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

[justuname]

He lied, he knew he lied, and when his mates said they wouldn't lie too, he called them scabs - and got paid by a New Labour paper for doing it.

This wasn't a lie to stop a comrade going to prison or make some gain for working people, it was a lie about sex that Tommy should have been man enough to own up to. Instead, he has chosen to split the SSP.

Can you imagine what it's going to be like? Two parties with pretty well identical politics arguing furiously with each other wherever they are. It'll be heaven for the ISP and WTF and MGB but rubbish for getting anywhere.

Tragic.

 

[nwnm]

I remember similar arguments about the launch of RESPECT and the Socialist alliance - yeah right

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I remember similar arguments about the launch of RESPECT and the Socialist alliance - yeah right

Eh? The launch of Respect came about as a result of a resolution .... passed by the Socialist Alliance! and moved by one Alan Thornett of the ISG iirc.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

He lied, he knew he lied, and when his mates said they wouldn't lie too, he called them scabs - and got paid by a New Labour paper for doing it.

This wasn't a lie to stop a comrade going to prison or make some gain for working people, it was a lie about sex that Tommy should have been man enough to own up to. Instead, he has chosen to split the SSP.

Can you imagine what it's going to be like? Two parties with pretty well identical politics arguing furiously with each other wherever they are. It'll be heaven for the ISP and WTF and MGB but rubbish for getting anywhere.

Tragic.

Spot on. Not much more to be said really.

 

[DexterTCN]

He lied, he knew he lied, and when his mates said they wouldn't lie too, he called them scabs - and got paid by a New Labour paper for doing it.

This wasn't a lie to stop a comrade going to prison or make some gain for working people, it was a lie about sex that Tommy should have been man enough to own up to. Instead, he has chosen to split the SSP.

These were the 'mates' that decided to take over the leadership when he walked out of the meeting..because he decided to fight the Murdoch media empire, aye?

Let's be straight about this...they wanted him to go to his wife and own up to adultery, quit his position in the party he'd built up and to bow down to Murdoch?

Not sure I have any 'mates' like that.

 

[Fullyplumped]

more news

'Amicable divorce' as Sheridan announces his split from the SSP

TOMMY Sheridan and fellow MSP Rosemary Byrne yesterday announced an "amicable divorce" from the rest of the Scottish Socialist MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.


"A split in the SSP parliamentary group will now have to happen and I will be seeking as amicable a divorce as is possible," Mr Sheridan said yesterday. He is due to set up a separate party to the SSP, under the working title Solidarity, in the next couple of weeks.


But the rest of the Parliamentary group, who were unaware of the immediate split, said Mr Sheridan will wield little power alone and insisted the SSP must stick together. Under Scottish Parliament rules, the split means both factions will have to be treated as independents because they will have fewer than five members. It also means they will lose the opportunity to ask questions at First Minister's Question Time.​

 

[DexterTCN]

...insisted the SSP must stick together...

Animal Farm, anyone?

Maybe some nice Boxer glue will help them....adhere.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

These were the 'mates' that decided to take over the leadership when he walked out of the meeting..because he decided to fight the Murdoch media empire, aye?

Let's be straight about this...they wanted him to go to his wife and own up to adultery, quit his position in the party he'd built up and to bow down to Murdoch?

Not sure I have any 'mates' like that.

McCombes went to prison in order to implement the SSP leadership position that the minutes of the meeting in 2004 should not be revealed to the court or Murdoch's lawyers as a result of Sheridan's legal action (not the Murdoch empire's and not the state's, but solely because of Sheridan's action). His house was raided as were the SSP offices. How many of the SSP's critics would be prepared to stand up for principles in that way?

It was Sheridan who asked for the minutes to remain confidential at the time they were taken, not the leadership. The SSP leadership also agreed to call a conference of the SSP after the case was settled to enable Sheridan to fight for his position and challenge for leadership - and to see who really did command majority support among the membership. Sheridan and his supporters in the CWI and the johnny-come-latelys of the SWP have now run away from that, afraid to face the membership of the SSP in open debate.

The issue throughout is that when you join a socialist organisation you accept that you resolve matters through democratic debate. This has nothing to do with who your 'mates' are, but is the essence of socialist politics.

 

[DexterTCN]

Was Sheridan's leadership an issue with the membership, or with the EC?

Like I say...at the end of the day this was fuck all to do with 'the essence of socialist politics'.

Those minutes (cough) were shite, I read the pdf. Every option was for TS to stand down, iirc. One option even had the temerity of telling him what to do with his family.

As I said this morning...sold down the (animal) farm for glue in the (so called) name of standing up for the membership?

Are we to assume that anyone (allegedly) fucking someone when they are married is not welcome in the SSP? Who appointed the EC as moral arbiters on non-political affairs?

And you're overlooking the minor point that after he won the case...your EC bods were straight to the media calling him a liar...no serious politicians would do that.

Amateurs pissing away political opportunities (as opposed to party political opportunities) based on the idea that someone would want a 3-some with that fat hound Anvar Khan who oh-so-conveniently was a NotW muckraker. Don't give me that shite about 'nothing to do with the Murdoch empire'.

Wake the fuck up. You think the screws was performing a public fucking service? You seriously dismiss the idea that this was not politically motivated to attack the Left in Scotland? Gutter journalism, subsidised by the government with reduced taxation to allow a long campaign which has been going on since the 80s.

As I've constantly represented...I (and many others, I'm sure) don't give a fuck if TS was shagging 2 girls, 3 guys or a pony.

 

[fanciful]

Exactly when you join a socialist organisation you don't accept that they can "resolve" your sex life through democratic debate. An individuals sex life has nothing to do with the "socialist" organisation.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of it, I reckon the prospects are grim on both sides. Its clear that McCoombes and co are basically soft left scots nats, with their criticism of Sheridan that he wants to form a "socialist unionist" organisation.
Sheridan on the other hand, while he has been basically vindicated through the course of the court case, has a very confused political standpoint which can basically be summarised as "left reformist" though that doesn't completely explain its nuances, softness on left nationalism, origin in the "Trotskyist" left of the Militant etc.
Its difficult to finally judge until we see what proportion of the membership goes with Sheridan, personally I think he should have fought it out and not handed the party over the McCoombes wing, but now that he's gone certainly its the new organisation that I think any leftist should look to.

 

[nwnm]

Eh? The launch of Respect came about as a result of a resolution .... passed by the Socialist Alliance! and moved by one Alan Thornett of the ISG iirc.

those who didn't accept reality tried to continue with the SA and used similar arguments about RESPECT though

 

[greenman]

Gosh certain individuals on here certainly do a good impression of shit stirring spooks. And I have no brief for the SSP. And I have had big fights/disagreements with FG, but he seems totally honest and fair minded on here compared to a set of sectarian shit stirrers.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

those who didn't accept reality tried to continue with the SA and used similar arguments about RESPECT though

but they had no democratic legitimacy, hence they've disappeared into obscurity ...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Exactly when you join a socialist organisation you don't accept that they can "resolve" your sex life through democratic debate. An individuals sex life has nothing to do with the "socialist" organisation.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of it, I reckon the prospects are grim on both sides. Its clear that McCoombes and co are basically soft left scots nats, with their criticism of Sheridan that he wants to form a "socialist unionist" organisation.
Sheridan on the other hand, while he has been basically vindicated through the course of the court case, has a very confused political standpoint which can basically be summarised as "left reformist" though that doesn't completely explain its nuances, softness on left nationalism, origin in the "Trotskyist" left of the Militant etc.
Its difficult to finally judge until we see what proportion of the membership goes with Sheridan, personally I think he should have fought it out and not handed the party over the McCoombes wing, but now that he's gone certainly its the new organisation that I think any leftist should look to.

The question was not about people's sex life but about the legal action for defamation ... I don't care what people get up to either.

 

[nwnm]

error/double post

 

[nwnm]

Geenman - some of us are a little curious about 'party line' types who claim to no longer be members of parties who's every twist and turn they still defend <ranging from out of date positions to up to the minute ones>

like FG I could claim to be ex-FI - and, regardless of whether I'd joined the SWP or not, I'm sure I'd be on here with criticism of aspects of a group I was no longer a member of......

 

[nwnm]

but they had no democratic legitimacy, hence they've disappeared into obscurity ...

so exactly what legitamacy do people have who brand someone a liar when they have just one a libel case <voted on by their peers remember - not decided by a judge>

 

[tollbar]

so exactly what legitamacy do people have who brand someone a liar when they have just one a libel case <voted on by their peers remember - not decided by a judge>

The legitimacy of actually being right, maybe ?.

And since when did socialists believe in the infallibility of the jury system.

(when it suits them, I suppose).

 

[Fisher_Gate]

so exactly what legitamacy do people have who brand someone a liar when they have just one a libel case <voted on by their peers remember - not decided by a judge>

The branding of liars related to the issue of what was said at an internal party meeting, not what their sex life was about. Why should so many people, most of them previously solid supporters of Sheridan including the best man at his wedding, say that the minutes were an accurate record if they weren't? Again it's not a judgement on sex life but on how the party functions. .. and it was Sheridan who went into print (and was paid handsomely for it by people who-are-no-friend-of-the-working-class-let-us-not-forget) to brand his colleagues as scabs, when as far as they were concerned they simply told the truth about what happened at a meeeting they were at, having been called as a result of Sheridan's legal action, not the state and not Murdoch's empire.

As for the jury - they were asked to make a judgement on whether the newspaper committed libel, not who was telling the truth about the party meeting.

 

[danny la rouge]

These were the 'mates' that decided to take over the leadership when he walked out of the meeting..because he decided to fight the Murdoch media empire, aye?

So, why was the meeting held? This first meeting, called in the wake of a story about an unnamed MSP in the News of the World. Called the day the story appeared.

Are you asking us to believe that the SSP EC just wanted to pin that story on Tommy, despite the fact it wasn't about him? Or was the meeting called because it was about Tommy, they knew and he knew it, and a strategy needed to be agreed?

Two possibilities. Which was it? Because a lot follows from which one you pick. If you are a logical thinker.

 

[nwnm]

As for the jury - they were asked to make a judgement on whether the newspaper committed libel, not who was telling the truth about the party meeting.

A large part of whether the news of the screws were guilty of libel or not was based on that party meeting

 

[tollbar]

And who does Peter Mullan turn to in order to promote the latest Sheridanite line ?. The evil Murdoch empire no less.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2330946,00.html

 

[DexterTCN]

Are you asking us to believe that the SSP EC just wanted to pin that story on Tommy, despite the fact it wasn't about him? Or was the meeting called because it was about Tommy, they knew and he knew it, and a strategy needed to be agreed?

All 4 strategies required TS to resign? Fuck off.

Where's your logical thinking then? All 4 strategies required the same action? I'm no scientist but I think I see a minor flaw in the thought process. It's called a kangaroo court.

This was before the trial, mind. Innocent until proven guilty...and indeed innocent after the trial too, by the way. Something you deliberately ignore in your every post because it doesn't suit your position.

And who does Peter Mullan turn to in order to promote the latest Sheridanite line ?. The evil Murdoch empire no less.

As do Baldessara and Fox you fuckin hypocrite. lmao

 

[danny la rouge]

All 4 strategies required TS to resign? Fuck off.

You're missing the first step. Please just try to think it through.

Why was there a meeting of the SSP EC when the story had named nobody?

One* can either assume that it was because the SSP exec wanted to unjustly pin the story on Tommy, or that the story was actually about Tommy. Everything follows from which proposition one agrees with.

If the former, then one will agree with Tommy that members of the exec lied and fitted Tommy up, and hell mind them. If the latter, then Tommy has smeared good socialists, put people's sex life and integrity on the stand, and split a movement for the good of his own ego.


(*I'm using the term "one" because the last time we had a discussion about this you took my questions as an accusation).

 

[DexterTCN]

You're missing the first step. Please just try to think it through.

Why was there a meeting of the SSP EC when the story had named nobody?

One* can either assume that it was because the SSP exec wanted to unjustly pin the story on Tommy, or that the story was actually about Tommy. Everything follows from which proposition one agrees with.

If the former, then one will agree with Tommy that members of the exec lied and fitted Tommy up, and hell mind them. If the latter, then Tommy has smeared good socialists, put people's sex life and integrity on the stand, and split a movement for the good of his own ego.


(*I'm using the term "one" because the last time we had a discussion about this you took my questions as an accusation).

I'm not missing fuck all, mate.

Every option was for Tommy Sheridan to resign.

He won the case. Repeat after me...he won the case. See? Fucking...end of.

 

[tollbar]

All 4 strategies required TS to resign? Fuck off.

Where's your logical thinking then? All 4 strategies required the same action? I'm no scientist but I think I see a minor flaw in the thought process. It's called a kangaroo court.

This was before the trial, mind. Innocent until proven guilty...and indeed innocent after the trial too, by the way. Something you deliberately ignore in your every post because it doesn't suit your position.


As do Baldessara and Fox you fuckin hypocrite. lmao

But it wasnt fox or baldessera who keep greeting about the evil Murdoch empire was it you daft cunt.

Fucking scum.

 

[danny la rouge]

He won the case. Repeat after me...he won the case. See? Fucking...end of.

No, he did so by trashing good socialists, and people's integrity. And the SSP.

 

[DexterTCN]

But it wasnt fox or baldessera who keep greeting about the evil Murdoch empire was it you daft cunt.

Fucking scum.

You whine about Mullan being in a Murdoch rag and conveniently omit the fact that Baldessara and Fox contributed to the same article?

I think the daft cunt is the one who brought it up (you) without realising you've also supplied the rebuttal. Brainiac.

 

[Fedayn]

As I understand it. Tommy Sheridan received no such payment. Gail gave her side of the story to the Daily Record - a paper which has historically been read by a not insignificant section of the left-leaning working class - for a sum which would not have got near what some of the more salacious tabloids would have paid. Still, I would argue any such payment would be transferred back to the movement.



Why does Tommy "bear the vast bulk" of responsibility? So Murdoch's papers can rush into print with any manner of lewd allegations and TS doesn't have the right to defend his own name. The SSP leadership showed its remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and continue to support the NOTW's line of attack on scotland's highest profile socialist.

Yes, the "scabs" comment went too far, and was a mistake. But given the response he received from his erstwhile 'comrades' a degree of personal bitterness is understandable.



Looks to me like a handful of personally envious and spiteful individuals have gone out of their way to undermine a figure with significant support in the scottish working class as a whole. Seems a funny way of building the party.

Still we'll see - remains to be seen what emerges out of all this.

Are you seriously arguing that because the £30,000 was paid to Gail that Tommy doesn't benefit? They are a married couple, regardless of whether his name was on it by legal definition he owns half, so even with his trying to weasel out of it he makes a complete twat of himself.
And how does going to a 'stag party' where a wealthy businessman has a woman 'specially flown in' as a present help building the party? Answeres on a very small postcard please.

 

[justuname]

There's no political basis for this split, that's why the arguments for it are so all over the place.

Mullan likens everyone in the SSP who refuses to back up Tommy's lies about his sex life with Nazi collaborators - read the piece - then says Tommy was going too far calling them scabs then says they're his comrades then concludes it's good to have a few socialist parties fighting each other because he hates "that political sectarian stuff".

Like DexterTCN's rants, it's self-contradictory, doesn't make sense, is abusive and, I expect, will eventually turn violent - where else can it go? I expect Tommy's ridiculous idea that two Scottish socialist parties is a great idea - he knows it's not, another lie - is to cool some of his fans down because he knows where all this is going.

Thing is, loyalty to Tommy is not something to be completely dismissed - you don't build serious movements on intellectual argument alone and the SSP did look like it had a chance of connecting with people who don't read manifestos or email political discussion groups but still want a better world.

That emerging unity has been seriously set back by Tommy, presumably so he didn't have to tell him wife and mum he'd lied to them. Comparing that to the holocaust is obscene - and I hope Mullan will apologise for that.

We all make mistakes. It's when we refuse to admit them that the real damage gets done.