Sheridan abandons hope for the SSP and tries to form new party
- Thread starter Fullyplumped
- Start date
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
nwnm said:
Too obtuse for me - what's it supposed to mean ...?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
mutley said:
I agree Galloway is a brilliant performer and consistently "on message" in relation to imperialism. Since he came back from Big Brother, he has put in a number of impressive performances.
I would certainly defend him against those other slime bags mentioned.
I don't agree however he is the "greatest left wing MP since Tony Benn", not that Benn was that left wing anyway.
When GG was in the Labour Party he refused to join the Campaign Group, and some of his (current) positions, eg opposing abortion and euthenasia, put him in a worse light in my view than people like Corbyn or Simpson, who have been more consistent over the years and defend a broader range of progressive policies: Corbyn split with his wife over his passionate defence of state schools for example and doesn't have dewey-eyed nostalgia for the Soviet Union. He was also one of the few MPs prepared to argue unconditionally for Troops Out of Ireland at a time when very few on the Labour left (including Benn) were as consistent. He is however not so good as an orator and has chosen to stay in the Labour Party, but his political positions on all the major issues of the day are arguably better than Galloways'. The point is that none of these people are perfect.
The problem with Galloway is who he sees himself as accountable, and it certainly is not Respect. The Big Brother fiasco is the worst example of that. Though it is a step forward that he has said he would not vote in the House of Commons for something that is against Respect policy (eg restricting abortion). However that is a minimum condition in my view when you agree to stand for parliament for a party. It's all the other ways that Galloway does not function as a democratically accountable representative.
Sheridan is a different kettle of fish now. He refused to go along with majority view in the SSP and called the leadership 'scabs'. He has burnt his bridges and while it may be time for him to go his own way if he can't be bound by collective decision-making, he seems to be pursuing a 'scorched earth' policy in his wake which does the left no good. It is Sheridan who is behaving like a spoilt kid who has lost his favourite toy, as on policy issues there is absolutely nothing to divide him from the leadership of the SSP.
Barry Kades
Everythin' and Everythin'
Fisher_Gate said:
Hold on a minute. Sheridan did not go against any majority. The executive made it clear he could not continue as convenor if he was pursuing a case against the NOTW. He resigned, and we all know what followed. But no one can deny the National Council - an elected body to which the executive is in theory subordinated - voted to support the SSP. This was binding on the executive who decided to ignore it.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Barry Kades said:
Did the National Council of 27 November 2004 not vote to support the unanimous (ie SWP et al in favour) decisions of the Executive on 9 November 2004, 14 November 2004 and 24 November 2004 by 87 votes to 20 (Sheridan, CWI, SWP all in favour)?
Did the Executive not carry out the decision of the National Council on 28 May 2006 and hand over the EC minutes of 9 November 2004, thus ending the strategy of defiance of the courts as required by the majority at that NC?
The NC of 28 May agreed to give "political support" to Sheridan's battle against News International, but did not demand that those in court perjure themselves - the EC voted to advise members not to commit perjury with only 2 votes against.
It is clear, with hindsight, that Sheridan, SWP and CWI now argue that the EC members should have committed perjury and denied the validity of the 9 November 2004 minutes - and were 'scabs' for not doing so, but that was never the agreed position of the NC.
Fisher_Gate said:
The NC did indeed vote for political support but with no debate as it was forced through by the Sheridanites during a quarter of an hour extension that they managed to wangle out of the GCU authorities after the official closin time of the meeting at 1700 hours.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
tollbar said:
Sure - that's why it wasn't interpreted as a blank cheque to support Sheridan's lies in court.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Fisher_Gate said:
The USFI's international stance is based essentially on their long term attempt to suck up to the remnants of the ISM milieu. This made a certain amount of sense at one point - the USFI have only a handful of supporters in Scotland, and while the ISM shared much of the USFI's reformist politics they were in dire need of more sophisticated apologetics for those politics, something the USFI are rather better at.
Their stance is all the more opportunistic now, given that the people they are trying desperately to recruit are the people whose strategy now amounts only to trying to get the most prominent socialist in Scotland jailed for perjury. This has included open calls for criminal investigations by leading UL members it has also included arranging media coverage of the "assistance" they are providing to the police.
What's most interesting about this is that the USFI seem to have been unable to convince their own existing supporters in Scotland of this line. Their Scottish supporters have, after all, been vociferous supporters of Sheridan. It will be interesting to see if they have been whipped into line or if they are to be jetissoned in the hope of replacing them with something bigger but utterly tainted.
By the way Fisher Gate, I notice that you haven't responded to my earlier posting on your Italian Senators thread. Can you confirm that the USFI parliamentarian there, after all the noise about taking a principled stand, in fact voted for the occupation of Afghanistan?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Nigel Irritable said:
Amusingly enough I've just learnt that the existing supporters of the USFI in Scotland are now out of the organisation, although whether they split or were expelled is unclear. Either way the issue was that they disagreed with the USFI's international backing for the anti-Sheridan wing of the SSP.
And in an even more amusing postscript it seems that the UL/anti-Sheridanites are sending a speaker to the Socialist Resistance (USFI and hangers on) conference and that the USFI will be organising a public meeting for them in England. Maybe Fisher Gate can ask them about their campaign to have Sheridan jailed while they are there.
I have to admit that I wasn't expecting my analysis to be confirmed quite so quickly...
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
As I predicted!! (and before you Nige!)
Oh and it's not a handful, it's a handful and one finger to be exact
Oh and it's not a handful, it's a handful and one finger to be exact
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
As JHE says, tollbar, I was talking about people leaving or being booted out of the USFI not the SSP.
your analysis of the situation concurs with mine Nigel Irritable. Building this relationship would appear to have been Murray Smith's 'mission'. <there's no way that the main grouping in the usec would have left this task to the ISG>. It's more difficult to keep track of the ISM's other courters, the DSP of Australia. They have a longer political relationship with the ISM, and seem to have 2 or 3 members operating within the SSP.
BBC Report -
"Sheridan unveils Solidarity Party"
"Sheridan unveils Solidarity Party"
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
On Galloway's programme tonight someone claiming to be an ssp member said that Sheridan's meeting was excellent and that he was moved to tears. Sheridan was reported to have talked about Murdoch calling a meeting of executives on the day of the NOTW's defeat and saying how could we let this commie beat us.
There was also some mention that in the recent past the ssp had not taken Islamophobia seriously.
The caller to Galloway's radio show also reported on the other the meeting which he said was led by a "man hating feminist" and had people walking out in disgust.
Galloway was trying to get Sheridan on the phone to talk live on talksport about it.
There was also some mention that in the recent past the ssp had not taken Islamophobia seriously.
The caller to Galloway's radio show also reported on the other the meeting which he said was led by a "man hating feminist" and had people walking out in disgust.
Galloway was trying to get Sheridan on the phone to talk live on talksport about it.
MC5 said:
The 'other meeting' was chaired by a disabled activist who was heckled by a Sheridanite who didnt like the fact that she said that after today she would be the chair rather then the co chair because the other chair (Sheridan) had fucked off.
I bet the caller didnt metion the number of leading swipes shipped in from London for todays event.
it seems that quite a number of leading members of the SWP just happened to be in Glasgow today.
I am not a 'feminist' in what the Sheridanites might term the UL mould , but I do find it interesting that the only people who got heckled yesterday were both women and I find it fucking insulting to hear a woman told that she wouldnt be where she was 'if it wasnt for Tommy'.
I am not a 'feminist' in what the Sheridanites might term the UL mould , but I do find it interesting that the only people who got heckled yesterday were both women and I find it fucking insulting to hear a woman told that she wouldnt be where she was 'if it wasnt for Tommy'.
tollbar said:
Well obviously ppl are going to want to see this meeting and judge it for themselves. Are you saying that the quite impressive looking SW photo is masking a huge number of Southern socialists?
Now is anyone going to tell anything more about the Sat meeting? In this context, no news sounds like noone's rushing to tell us about an unimpressive event. If I'm wrong tell us about it.
Similar threads
