SOCIALIST UNITY

7 January, 2009

CELEBRITY BIG BROTHER

Filed under: Galloway, celebrity, Sheridan, Scotland, TV, Solidarity — Andy Newman @ 12:52 pm

Tommy Sheridan is quite open that he has gone onto Celebrity Big Brother for the money, reputed to be around £100000. As he explains himself: “Why not? It’s an honest offer of employment.”; and as the Scotsman reports “the 44-year-old, … , is currently studying law and has no regular income. He failed to gain re-election to Holyrood and recently lost a slot on Talk 107 when the station closed.”

Sheridan entering the Big Brother house is rather different from Galloway doing so, as Sheridan has suffered a number of political and personal set-backs, whereas George entered the Big Brother house while he was at the top of his game. Indeed the consequences of Galloway’s visit have been a mixed bag, as there was certainly a downside, but equally it raised his profile, and led to His extraordinarily successful Talk Sport show; ordinary people are rather more forgiving and sensible than the political activists who get in a lather about that sort of thing.

Let us set aside for one moment the acrimony and division in the Scottish left over the libel action by Tommy against the News of the World, and the subsequent break down of relations. There is plenty to be said about that, but none of it can be said while there is a potential perjury prosecution hanging in the air.

I want to look at a different issue, which is the conventional wisdom that has grown up on the left that MPs and MSPs should only take a “workers wage”, the average wage of their constituents. This is constantly used as a stick to beat up George Galloway by his ultra-left critics, usually combined with luridly exaggerated accounts of George’s income and lifestyle.

To a certain extent there is an element of hypocritical Puritanism in these complaints; but the political issue is the complex one of what relationship a political movement’s leaders have with their organisation.

In truth, Tommy Sheridan has been taking a “workers wage” for the whole period that he has been a member of the Scottish parliament. One result of which is that Sheridan has very little financial security or independence; and he is quite unlike the average working woman and man among his former constituents, he is famous throughout Scotland, and cannot simply get another job – he has been a full time political activist his whole life, and would never get an ordinary job in an office or factory.

Nor can it be said that his taking a “workers wage” had any beneficial bearing on the relationship he had with the party when the dispute arose over whether or not to sue the NOTW for libel. Indeed, it could be argued that one of the political problems that the SSP had was that after six MSPs were elected there was a disproportionate pull towards Holyrood; and one unintended consequence of the workers wage policy is that the MSPs contributed the bulk of the party’s income.

Insisting that elected representatives only take an average salary of their constituents is a gimmick – and like all gimmicks may prove popular, but has no substance.

The real pressure upon professional politicians is not the lure of money, but the corrupting and soporific danger of incorporation into the safe, still waters of the political establishment. In the brilliant 1947 film “Fame is the Spur”, Michael Redgrave plays a socialist politician who becomes a self-caricature, living off his past glories as a radical while toadying to his betters. It is an all too familiar story, from Ramsey McDonald to Neil Kinnock, and beyond.

In reality the political classes are not lavishly rewarded financially, although they do alright, and a large part of the reward they get for the job is the social capital and approval they receive from within the parliamentary and media institutions. To remain perpetually rebellious, and an outsider requires enormous strength of character, and political support from others. It also requires financial independence.

To take the example of George Galloway, there is no doubt that he is an extraordinary rebel. If he was primarily interested in making money then there are many easier ways to do so than devotion to radical anti-imperialists politics, touring the country speaking in town halls and community centres; and leading militant marches to the Israeli embassy. He has resisted the pressure to conform and become incorporated, and gaining a higher than average income has been no impediment to his rebelliousness.

The difficult dilemma of mainstream politics, especially electoral politics, is that you have to build around personable, charismatic individuals who can promote themselves, your party and your cause through the press. This is always going to prove problematic if those individuals disagree with their organisation over any fundamental issues, and no formula or rule is going to wish away that real world problem. The most extreme example in recent years was the extraordinary break by Jim Anderton, the party leader, and most of the MPs from the left wing New Zealand Alliance Party in 2002.

But the other side is that outside of politics the only asset someone like Tommy Sheridan has is that extraordinary personality. It was the Scottish Socialist Party, and then Solidarity, who insisted that Tommy only take an average workers wage. Now he has no money, and it seems entirely reasonable to me that he should take what ever work opportunities he can get, including making a prat of himself on reality TV.

105 Comments »

yep sounds fare enough to me….I know exactly how tommy feels.

Comment by optimistic mark anthony france — 7 January, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Leaving aside the individual case of TS, which I have discussed elsewhere, this item throws up some interesting questions.

There are people who cross picket lines to “take whatever work opportunities” there are. The ruling class in all its manifestations takes advantage of people looking for work, or for money, as this applies a useful pressure point. One of my favourite Irish Republican songs, about the 1981 hunger strikers, mentions the British having “tanks and guns and poor men’s sons”. It is noticeable that, with the credit crunch, British armed forces advertising has clearly been stepped up, no doubt so more young people, mostly men, can go from rundown estates in London, Liverpool or Glasgow to serve imperialism in places like Afghanistan.

TS’s openness about being in there for the money is not going to do the left any good. There is cynicism about politicians in general, and the perception that “they’re all in it for themselves” is only going to be strengthened. I detect this as being one reason for Peter Taaffe criticising the decision of TS to go into the Big Brother House.

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
I think that the basic argument of this piece is wrong. The point of the “workers wage” principle is not that it encourages a “beneficial” relationship with a wider party. It has little or nothing to do with that.

The basic point is that elected representatives, both in parliament and all too often in trade unions, who earn a sum vastly in excess of that earned by the people they are representing will tend to have more personally in common with their establishment “peers” than with the people they are supposedly working for. If you share the personal lifestyles and personal wealth of the employers and capitalist politicians it is hardly a stretch to suggest that you will tend to be all the more susceptible to the inevitable pressure to conform to their expectations and outlook.

You agree that this pressure exists. The workers wage principle is one, useful but not in and of itself sufficient, contribution to limiting that pull. A party has to take an extremely vigilant attitude towards its elected representatives for the entirely sensible reason that, because of the pressures they are under and the scope for personal advancement, parliamentary representatives have very often been one of the key internal constituencies driving political formations to the right.

Making sure that there is no personal profit to be had from being an elected representative has the additional, but linked, benefit of making such a role less attractive to the self-interested. Careerists are a real problem in any organisation where influence is a possibility after all.

I think that it is clear that the workers wage is important and very useful. However, I wouldn’t (to borrow a phrase) make a shibboleth of it. If Galloway back in the run up to Respect had been looking to launch a more democratic, clearly socialist and clearly class based party, (the kind of party that the Socialist Party would have been willing to join), we wouldn’t have insisted that he take the workers wage if that was going to be a breaking point. We’d have argued in favour of the principle in the wider formation and any members of ours who achieved office would very definitely have been bound by it, but such things are tactical matters ultimately.

It always struck me that some of the attempts to use the principle to get at Galloway were at best naive and at worst rather mischievous. In a larger and more stable formation, that could afford to lose an MP or two, it may well have been appropriate to try to push the principle through. In a fragile coalition very much dependent on a working relationship with Galloway it struck me as needlessly provocative. It seems to me that Andy’s wrong attitude to the broader issue of the workers wage stems primarily from the experience of a situation where people were pushing it in a self-destructive manner.

Comment by Irish Mark P — 7 January, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
I don’t think that instisting MPs take a workers wages is a gimmick at all. I think its very important to make sure that elected representatives don’t get out of touch.

How on earth is somebody on £63k a year supposed to understand what it is to live off £10k, £20k or even £30k??

The best intentions CAN fly out the window when the livestyles of representatives are so far removed from the people they represent.
Particularly in the longer term.

A workers MP on a workers wage is not a full proof way of ensuring that MPs remain rooted in the working class, but it is one of the many measures that socialists should take to ensure that representatives are kept in check.

Comment by jacqui — 7 January, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
George spent his fee on constituency workers.

“How damaging to your career and your causes was your humiliation on Celebrity Big Brother, and do you regret being in it? SARAH BELL, POOLE, DORSET

I don’t regret it and I reject your interpretation. I raised a lot of money for a Palestinian charity, my fee went to hiring two additional constituency workers and supporting Respect. And I never say never.”

Comment by Kieran H — 7 January, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Is it really too much to expect avowed socialists holding public office to adhere to certain principles, not as gimmicks or Puritanical gestures but to actually establish credibility and trust with a working class audience? Otherwise there’s a danger of a descent into ‘do as I say, not do as I do’, hypocrisy that will be whiffed straight away. I don’t care what people like Andy Newman argue, having two homes is anti-social and anti-socialist.

On the matter of Sheridan, he has been a loose cannon for years and I think he has now reached the point where he may actually be damaging to the credibility of our Scottish comrades. During the last lot of elections, the Solidarity website carried a piece about the MMR vaccine, uncritically quoting Sheridan’s pronouncement that he favoured separate vaccines. This ignorant nonsense wasn’t qualified or queried in any way, such as declaring what TS had said wasn’t actually Solidarity policy.

On the CBB matter, this is surely not just a case of an individual seeking money to pay the bills. As it’s someone very high profile, the implications are much wider than that. Therefore, surely it was a matter of TS having to formally seek the approval of Solidarity to do this. If this is agreed, fine. If not and he still goes and does it, then his position in the party should be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

I personally think Sheridan’s a liability and should be slung out before he does even more damage.

Comment by Doug — 7 January, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
kieran.
You dont believe that do you?

Comment by TV Critic — 7 January, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
#6 - “a loose cannon for years” - definitely. Loose cannon did not injure the foe in naval battles of the past: they slid all over the deck, crushing the legs and bodies of the sailors on your own side.

Is TS a private individual or a socialist politician? These days, he acts more like a private individual, leaving a dwindling number of people to make excuses for him coining it.

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
He’s wearing some really tasty T-shirts mind and last night managed to get both Terry Christian and LaToya Jackson wearing ‘em too.

Mark P

Comment by Mark P — 7 January, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
#9

Mark - are you sponsoring him?

Comment by Andy Newman — 7 January, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Tommy is one of our most longstanding customers, I had no idea he was either appearing in CBB tho’, even less he was taking a suit case of our shirts in with him to wear.

Mark P

Comment by Mark P — 7 January, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
I am looking forward to him in a leotard

Comment by optimistic Larry Nugent — 7 January, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
There must be central heating inside CBB then if he is wearing T-shirts. The outside of the criminal Zionist HQ in Kensington lacks such amenities, so I have been wearing:
1. Woolly cap
2. Palestinian scarf
3. Thick overcoat
4. Padded gilet
5. Corduroy trousers
6. Shirt
7. Underwear
8. Two pairs of socks
9. A battered pair of shoes, which should be throwable soon

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Tommy Sheridan is a leading figure maybe the leading figure on the Scottish left, he no longer deserves to be but he is. Whilst Sheridan cavorts around in the Big Brother household countless Palestinians are being murdered and maimed in Gaza. Why isn’t he out there campaigning and speaking out in solidarity with them? What is more important to him? The objective interests of the working class and oppressed or the reputed £100k cheque he will receive for appearing in Big Brother? What we are witnessing is the final stages of Tommy Sheridan’s metamorphosis from a principled class fighter into a tenth rate media celebrity. He has become a sad and pathetic charicature of the man who was once imprisoned for his campaigning activities against the Poll Tax.

Comment by Patrick Scott — 7 January, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
#14. How can you utter such blasphemies against the iconic embodiment of left unity in the United Kingdom?

Anyway, I’m going out now to post Saturday Gaza demo notices in shop windows.

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
If this is the most pressing problem concerning socialism in Scotland, I am going to get more afraid than I already am.

TS and his followers singlehandedly destroyed left unity in Scotland a while ago. His antics in the BB goldfish bowl are irrelevant.

Comment by B Smith — 7 January, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
#13

“There must be central heating inside CBB then if he is wearing T-shirts. The outside of the criminal Zionist HQ in Kensington lacks such amenities, so I have been wearing:
1. Woolly cap
2. Palestinian scarf
3. Thick overcoat
4. Padded gilet
5. Corduroy trousers
6. Shirt
7. Underwear
8. Two pairs of socks
9. A battered pair of shoes, which should be throwable soon

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

You forgot to list your hairshirt.

Comment by Darren — 7 January, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
I understand Sheridan’s press officer Monaghan has quit in shame.

Comment by Colin — 7 January, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Mark P,

what was the t shirt that LaToya was wearing? I couldn’t place it.

Comment by Darren — 7 January, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
I think there’s a whole list of demands that could be made on MPs as well as earning an average wage…for example,

1.Actually living in the area they claim to represent - I forget which MP for a run down Midland constituency spent all their time in a des-res in north London. I’m sure there are others.
2.Sending their kids to the local schools.
3.Supporting the local football team (when Tony Banks was the MP for West Ham he supported…Chelsea - bah!)
4.Living within site and sound of any motorways or shopping centres they vote for
5. Living next to nuclear power stations and waste incinerators they vote for.

Come on, we’re too mild by half..

Comment by PBi — 7 January, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
A jobless law student, with a criminal record, who’s currently on bail facing a perjury charge accepts 100k for 3 weeks’ work?
Sounds good to me. Tommy Sheridan has a better excuse than Galloway did.
I’ll tune in to see whether he handles it any better.
But I wonder whether it’s political judgement or sheer desperation at work here.
If only because Big Brother is usually the ‘corpse in the swimming pool’ for yesterday’s (working class) heroes.
One tip: Bring a change of underwear and don’t start whistling I’m a “One Man Band”

Comment by prianikoff — 7 January, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
#17 - nope, I listed items of insulation, not mortification. Here is no place to list my track record of arrests at protests, being knocked down by a water cannon blast while protesting the outbreak of the Iraq War, or being injured by German police at the G8. Not being Sheridan, I do not court publicity or idolatrous worship…

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Tommy Sheridan is a bit more clever than George Galloway and knows how to get socialistic ideas across to the ordinary person in the street - he has also been keen to be seen not as a celebrity in the house but someone who is just well known.

The strong arguements he put across about the role of the USA and Israel in the middle east was beamed to about 5 million young people and was supported by virtually all the other people in the house to loud applause.

In terms of the workers wage - no you should not gain from representing your class in parliament and compared to a person on benefit you don’t suffer too bad being on the ’skilled’ workers wage.

Quality of life is not always about finance - its about having dignity and standing up against a system that exploits us.

I was a bit negative about Tommy Sheridan going in the Big Brother but at the moment he is doing a good job.

Comment by Roy — 7 January, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
It’s not a case of an “average wage”. I’ve always thought that it should be posed in terms of “no more than a skilled worker”. That’s not Puritanism. I think Tommy and the other MSP’s were on just over £20,000 (a Scottish comrade can confirm or correct this) - not lavish but not impoverished.

The principle for me in relation to elected representatives is that they should not gain materially, nor by the same token they should not lose out.

The idea is designed to counter careerism and opportunism: people who use the movement to “get on”. The history of the labour movement is replete with individuals who have used their position to enrich themselves. Tommy’s problem was never money but his massive ego and his rampant individualism which led him to put his own interests before those of the SSP.

In the case of Galloway, I think that most of the money went on staff. Being the contrary indivdual he is he had to say “I need three workers’ wages” rather than saying most of this goes on staff.

Comment by Martin Wicks — 7 January, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Latoya was modelling our Mandela shirt.

Proving the durability of our T-shirts Tommy’s taken in ones he must have bought ten years or more ago as they’re no longer available, including Wilde and Mandela. The Shankly socialism one is tho’. I’m hoping Tommy will wear his Chavez shirt tonight.

Mark P

Comment by Mark P — 7 January, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Sorry, am I the only one who is soooo pissed off with Sheridan I want to smash his face in? (not literally of course).

What the fuck is wrong with the way we construct our political projects that means we end up with fuckers going off on one and abandoning us at the grassroots to go on reality tv. while gaza burns???!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Time to start building left organisations lead from the grassroots rather then the top me thinks.

See u on Saturday comrades.

Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 7 January, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
The Fame in the Spur film sounds interesting:
http://www.britmovie.co.uk/directors/r_boulting/filmography/008.html

How much faith should we have in politico’s who are willing to go on Big Bro’ that in a situation where we came close to power they wouldn’t be “seduced by the prospect of power and position, so that he becomes a glamorous Socialist rhetorician, rather than the incarnation of Labour ideals in action”?

Comment by Joseph Kisolo — 7 January, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
#26. I too have been vocal on the subject. It can’t be much fun being TS’s press officer, especially if you retain any socialist values at all.

Fame Is The Spur is a thinly-veiled portrayal of Ramsay Macdonald, who was regarded as a decent Labour man who became corrupted over time. The final scene of the film is quite telling but I don’t want to give it away.

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
“He becomes Lord Radshaw, an old fool who is barely able to express himself, whose life has been dedicated to preserving his own image.”

The last ten words of that are TS to a T. The other parts may come true with time.

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
If Tommy is innocent he’s got £200,000 coming from the Murdoch Press so he has nothing to worry about

Comment by Media Lawyer — 7 January, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
“If” was another film, which ended in a gun battle at a public school. Judging from the look in the eyes of the character played by Malcolm McDowell, he has plenty to worry about, also he is still blasting away with his gun as the film ends…

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
Maybe Sheridan’s antics will allow the CWI in Scotland to admit they have made a tragic mistake and rejoin and help rebuild the SSP.

Comment by Jonah — 7 January, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
In reality the political classes are not lavishly rewarded financially, although they do alright,

More than alright. Not just fat salaries, but for the mainstream parties being in parliament is quite often a stepping stone to lucrative board memberships and the like.

Here in the Netherlands the Socialist Party also insists its representatives, on all levels of government, hand over their renumeration to the party. Members of parliament get a very decent wage from the party and there is a generous expensive allowance for those who have part time positions (city councillors e.g.) and the money that’s left over pays for a lot of what the party does. It’s a policy that’s been in effect for decades, has run into the occasional trouble with people too greedy to adhere to it, especially with the growth of the party in the last decade (one-sixth of parliament!), but on the whole it works well. It has kept the party, though it has been a power in local politics for years or even decades in some regions from sliding into the morass of half-corruption and backhanders almost all other parties sooner or later slide into.

It’s not puritanism, but a core principle: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. You do need to be able to pay your representatives a decent wage, if only to make sure it’s not all rich people in parliament, but as a socialist party you need to have a cordon sanitaire between yourselves and the mainstream. We’re not like the rest.

Comment by Martin Wisse — 7 January, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
#34 - Goed avond. Unfortunately, TS is helping to suggest the left in Britain are indeed as venal as the other parts of the political spectrum.

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
Meanwhile, as Sheridan lounges in a T-shirt in CBB while Gaza burns, this is happening in Germany…
—————————————

(Translated from Turkish)
Nurhan Erdem, Cengiz Oban, Ahmet Istanbullu, Muzaffer Dogan…
THEY ARE BEING TRIED IN GERMANY FOR BEING AGAINST THE FASCIST REGIME IN TURKEY

In 2003 court proceedings were started against them under Paragraph 129 for being against the human rights violations of the regime in Turkey; Up until 2005 Karlsruhe Prosecutor’s Office created a so-called court file from items sent from Turkey and other European countries. Since 2005, nothing new has been added to this file.
But in 2008, as a result of pressure from the government of Turkey, and even though there was no new evidence or pretext in the investigation that would require them to be imprisoned, an operation was carried out against founders, directors and members of the Anatolian Federation on November 5, 2008 and they were imprisoned. An operation took place simultaneously against three associations and a number of private dwellings, and Nurhan, Cengiz and Ahmet were imprisoned. At this point, Muzaffer was already in prison for a march organised in Duisburg with the aim of protesting a Nazi provocation.
Those imprisoned are being held in special isolation conditions, Muzaffer for his part has been in isolation in prison.
By decision of the Karlsruhe Prosecutor’s Office, their conditions in prison are isolation conditions, as they have been deprived of every kind of visiting rights, including with spouses, parents and brothers or sisters, to a large degree letters and other forms of communication are being obstructed, and even normal daily newspapers are not being allowed to them as it would take a “judge’s ruling” to have such practices set aside.
THEY ARE ACCUSED FOR DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE FROM TURKEY WHO LIVE IN GERMANY
Their only crime was not just to be against the fascist regime in Turkey. One of their greatest crimes is to try to organize the millions of people from Turkey living in Germany to seek solutions to their own problems as people.
With this aim the Anatolian Federation was set up and set up centres in a number of cities to organise cultural activities. They bring out the Anadolu
Federasyonu newspaper to put these problems on the agenda. They have taken part in organising against Hartz 4 in various areas (note: a German law restricting the rights of foreigners).
They organized panels, marches, press statements to make people from Turkey informed and sensitive on the subject of the laws named Hartz 4 and Foreigners II.
They have committed the crime of protesting against the Nazis, by whom hundreds of people from Turkey have had their homes burned and up to the present, hundreds of foreigners have been burned to death, lynched in street attacks or injured.
THE PROSECUTOR’S ACCUSATION: TERRORISM
The German prosecutor’s office wants to sentence them to decades in prison under 129b, for opposing fascist terrorism in Turkey, under Hartz4 for denouncing Nazi terrorism in Germany, and under 129a for opposing anti-democratic laws like ForeignersII and struggling for democratic rights and freedoms.
The prosecution has pressed charges saying this is an anti-terrorism trial but it is not, it is a political trial.
129b IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW
In these trials, matters like the guilt of the individual, the place a crime was committed, the time it was committed and who committed it are not in accordance with international legal rules.
This is the essence of the charge against the Anatolian Federation members: “It may be that the accused have not as individuals committed a crime in our country or elsewhere in the world. But the suspects are against the regime in Turkey and support the revolutionary struggle against the regime in Turkey.
In that case we can judge the accused for every crime against the regime in Turkey…”.
There is a universal truth and it must be established on a legal basis: fascism and tyranny are crimes against humanity and resisting them is not only a legitimate right, it is at the same time vital.
129a and b cannot be used against those who oppose fascism: and yet they are used to openly support fascist regimes and tyrants.
WHAT KIND OF REGIME IS THE STATE IN TURKEY?
There is a fascist regime in Turkey and in the past 30 years this tyrannical regime has slaughtered tens of thousands of people, turned millions into involuntary migrants, practiced systematic torture against hundreds of thousands of people. Over half the European Court of Human Rights court cases on grounds of human rights violations have accused Turkey’s fascist regime, and hundreds of times the state in Turkey has been convicted as being a terrorist state guilty of torture and massacres.
We know what fascism is, and so do the peoples of Europe. Its bitterness is well known to peoples of Europe. We want to put an end to its bitterness and if this is a crime, it is one millions will continue to commit.
IS THIS AN ISOLATED CASE IN GERMANY?
No. Unfortunately as part of the same trial there is a trial going on at Stammheim where five democrats from Turkey are in the dock. And on January 15, a new trial will start in Dusseldorf. Last month, as part of the same charge, a German woman journalist named Heike Schrader was sentenced to a year and 10 months for merely translating into German reports about human rights violations in Turkey.
Over two years have passed since the Stammheim and Dusseldorf trials began and the accused have been kept in isolation conditions.
Trials with the same content are going on in France, Italy and Belgium.
These trials are a manoeuvre to make Europe accept the fascist regime in Turkey. The aim is to silence those who speak out about the crimes against humanity of the Turkish state, and persuade the peoples of Europe that Turkey’s state has democratised and that it can be integrated into the European Union. But it must not be thought there is no problem if nothing is said about human rights problems in Turkey. It is wrong to think that. Human rights problems cannot be made to vanish simply because eyes are averted from them.
ANATOLIAN FEDERATION WORKERS ARE IMPRISONED; TORTURE AND MASSACRES IN TURKEY DO NOT CEASE
Engin Ceber was killed under torture in Istanbul Metris Prison in October 2008. Nor was Engin’s death under torture an extraordinary event at the time. But it is the first time it has been accepted by all state officials and Forensic Medicine that somebody died under torture. In the recent past in Turkey, thousands have been killed by torture, hundreds of thousands of our people tortured. And torture goes on.
Even quite ordinary people are victims of extra-judicial execution on the streets of Turkey. Dozens of people have been executed by the police just in recent months. Just one example of these is the case of the 14-year-old Cagdas Gemik.
Even if these cases of torture and murder come to light, efforts are still made to whitewash the legal system in Turkey and the torturers and murderers. Let us return to the case of Engin Ceber: in Turkey charges have been pressed against the people who tortured and murdered Engin. However even in a case where Forensic Medicine and the government accept what has happened, they are still mocking the peoples of Turkey, charging them with “injuring someone so that the way was paved for their death”. This shows that the way is being paved for them to be acquitted. Because the most severe penalty for “wounding someone so that the way for their death is paved” is six years. Yet charges have been pressed against three friends of Engin arrested at the same time and tortured in the same way, and these charges of “resisting the police” carry a penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. So they want to imprison for 15 years those people who did not die like Engin did.
This is the reality of Turkey:
In the last eight years, 290 people have been killed in detention.
In the last 10 months, 29 people have been killed in detention.
In the last two years, 55 people have been executed in the street because allegedly they did not respond to the order to “stop”.
In the years 2006-2007 alone, 10,886 police and gendarmes have been accused of torturing 4,662 people. But up to the present, not one of them has been punished.
Do you really think it is possible to suppress these truths by locking up Anatolian Federation workers?
It is not a crime to be against fascism and struggle against it: it is a crime to support fascist regimes and protect them.
It is not those opposed to the fascist regime who should be judged: it is those responsible for fascist terrorism who should be arraigned.
Paragraph 129 a cannot be used against the struggle for democratic rights and freedoms.
Paragraph 129 b cannot be used against those who are against fascist terrorism.
It is LEGITIMATE TO RESIST TYRANNY
GERMAN LAW MUST NOT BE A VEHICLE FOR WHITEWASHING THE FASCIST REGIME IN TURKEY
REPRESSION AGAINST ANTI-FASCISTS FROM TURKEY MUST BE ENDED;
All the trials of the Stammheim, Dusseldorf and Anatolian Federation accused must be quashed.
Freedom for Nurhan, Cengiz, Ahmet and Muzaffer

FREEDOM COMMITTEE
freiheitskomitee@gmail.com

Comment by dos tres muchas Vietnam — 7 January, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
I’m sorry Andy and I don’t want to be hyper critical but that it quite a rubbish posting. You evidently don’t understand a lot of important facts. The policy of taking the equavalent of an average skilled workers wage is that elected representatives take home the average skilled workers wage and no more than that, they should not benefit financially from having the priviledge of representing workers.

In Scotland our position was the average wage of a scottish skilled worker in 2006/7 that was about £26,000. Benefit entitlement i.e. family tax credits, parental contributions to students, etc were taken into consideration, so single parents etc were not disadvantaged i.e. loss of benefits etc.

Tommy complained to the Electoral Commission stating that the SSP owed him thousands of pounds because the money he donated to the party - his excess from his wages was only a loan however there were written agreements and it was in our constitution about the workers wages, so he tried to wangle out of taking his workers wage once he fell out with the SSP and split.

Tommy is a charlatan - yes the money is a lure but don’t kid yourself poor Tommy is not just doing it for the money he’s doing it 1. the money 2. Narcisstic supply 3. Its a game plan. Tommy is many things but he is not stupid, he thought about this at length and he knows what he is doing, but please believe me it’s all about him.

Tommy was not the only socialist MSP with a criminal record funny how all the others have manged to get jobs, isn’t it - not fancy high flying jobs in the media or being a celebrity just normal jobs. Mind you he is one of 2 of the 6 charged with perjury.

Meanwhile I think we are best spending our time building for the demos on Saturday whilst Tommy models his selection of rather natty t-shirts.

Comment by Cat — 8 January, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Cat, #36: “You evidently don’t understand a lot of important facts”

It seems that you think that politically disagreeing with you can only be becasue I don’t understand the facts!

I disagree on principle with the idea of requiring elected representatives to only take the average skilled workers wage, or the average wage of theri constituents, whichever. That is not a questioon of fact, that is a question of politics.

I specifically said in the articel that i didn’t want to get into the wrangles between Sheridan and the SSP, important though those issues are.

But your policy is problemantic because as you say it is based upon the average wage of a skilled worker, and no more than that.

So you would be expecting skilled workers earning more than the average to take a pay cut to be an elected representative.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 January, 2009 @ 12:45 am
“So you would be expecting skilled workers earning more than the average to take a pay cut to be an elected representative.”

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! They are representing working people and this is why a similar position was raised in the recent USDAW election which led to very good vote for the Socialist candidate.

Comment by Roy — 8 January, 2009 @ 12:52 am
Sometimes I cant be arsed, with the horrors that are happening throughout the world we are discussing CBB and Tommy, a legend in his own lunchtime. Gaza, pounded to the ground in what is an election ploy. I would pay our MPs twice what they are getting if they would stand up against Brown and start an economic, sports and cultural boycot of Israel. In Somalia things are so bad that people are escaping to Darfur. In South Africa anti arpartheid laws are being used agains left wing trade unionists and Cuba will be back in the American camp before the next decade is over. I feel like Owen’s Socialist, I know what is right but fuck it. I live in a town where smack can be bought for £5 a bag, our kids are being dehumanised to such an extent that Labour politicians can openly call them a sub-human species, the disabled are being stripped of their benfits without warning and live on virtually nothing while on appeal, and with the full implimentation of Workfare Brown has transformed that submerged part of the proletariat from wage slaves to state chattels. TS will be leaving politics soon and Solidarity will slowly disappear having made less impact on the Scottish Political scene than the Leith Marxist Group, now there was a brave little experiment that failed.

Comment by jim mclean — 8 January, 2009 @ 12:56 am
One of the arguments advanced by the Tories here in Australia — the Liberal Party — is that pollies need to have their wages upped to attract people from industry to “serve in public office”.

So the logic of high incomes is well embedded in politics — graft or no graft. In Cuba, as you may know, people stay on their pre-existing workers salary when they serve as representatives and to some degree the whole concept of “volunteerism” relies on the assumption that there is no special monetary gain to be had from volunteering.

Contrary to that the ALP career path here is for someone to serve as a trade union official and then advance their career by securing a safe parliamentary seat and becoming a member of parliament. Serve a few terms and retire with a massive superannuation package and a nice little seat on some government board, or a diplomatic post off shore.

I think we have to be very conscious of that career path as it is a standard such that saying that your people will survive on a workers wage isn’t just a stunt. There are real issues involved in the way that being a bourgeois politician — serving in a bourgeois parliament — is chock full of political traps.

The most important issue isn’t necessarily Sheridan’s or Galloway’s take home pay, but as the Sheridan case suggests (and maybe this has already applied to GG) is that the party must control the politician as a representative of his electorate & party rather than the pollie going free lance.

This is why we here are so against the “personal conscience” clause for politicians as it gives them a means to stand outside party policy(except of course when that conflicts with the wishes of the electorate)

Baseline is that the pollie comply with party policy — but generally it has to be clear that the pollie is a representative of the party and is beholden to its counsel and direction.

That’s where the workers wage issue is relevant. Not only does it keep the pollie in the same ball park in way of income as those he or she represents, it makes it clear that the function of the role is determined by those who gave it to him or her.

It bonds the pollie to the party rather than pandering to the star option. In Sheridan’s case as with the other SSP MSPs, the extra dough , I gather, went into financing the party. It was such that when they lost their seats, the SSP was hit with a bit of a financial crisis (I think that was the case).

So in one sense we have to advance the viewpoint that any one representative is part of a broader collective rather than in the chamber by their ownsomes. And as Phil BC points out in an excellent post on Sheridan — Tommy on the Telly
— the main problem is with pandering to stars and ego as a political means.

Respect does that with Galloway as the SSP did with Tommy.

I think Andy forgets a few home truths with his post.The most important of these isn’t representation or personalities per se . The main game is politics and its all about advancing our collective envelope. It’s not about Sheridan or Galloway so much– they are tools in the deed. Useful tools of course, but nonetheless products of a political context we are trying to alter massively.

If Respect cannot guarantee its members or the electorate that it rules its pollies then the project is cheapened massively as a result. That too was the SSP’s curse, if you recall — albeit by a round about route.

Both party formations suffer from a fatal flaw of course because of their reliance so much on one star figure. Take Galloway away from Respect — what do you have? Another Scottish play?

Our experience here in alternative electioneering BEGAN with such a lesson in the Nuclear Disarmament Party back in 1985 when the reps and their clique split that party , cynically destroying its future, rather than be beholden democratically to its membership. (The main splitter was Peter Garret, The Midnight Oils singer and now ALP cabinet minister)

It was our version of Sheridan and was as much a newspaper cause celebre as was his exit from the SSP.

The complication in regard to “ruling over” the pollie, is that these new party formations like Respect do not have the credibility strength to so lead. How is Respect going to rein in GG if push came to shove? Its’ only a year old in its new guise, and George was instrumental in its creation.

So there is major issue there in way of party politics that no amount of bluster could resolve. That’s a real problem that new formations all face in regard to electoral politics — what happens when you win?

I think nonetheless, Andy’s notion of watering down the workers wage ’stunt’ is tackling the arse end of the much broader issue. The weakness isn’t in what the pollie gets to take home each week, the weakness is in the party and by isolating a “principle’ from the context you in effect stoke a false argument and foster a distraction.

The issue isn’t how much the pollie should get but that the party has a right — the obligation, the authority, the credibility, the power — to rule on such a matter.

Comment by Dave Riley — 8 January, 2009 @ 2:45 am
The Socialist Party of Malaysia is addressing some of these same issues, as they have two MPs.

See http://links.org.au/node/771 for an article by, and an interview with, one of the PSMs MPs.

Comment by Terry Townsend — 8 January, 2009 @ 4:36 am
Dave: “in Cuba, as you may know, people stay on their pre-existing workers salary when they serve as representatives “

This is a much more sensible policy, and completely different from the “average wage of a skilled worker”.

Consider the case of a skilled worker in a well organised workplace where they had managed to push up wages. They might be exactly the sort of person who the party might wish to represent them,. but the “average wage of a skilled worker”. policy would require that they give up their a wins to become an MP?

Or consider someone who had has a low ncome for a long time during training (not unusual in some skilled professions) but their final qualified salary was higher to compensate for the long period of lower salary. The “average wage of a skilled worker” would not reflect the dgree of catch up involved in their final salary

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 January, 2009 @ 7:01 am
I don’t care what the ambit claim is. My argument is about the right of the party to set the “award”.

The PSM post on LINKS raises a few other issues that kick in.

And I agree with that POV.

However, in trying to place myself in Andy’s RESPECT shoes, I don’t think it’s so easy to pull out a principle and say , “that’s it!”.

I’d be interested to know if any “wages” principle was applied to any elected RESPECT representatives at any time.

I’m not being ‘holier than thou’ — as I’m trying to outline a major political problem.

When the Tower Hamlets councillors jumped ship for the LP was ‘wages’ an issue? My guess is that political longevity was.

So the core problem is not so much how much your elected reps get paid, but what sort of project you are putting together.

That’s the key question. And Andy skirts that.

If you are promoting elected representatives for the sake of electing representatives then you are going to be held hostage to the norm of bourgeois politics.

That’s the electoralist trap.

But if you aim is to advance the movement for social change by making those elected, servants of that movement, then its’ another ball game altogether.

This is why I’m not so keen on new left parties for the sake of only creating new left parties.

Comment by Dave Riley — 8 January, 2009 @ 7:53 am
#43 Dave

I think you have to start from the concrete political situation.

Firstly, I don’t skirt the difficulty at all, I am trying to address it head on. In the case of the SSP, they were clear on the idea that they were building a class struggle socialist party outwith the norms of conventional politics, and their MSPs drew only the average wage of a skilled worker. Neither their clarity of intent nor their wages policy were of any assist to them when push came to shove and they came into conflict with their main electoral asset, Tommy Sheridan.

The enormous practical difficulty of mainstream politics involving elections ( and much much more so for fringe parties) is that some people have the personal skills, reputation and attributes to win elections, and some people don’t. Now those skills are not entirely god given, and Sheridan was also the product of his training and expereince in Militant, and Scottish Militant Labour. So that is the reality we have to live with, and that has its own effect on the relationship between the party and the elected politicians.

There are other factors in play, that the mainstream political parties allow their elected politicians a great deal of lassitude, and in the absense of a mass counter-hegemonic labour movement to counter that expectation, then that will bleed into the left. In the real world elected politicians will be living human beings with their foibles, and the real world choice is that you either have them and live with their individual strengths and weaknesses, and sensitively manage any political disconnect; or you lay down a perfect blue print and get no one elected.

For my money it is hard to imagine that we will ever move towards a socialist society in an economically developed liberal democracy without first having mass socialist representaion in parliament, so we have to grasp the nettle. What is more, the ecnomic, social and class composition of Britain today means that the left can never win a general election on the backs only of traditional working class voters. So we are inevitably involved in some sort of coalition building, and the “workers wage” principle is a potential obstacle.

It is clear for example, that setting an MSP’s salary at £26k (although a top 20 percentile salary) is also only a fraction of what many skilled workers earn, by definition if this is the mean salary of a skilled worker, it is less than what 50% of skilled workers are earning; and as Dave Osler has pointed out, the top whack that a highly skilled professional can earn as a wage labourer without any managerial responsibility, nor ownership stake in a company is probably nearer £100 k (although we are here talking aboout the top 1 percentile). So the assumption towards the average wage of a skilled worker is also ideologically laden with some political assumptions about both exagerating the homogenity of the working class, and its social weight in a modern industrial society. If the policy was to set the salary at the 90th percentile of skilled workers wages, then it would come out at only a bit less than an MP actually does earn (that is around 10% of highly skilled workers earn around £40 k or more)

There are of course further problems of making this a principle. What if Paul Foot had been elected? he could have agreed to take only an average workers wage, but what about his familly wealth? what about his considerable potential for journalistic earnings outside of politics? Did anyone in the Socialist Alliane argue that paul Foot was an unsuitable person to represent workers? No, of course not, e was fantastic socialist and tribune of the oppressed. But he had still been to a top public school, Oxford and been an army officer. This class background was no impedimemt to his being a principled socialist.

So what you end up with is saying that socialist Mps may be wealthy, but only if it is old money!

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 January, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Tommy is due to get £200K from the News of the World if he’s found innocent.
Tommy knows whether he is innocent.
Tommy is in the house for money.

Tommy is inno..oh

Comment by Televised Car Crash — 8 January, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Tim? Tim? Is that you? How much are we losing on our nice Sefton Park house in the credit crunch?

I think the money should keep coming in from our “sources”, don’t you?

Best we don’t tell the tax man!

Comment by leanne bricker — 8 January, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Do not underestimate the agitational power of ‘a workers MP on a workers’ wage’.

As at no other time since universal suffrage began in this country, the majority of people feel alienated from the political process. And the decline of the social democracy with parliamentary representatives from a TU movement background has reinforced this by allowing the dominance of a ‘political class’ drawn from a narrow elite.

In this context, a workers’ wage platform isn’t just about a point of principle of ‘keeping it real’ but also a tactical USP in showing that the Left are not just ‘like all the others’.

Incidentally regarding Tommy Sheridan: there is a point to be that despite his undoubtedly solid working class background, he has had very little work experience outside that of an activist. This is a problem that besets all those Left organisations who employ ‘full-timers’.

In contrast, - and I probably betray my own political roots here - I can’t help but think of the examples of Terry Fields, Dave Nellist and Pat Wall.

journeyman

Comment by journeyman — 8 January, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Cat #36

Incidently, it as been suggested to me that there are some factual errors in your account.

I am informed that Tommy Sheridan had given the SSP their money in advance and paid 1,300 per month to loan repayments instead of the party to cover what he borrowed on their behalf. When they ceased to be members of the SSP Tommy Sheridan still had outstanding payments to make to this loan, the benfit of which had gone to the SSP.

The complaint to the electoral commission was not from Tommy Sheridan, and related to the fact that the SSP stopped declaring this monthly money as a donation, no-one asked for any money back.

This is a rather dry factual dispute. the political issue is that while he was a member of the SSP he took a “workers wage”, but it had no magicly beneficial effect on his relationship with the party.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 January, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Andy:

Although you’ve posted at some length in this thread, you still haven’t addressed the central point. You accept that elected representatives are under pressure to adapt to the views and expectations of the political mainstream. It is quite obvious that if you have an income and a lifestyle more akin to that of capitalist politicians and the rest of the establishment than to that of the people you are trying to represent that you will find it harder to resist this pressure to adapt.

That’s the key issue here - it is not a given that someone will or will not “sell out” either way, but the workers wage is one means we can use to help keep elected representatives in touch with the people they are representing and to discourage them from adapting to the norms at Westminster or Holyrood. A less significant but also important issue is that it discourages (but of course cannot eliminate) careerism if there is no material benefit to being an elected representative. All of this also goes for trade union leaders, by the way.

That doesn’t mean that advocates of a workers wage are necessarily dogmatic about it. It’s a tactical issue and sometimes we have to be tactically flexible. For instance, it’s my understanding that one of the Militant MPs in the 1980s was a firefighter. His existing wage was higher than the one Militant proposed for its elected representatives and he had a mortgage based on that higher income. So he kept an amount equivalent to his existing salary as his “workers wage”. Nobody had a problem with that. These things have to be approached in an open minded way. It’s the broad principle that matters and not the particular sum of money.

Similarly, in a fragile, new party, dependent on the involvement of some politician who would point blank refuse to accept a workers wage, it might not be appropriate to insist on it. If it’s worthwhile having an alliance with someone to your right, then you sometimes have to accept that they are indeed to your right and that you can’t force them to accept all of your ideas. As I mentioned above, if the Socialist Party had been forming a new party with Galloway some years ago, we would not have attempted to force him to take the workers wage because that would have ended the alliance before it began. We would however have argued in favour of the principle, both to him and in the wider party and our own members, had they been elected to anything, would have been bound by it.

Comment by Irish Mark P — 8 January, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
It is good to discuss working class democracy. I don’t think we should make a virtue out of necessity any more than the sectarians should try to make capital out of Galloway’s particular situation. Ideally I think a party’s MPs should be paid through the party at what ever rate. Certainly the last thing we want is the MPs to have a decisive say in the party through formalised priveleged voting rights as they do in the Labour Party so that the party is disciplined by its own representatives and the tail wags the dog. Also, while we don’t want zombies, the MPs must be mandated and instructed by the party on how they should vote. I don’t believe in mandated delegates in workers organisation where the discussion needs to be free and wide-ranging but I would for our representatives sent into bourgeois institutions like parliament on our behalf. Anyway, all this is a long way off in terms of party. There could be an insurrection tomorow that overthrows the sham that is bourgeois democracy and puts the working class in power then we’ll have other things to worry about.

Comment by David Ellis — 8 January, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
“There could be an insurrection tomorow that overthrows the sham that is bourgeois democracy and puts the working class in power then we’ll have other things to worry about.”

I suspect the odds of that are slim.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 January, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
#49

The central issue is not addressed by setting an arbitrary salary, as the Sheridan example proves.

The relationship between the workers movement and those elected to being an MP is a compliacted one that cannot be resolved by simple rules or prescriptions. Ultimately it depends upon the social and ideological weight of the movement, and whether it is able to conterbalance the pull of the establishment.

Equally, the imbalance between the influence of an MP or MSP and the fledgling organisation they are a member of of cannot be solved by prescriptions - as the example of Jim Anderton showed, where he and most of his parliamentary colleagues left the party rather than be held to account.

It is like a marraige where both sides have to repect each other and be committed to making it work.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 January, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
A workers wage or such like sends a clear message to those who want to represent our class that the struggle is bigger than the individual.

Its a shame that RESPECT appears not to grasp this issue - because this is surely an important part of the 80% that should unite us.

Comment by Roy — 8 January, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Well yes Andy, I agree that simply setting an “arbitrary” wage isn’t enough and that all of these matters can’t simply be declared solved by a few rules or prescriptions. In fact I’m unaware of anyone saying otherwise.

What is being argued is that the workers wage principle, when applied flexibly and sensibly, is one useful way we can contribute to combating the enormous pressure socialist elected representatives are under to adapt to the milieu they find themselves in. It does not in and of itself suffice as a solution to that problem, but it’s a useful part of a wider approach to the issue. It makes sure that elected representatives don’t have more in common in terms of income and lifestyle with capitalists and capitalist politicians than they do with the people they are trying to represent. It has the added bonus of discouraging (although again not eliminating) careerism.

It seems to me that your are viewing this subject far too narrowly through the lense of Respect’s relationship with Galloway. It is certainly the case that if Respect was to try to force the workers wage on Galloway that he would leave and Respect is largely dependent on Galloway for its viability. In those circumstances it would obviously be self-defeating madness to insist on voting through the workers wage. More generally, I suspect that if Respect were to insist on Galloway being more accountable to the organisation he probably wouldn’t wear it.

Those tactical considerations do not however mean that, more accountability generally or the workers wage more particularly are bad things. It just means that for pretty good reasons your own organisation isn’t in a position to implement them. That’s fair enough, but it doesn’t mean a great deal to the rest of us.

Comment by Irish Mark P — 8 January, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
What is a workers wage?
Average income is around £25,000. But in London it is nearer £31,000. Provincial militants of a hair shirt disposition coming to London to take up union jobs get a nasty shock when they find that London housing costs leave very little over from an ‘average workers wage”. Abstract formulae are meaningless when a fancy free singleton can live rather better than parents, single or otherwise, on the same money.

Comparisons with life in socialist countries are also meaningless. For instance, in socialist Germany or in Cuba (or any socialist country) money wages are/were very much less important than in Britain. In the GDR fares were miniscule, housing dead cheap and capped, food at work was highly subsidised as were films, theatre, books etc. Beer was incredibly cheap.
Industrial workers in key jobs were paid better than ‘professionals’.

It would be interesting to hear on this blog from people who follow the principle in practice.

Comment by Nick Wright — 8 January, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Flexibility on the question of what is a workers wage is of course sensible and realistic, and doesn’t detract from the central principle behind workers reps receiving just that.

Neither is ‘workers reps on a workers wage’ the answer to every problem in a party. But workers reps on bosses wages is exactly the problem we have with trade union leaders who develop the same social and material expectations and begin to see the world from this perspective.

I thought we all understood that here, and I agree with the last paragraph of #54 to be honest as to why its been made an issue now.

As far as Tommy Sheridan goes, appearing on CBB is hardly the worst thing he’s ever done to socialism in recent years. Those individuals and organisations that supported him in splitting our movement seemed largely to want to hold on to the coat tails of his celebrity status for their own purposes, at the expense of our movement as a whole, so perhaps they should be reflecting on that mistake now.

Tommy Sheridan’s difficulty is not in finding work in itself, but in finding well paid celebrity work that matches his ego. I went to Terry Fields funeral and memorial meeting last year. After he lost his job as an MP they said he struggled to find work because of his militant reputation, so he took to quietly running a pub. Look at the contrast between that and Derek Hatton, and think of where Tommy Sheridan is on that spectrum

Comment by Danny — 8 January, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Andy’s quite right: within a certain margin - and an MPs wages are certainly within that margin - wage levels are irrelevant as a spur to either remaining true to the movement which elected you or the prospect of assimilation into the ruling class way of looking at the world. Also, it’s not just a matter of wages for the period of appointment: becoming a full time elected socialist representative seriously cuts off your potential for future employment in any other role. So who is going to undertake such a role? Saints? People not planning on having children –or any kind of retirement? Or simply people already working for (leftwing) bureaucracies and therefore already on low wages?

You could pay MPs a quarter of a million a year (I don’t advocate this, I’m just exploring the extent of the triviality of the wage issue) and it wouldn’t matter that much - what matters is being able to recall them. That’s the democratic principle - representatives being subject to collective control.

Comment by Charlie McMenamin — 8 January, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
As long as they are prepared to die for the cause or go to jail or pick up arms or confront the pressure to conform when necessary then pay them what they want or what you can. If not, fuck them. I wonder if Lenin, Marx, Ghandi, Mandela, Castro or even Hitler were motivated by the pension scheme on offer. ok probably hitler was motivated by some kind of bureacratic jealousy and a sense of thwarted entitlement but the rest? The point is to change the world remember?

Comment by Perspective — 8 January, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
And Andy don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Tommy and Rosemary took out a loan to buy the SSP property instead of making the donation to the party they paid the loan - which was agreed for the period they were ELECTED SSP representatives i.e from 2003 to 2007. This was their commitment to taking the average skilled workers wage.

Tommy and Rosemary split from the SSP in September 2006, they still were ELECTED SSP representatives who choose to call themselves Solidarity and left the SSP. They both were elected as part of the SSP list in 2003 not as individuals.

Tommy then tried to argue and complained the Electoral Commission that the money he had paid was a LOAN to the SSP - no it wasn’t it was an upfront donation and he paid the loan to the loan company. It was documented and forthright.

It is factually true that Sheridan took a worker’s wage from 2003-2007, that cannot be taken away from Sheridan - however he will take home as much for 3 weeks “work” on CBB6 as he took home in the 4 years as a MSP. He would not be able to promote himself as a “celebrity” if it had not been that he had been given the priviledge to represent the SML, SSA and SSP and working class people in Scotland. In fact Tommy used to argue very eloquently that the highest earner should not be paid no more than 10 times the lowest paid worker - he now is earning £100,000 (if the rumours are true) for 3 weeks work. If he does no more work for the rest of the year then he will have earned 10 times as much as a home help.

I suppose you have the political postision that you have because you support Galloway not taking a “worker’s wage” and that is fine. There are many issues about the worker’s wage and perhaps it does exclude some people but not every one needs or is suited to being an elected representative.

And I think the SSP learnt a lesson the hard way in regards to Sheridan. Never promote just one person (not that we did - the media had a role in it) and always keep your
“leaders” and representatives accountable - no mattter what. Recall and accountability is the most important principle of the socialist movement

#7 Charlie, indeed and Tommy and his supporters believed that Tommy because he was popular was above recall!

Comment by Cat — 9 January, 2009 @ 12:57 am
#59 The right of recall is vital but you can only be recalled by the body that elected you.

Conference elected the Convenor in my time in the ssp so only conference could recall him or any other official. the next body down from conference was national council and that gave full support to TS not the EC

may have changed since then but that was the constitutional position then.

Comment by JazzyBee — 9 January, 2009 @ 1:34 am
JazzyBee:

The NC you’re referring to was not the one where Tommy stopped being Convenor.
The one you are talking about was referring to his court action.

Comment by Wullie McG — 9 January, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
If Solidarity stands in any further elections, I’ll be astonished.

Comment by Marie — 9 January, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
@59
I’m sure you’re right Cat. Or at least I certainly have no evidence that you are wrong. I wasn’t trying to defend Sheridan. The complexities of that situation and the bad feelings it has generated are probably beyond a Londoner like me.

I was trying to address the argument about the workers wage at the level of principle, divorced from any individual situation. & recall seems to me to be a more important principle than arguing about tokenistic wage levels.

But it would logically have to be recall by whatever electorate put the representative in place, not the party machine which backed them. (Though the party might play a important role in organising the recall petition if one of its erstwhile members went off the rails). I believe they have something like this in place in the constitutions of several US States including California.

Comment by CharlieMcmenamin — 9 January, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Charlie, sorry I was just emphasising your point. Tommy and all the MSPs were recalled at the election and were not voted back in.

Jazzybee you are correct - the NC of 28.11.04 endorsed Sheridan standing down and for the minutes to be confidential. Sheridan was asked not to involve the party in his court ordeal, unfortunately this did not happen.

Comment by Cat — 9 January, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
Numerous times over the last few years people have claimed that the ssp exercised the right of recall over Sheridan, they did not. He resigned.

The only body that had the right of recall over him was conference. When the next highest body of the party, the NC, gave full support to him the EC unconstitutionally ignored that decision.

Comment by JazzyBee — 9 January, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Well, first I really have to point out the seemingly endless inability of the SSP to ignore Tomy Sheridan. A phrase involving dogs and their own vomit comes to mind…

And Cat above gets things arse about face. The SSP was Tommy Sheridan. It was his own activism (and self-promotion) that got him elected. And it was in large part Sheridan’s performance as an MSP that gave the SSP some ill-deserved credibility in 2003.

The fate of the SSP since they dumped on Sheridan demonstrates that fairly conclusively…

Comment by Graham Day — 9 January, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
Actually, intellectually, Alan McCombes was the driving force in the SSP. And Tommy’s support at the NC came amid a campaign of utter lies from Sheridan’s mindless acolytes.

Comment by Colin — 9 January, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Thank you Colin for proving my first point.

And yes, “intellectually” is the way the world works…

Comment by Graham Day — 9 January, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Thanks Graham Day for your patronising nonsense. Of course the world works intellectually, you dunderhead.

Comment by Colin — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
Colin, I can only assume you’re not a materialist.

Comment by Graham Day — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
#65, no Sheridan did not resign, he was forced to resign by a unanimous vote of the SSP Executive on November 9th 2004 because he indicated he intended to lie about tabloid allegations about his private life.
The second point I would make is that this thread has in fact seen a remarkable absence of those who are critical of Sheridan, I guess it is because those comrades have been busy in Palestinian solidarity actions and preparing for what promises to be a huge demonstration in Edinburgh tomorrow.

Comment by Mr Benn — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Its a shame that so many in the SSP were willing to ride on the back of Sheridan and get elected and then ‘do him in’ as they say. Also as an SSP member up until the time of the split I do recall that the party’s membership at the National Council voted to support Tommy Sheridan. ‘Cat’ appears to be rewriting history. As the old saying from the Godfather movie goes, ‘never hate your enemy too much as it can effect your judgement’. There are some in the SSP who should take this advice!

Comment by Frank Williams — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
I’m also not sure that Alan McCombes was the intellectual driving force in the SSP. A man who has written a handful of agitational pamphlets and the book Imagine, which is aimed at the lay reader, can harldy be described as the intellectual driving force of the SSP. Propagansist is probaly a more accurate term than intellectual.

Comment by Frank Williams — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
What a load of rubbish - if the SSP was just Tommy then I suppose it deserved to fail so WTF is all the concern and bother about on the “left” and what difference does it make he is on BB? Tommy was good at what he did but if he was a socialist he would have seen that it is the collective and not the individual!

JazzyBee - how did the EC ignore the NC? Obviously because of sub judice we can’t discuss this on the board.

Comment by Cat — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
#71 The EC had no constitutional authority to force anyone to resign

Comment by JazzyBee — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
#74 The NC voted to give full support to TS, the EC did not carry out that democratic decision and in fact did the opposite.

The EC was supposed to be subordinate to the NC. If the EC majority were unwilling to carry out the democratic decision then they should have resigned or called for a special conference. They didnt, so thats how they clearly ignored the decision of the NC

Comment by JazzyBee — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
#75 And Sheridan had no authority to expect EC members to lie in court. Although, clearly, some did.

Comment by Colin — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
JazzyBee - what did the “EC” do that was unconstitutional? The problem is we can’t really get into it because of sub judice. At that time I was not on the EC. Its funny how the EC is seen as a mythical homogenous group when it actually was very diverse at the time.

Comment by Cat — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
#76 A democratic decision to commit mass perjury? You have no idea what you’re talking about JazzyBee.

Comment by Colin — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
#79 if that is what they thought then why did they not resign or call a special conference? that would have been the democratic thing to do.

But obviously they thought they would just usurp a democratic decision. so much for the most democratic party in europe (or was it the world that was claimed)

Comment by JazzyBee — 9 January, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
I know this isn’t an incisive comment but who really cares about CBB?

Comment by Tricksymix — 9 January, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
JazzyBee you are talking mince. I can’t get into it because of sub judice. The EC remained democratic - the point needs to be made that the EC was made up all different factions, groups and individuals in the party. Is it the whole of the EC? Or just parts of the EC, you are referring too? In June 2006 there was another NC and then the court case, which took up the whole of July and part of August - then Tommy et al split from the party two weeks later despite the calls for a special conference that did happen just that Tommy et al did not stay to put their case forward.

#72 - no one “did Tommy in”, some of us tried our best to support and help him, he would not take our counsel. Tommy will one day or has already be hung by his own pichard. He courted the public life and it caught him out - now socialist politics no longer look exciting enough (or lucrative enough) he chooses the life of celebrity.

And if the SSP was just about TS (which it wasn’t) then why are people so upset about the SSP?

And for the record I go by my name which is “Cat” - I don’t use nome de plumes. If you don’t know who I am I suggest you were not very active in the SSP. We should leave the re-writing of history up to the Stalin School of Falsification.

Comment by Cat — 11 January, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
I am sorry but you are incorrect. Testifying against Tommy in court is ‘doing him in’. Lets be absolutelty clear about that. And the SSP National Council supported Tommy at the time of his court case-that is also a fact. Those, including yourself, who lined up against him went against the democratic decision of the SSP.

However, the left needs to move on. Neither the SSP or Solidarity hold much hope for the future. That is why left unity discussions are important. I hope that people like yourself can move on from Tommy Sheridan. I sometimes get the impression that there are some in the leadership of your party who are obsessed with Sheridan. Move on!

Comment by Frank Williams — 11 January, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
#83. I’m sorry, other events in the world are far more interesting and significant than this. But this is one of the things lately that make me think the world is topsy-turvy, or perhaps even my own sanity is ebbing away.

1. Israel engages in hi-tech slaughter of getting on for a thousand Palestinians, allegedly to defend itself against a few rockets.

2. Rallies approving of the hi-tech Israeli slaughter are allegedly peace rallies.

3. A demo where I was at one point nearly crushed by the press of people allegedly had an attendance of 20,000 people maximum.

4. Tommy Sheridan allegedly believes in “left unity” after tearing the left in Scotland apart over his court case.

Comment by Faust — 11 January, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Frank you said “I am sorry but you are incorrect. Testifying against Tommy in court is ‘doing him in’. Lets be absolutelty clear about that. And the SSP National Council supported Tommy at the time of his court case-that is also a fact. Those, including yourself, who lined up against him went against the democratic decision of the SSP.”

Frank we were cited to court by both TS and News International, we had two choices - go to court or refuse to go to court and be in contempt. Alan McCombes had already spent a long weekend in prison by refusing to hand over the minutes. As I have said to get into it is sub judice but the idea that giving evidence in court is “doing someone in” is just fantasy stuff - it’s easy to make such suggestions when you are talking about other people and not yourself!

Anyway had enough of this - off to wash the dishes!

Comment by Cat — 11 January, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
What rubbish. You gave evidence for News International and that is something you will have to live with. I sometimes think that Colin Fox regrets what he did. And who knows I’m sure you have questioned what you did as well. I think if you were to ask people in the street if testyifying against someone in court constitutes ‘doing them in’-I’m convinced that the majority of people would agree. I’m surprised you dont see the logic. Anyway, there are more important things to argue about Cat. I’m reminded of Tony Benn’s advice about not wrestling with a chimney sweep. I will let you have the last word on this one if you wish?

Comment by Frank Williams — 11 January, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
A bit of a straw man, that - “I think if you were to ask people in the street if testifying against someone in court constitutes ‘doing them in’-I’m convinced that the majority of people would agree.” If you saw someone raping or murdering someone, and then testified as a witness, would that be “doing someone in” or helping justice to be done?

As to arguments from the “majority of people” - the “majority of people” probably don’t support socialism either - and the Sheridan saga is unlikely to change that. The “majority of people” in Nazi Germany did not resist the Nazis. The “majority of people” have not attended pro-Palestinian demos, and the “majority of people” may well be befuddled by the way the media tend to skew their reporting on Gaza.

Comment by Faust — 11 January, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Oh dear-it seems you are the chimney sweep and I am in danger of getting very dirty! I dont think you can compare a civil case with rape or murder-obviously there is a different moral equation there. I’m surprised you dont see that. I take it you are being deliberatley argumentative?

Comment by Frank Williams — 11 January, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
You said nothing about a “civil case”, you merely spoke of how you presume the “majority of people” would see “testifying against someone in court”. Your rather weakly formulated argument had a hole in it, which I noted. Anyway, I find your tone deliberately argumentative.

I think your Sheridan’s “civil case” and its fallout have contributed to the weakness of the left in the UK in the last few years. I am also not filled with admiration for someone who is on Celebrity Big Brother for money while other people are out demonstrating (I have discussed yesterday’s demo elsewhere).

Comment by Faust — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Ok, I have risen to your bait. As a socialist I would always take the view that in the conflict between oppressor versus oppressed I try to side with the good guy. So obviously in a rape case I would take the side of the victim, and that goes for a murder case as well and just about any other case of that nature. And in the case of Tommy Sheridan versus News of the World? Well it goes without saying. I just could not do what Cat and others have done! Of course testifying against Tommy was a case of doing him in! I was simply pointing out that most people would agree with that. I think you have lost the point in your rant about the majoirty of people not resisting the nazis, or attending pro-palestinian demos! Anyway Faust, over to you

Comment by Frank Williams — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
Perhaps you should take your last point up with Tommy Sheridan and not me. I was out demonstrating yesterday! In regards to Big Brother sometimes I think the left needs to lighten up a bit!. I’m sure the majority of people would agree with that.

Comment by Frank Williams — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
You think he’s the oppressed against the oppressor? Well, in that case, you must be outraged that he is in the Big Brother House for money, because Endemol is ultimately under the control of Silvio Berlusconi. That means he will be in the pay of a media magnate with links to Italian fascism.

I am not as arrogant as you. I do not know what most people think. The eclipse of the left in Scotland suggests most people there regard socialism as a bit of a joke, but Sheridan does not seem exempt from the laughter.

Comment by Faust — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
As to lightening up, while shut in by the police in front of the embassy I got to talking with an Arab who showed me, among others, pictures of Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall, regarded by the Palestinians as martyrs. These are the kinds of Westerners an oppressed people admire - not people like Sheridan. I don’t lighten up, as you put it - the situation is simply too awful for that.

Comment by Faust — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
So you obviously side with News International then? Personally I dont care that he is on Big Brother for money. He would be a mug if he did it for free! All I’m saying is that you should lighten up a bit. Dont take Big Brother that seriously. Maybe if the left lighented up a bit and did less of the finger pointing then more people would be sympathetic.

Comment by Frank Williams — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
I meant lighten up about Big Brother. What is going on in Palestine is awful.

Comment by Frank Williams — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
Faust-I have noticed that between nine and ten o clock this evening there was no postings from you. I hope you were not watching a certain TV programme?

Comment by Frank Williams — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
I think Sheridan tore the Scottish left apart because his own ego was and is paramount. This, rather than “oppressed against oppressor”, lies at the root of the court case.

He is a mug for doing CBB at all, in my opinion. Berlusconi crossing his palm with silver just means he thinks the labourer is worthy of his hire. Still, my preferred icons are people like Rachel Corrie, not inmates of the CBB house.

Comment by Faust — 11 January, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
I notice that between nine and ten o clock tonight there was no postings by you. I hope you were not watching a certain TV programme Faust?

Comment by Frank Williams — 12 January, 2009 @ 12:00 am
If Sheridan were really the oppressed against the oppressor, he would be playing a leading role in protests. Instead he is, as someone noticed, “missing in action” on CBB. He probably does not know exactly what is going on in Gaza, because they usually seal them off from the outside world. How many Palestinians will be dead by the time your boy gets his Berlusconi pay cheque?

Comment by Faust — 12 January, 2009 @ 12:02 am
To equate the demand that workers’ representatives should be paid a ‘workers’ wage’ as ultra-leftists clearly demonstrates peculiar thinking. This principle is so basic, correct and necessary to stop careerism I am surprised it is opposed by the author, who presumably refers to himself as a socialist.
Sheridan did apply this principle when in power. So did the Militant MPs in the 1980s and this policy not only helped them get elected but kept them from being seduced by the trappings of bourgeoise power.
I’m afraid Sherridan has gone completely off-the-rails by appearing on BB. What was he thinking? He has made a fool of himself and his party, as Galloway did. While he plays pantomine in the BB house, Gaza burns but he knows nothing of it! Shame.

Comment by Henry — 12 January, 2009 @ 12:28 am
There is a difference between supporting someone and agreeing to participate in a conspiracy to perjure and defraud. Sheridan wasn’t dragged into court - he initiated the case.

Comment by Colin — 12 January, 2009 @ 12:39 am
#101 Yes and No.

Two years of mud slinging in Scotland has tended to obscure the fact that not everyone who was summoned to appear in the 2006 court case on the SSP side were grassing Tommy Sheridan up on behalf of NOTW.

Those who appeared in court to confirm that the SSP EC minutes were accurate and genuine did so because they had no choice for they were legally summoned and the question was put to them. Those SSP individuals sincerely believed those minutes were genuine and when they were questioned under oath they saw no reason why they should lie in a court of law.

Then there are those on the SSP side who appeared in court and made allegations about TS’s private sex life. It would be fair and accurate to say that those individuals chose to side with Rupert Murdoch and NOTW and deserve all the accusations of “grass” that have since come their way.

There are those in the current SSP who would prefer to sweep the latter actions under the carpet and concentrate on the former. There are those in Solidarity who would prefer to lump them all in one big pro-Murdoch basket. The truth as ever lies somewhere in-between.

Comment by the fog of war — 12 January, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
-102.

Nonsense. The minute contained details of Sheridan’s statement to the ec about what he’d done. That’s what SSP people answered about. If you know nothing about the situation, why not keep your half baked opinions to yourself?

Comment by Colin — 12 January, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
From the Daily record

Coming soon… TV Scrabble with Celebrity Big Brother star Tommy Sheridan

Jan 16 2009 By Rick Fulton

TOMMY Sheridan used to set himself challenges to see how many women he could sleep with - in a day.

The former Scottish Socialist leader, who won a libel case against the News of the World after they claimed he visited swingers’ clubs, revealed his promiscuous past during a late-night chat in the Big Brother house with Coolio.

The pair also discussed at length a Scrabble-based TV game show they would like to produce.

Tommy told Coolio his life had changed when he fell in love with wife Gail, with whom he has a three-year-old daughter, Gabrielle.

But before he settled down, it was a very different matter, he said, describing himself as a “male ho”.

He added: “I have done things because I had a brass neck and bottle. I am not greatly attractive but was reasonably attractive .

“I used to have targets - how many girls could I sleep with in one day.

“Not a week, a day.”

Tommy told Coolio that in 1992, he had partied hard on his release from jail after serving six months for his actions during the poll tax revolt.

While in Saughton Prison, Gail had sent him postcards from around the world as she travelled while working as a flight attendant.

He said he had to make a choice - continue his laddish ways or settle down with a woman he had known since their school days.

He added: “Gail didn’t need me. She had her own house and her own car. I thought when I settled down, it would be with someone who needed me, but she doesn’t.”

But he admitted the couple now “need each other”.

The two men also discussed the female housemates - both said they didn’t fancy any of the younger women but agreed La Toya Jackson was the best looking.

Coolio said he hadn’t felt sexually aroused since entering the house. Tommy said: “Neither have I, bro.”

Then they spent an hour discussing a possible new TV show - Celebrity Scrabble.

Coolio promised to speak to his agent about the idea. Tommy said he would love to do a pilot of the show.

He added: “I am well known in Scotland. I could get a footballer one week, a politician one week.

“It would make intelligence sexy.”

Terry Christian said it would be as boring as watching “Celebrity I Spy”.

Tommy’s wife Gail said he might have mentioned his TV idea to her but it would have “gone in one ear and out the other”.

She added: “The minute the word Scrabble is mentioned to me, I just switch off.

“I can’t tell you the number of Scrabble boards he’s got in the house. He’s obsessed.”

Meanwhile, the F-words started flying again as another row erupted. It began after housemates failed the latest task and were left with a food budget of just s1 a day each.

Coolio tried to take charge of the shopping list but was challenged by Ulrika Jonsson, who suggested that he would put his own needs ahead of everyone else.

After arguing, Ulrika told Shameless actress Tina Malone what had happened and she marched over to confront Coolio.

She told him: “It’s not your decision to tell the rest of the house what to do.”

Coolio responded: “Shut the f*** up, man.”

Tina responded: “Don’t you tell me to shut up. It’s not your f***ing decision to tell the rest of the f***ing house to f**king do something.

“No f***ing man will ever tell me to shut up.”

Coolio said: “Well, I just did it.”

Tina stormed out to the garden and Coolio went to the diary room.

Comment by Anonymous — 16 January, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Me read http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3327 everyday, good information and practice for English. Thank You. Me show you video of country.

Comment by Panama Canal — 26 August, 2010 @ 5:42 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 January, 2009

CELEBRITY BIG BROTHER

105 Comments »

Leave a comment