active university branches, Shettleston branch, Cardonald Branch, Southside Central branch.
The difference between Solidarity and the SSP is that the SSP are a faction that attacks the rest of the left while Solidarity are still in the business of trying to unite the left in Scotland. Re trade unions, Solidarity are in ther mix and involved, while SSP are outside, looking in.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 29 July, 2008 @ 9:20 am
RE 126
I didn’t intend to give a biased version of events, I was just reflecting what was fact and what was published. Tricia McLeish’s interview on Newsnight Scotland declared that 7 out of ten people who had voted socialist in 2007 had voted for Solidarity. Therefore being beaten by the SSP is a significant reverse from Solidarity’s previous position in the constituenct. Much of what else I have written is checkable fact.
The CWI and SWP ’s involvement in the SSP was not as great as Jim seems to suggest. In terms of delegates to conferences both groups combined tended to have no more than 50 delegates, sometimes less. This was insufficent to make any serious impact on the policy passed or political direction of the SSP.
The SSP was predominantly made up of individuals who believed first and foremost in the party and had no loyalty to other organisations. This still remains the case today as far as I can see. The SWP joined not because they wanted to but because there was no other show in town. At the time they wished to be the ‘marxist pole of attraction’in the SSP and believed they could become the leadership. They were frustrated on both scores and their involvement slowly ebbed away as they were unable to recruit etc in worthwhile numbers. They disliked the accountability and democracy of the party, arguing that these essential components were bureaucratic (thus preventing them doing what they like). Their involvement in the branches and structures increased following the development of the crisis over the allegations surrounding Tommy. The CWI was a tiny organisation following the Ism split off and they remained bitter opponents within, seeking to differentiate themselves as the ‘real revolutionaries’, putting forward complicated and lengthy ‘CWI’ motions at conference, knowing these motions would fall but then allowing the CWI to run around describing the SSP leadership as reformist, nationalist or in the case of Tommy a quasi-Stalinist due to his support for Cuba. The CWI prioritised their seperate work over the work of the SSP.
So Solidarity today has inherited destructive groups who struggle to work together in an open, democratic organisation. Jim’s concept of Solidarity members doing work for their own organisation (CWI,SWP)and not in the name of Solidarity as somehow a good thing is frankly bizarre. What remains in Scotland is the need for a socialist party to advance and develop socialist ideas, not a loose coalition of people who can’t work together.
Suggestions that a split was inevitable by J.Wight cannot be sustained. The SSP won 130,000 votes in 2003 and had 6 msp’s elected. This was a major breakthrough and something that should have been a springboard for other things. Instead 6 months later the seeds of the split were layed due to the actions of Tommy. Success like that enjoyed by the SSP tends to strengthen parties not weaken them or cause them to split. Can somebody point out what were the reasons for the split, if not Tommy?
Finally, I asked the question earlier without response - why didn’t Tommy stand in Shettleston? was he worried about the vote?
Thanks.
Comment by Selkirk Steve — 29 July, 2008 @ 9:29 am
As a Green Party member I’m frustrated that we ran as a no hope party and we couldn’t have one left of SNP/Labour candidate, perhaps standing an ex Lib Dem in an area like Glasgow East was a mistake by the Scottish Greens, no that it was any personal fault of the candidate we did so badly.
The SSP/Solidarity need to get over the Sheridan affair as there is a need for a pro working class party in Scotland
Comment by Nick Foster — 29 July, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Re 156: I dont understand the question, why SHOULD Tommy have stood in the by-election? I dont remember him standing in Westminster by-elections for the SSP.
Tommy standing was never an issue, there is no reason for him not standing, we selected a candidate, (nominated by Tommy among others), there were no other nominations.
Your points about the SWP and CWI in the SSP underline my point, in my opinion, and show the difference between you and I in terms of how we think a party can be built.
It shouldnt be about stopoping the factions and internal strife. What will unite the left is having a strong electoral party, not a tight structure where everyone has to accept the policies of whatever faction wins an argument at conference or can manipulate the most delegates at a conference.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 29 July, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Jim
“What will unite the left is having a strong electoral party”
You reckon? The evidence seems to point in the opposite direction.
In order to achieve a “strong electoral party” it means a) jockeying for position to select candidates to stand for national elections, and b) taking disparate political ideas and trying to merge them into a monolothic itemised manifesto/shopping list.
The process of doing a) and b) keeps the left immersed in self-interested caucuses and platforms plotting against each other; it dilutes radical ideas and practice into the lowest common denominator, thereby strangling creative thinking; and ultimately pulls the left apart rather than leading to any form of unity.
The proof of the pudding in recent years is all over this website: the battles of the SSP/Solidarity fractions in Scotland and RESPECT/SWP-RESPECT/SP groupings in England.
What could possibly unite the left - if egos and self-interest were set aside - might be the idea of turning away from the idea of a united left as an electoral entity, and instead encourage individuals and organisations to use their talents to concentrate on making local communites better places to live in socially, economically and culturally.
5-10 years of that as a strategy and perhaps we’d have a left worthy of the name who’d spend more time discussing with each other how they’re helping transform their local communities into autonomous communities of resistance and self-sufficiency, instead of running around like headless chickens chasing after votes, recruits and elected careers.
Just a thought, Jim.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 29 July, 2008 @ 11:06 am
Kevin,
I agree to an extent, what I am talking about is an electoral representation of that, where there is no need for one group to dominate or for the machinations of conferences. That is what I want to see, a place where the various disparate views on one-off issues can be put aside for a united platform on what we agree on.
The trouble with the left parties that you cite is that one group or another will want to impose their view on a whole movement. I think we should be trying to avoid that.
If we discussed palestine openly, for instance, in informative debates, with no vote at the end to agree a specific party position, it would be preferable to one group or another winnning a slight majority on one-state, two-state, no-state, that then the rest of us have to adopt as a party line.
I dont want to force the SWP to have the same view on scottish independence to Steve Arnott or Tommy Sheridan or vice versa, it’s enough that we agree on an independent socialist scotland, if that means different things to diffrent comrades then so be it.
I think that all of the recent splits come down to one group staring to dominate and control a party that has a wider range of views than that group. Whether it is just a perception or a reality, RR will tell you that SWP took over the party. On UKLN at the moment we can see people complaining that CPGB are dominating the CNMP and that the CWI are dominating the shop stewards network. If that is perceived to be what is happening, or is actually happening then it will lead to a split. Often that is said to be happening out of hypocritical jealousy from another group who complain about a faction dominating a project but would happily dominate it themselves if they could.
Most of the left will, and can, unite around the concept of a party to the left of Labour who will mount a serious attempt at getting political representation in councils and/or parliaments. Where we fall down is trying to create a party that is too tightly structured with no room for dissent.
Frank, I have to answer you points one by one: “Jim, you appear slightly cynical about party conferences. Why shouldnt people accept the majority view? Is that not democracy?”
Thats not what I am saying, what I don’t think helps create a united left are conferences where one minority group force a view on the party that is also widely opposed. If we are talking about a broad electoral force, conferences should be about that and the groups should be free to pursue their more specific debates to the public or to the left.
“you are also incredibly naive about the SWP mate. They put their own organisation first.”
I know they do and have no problem with that. There wouldnt be an SWP if they didnt think that their analysis was worth fighting for. Within a wider coalition they can see two views, one is the growth of that coalition and the other is the SWPs position in that. I reject the caricatures of the SWP that I read here and elsewhere. I am comfortable with them being SWP members first and foremost as I am with other groups and think that trying to stop that is part of what leads to splits. Whether you disagree with the SWP on Cuba, on Iraqi resistance or on the concept of state capitalism is irrelevant to me, if we can agree on what policies should be campaigned for in a scottish or other parliament and the priorites of an electoral left party.
I think that anyone who is surprised that the SWP, CWI, CPGB or any other group put their own organisation first, is the niave one, not me.
“Solidarity literally has no real presence in some parts of Scotland.”
The same is true of the Lib Dems, SSP, Greens and others, I dont see what is relevant about this to the other points you are making??? Where I live Solidarity have more presence than the other groups I mention and we are present in most areas of the country at differing levels of membership.
“I am of the view that in the long term ‘parties within parties’ do not work. I also think it does not work to have ‘bottom up’ parties alongisde highly centralised Leninist outfits like the CWI and SWP.”
I disagree, without ‘parties within parties’ there will be no effective party of the left and it is specifically the mindset that tries to shoehorn all of us into one tight party that causes most of the splits.
“Stop spinning mate. Most people can see throught it”
Thats just pathetic, this is my opinion, it is why I and others negotiated the Solidarity structures and constitution in the way it was set up and I am sure others in the party will disagree with me. I have said in this forum, often, that I dont know whether solidarity have the answers or whether our approach will work in the long term. Are you saying that I am to have no opinion in this blog or that anything I say can be dismissed as spin?
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 29 July, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Frank
Understand what your saying but perhaps its about the timing rather than the principle. IMO the left often stands in elections when they’ve done nothing to actually merit votes.
Different people have different interpretations of what went wrong within the SSP. My own experience was that serious problems within the SSP began almost immediately after winning 6 seats in May 2003. By the summer of 2004 these problems had multiplied and the electoral successes had weakened the party as a grassroots campaigning organisation.
The party, almost exclusively, tried to communicate with its supporters and voters through its MSPs via the capitalist media. It was a recipe for disaster. No one had the courage to tell the Parliamentary Group what they didnt want to hear, namely that they had taken control of the machine. Everyone was blinded by the electoral success in 2003 and naively thought it would continue come 2007.
The SSP was contracting in active membership, the old structures were unable to expand, power was transferred away from the membership on a day to day basis, and internally the party was unattractive to people initially attracted to the veener of electoral success. Membership was a fast-spinning revolving door. Internally, the rot had set in long before the Sheridan affair broke in October 2004.
Those who became utterly disillusioned with the way the SSP was being run, and its political direction, between May 2003 and Oct 2004, dropped out in vast numbers. I stayed on as a marginalised dissident from the summer of 2004 until 2006. Most of the creative people and independent thinkers who joined during that period simply left, disillusoned.
Apart from myself very few of these people contribute to the debate on what happened to the SSP. The only voices who discuss it are on the SSP 2.0/Solidarity sides of the fence. I would estimate that between them they are less than 10 per cent of those who were SSP members between May 2003 and Oct 2004. The other 90 per cent stay silent yet they have a story to tell also.
All I’m saying is that their are more than two narratives with regards to what happened to the SSP.
I woudlnt advocate an inflexible line on electoral participation. I just feel that until socialists actually spend time doing something to transform their local communities FIRST then they have no moral right to go seeking votes from anyone. This means undertaking long term work in their local community before having the temerity to go asking for votes.
This might seem like a long way to do things but the shortcuts havent worked, have they?
Anybody can tail-end other peopes struggles, or cobble together a manifesto promising the world and alls sorts of freebies and handouts. But the people arenae stupid.
Despite casting their votes for the left as a tokenistic protest vote against the status quo, the people know from experience that shopping lists in leftist manifestos are all little more than well meaning hot air. (Based on Trotsky’s Transitional Hot Air Programme). Thats why the votes for leftists are usually pretty risible in elections, except when celebrity lefts stand (or put their names on the ballot paper).
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 29 July, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Joe, you seem like a nice guy, but it’s obvious from reading this and previous posts that you are to politics in Scotland what John Greig was to the overlap.
- comment no.149 by John W.
I’ve no idea what this means, but presumably it’s a put down as John W has absolutely nothing practical of any significance, to show for his brand of sectarian left-wing politics.
The only defence he seems to have is to sling the usual British nationalist mud at anyone who doesn’t want to be ruled by Westminster.
These self-styled British working class heroes of Scotland have so much in common with the British right-wing.
Such is their hatred of native Scottish socialism and their self-loathing for Scotland in general (a feature redolent of dislocated disenfranchised communities throughout history, the world over) they’d rather have American fascist parties in Westminster ruling over Scots than see Scots govern themselves, viz -
And talking of utopias, listen to yourself. You are waiting for the dawn of a Scottish paradise if only we could shake off the clutches of the bastard English. For that is what independence is to you and yours, be honest, nothing more than a rabid and irrational anti-English crusade founded on a Celtic obscurantism which holds Scotland as a plucky little romantic nation in which people once roamed the Highlands dancing through the heather to the skirl of the pipes.
This bigoted, racist-style screed comes from someone who calls themselves a socialist and who claims they are ‘internationalist’ as well.
Comment by joe90 — 29 July, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Kevin,
I agree entirely with your post other than I think it is still a worthwhile project to create a vroad left of labour electoral party.
In the meantime, as you say, socialists should by walking the walk in their own communities, something that we always try to do here in Cumnock, whatever party we are in at the time. The total votes received is less important than that.
Joe,
You have got John W wrong, he is a supporter of scottish independence.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 29 July, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Spot on Joe. That quote from JW could have come straight from the mouth of any odious Little Englander of the last 250 years. James Kelman once said that the so-called “Scottish cringe” only exists among the Anglified middle classes of Scotland and those who have bought into their world viewpoint.
Comment by Kevin Williamson — 29 July, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
re 158
Tommy has stood for Westminster before,I think in 1992 in Pollok and in 1997 for SML and SSA, precedent there. I was under the impression that Conferences etc as democratic decision making bodies are of the utmost importance. I highlighted the small impact both the CWI and SWP appeared to make numerically and in terms of deciding policy at SSP conference as a counter to your earlier suggestion that the CwI/SWP made up some enormous block within the SSP, they didn’t. Numerically it appears they make up a significantly higher percentage of ‘active solidarity members’ than they ever did within the SSP i believe.
Conferences are about accountability and democracy. Motions are discussed and then voted on, that then is policy. The SWP and CWI couldn’t win votes not through a mechanism or through a concerted attempt to stop them but because the democratic process went against them. Vibrant internal democracy was what characterised the SSP and a membership who thought for themselves. Factions never dominated SSP conference or won votes as no group numerically was strong enough to do this, apparently it was often difficult to predict which way votes would go.May sound strange to some on the left but in order to win votes you had to persuade people at SSP conference to vote for your motion, not rely on the ‘we’re all in the same organisation’ block vote to win positions and motions.
The SSP was strong electorally, the SSP’s votes in 2003 were the best for a party standing to the left of Labour in the post-war era. This didn’t stop the SSP splitting. Was there centralised control or bureaucratic control? Eight regions elected their own organisers and office bearers, developed their own regional campaigns and ways of working and came together at National Councils and Conferences. Sounds like the type of party you want if truth be told.
Does anybody really believe the SWP or CWI would prioritise the building of Solidarity over their own organisations? Experience dictates that they both approach working with others on the left with a ‘rule or ruin’ approach. Witness the number of organisations they have both wrecked or have tried to wreck (Socialist Alliance, SSP, Respect in the modern era to name a few).This is why any suggestion that Solidarity provides the way forward in terms of uniting the left in Scotland as laughable. Remember it was a group from the former Militant that came up with the plan to unite the left and credibly go head to head with the mainstream parties. Does anybody out there honestly believe that either the SWP or the present day CWI could have achieved managed to unite so many different groups into one party?
I think Tommy wanted to stand and this was confirmed by a long standing CWI member and seperately by a disenchanted Solidarity member but he (Tommy) was worried at the prospect of a poor vote. After all the eyes of the media were on this by-election and would have provided Tommy with a tremendous platform to lambast capitalism, the mainstream parties (except the SNP) and the conspirators.
Thanks.
Comment by Selkirk Steve — 29 July, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
“I think Tommy wanted to stand and this was confirmed by a long standing CWI member and seperately by a disenchanted Solidarity member but he (Tommy) was worried at the prospect of a poor vote. After all the eyes of the media were on this by-election and would have provided Tommy with a tremendous platform to lambast capitalism, the mainstream parties (except the SNP) and the conspirators.”
You lot need to get better insiders, this is simply not true. And, as I said, confirmed by your answer, Tommy has never stood in a westminster byelection for the SSP, are we to assume the same reasons for that?
“Does anybody really believe the SWP or CWI would prioritise the building of Solidarity over their own organisations?”
I wouldnt think so, I dont. What you hope is that both groups would see the building of solidarity as good for their party in the long-run and prioritise the building of Solidarity over attempts to mould it in their own image.
Again the difference between me and those who make these comparisons seems to be a desire to force the SWP and/or others to adopt policies they dont support or to whip them into order, I have no interest in that.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 29 July, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
This story didn’t come from nowhere, it was spun to the Daily Record by Solidarity;
http://tinyurl.com/6o67gv
Comment by Eddie Truman — 29 July, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
You have got John W wrong, he is a supporter of scottish independence.
- I know what you’re saying Jim mate,
but people have to try and understand where this self-loathing of Scotland comes from.
It is a reflex action, ingrained in people who are colonised, marginalsied and whose communities have suffered traumatic social and cultural dislocation.
There are reasons why most of Scotland lies bare and empty of both its people and its wildlife and native flora - and the dregs of humanity shovelled into western Europe’s biggest slums, there to fester to this day.
I would have thought that Scottish socialists would be at the cutting edge of the history of the dispossession of Scottish people and Scottish communities, living in internal exile, in their housing schemes in central Scotland.
They seem to think that only industry and urban settlement is important in the political life and history of Scotland, which is true up to a point, but it isn’t everything.
We have the biggest landowner in western Europe here in Scotland the Duke of Buccleugh - with around just 500 landowners who own the vast majority of Scotland.
Instead, what seems to come out of Scottish socialists of the British nationalist variety is nothing but self-hate and self-loathing for their own people, land and culture.
It is always an amazing display, to come across people who say they are for Scottish sovereignty but who display the most emotional pavlovian reflex response to the very thought and idea of ‘Scotland’.
This is what British imeprialism does, and cultural imperialism in general - it alienates people from who they are, from their own community, their own sense of their place in the world.
It’s not for nothing there is so much anti-social crime and violence in Scotland (as well as a general lack of social skills - even being able to cook seems to be beyond most urbanised Scots when compared to out continental cousins for instance) which I see as part of this phenomenon of people dislocated from their own land and history and fed a counterfeit version of themselves by British nationalists.
all the best Jim!
Comment by joe90 — 29 July, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Joe:
It is a reflex action, ingrained in people who are colonised, marginalsied and whose communities have suffered traumatic social and cultural dislocation.
Reply:
Fuck off ya radge.
Comment by John W — 29 July, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Kevin,
on the supposed ‘Scottish cultural cringe’, you’re absolutely spot on mate.
I have never come across one working class Scot, or one educated to just school-leaving level, whose has ever expressed any kind of a cringe about themselves or their community and the like. They’re usually quite full of beans about themselves and dead interested when it comes to things Scottish they don’t know about, and it has nothing to do with cultural chauvinism or parochialism (in fact there is nothing more parochial in the UK and than Westminster and the London Luvvies and meeja, soon to descend upon Edinburgh for their annual 3 weeks in August jamboree which has nothing much to do with the folks of Edinburgh or Scotland).
Only when I went to uni did some, but very few, fellow Scots go on about a ‘cringe’ - and the only other place I have encountered it is the foreign-owned and run Scottish corporate media.
all the best!
Comment by joe90 — 29 July, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
“Tommy has vever stood in a westminster election for the SSP.” Why would he have stood in a Westminster by election? He was a member of the Scottish Parliament from 1999 till 2007.
Comment by Weegie — 29 July, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
I agree weegie why would he stand? there is nothing in this and it is entertaining to see the chinese whispers at it again. I spoke to Tommy on the Saturday morning early after the by-election was announced. There was never a chance of tommy standing and all we spoke about was on whether we should stand, how that would affect the outcome and how quickly a decision could be reached going through the party structures. It was clear that Tommy was keen at that stage that Tricia should be the candidate, she was ideal for it, I agreed. The Gasgow Region also agreed unanimously.
Despite Eddie’s link, there was never a short list. The Record like others, from comments made on the BBC that weekend, misconstrued what was happening. I spoke to the Record and others that weekend and was not in a psoition to pre-judge what Glasgow comrades would decide so said that I couldnt comment on who would be the candidate until after the Glasgow meeting the following week and, off the record, told every media outlet that called me that it would be unlikely that Tommy would be the candidate to give them a hint that the story was worth running. I think that I identified the source of where the rumour came from and he isnt a member of solidarity, nor any other party as far as I know.
I handled the press for solidarity on that weekend, Hugh was abroad on holiday. There was nothing ’spun’ to the record or anyone else. there was no shortlist and there was only ever one potential candidate.
I cant win, if tommy had been the candidate I would be facing a completely different set of chinese whispers and nonsense right now.
The SSP decided to put forward their newly elected leader, that was up to them, she made a a point in her election leaflet of being the most “high profile” candidate. We thought it better to campaign with a local candidate especially as we had an active branch in the area and had a good result in the council elections with two local members the year before.
Is that so hard to imagine?
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 29 July, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
that should be “to give them a hint that the story WASNT worth running.”
I could have told them there and then that tommy wasnt the candidate but it would have been a prediction, albeit a certainty, but there is a thing called democracy and it was for Glasgow comrades to decide who would stand so solidarity couldnt officially confirm or deny the rumours.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 29 July, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
You agree with me? I’m asked - why should he have stood in any previous Westminster by election when he was already an MSP. He ain’t an MSP now.
Comment by Weegie — 29 July, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Give it up weegie. The reality is that Tommy was never the candidate and there only was one candidate nominated, Tommy being one of those, along with me, who believed she was the best candidate.
Are you saying that from now on, we must stand tommy in every possible election or it is evidence of some imagined other reason for not standing?
The SSP have chosen to stand their leader rather than someone who is a member in the constituency. In her election leaflet she made a big point of being the most ‘high profile’ challenger to Margaret Curran. We chose to go with a local candidate from the local branch. That branch did very well in the council elections last year where we had two good candidates, both emerging from our work with the local travellers community.
We have a good branch there, a good candidate, we held our national conference there last year (not this year as the hall burned down). It was an easy choice for us to make, the media got a bit excited that Tommy might stand, but there was never anything in it.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 30 July, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Late, but just realised Jim appears to be attempting some kind of “Gotcha!” style attack by telling me that Paddy Hill etc. are also involved in defending the convicted rapist from Culloden. They are members of MOJO, but I’m not sure they’re actually directly involved in this campaign (even though I know, to my disgust, that MOJO are).
My answer for you Jim is of course I would criticise Paddy Hill and that if they’re defending this guy. What happened to him and Gerry Conlon was of course terrible, but that doesn’t mean that whatever they say goes in terms of what is and is not a miscarriage of justice. Same goes for MOJO; they’re not always right just because of the work they do, or because they’ve been right in the past. So there you go, you’ve got me on two counts of disagreeing with Gerry Conlon, Paddy Hill and MOJO! *gasp* I don’t think it’s right to defend this guy in Inverness and I don’t think it’s right to describe Tommy’s situation as a miscarriage of justice.
I know they’re big boys and all, but frankly I think it’s disgusting that people in Solidarity would approach Conlon and Hill about Tommy as if their situations are comparable.
And I’m done.
Comment by Lynsey — 30 July, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
You are misrepresnting my point lynsey, whether you are blinded by the idea of opposing anything I say or have just deliberately tried to misrepresent me I cant say.
Firstly, I clearly stated that I agree with you on the article in the DGS website. The language used is classic and dangerous. If the article is an example of the campaign then, even if the man was innocent, it would be a disaster for other women who are contemplating going to the police to see people campaigning about the woman involved being drunk or having an STD.
MOJO are involved because they see this as a case where there was no evidence to convict the man. That is not the same as agreeing with the DGS article.
I have no idea whether the man is innocent, I believe we need to uphold standards of proof on criminal cases and undertsnad MOJO’s involvement.
My mention of Paddy Hill and John McManus is not saying that they themselves are involved in this case, it is a direct response to your belief that you can lump all of Solidarity along with the views of Anne McLeod in an article, in a website, run by a small group of solidarity members.
What I am saying is, if you apply that to MOJO in the same way that you apply it to Solidarity, you would attack all connected with MOJO because of this article.
Your logic, if you teated solidarity in the same way as MOJO, would to be here stating that Anne McLeods article does not mean that Jim Monaghan or any other Solidarity member shares that view.
You get me?
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 30 July, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
46 I dont think that we will be seeing a council by-election though, as Mason will probably want to remain a councillor. He knows that by-election results can be a misrepresentation and he might lose the seat at the next general election.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 25 July, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Jim
by election now called according to Evening Times yesterday. is it too much to hope for a united socialist canddiate in this election? A good a time as any for bridges to be built. BNP definataly fighing this ward election as well….
Comment by JimPage — 30 July, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Mason has resigned Jimmy, there has to be a by-election within 3 months but it’s not actually been called yet.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 30 July, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
I am very surprised that Mason resigned. He has the biggest first preference vote of any councillor in Scotland and therefore the safest job. His westminster job is unlikely to last past the next general election.
I would imagine that Solidarity will be standing as we had reasonable results in the council elections last year. But I am not a Glasgow member so will have to wait and see. Whatever happens I am sure weegie will construct a suitable chinese whisper as to why we didnt take another option. Hopefully Tricia Mcleish would be the candidate or Michael Kayes who had a good campiagn in last years council elections.
It will be interesting though as the other SNP councillor only had 250 1st preference votes, getting elected on 2nd prrefernces from Mason and others, so we dont really know how much support their is for the idea of an SNP councllor compared to support for John Mason.
I cant see either of the two parties entertaining the idea of standing jointly Jimmy. It is obvious to me that the narrow view that the future of the left in Scotland can only be about merging the SSP and Solidarity is a non-starter, certainly in the short term.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 30 July, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
I am not surprised that you lot are so far out of the picture in Scotland. Quite a few of the opinions put on here carry the tone that comforts you that there is some great pluses coming out of the political climate.
Of course the SNP is being seen as the true voice of the Scottish People. Its quite easy to see why. You lot prefer to read your news through the internet, because you fear having to form an opinion on your own.
Well the REAL Militants in Scottish Politics are the many ordinary Scots who spend many hours every day posting on mainstream news outlets owned by the Power Elite System that intends to do whatever it takes to defeat Scottish National Supporters.
Start checking out who dominate nearly every forum on mainstream news, to see how we active Scottish Patriots have grown to dominate and control the discussions on even neo nazi papers like the Telegraph.
Forget your pretendy activism and join the most important battle we Scots have ever waged. We have Scots of all political persuasions on board, its time you lot joined the battle. Christ we had 400 activists a day from as far away as London up here fighting for our country and every young Scot to come for the next few hundred years. As Glenn Campbell asked John Mason if he was a hardline Scottish National, John quite openly and without hesitation answered “Yes but that applies to every SNP supporter, we are all hardline”. We walked it just like we walked Glenrothes, and that hasnt even been given a date yet. We are Winners and every Scot who Votes The Scots Way are Winners. Our Revolution is happening right before your eyes so get off your arses and get out there and fight for the Breakup of the criminal British System that has killed one million Men,Women and kids of Iraq with their New World Order need to control Oil.
Comment by Mike — 19 August, 2008 @ 3:49 am