Sheridan abandons hope for the SSP and tries to form new party

[Fisher_Gate]

There is in fact.
Small minded sectarian faction ridden tiny left party way of operating on one side and trying to build an organisation on broader layers of the working class on the other.

Small matter of democracy doesn't come into it?

If what you say is true, what resolutions were put by the splitters to the leading bodies and conferences of the SSP to remedy this? Which resolutions and alternative political strategies did Sheridan, the SWP and CWI platforms propose and champion within the SSP?

Answer: none.

No political differences were raised among the membership of the SSP, just asides and innuendo. In fact the SWP and CWI went along with decisions of the SSP until they decided on a volte face when Sheridan's position became untenable. A more unprincipled approach has rarely been seen.

 

[Nigel]

I'm In The Popular Front!!!!

There is in fact.
Small minded sectarian faction ridden tiny left party way of operating on one side and trying to build an organisation on broader layers of the working class on the other.

Which ones which?
Heard it had something to do with the national question!!!!!!!!!!

Only met Tommy Sherriden once: Ironically on a delegation to Glasgow Town Hall for Workers' Aid. He went against his party line and supported us.

Theres more to this than sectarian egomania>:

 

[Nigel]

Scotland Says No!!!!!

Perhaps Tommy Can Get The U.V.F. In To Sort This Business Out!!!!

 

[osterberg]

Grogan was expelled by the Ross rump SL, not the USFI. The American SWP left the USFI of its own accord.

I can't remember what happened about Revo - don't even recollect them having an independent office.

The SL office however definitely had a mortgage on it guarantored by an IG member. The IG wanted an alternative guarantor finding from the rump SL membership but they were reluctant to find another - the SL took the view that if they were going to go down financially, which became increasingly likely as they lurched from financial crisis to financial crisis, they were going to take the IG down with them. The IG took a decision that they would not allow an individual to be financially hit and that they would collectively meet any outstanding commitments in the event of foreclosure.

Eventually a deal was brokered through the FI but by then the Groganites and Rossites had fallen out and Grogan refused to allow the IG to relinquish their link with the SL's building. This is when the courts started to get involved but since it involved bourgeois property relations there was no alternative.

As part of the IG at the time I never regarded this as "fighting dirty". The IG did not wish to be responsible for the financial misadventures of a group it had no influence over, but was not interested in grabbing the assets (or more to the point, debts) of the SL. The IG sought to reach agreement through negotiation, and when this was not forthcoming, requested the FI act as mediators.

I presume you were the other side of the break and only heard one side of the story - given the subsequent evolution of the various components, only what is now the ISG emerges with any credibility, though it was an enormous setback that the other currents have disappeared into oblivion or secthood.

Having seen this once, I would have thought that you would agree with me that this sort of shambles should be avoided in future, especially as in the case of the SSP there are actually no political differences?

Kicked out,expelled,divorced from the USFI,who cares?(I was one of those expelled by the Ross lot by the way).
I've tried to forget all this stuff for the last 20 years but I do think your side weren't quite the selfless principled revolutionaries that you seem to think.
Sorry.

 

[osterberg]

Small matter of democracy doesn't come into it?

If what you say is true, what resolutions were put by the splitters to the leading bodies and conferences of the SSP to remedy this? Which resolutions and alternative political strategies did Sheridan, the SWP and CWI platforms propose and champion within the SSP?

Answer: none.

No political differences were raised among the membership of the SSP, just asides and innuendo. In fact the SWP and CWI went along with decisions of the SSP until they decided on a volte face when Sheridan's position became untenable. A more unprincipled approach has rarely been seen.

So it's principled and democratic to have a party run by a small clique of backstabbers?
Perhaps the structures of the SSP made it difficult for political differences to come out into the open.
I admit I know very little about what went on in the SSP but I find it hard to beleive that one side was squeaky clean and the other was totally to blame.
I imagine it was a lot less black and white than that.

 

[osterberg]

Which ones which?
Heard it had something to do with the national question!!!!!!!!!!

Only met Tommy Sherriden once: Ironically on a delegation to Glasgow Town Hall for Workers' Aid. He went against his party line and supported us.

Theres more to this than sectarian egomania>:

I forgot about nationalism.That is indeed a significant political difference.
As for which is which people will have to make up they're own minds on that.
I'm sure events will provide an answer.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

So it's principled and democratic to have a party run by a small clique of backstabbers?
Perhaps the structures of the SSP made it difficult for political differences to come out into the open.
I admit I know very little about what went on in the SSP but I find it hard to beleive that one side was squeaky clean and the other was totally to blame.
I imagine it was a lot less black and white than that.

If the party were run by a 'small clique of backstabbers' (and as far as I'm concerned it's a contentious "if") then the principled thing to have done would have been to fight to replace them at the next conference.

The structure of the SSP are some of the most democratic ever tried, particularly the system of platforms which allowed differences to come out into the open.

Sorry but I don't agree with this "no smoke without fire" line of argument. I've no doubt that the SSP leadership made mistakes but on the basis of what I've seen and read, I can see no grounds for walking out and trying to smash the party, rather than fighting for what you believe in.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I can see no grounds for walking out

Really? You can see "no grounds"?

The fact is that staying in the SSP would have been a suicidal strategy for Sheridan and the other founders of Solidarity. They would have been locked into an unbelievably bitter factional war until the conference, with their opponents controlling the fulltime apparatus, offices, membership lists, website and all party publications. That their opponents had every intention of using its control over the apparatus had already been amply demonstrated by such stunts as changing the locks on the offices and issuing factional documents in the name of the party.

Come the conference they might win the vote or, given the advantages the anti-Sheridan faction enjoyed, they might lose. Either way the factional struggle would continue and the SSP would tear itself apart.

Splitting allows them to try and put the rows behind them and get on with trying to organise a challenge in the forthcoming elections. Much the same goes for the rump SSP, although they would be loathe to give up the polemical advantages of denouncing "splitters".

In my view the only question for socialists is how something can be rescued from the whole debacle. Solidarity looks like it has some chance of pulling together a substantial organisation that can have some kind of impact. The rump SSP looks, frankly, fucked. The two tied together in the name of unity, like two fighting dogs in a sack, would be all the gorier and all the less healthy.

 

[nwnm]

If the party were run by a 'small clique of backstabbers' (and as far as I'm concerned it's a contentious "if") then the principled thing to have done would have been to fight to replace them at the next conference.The structure of the SSP are some of the most democratic ever tried, particularly the system of platforms which allowed differences to come out into the open.

nigel irritable has dealt with most of your argument very well already, but this idea of some formally 'democratic' structures guarentee those with the best strategies to win is a charade. Where one platform controls the majority of the party apparatus? You must be joking! Actually, one of the most 'formally' democratic groups on the left was the old IMG, and what happened to that? It went from being the group in the vanguard of the anti Vietnam war movement in the 1960's, to being in a state of perma-factional war in the '70's, tore itself to shreds, entered the labour party and tore itself to shreds some more; shedding casualties aplenty. Oh, and differences in the SSP didn't come out into the open that often - it was stifled by the faction/platform which coalesced in control of the party.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Really? You can see "no grounds"?

The fact is that staying in the SSP would have been a suicidal strategy for Sheridan and the other founders of Solidarity. They would have been locked into an unbelievably bitter factional war until the conference, with their opponents controlling the fulltime apparatus, offices, membership lists, website and all party publications. That their opponents had every intention of using its control over the apparatus had already been amply demonstrated by such stunts as changing the locks on the offices and issuing factional documents in the name of the party.

Come the conference they might win the vote or, given the advantages the anti-Sheridan faction enjoyed, they might lose. Either way the factional struggle would continue and the SSP would tear itself apart.

Splitting allows them to try and put the rows behind them and get on with trying to organise a challenge in the forthcoming elections. Much the same goes for the rump SSP, although they would be loathe to give up the polemical advantages of denouncing "splitters".

In my view the only question for socialists is how something can be rescued from the whole debacle. Solidarity looks like it has some chance of pulling together a substantial organisation that can have some kind of impact. The rump SSP looks, frankly, fucked. The two tied together in the name of unity, like two fighting dogs in a sack, would be all the gorier and all the less healthy.

Thus spake the organisation that walked out of the Socialist Alliance denouncing the SWP in the same terms it now reserves for the SSP .... only to join together with the same SWP it previously denounced so vehemently.

First time, tragedy, second time, farce. Ne'er was a metaphor so apt.

 

[nwnm]

Thus spake the organisation that walked out of the Socialist Alliance denouncing the SWP in the same terms it now reserves for the SSP .... only to join together with the same SWP it previously denounced so vehemently.

First time, tragedy, second time, farce. Ne'er was a metaphor so apt.

If it was just the SP walking out of an organisation on their own you might have a point - but even you wouldn't be stupid enough to argue that

 

[justuname]

The fact is that staying in the SSP would have been a suicidal strategy for Sheridan and the other founders of Solidarity.

This says it all - it's Tommy interests that are important, not the need to build a united socialist movement in Scotland. There's a word for that. Sectarianism.

Sheridan split the SSP because he lied about sex and wanted other SSP leaders, and some women whose only mistake was to have sex with him, to lie too. They refused and that's the only reason Solidarity was created.

He could have admitted the truth, be done with it, and continued to play a part in a united socialist party in Scotland, an achievement that was a positive example to socialists across Europe and that he played a major part in building. Instead he has divided the left in Scotland without any political basis.

Splitting allows them to try and put the rows behind them and get on with trying to organise a challenge in the forthcoming elections.

Let me get this right - splitting makes everything simpler by 'putting the rows behind them'. Except, small point, we're left with two socialist parties fighting each other for votes and members instead of one party, with internal differences but united in campaigns and elections. No rows there then.

Thing that gets me is that the SWP know he's lying and don't care because they see a factional advantage in splitting the SSP. Some way to build a new and better world...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Looks like the SWP are prepared to take their sectarian campaign into Respect. If they allow this to be discussed on the floor of the conference it will be a bloodbath. I predict they'll withdraw the resolution. Let's see if I'm right.

Respect Annual Conference-2006 Resolutions

13. Scotland – North Manchester

This conference notes with sadness:

1. The recent split within the Scottish Socialist Party.

This conference notes:

1. The formation of a new left movement in Scotland called Solidarity - Scotland’s Socialist Movement.

This conference reaffirms:

1. Respect’s desire to work with, and alongside, all progressive movements with the aim of creating an alternative to the policies of Neo-Liberalism and war which dominate the politics of the three main parties in England, Scotland and Wales.

This conference instructs:

1. The National Council/and or officers of Respect to take part in discussions with Solidarity and to work towards developing positive fraternal relationship with the new grouping.
2. The National Council to send a message of solidarity and greeting to the inaugural conference of Solidarity - Scotland’s Socialist Movement to be held in November 2006 and, if invited, to send official observers to the meeting to deliver that message in person.
3. The National Officers to conduct enquiries with the Left in Scotland with the aim of developing joint campaigns over issues affecting the whole of the United Kingdom.

 

[osterberg]

Looks like the SWP are prepared to take their sectarian campaign into Respect. If they allow this to be discussed on the floor of the conference it will be a bloodbath. I predict they'll withdraw the resolution. Let's see if I'm right.

Why a bloodbath?The resolution calls for;

The National Council/and or officers of Respect to take part in discussions with Solidarity and to work towards developing positive fraternal relationship with the new grouping.

and states ;

Respect’s desire to work with, and alongside, all progressive movements with the aim of creating an alternative to the policies of Neo-Liberalism and war which dominate the politics of the three main parties in England, Scotland and Wales.

Seems like a sensible idea to have fraternal dialogue with a similar minded group,doesn't it?

And there will be an opportunity to openly debate and discuss this at conference without acrimony.I suspect that only the ISG comrades will object to the motion and they always debate in a rational and calm manner.

So I'm not sure where you get the bloodbath idea from.

I also don't understand why a supporter of a democratic functioning Respect objects to a motion to be put to conference to be voted on.

By the way,for reasons put by Nigel Irritable and nwnm far more eloquently than I could do, there would be no way a rational and calm debate could have taken place in the SSP.Sheridan and his supporters had no choice but to leave.
Have you seen the SSP's website lately?Much of the latest items on there are viscious attacks on Sheridan and Solidarity.

The SSP's official website is being used as a factional tool.

Do you think a reasonable democratic debate could have been had with those people?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Looks like the SWP are prepared to take their sectarian campaign into Respect. If they allow this to be discussed on the floor of the conference it will be a bloodbath. I predict they'll withdraw the resolution. Let's see if I'm right.

Why would this be "a bloodbath"? There's nobody much in Respect for them to, erm, massacre. There might be some ineffectual whining from the ISG/SR, the daft old uncles of the Respect milieu, but why would that make any odds to the SWP?

Your bizarre post would only make sense if there were loads of people in Respect, outside of the SWP, who care about what goes on in Scotland and who favour the SSP over Solidarity. There aren't loads of people in Respect. Most of the people who are in Respect are also in the SWP. And I suspect that few of the rest of them (a) know anything much about Scottish socialist politics and (b) vigorously favour the anti-Sheridanites over the Sheridanites. Fantasy politics as usual, F_G.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

This says it all - it's Tommy interests that are important, not the need to build a united socialist movement in Scotland. There's a word for that. Sectarianism.

This is gibberish. There is no prospect of building a united socialist movement in Scotland at the moment. The only question is how can a strong socialist movement be built. There is no prospect of either group managing to do so while tied together in an endless factional war. As the crap below demonstrates:

He could have admitted the truth, be done with it, and continued to play a part in a united socialist party in Scotland

For this self serving shit read: Sheridan could have "admitted" that the United Left version of events is correct, be personally bankrupted and go to prison for perjury. Then he could accept that it was alright for socialists to hold meetings about each others personal lives, record supposed "minutes" of those meetings, leak the existence of these supposed "minutes" to the press, give evidence for News International and then, when News International lose, do things like call for perjury investigations and hold media stunts where they hand supposed "evidence" to the police.

How totally "sectarian" of Sheridan and much of the rest of the old SSP not to want to do that. Really they should just have taken their medicine and quietly fallen in line behind a "united" party led by the people who gave evidence against him...

Let me get this right - splitting makes everything simpler by 'putting the rows behind them'. Except, small point, we're left with two socialist parties fighting each other for votes and members instead of one party, with internal differences but united in campaigns and elections. No rows there then.

I'm sure it will be very bitter over the next period, but from after the next election I very much doubt if there will be two remotely serious left wing parties fighting for votes and members.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
... I very much doubt if there will be two remotely serious left wing parties fighting for votes and members.

The only true point you've made in this whole saga - the SWP and CWI will split in the sectarian infighting and descend into irrelevance once Sheridan bows out.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

As desperate as ever F_G. The International Socialists and the Socialist Worker Platform managed to coexist for some years within the SSP. There's no obvious reason why they can't do now, although that doesn't mean that political differences won't be very real.

Solidarity might be a fiasco, or it might be a success. The SSP it seems to me, is effectively finished however. In the case of one party there is some prospect of rescuing something from this whole mess. In the case of the other, I think unfortunately there is little that can be done.

 

[JHE]

The Social Worker Platform wants to get the Islamists on the good ship Sheridan-Solidarity, to turn it into a Tartan version of Respec'. The CWI lot will insist on a clearly socialist basis for the new group. There are ructions ahead.

Nigel Irritable is opposed to Respec' in England, but sides with the Scots group at risk of becoming Tartan Respec'.

Fisher_Gate supports Respec' in England, but opposes the group that has a chance of becoming Tartan Respec'.

Trottery is a complex matter.

 

[greenman]

Trottery is a complex matter.

Word

You put your vanguard in,
You take your vanguard out,
In, out, in, out, shake it all about
You do the splitty shitty
And U-turn around,
Thats what its all about.

 

[laptop]

You put your vanguard in,
You take your vanguard out,
In, out, in, out, shake it all about
You do the splitty shitty
And U-turn around,
Thats what its all about.

© 1917 Vladimir & the stick-benders

 

[nwnm]

© 1917 Vladimir & the stick-benders

more likely to be by doowop group "The 5 Key<board>'s" <which is where some people spend most of their lives>

 

[JHE]

Doowop is haram - but with a bit of luck you could get your friendly neighbourhood muezzin to wail the transitional programme (as long as he doesn't understand the words - just tell him it's a call for jihad).

 

[nwnm]

Doowop is haram - but with a bit of luck you could get your friendly neighbourhood muezzin to wail the transitional programme (as long as he doesn't understand the words - just tell him it's a call for jihad).

far too contrived to be humourous, far too crap to constitute political critique

 

[laptop]

Target acquired and annoyed

 

[Fisher_Gate]

As desperate as ever F_G. The International Socialists and the Socialist Worker Platform managed to coexist for some years within the SSP. There's no obvious reason why they can't do now, although that doesn't mean that political differences won't be very real.

Solidarity might be a fiasco, or it might be a success. The SSP it seems to me, is effectively finished however. In the case of one party there is some prospect of rescuing something from this whole mess. In the case of the other, I think unfortunately there is little that can be done.

We'll return in a year's time to see if your predictions of the imminent demise of the SSP turn out to be true ... I seem to recall you've been saying that about Respect since 2004 and it hasn't happened yet.

I think the SSP will survive, though weakened. The bulk of the organisation in its strongest area in Glasgow remains intact, four of the six MSPs and the 2 councillors have stayed as have some key gains like McAllion, and, most importantly, the vast majority of the youth have also stayed with it.

You seem to be lacking in confidence about the success of the splitters already, acknowledging it might be a 'fiasco' (your words not mine).

I'm actually for the unity of all left forces which is why I support what I consider to be the best practical attempts to create them - in England that is Respect and in Scotland that remains the SSP. No contradiction there. The CWI are opportunistic rather than principled about which alliances/parties they support. Their little escapade in Berlin doesn't seem to be bearing much fruit either.

 

[osterberg]

I'm actually for the unity of all left forces which is why I support what I consider to be the best practical attempts to create them - in England that is Respect and in Scotland that remains the SSP.

Out of curosity,FG,what about Wales?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

We'll return in a year's time to see if your predictions of the imminent demise of the SSP turn out to be true ... I seem to recall you've been saying that about Respect since 2004 and it hasn't happened yet.

You recall wrong.

I think the SSP will survive, though weakened. The bulk of the organisation in its strongest area in Glasgow remains intact, four of the six MSPs and the 2 councillors have stayed as have some key gains like McAllion, and, most importantly, the vast majority of the youth have also stayed with it.

In a few months time, those four MSP's will most likely be gone. As will the money they bring in. And the fulltime posts they support. As will more of the passive subs base (as happens in all splits). All of which will lead to further demoralisation and further losses in membership.

I think something will survive of the SSP in the medium term at least, but it will most likely be an embittered politically marginal rump. And you are right that I am far from overwhelmingly confident in the future success of Solidarity. It could very easily go down in flames. However I think that whatever chance remains of rescuing a substantial socialist organisation in Scotland rest with it. It's the difference between some chance and no chance at all.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Solidarity might be a fiasco, or it might be a success. The SSP it seems to me, is effectively finished however. In the case of one party there is some prospect of rescuing something from this whole mess. In the case of the other, I think unfortunately there is little that can be done.

You are kidding arent you...

One organisation has a star player who is facing four different investigations into his behaviour at a recent libel case, no infrastructure, no finances (apart from those which they have stolen from the SSP and are currently being investigated over), a membership concentrated in sparcely populated areas, very few activists, but loads of sectarian hacks from the CWI and the SWP

The other has four active MSPs, two councillors, a weekly paper, a (now) smooth functioning party HQ, a healthy and increasing subs base, good links with local community groups and campaigns, a geographical spread throughout Scotland and very active and radical youth wing.

As Fishers-Gate said, lets give it a year...

 

[osterberg]

You are kidding arent you...

One organisation has a star player who is facing four different investigations into his behaviour at a recent libel case, no infrastructure, no finances (apart from those which they have stolen from the SSP and are currently being investigated over), a membership concentrated in sparcely populated areas, very few activists, but loads of sectarian hacks from the CWI and the SWP

The other has four active MSPs, two councillors, a weekly paper, a (now) smooth functioning party HQ, a healthy and increasing subs base, good links with local community groups and campaigns, a geographical spread throughout Scotland and very active and radical youth wing.

As Fishers-Gate said, lets give it a year...

Yeah,sparsely populated areas like Dundee and Aberdeen...
Just a teeny bit Glasgow- centric are we?
I think you might be painting an overly rosy picture,but yeah lets give it a year.

Edit:"very few activists, but loads of sectarian hacks from the CWI and the SWP"
Don't get that one.Hacks they may or not be but they're activists too.