Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Cymro
|
SSP and SolidarityWhat went wrong here then?
What does the future hold? Possibilty of a reunification of the parties once the matter of Sheridan - did he didn't he ? dies down?
Rinty?
|
Rinty
|
bI dont see any need for reunification and I dont think the issue of Sheridan did he dint he needs resolving.
What we know about the SSP leadership is that they did ignore the members decisions to supporrt Tommy's action and instead went to court to support Rupert Murdoch's case. Who would want to unite with a mob like that?
And why should Solidarity have to even contemplate it? We polled twice as much as all of the other left groupings combined. The SSP were third in terms of left parties with the SLP getting more votes than them.
Solidarity were very close to having an MSP elected and would have done so if not for the spoilt ballot papers. In 8 months we feel we have reunited the left with the left activists in trades unions, half the SSP membership and the SWP and CWI joining Solidarity.
It is disappointing not to get Tommy re-elected but not the end of the world but to come from nowhere to over a thousand members and 31,000 votes in 8 months shows that we are not in the position to have to merge with parties who polled less than the Christians!
Since Friday morning we have seen a wee trickle of SSP members joining Solidarity (another 5 today). To me the reunification will happen anyway as the SSP members realise that their leaders have led them to an electoral disaster and that only Solidarity can make an effective case for the left in Scotland.
|
Cymro
|
Good response Rinty. Must be very dissapointing though that Sheirdan in the very least wasn't elected. I don't for one second blame you and others for leaving the SSP, but shame that personality politics can bring down a party in such a way. If was obvious down to internal politics that certain SSP members decided to back Murdoch.
Whats going to happen next?
How do you know you would have been voted in if it wasn't for the mess with the ballot papers? Surely every party are as likely as others to suffer from the spolit ballots?
From a distance I'd have always expected SSP or Solidarity to have taken areas like Govan than the SNP.
|
Rinty
|
Wwe get to see the spoilt ballots on a large screen on the night to allow candidates or their counting agents to challenge the decision.
The vasy majority were down to people putting two crosses on the regional vote. There wer more than enough of those for Tommy to have him elected. In Glasgow it was mainly Solidarity and the Greens who lost out. We estimate that Tommy would have been relected and the Greens reckon it would have beenn a second Green. This would have lost the SNP a seat on the list.
As far as next goes, we will continue as we have been doing. We now only have one councillor instead of two MSPs but elections are not the be all and end all for us and we are growing into a strong party so we have much to look forard to.
The SSP are finished. I think Rosie Kane's council campaign says it all. She is a high profile MSP, has a weekly column in Scotland biggest selling newspaper and had the whole Glasgow membership of the SSP campaigning in her ward. Yet she only got 300 votes and the Solidarity candidate Jill McGowan got twice as many.
The people of Scotland have spoken re the SSP and clearly they are telling them to pack it in. This is after ten years as a party that they have come to being back behind Scargill's SLP in elections.
|
George
|
Have to agree with you Rinty. I heard from someone today who was at one of the Glasgow constituencies that the vast majority of 'spoiled' ballots had one cross beside 'Alex Salmond for first minister' and one beside either Solidarity or Greens........with Greens probably edging it.
This suggests that people were intending to vote SNP on the constituency and one of the smaller parties on the list.
Strangely, this would have meant even more votes for the SNP but perhaps a seat less.
|
parkhead_rfb
|
rinty i would maybe suggest things arent as rosey for solidarity as you would make out.
effectively the party is a one man show wholly dependent on tommy sheridan, this cant be good for any serious political party albeit they will benefit from his high profile.
The different factions within solidarity also make a dangerous grouping for a possible future split.
This election was particularly bad for the left in general as i think far more people gravitated towards the SNP due to independence becoming such a major issue for the first time and I think the left lost out quite a lot on that score.
overall though this petty arguing does no one any good. The SSP and solidarity essentially have the same beliefs and personal issues aside they should be trying to find common ground instead as lets face it most people just dont care about internal squabbles (myself included).
you yourself have been up for a bit of revisionist statements as when i applauded solidaritys public stance on ireland you commented its a pity the SSP didnt do the same when in fact when i brought this point up previously you were very quick to defend the SSP on this issue. lets not back track after the event.
at the end of the day theres a lot of bad blood but whats more important getting the lefts voice heard in scotland or point scoring against each other?
|
Rinty
|
"effectively the party is a one man show wholly dependent on tommy sheridan, this cant be good for any serious political party albeit they will benefit from his high profile.
The different factions within solidarity also make a dangerous grouping for a possible future split."
Thats just SSP propaganda rfb. The split in the left didnt come from the "dangerous" factions that you are pointing at but from the faction that is now effectively the SSP.
To suggest we are a one man band is an insult to me and others who play a key role in the party and just does not reflect the nature of Solidarity. Because the SSP were ruled totally by their leaders and the members were not much more than drones after 2003 we set up Solidarity to ensure no one person or group can have any power than overrules others. Tommy has one vote only and doesnt "lead" the party.
We have just come through an election campaign where our tactic was to push the name of our most well know politician, the SNP did the same on their ballot papers as an election tactic. Perhaps that gives the impression that it is all about Tommy Sheridan but we are much stronger than that.
I dont agree that we need to reunite as the SSP dont have anything to bring to the table. They have very few members, very few voters and a policy of running to the police and newspapers in attempts to destroy the reputations of individuals. That is not acceptable to me and I think Solidarity will build from our good start without them.
A good example of where Solidarity are is the the recent PCS civil service strike. The UK National President of the union, Janice Godrich, is a Solidarity member as are four members of the National Executive of that union. In Unions, campaign groups and in branches Solidarity have an impressive list of members and talent beyond Tommy Sheridan.
|
parkhead_rfb
|
| Rinty wrote: | "effectively the party is a one man show wholly dependent on tommy sheridan, this cant be good for any serious political party albeit they will benefit from his high profile.
The different factions within solidarity also make a dangerous grouping for a possible future split."
Thats just SSP propaganda rfb. The split in the left didnt come from the "dangerous" factions that you are pointing at but from the faction that is now effectively the SSP.
To suggest we are a one man band is an insult to me and others who play a key role in the party and just does not reflect the nature of Solidarity. Because the SSP were ruled totally by their leaders and the members were not much more than drones after 2003 we set up Solidarity to ensure no one person or group can have any power than overrules others. Tommy has one vote only and doesnt "lead" the party.
We have just come through an election campaign where our tactic was to push the name of our most well know politician, the SNP did the same on their ballot papers as an election tactic. Perhaps that gives the impression that it is all about Tommy Sheridan but we are much stronger than that.
I dont agree that we need to reunite as the SSP dont have anything to bring to the table. They have very few members, very few voters and a policy of running to the police and newspapers in attempts to destroy the reputations of individuals. That is not acceptable to me and I think Solidarity will build from our good start without them.
A good example of where Solidarity are is the the recent PCS civil service strike. The UK National President of the union, Janice Godrich, is a Solidarity member as are four members of the National Executive of that union. In Unions, campaign groups and in branches Solidarity have an impressive list of members and talent beyond Tommy Sheridan. |
to say the SSP bring nothing to the table is a bit of an insult to the many activists they do have and those who voted for them.
What the rules state in solidarity is neither here nor there i think everyone knows who the organ grinder is in the party and theres no point pretending otherwise.
like i say i am not a member of the ssp and never have been but i would still say they are the party i support and all this bickering is really just nonsense.
al ask again though why have you suddenly changed your mind on the SSP's stance on ireland?
|
RedScotland
|
I agree with the points raised by parkhead_rfb and the only purpose for which Solidarity was formed was to get Tommy elected. Now that that hasn't happened I really can't see much of a future for them and the cracks are already starting to appear with John Dennis of their Dumfries branch writing a rather pessimistic letter to the Herald and apparently getting hammered for it from others in the party. The two trotskyist sects of the SWP and CWI also seem likely to leave and I suspect we might be seeing a Scottish Respect in the not too distant future.
I think Rinty's being a bit too triumphant about his party's electoral performance and how exactly is a total wipeout for the left and the loss of all our seats a victory for either Solidarity or the SSP? With my own party reduced to 0.6% of the vote it would be understandably absurd of me to try to portray this election in a positive light for the SSP. But I can say, with confidence, that the fight will go on and that over the next few years we are going to work very hard to regain the trust of the Scottish people and to prove ourselves as a party which genuinely cares about helping them and their communities and not about getting publicity for ourselves at every available opportunity.
Oh and the idea that Tommy would have got in if it hadn't been for all these rejected ballot papers is ludicrous beyond belief. That would have required him getting around 2,500 of the 10,000 rejected papers and that's assuming none of them would have gone to the SNP or the Greens. I was at the count in Glasgow and I can guarantee you that 1 in 4 of the rejected papers were not for Solidarity (infact very few of them were and it appeared like all the parties were getting hit to a similar extent with the small parties maybe being at a slight disadvantage).
|
Aventinian
|
| RedScotland wrote: | | The two trotskyist sects of the SWP and CWI also seem likely to leave and I suspect we might be seeing a Scottish Respect in the not too distant future. |
Ah, Christ. I knew Galloway staying down south was too good to be true.
|
Rinty
|
g | Quote: | | to say the SSP bring nothing to the table is a bit of an insult to the many activists they do have and those who voted for them. |
No it isnt, I refer to the SSP as an organisation. They have nothing to bring to the table as an organisation. The few activists that they have left are a different matter. I am sure they will join another left group, some of them will join solidarity. As for their voters, thay now have less voters than most single issue and fringe parties and were being outpolled by the Christian parties and joke candidates all night. The SSP is a tarnished image, a damaged brand, some of us recognised this a while ago and left to start afresh, the voters confirmed this last week. The are like the "ratners" of the left. Most of those voters would probably vote for the best left option available so could easily vote solidarity in future.
| Quote: | | What the rules state in solidarity is neither here nor there i think everyone knows who the organ grinder is in the party and theres no point pretending otherwise. |
This is where we simply have to consider who is best placed to give a credible opinion on this. You state this like a fact yet are not a member, havent been to a meeting, and dont know the people involved. On the other hand, I am a founder member of the party,a member of our national steering group, hold national office in the party and know all of the people involved well, including Tommy Sheridan. He is no "organ grinder" and has no desire to be or need to be.
We launched our party just 8 months ago just before an election so it is natural that the impresssion might be given that it is all about Tommy as he is our most high profile member, is one of the two party convenors and our main asset in an election in terms of the media. The covenor's role only amounts to chairing national meetings (he doesnt get to influence conference votes by speaking) and being one of the party's main spokespersons. We have an industrial branch with hundreds of members, do you think that they just roll over and do what Tommy says, Do you think that the leader of the PCS with hundreds of thousands of members does, do you think that I do? It is a comfortable caricature for SSP supporters but is just nonsense. It also contradicts the other SSP progaganda/caricature of the SWP calling the shots from London, it simply cant be both.
| Quote: | | al ask again though why have you suddenly changed your mind on the SSP's stance on ireland? |
I havent. You correctly chastised me for a bit of an opportunistic dig at them. I commented that they would never have mentioned Ireland in a similar statement on the union, but I havent changed my mind on your misrepresentation of the SSP policy on Ireland.
Red said: | Quote: | | "I agree with the points raised by parkhead_rfb and the only purpose for which Solidarity was formed was to get Tommy elected. Now that that hasn't happened I really can't see much of a future for them and the cracks are already starting to appear with John Dennis of their Dumfries branch writing a rather pessimistic letter to the Herald and apparently getting hammered for it from others in the party. The two trotskyist sects of the SWP and CWI also seem likely to leave and I suspect we might be seeing a Scottish Respect in the not too distant future. " |
Of course you agree with rfb as it must be uncomfortable to face the reality of the election results. You are just repeating SSP propaganda combined with wishful thinking.
This "scottish respect" thing has been repeated over and over since solidarity formed. There is no reason to suppose that the CWI or SWP would want to leave solidarity, in fact both have indicated strongly the opposite. John Dennis is just one man and hardly an indication of feeling inside Solidarity. But you fail to mention that he calls for members to reunite, without the leaders of each party. John reacted, in my opinion, in a knee jerk way to the election results and they are far easier to analyse then looking at details of splits on the left.
What happened was that the votes that the SNP lost in 2003 when they were at their weakest and had lost votes at every election since 1979, returned to the SNP as people perceived them as being stronger again ana capable of winning. Th Greens had no split, and no court case yet the same thing happened to their votes. The pattern is so clear that it is impossible to view the results in any other way. How else do you explain the figures showing a return to almost exactly the same votes as 1999
The regional list votes as folows:
1999 - SNP 638,000 Greens 84,000 SSP 46,000
2007 - SNP 633,000 Greens 82,000 SSP/Solidarity combined 44,000
The reality is that the combined vote of the SSP and Solidarity would have elecetd just one MSP - Tommy Sheridan just as it did in 1999. The split only cost Tommy his seat, no-one else.
The real story to look at for the left and for the Greens is why didnt they build on 2003 sucess. Is it because the result was a blip and they were kidding themslves on or is it because they became to focussed on the parliament and less on the grass roots that got them there?
|
agentmancuso
|
You'll forgive for intruding in a family feud, but there are a couple of points worth making here.
One is that the SNP got less votes on the list in 2007 than they did in 1999. I hadn't realised that at all.
The other is that the dip for the Greens in 2007 was nothing to do with either their grassroots or with their focus on the parliament. The high water mark they achieved in 2003 had nothing to do with their 'grassroots' either. It just reflected the frustration of many voters (mainly soft SNP voters) with the system as a whole.
|
George
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | You'll forgive for intruding in a family feud, but there are a couple of points worth making here.
One is that the SNP got less votes on the list in 2007 than they did in 1999. I hadn't realised that at all.
The other is that the dip for the Greens in 2007 was nothing to do with either their grassroots or with their focus on the parliament. The high water mark they achieved in 2003 had nothing to do with their 'grassroots' either. It just reflected the frustration of many voters (mainly soft SNP voters) with the system as a whole. |
The story is the Labour drop!!
List
2007 - SNP - 633,401……….1999 - 638,644
2007 - LAB - 595,415 ………1999 - 786,818
2007 - LIB - 230,671………1999 - 225,774
Constituency
2007 - SNP - 664,227………1999 - 672,757
2007 - LAB - 648,374 ………1999 - 908,392
2007 - LIB - 326,232………1999 - 331,279
59% turnout in 1999
Of course we have to remember that 7% of the 2007 ballots were ignored. Add even 5% to everybody's vote and both the SNP votes increase, so the point wasn't really worth making was it?
|
RedScotland
|
| Rinty wrote: | | No it isnt, I refer to the SSP as an organisation. They have nothing to bring to the table as an organisation. The few activists that they have left are a different matter. I am sure they will join another left group, some of them will join solidarity. As for their voters, thay now have less voters than most single issue and fringe parties and were being outpolled by the Christian parties and joke candidates all night. The SSP is a tarnished image, a damaged brand, some of us recognised this a while ago and left to start afresh, the voters confirmed this last week. The are like the "ratners" of the left. Most of those voters would probably vote for the best left option available so could easily vote solidarity in future. |
The SSP has far more activists than Solidarity and even John Dennis describes Solidarity as being "probably about even in terms of real membership" (although that in itself is wishful thinking). No SSP member can hide from the scale of our defeat in the polls but we've been through a lot already and I'm afraid you're severely mistaken if you think we're going to give it all up because of one poor election result. We're out of parliament but we're not going to be off the streets and we'll never abandon the struggle for a better and fairer Scotland. After the split and the amount of propaganda directed against us it was hardly surprising that the voters didn't know what to do and either voted for the SNP, for the supposedly "socialist" party that was getting all the publicity or dropped out of the electoral process completely. But we've got the activists and we've got the party structures in place and over the next 4 years we're going to take our message of hope to the people of Scotland and win back their trust and respect.
| Rinty wrote: | | We launched our party just 8 months ago just before an election so it is natural that the impresssion might be given that it is all about Tommy as he is our most high profile member, is one of the two party convenors and our main asset in an election in terms of the media. The covenor's role only amounts to chairing national meetings (he doesnt get to influence conference votes by speaking) and being one of the party's main spokespersons. We have an industrial branch with hundreds of members, do you think that they just roll over and do what Tommy says, Do you think that the leader of the PCS with hundreds of thousands of members does, do you think that I do? It is a comfortable caricature for SSP supporters but is just nonsense. It also contradicts the other SSP progaganda/caricature of the SWP calling the shots from London, it simply cant be both. |
If you're not the Tommy Sheridan Party then why the hell did every single regional list ballot paper across Scotland say "Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan"? Even more absurdly why did most Solidarity council candidates across Scotland have "Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan" on the paper? Perhaps it was because the party is nothing without Tommy and his celebrity status? Perhaps it was because Solidarity have very few activists on the ground who can take their message to the Scottish people? Let's not forget that in this campaign Tommy was given massive amounts of free advertising by his chums in the media with a big two-page spread in the Evening Times featuring him and his family and propogating the usual lies about how he was so hard done to by these big bad bullies in the SSP.
| Rinty wrote: | | This "scottish respect" thing has been repeated over and over since solidarity formed. There is no reason to suppose that the CWI or SWP would want to leave solidarity, in fact both have indicated strongly the opposite. John Dennis is just one man and hardly an indication of feeling inside Solidarity. But you fail to mention that he calls for members to reunite, without the leaders of each party. John reacted, in my opinion, in a knee jerk way to the election results and they are far easier to analyse then looking at details of splits on the left. |
And it's just became much more likely following Solidarity's disastrous showing in the elections in which they failed to achieve the one objective for which they were set up for. If things get any worse within Solidarity (eg. if anything was to happen to Dear Leader Tommy) the SWP won't hesitate to jump ship. I don't know much about the internal affairs of Solidarity but I think the letter by John Dennis is clear evidence that the more sensible elements in the party who are capable, at least to some extent, of independent thought are beginning to come to terms with what they've done and how much they've messed things up for the left in Scotland. Still rejoining the SSP is a move they're not, as yet, prepared to make and in the meantime are proposing what seems like a compromise but obviously has no chance of becoming a reality (unless of course they intend to set up a third socialist party in Scotland).
| Rinty wrote: | | The reality is that the combined vote of the SSP and Solidarity would have elecetd just one MSP - Tommy Sheridan just as it did in 1999. The split only cost Tommy his seat, no-one else. |
In 2003 the SSP did significantly better than the Greens and there's no reason to believe that if it hadn't been for the split we could have got 2 or 3 or even 4 MSPs returned this time (although as pointed out there would still have been a significant squeeze from the SNP).
|
Holebender
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | | everyone knows who the organ grinder is in the party |
Maybe the News of the World would like to hear about this new shock revelation? 
|
agentmancuso
|
| George wrote: | The story is the Labour drop!!
2007 - LAB - 648,374 ………1999 - 908,392 |
Yes, a quarter of a million constituency votes is a lot to mislay alright.
| Quote: | | Of course we have to remember that 7% of the 2007 ballots were ignored. Add even 5% to everybody's vote and both the SNP votes increase, so the point wasn't really worth making was it? |
Well I for one was very surprised that the SNP got less list votes than in 1999. More than anything, it highlights the damage done by the SSP & Greens in 2003.
|
Rinty
|
| Quote: | | If you're not the Tommy Sheridan Party then why the hell did every single regional list ballot paper across Scotland say "Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan"?" |
Obvious, and well publicised. We had independent research done by System Three that showed that, in an election, Solidarity's name was too new and meant very little, but with the adddition of Tommys name it cleared up confusion and led to higher results.
Dont confuse tactics with the inner workings of a party. We took a decision on how to present ourselves at the election and it almost paid off and was shown to work.
This is a bit rich coming from the SSP who had the name Tommy Sheridan on every ballot paper in 1999 and many papers in 2003, including council wards. At that time Tommys face was on every SSP leaflet and on the masthead of the party newspaper every week.
You know that the SSP used Tommys name and image to maximum advantage, does this mean that he controlled the SSP as a one man band? I am sure you will agree with me that it didnt, so what makes you think it works differently in Solidarity?
| Quote: | | The SSP has far more activists than Solidarity and even John Dennis describes Solidarity as being "probably about even in terms of real membership" (although that in itself is wishful thinking). |
So John Dennis is now the authority, or is just that you prefer the evidence of one letter in one newspaper from one solidarity member to the facts?
It depends what you mean by an activist. It was obvious in the election campaign and result that Solidarity have more actual bodies on streets, in campaigns, actively working. The SSP have a large database of "members" that you are referring to as activists, but its the same 30 or 40 people that urn up to everything wherever it is in the country.
When the split took place all regions except Glasgow had chosen their candidates. 60% of the SSPs candidates on the lists joined solidarity. The SSPs only trade union affiliate, the RMT, quit the party. The 4 members of the civil service unions national executive left and joined solidarity. Whole branches and virtually whole regions left to join solidarity.
In the elections last week SSP were forced to parachute in candidates from outside of regions as they had no candidates or activists on the ground. In 3 of the 8 regions the SSP list had to be headed by outsiders from other regions.
I would say that John is probably right about us being equal in terms of membership, however the members that left the SSP were active ones, many that stayed are not.
| Quote: | | I don't know much about the internal affairs of Solidarity but I think the letter by John Dennis is clear evidence that the more sensible elements in the party who are capable, at least to some extent, of independent thought are beginning to come to terms with what they've done and how much they've messed things up for the left in Scotland. |
It is obvious that you know nothing about Solidarity and I am glad you admit it at last. Once again you take the evidence of a letter in a paper as "clear" rather than being just the opinion of one man. Have you read Johns letter? he clearly lays the blame of the split and lack of votes at the door of the leaders of BOTH parties and does NOT say he thinks we have messed things up. I wonder why you choose to add bits to his letter than dont exist. Is this selective evidence so weak that you have to dress it up.
| Quote: | | In 2003 the SSP did significantly better than the Greens and there's no reason to believe that if it hadn't been for the split we could have got 2 or 3 or even 4 MSPs returned this time (although as pointed out there would still have been a significant squeeze from the SNP). |
No in 2003 the SSP did not do "significantly better" than the Greens, the Greens took 4,000 more list votes and one more MSP. And there is clear "reason to believe" that there would not have been 4 SSP MSPs elected, the evidence was posted here by me and most sensible people can see it.
As mancusco said it shows that it is all about "soft" SNP voters who came over to SSP and Greens in 2003. As the exact same pattern applied to the greens vote as the SSP/Solidarity vote, can you show me the basis for believing that without the split the SSP would have relected anyone other MSP than Tommy Sheriodan. I dont think that you can.
In my opinion, if the split hadnt taken place when it did, things would have been worse, do you think that another year of bloodletting and internal leadership battles would have increased the left vote? I doubt it very much.
Get you head out of the sand Red!
|
SLG
|
| agentmancuso wrote: | | Well I for one was very surprised that the SNP got less list votes than in 1999. More than anything, it highlights the damage done by the SSP & Greens in 2003. |
Remeber the turnout has fallen as well, from 59% to 52%. The SNP share of the vote has still gone up from 28.7 to 32.9 (constituency) and 27.3 to 31.0 (list) since 1999.
|
George
|
It would be very interesting to see the results of any polls after say 6 months of the new executive, given that the profile of the Liberals is sure to have suffered.
|
RedScotland
|
| Rinty wrote: | Obvious, and well publicised. We had independent research done by System Three that showed that, in an election, Solidarity's name was too new and meant very little, but with the adddition of Tommys name it cleared up confusion and led to higher results.
Dont confuse tactics with the inner workings of a party. We took a decision on how to present ourselves at the election and it almost paid off and was shown to work.
This is a bit rich coming from the SSP who had the name Tommy Sheridan on every ballot paper in 1999 and many papers in 2003, including council wards. At that time Tommys face was on every SSP leaflet and on the masthead of the party newspaper every week.
You know that the SSP used Tommys name and image to maximum advantage, does this mean that he controlled the SSP as a one man band? I am sure you will agree with me that it didnt, so what makes you think it works differently in Solidarity? |
During the election campaign Solidarity had plenty of opportunity to make clear that Tommy was in your party and did so relentlessly with their placards and hilarious election broadcast. In my view the very fact that you had to rely on his celebrity image so much just goes to indicate how little justification you could give politically to your party's position in regards to the split and your complete dearth of new and innovative policies to campaign on.
Tommy's name was not on most of the papers in 2003 and as far as I believe it didn't help the SSP win votes where it was. What is clear is that we made a huge mistake by relying on the charisma of one man for so long - now obviously Tommy's the sort of person who was all too happy to gain that sort of publicity but at the same time SSP members who went along with it in an attempt to win us more votes cannot be absolved of all responsibility for what happened. However we're a party that's prepared to learn from what we've done wrong and I'm sure mistakes like that won't be repeated in the future.
| Rinty wrote: | When the split took place all regions except Glasgow had chosen their candidates. 60% of the SSPs candidates on the lists joined solidarity. The SSPs only trade union affiliate, the RMT, quit the party. The 4 members of the civil service unions national executive left and joined solidarity. Whole branches and virtually whole regions left to join solidarity.
In the elections last week SSP were forced to parachute in candidates from outside of regions as they had no candidates or activists on the ground. In 3 of the 8 regions the SSP list had to be headed by outsiders from other regions.
I would say that John is probably right about us being equal in terms of membership, however the members that left the SSP were active ones, many that stayed are not. |
That's not what I hear, or what I've seen for that matter, and I didn't come across any Solidarity stalls in Glasgow. The SSP also delivered a lot more leaflets and in general has been far more visible on the streets. If Solidarity has so many more active members then why did they only put forward 80 council candidates across Scotland compared to the SSP's 160?
Our list candidates did all have connections to the regions in which they stood, either being born there or living there at the moment. As for trade unions I'm not really bothered as to what party a few bureaucracts at the top decide to support and the SSP has done more than any other party to stand up for the rights of working people. We have significant support among union members and were one of the parties who received money towards our campaign.
| Rinty wrote: | | It is obvious that you know nothing about Solidarity and I am glad you admit it at last. Once again you take the evidence of a letter in a paper as "clear" rather than being just the opinion of one man. Have you read Johns letter? he clearly lays the blame of the split and lack of votes at the door of the leaders of BOTH parties and does NOT say he thinks we have messed things up. I wonder why you choose to add bits to his letter than dont exist. Is this selective evidence so weak that you have to dress it up. |
I have read the letter. What exactly am I adding to it that doesn't exist? Obviously many people in Solidarity were very disappointed by the results and the fact that they'd failed to achieve what was their only real purpose (why else were they crying at the counts?) and some are reacting to it in different ways. John Dennis, one of the more sensible members it seems, has realised what a big mistake it was to split the left and is looking for ways to reverse what happened even if he's not as yet prepared to take the necessary jump and rejoin the SSP.
| Rinty wrote: | No in 2003 the SSP did not do "significantly better" than the Greens, the Greens took 4,000 more list votes and one more MSP. And there is clear "reason to believe" that there would not have been 4 SSP MSPs elected, the evidence was posted here by me and most sensible people can see it.
As mancusco said it shows that it is all about "soft" SNP voters who came over to SSP and Greens in 2003. As the exact same pattern applied to the greens vote as the SSP/Solidarity vote, can you show me the basis for believing that without the split the SSP would have relected anyone other MSP than Tommy Sheriodan. I dont think that you can.
In my opinion, if the split hadnt taken place when it did, things would have been worse, do you think that another year of bloodletting and internal leadership battles would have increased the left vote? I doubt it very much. |
You're right, the Greens did win 132,000 list votes in 2003 while the SSP won 128,000. But the SSP also won 118,000 constituency votes while the Greens won 0 and all the evidence suggests that it was not exactly the same people who voted for the SSP in both the constituencies and the regions. I didn't say the SSP would definitely have got 4 seats this time but I do think we would've got more than 1 if the split and the court case hadn't happened.
And don't forget that it didn't have to happen - Tommy was given several choices by the party and he rejected every one of them in order to pursue his fraudulent and divisive legal case and portray himself as the innocent victim of a massive conspiracy against him by "scabs" and "witches" in the party who were clearly collaborating with MI5.
|
jimtrot
|
i think that Rinty is either (name removed by admin) in disguise or one of the Borg. How else could he talk such crap. 
|
jimtrot
|
| parkhead_rfb wrote: | rinty i would maybe suggest things arent as rosey for solidarity as you would make out.
effectively the party is a one man show wholly dependent on tommy sheridan, this cant be good for any serious political party albeit they will benefit from his high profile.
The different factions within solidarity also make a dangerous grouping for a possible future split.
|
These are the two rocks on which the whole Solidarity charade will flounder - TS's lies and the internal contradictions of having a membership composed of, on the one hand, two organisations who are opposed to independence but who heartily detest each other and a large element of the rank and file who support independence. the whole sorry mess won't last two years and the SSP will still be fighting after this lot have been consigned to the dustbin of history or the pokey whichever the case may be.
|
Rinty
|
"Tommy was given several choices by the party and he rejected every one of them"
No red, he took the option of taking a personal case against NotW and in return he had to stand down as convenor, he honoured that. It was some SSP members who couldnt accept that party decision and decided that they would make the party a part of the case.
"Rinty is either (name removed by admin) in disguise"
Of course we all use pseuds in this forum as it is a place to discuss in this way. Most people know my real name jim but it is not the done thing on this forum to "out" peoples identities.
As it happens I dont hide mine and choose an identity that is obviously (name removed by admin).
Please no more naming pseudonyms. In my case it is irrelevant but some people may prefer to remain anonymous.
I expect you to now give your own real name for balance.
|
jimtrot
|
| Rinty wrote: | "Tommy was given several choices by the party and he rejected every one of them"
No red, he took the option of taking a personal case against NotW and in return he had to stand down as convenor, he honoured that. It was some SSP members who couldnt accept that party decision and decided that they would make the party a part of the case.
"Rinty is either (name removed by admin) in disguise"
Of course we all use pseuds in this forum as it is a place to discuss in this way. Most people know my real name jim but it is not the done thing on this forum to "out" peoples identities.
As it happens I dont hide mine and choose an identity that is obviously (name removed by admin).
Please no more naming pseudonyms. In my case it is irrelevant but some people may prefer to remain anonymous.
I expect you to now give your own real name for balance. |
I will if you will. But I don't understand why, if you are who I think you are, you are willing to use your name on other fora and not on this one.
|
azzuri
|
It was me (admin) who deleted his name in both your and his post. People can post their names if they so wish, but for other people to come onto a forum and do so is out of order.
If people want to stay anonymous then that's fine - but at least let them have the privilege of deciding for themselves whether their full names should be aired on a open public forum.
|
Rinty
|
nI do not hide who I am here I regularly talk about things that make it obvious who I am and have no problem with that. On the forums where people gather to discuss the left I think that I should put my whole name up there as it is best that I am identified. I hold an elected national position in Scotland's largest left party so it is approriate for those pleces.
On this forum we have enjoyed a relatively peaceful platform to debate issues in a friendly manner. I know who many people here are and do not choose to reveal their name. I refer to them as their nickname on this forum. It is common courtesy.
My name on this forum is a nickname used by friends and a family name that many of my relatives and I share. It is appropriate here in a forum that is freindly and people are free from personal prejudices against them.
You are still willing to decide to name people while withholding your own name, what does that tell us?
|
Cymro
|
Are you famous Rinty? Erm....Tommy? George? Stalin? 
I can safely say I'm not called Cymro anyway.
|
Rinty
|
infamous would be more approriate 
|
parkhead_rfb
|
| azzuri wrote: | It was me (admin) who deleted his name in both your and his post. People can post their names if they so wish, but for other people to come onto a forum and do so is out of order.
If people want to stay anonymous then that's fine - but at least let them have the privilege of deciding for themselves whether their full names should be aired on a open public forum. |
I am spartacus.
|
Rinty
|
me too, rfb.
One of the funnier moments in the SSP/Solidarity split was the SSP having T-shirts made saying "I am spartacus".
Perhaps they should watch the movie. The scene from which the famous line "I am spartacus" comes is a scene where Tony Curtis and the rest of the slave army lie to defend their leader Spartacus.
The SSP T-shirts should have said "thats him over there"
|
Jimbo
|
| Rinty wrote: | me too, rfb.
One of the funnier moments in the SSP/Solidarity split was the SSP having T-shirts made saying "I am spartacus".
Perhaps they should watch the movie. The scene from which the famous line "I am spartacus" comes is a scene where Tony Curtis and the rest of the slave army lie to defend their leader Spartacus.
The SSP T-shirts should have said "thats him over there" |
Or; I'm definitely not Spartacus!
|
Rinty
|
OR "spartacus is a b****rd and I've got lots of gossip about him that you might want to print in your newspaper"
|
macnumpty
|
Wouldn't 'I'm Brian and so's my wife' be more appropriate?
|
Rinty
|
crucifixion?
|
macnumpty
|
Always Look on the Bright Side of Life springs to mind. 
|
FALSYDE
|
Has anyone done any research on why the far left, all around the world not just here in Alba, have this lemming like destructive tendency?
I know its a foregone conclusion their endemic bickering will be blamed on anybody and everybody but themselves, especially the wicked evil capitalists who are the root of all their troubles, but surely somebody managed to wangle a grant to study the far left's shennigans since the early 20th century.
Personally I find it both facinating and amusing as well as a blessed relief because while they carry on like a bunch of bairns there's not much chance they will interfere with the running of the real world. They may be in it but clearly are not of it. Plus ca change.
|
notbritish
|
Rinty, as a socialist, and former founding member of the SSP, who doesnt see much to attract him to either party at this stage, it seems like both parties have lost their way.
Without wanting to stick the boot into either left party I dont think either party is making enough of an effort to really see themselves the way others view them... which, rightly or wrongly, is damaged goods at this stage. Maybe there's a way back from that, maybe not. As Mao said of the French Revolution, "its too early to say."
The truth is, most of the Scottish left are outside both parties and intend to stay that way. The hatred and bile that exists within both parties towards each other is a damn good reason for those lefts, who value their own humanity, to stay outside them both.
Both parties have combined active memberships of only a few hundred and both are totally invisible in my local community and almost every other local community in Scotland. That could change but then again it would need a conscious effort and a completely different strategy.
Solidarity, the SSP and the Scottish Greens have two things in common: none of them boldly, actively and consistently campaigned for Scottish independence between 2003 and 2007; and all three got humped at the polls by a party who not only campaigned for Scottish Independence but put it top of their political agenda. Join the dots.
If either Solidarity or the SSP spend the next four years trying to win a couple of seats from the SNP, then, as Parliamentary strategies go it will be the most pointless strategy of all time.
The approach these leftists parties take towards a progressive pro-Independence government in Scotland - as it is continually undermined by Westminster and the unionist parties at Holyrood - will determine whether either are progressive or still driven by a reactionary Brit left hatred of the SNP/Scottish Independence.
In Solidarity's case I'd be worried about what will happen if Tommy Sheridan goes to jail for perjury - which is a very real possibility at this stage. In such a scenario Solidarity will fall apart and its name - like that of Sheridan himself - will become very Ratner-esque.
Thats the risk you take if you rely so heavily on "big names" and "personalities" and they come unstuck.
|
jimtrot
|
| Rinty wrote: | me too, rfb.
One of the funnier moments in the SSP/Solidarity split was the SSP having T-shirts made saying "I am spartacus".
Perhaps they should watch the movie. The scene from which the famous line "I am spartacus" comes is a scene where Tony Curtis and the rest of the slave army lie to defend their leader Spartacus.
The SSP T-shirts should have said "thats him over there" |
But what would they have said if their leader had did the lying?  My name's Jim Keegans. what's yours, Rinty?
|
Rinty
|
I have already said, just as you have that my name is Jim Monaghan. However, I didnt choose to use my name on here you did that for me. I dont have anything to hide Jim.
I was in the SSP for six years and have never met you or even heard of you mate. Although it is clear you know who I am you do not know anything about me or know me personally so your opening post about me was a bad way to start off in OUR-Scotland.
Azzuri has pointed out the etiquette to you now, I see you dont even bother to apologise. Note that I refered to him as azzurri even though I know his real name.
Surely you SSP members are not so super serious that you cant see the obvious irony and joke in SSP members wearing Spartacus T-Shirts. Lighten up and laugh at the obvious contradiction.
I am sure Spartacus' men would have stuck by him whether he had lied ir not. The election results should be a lesson to the SSP that most people agree.
They based their whole last three years work on the idea of whether somebody lied or not, when it is obvious that the public dont care one way or another. Most people are far more disturbed at the sight of so called freinds and comrades standing in courts to back gossip in tabloids than they are about what the details of the story actually are.
|
jimtrot
|
| Rinty wrote: | I have already said, just as you have that my name is Jim Monaghan. However, I didnt choose to use my name on here you did that for me. I dont have anything to hide Jim.
I was in the SSP for six years and have never met you or even heard of you mate. Although it is clear you know who I am you do not know anything about me or know me personally so your opening post about me was a bad way to start off in OUR-Scotland.
Azzuri has pointed out the etiquette to you now, I see you dont even bother to apologise. Note that I refered to him as azzurri even though I know his real name.
Surely you SSP members are not so super serious that you cant see the obvious irony and joke in SSP members wearing Spartacus T-Shirts. Lighten up and laugh at the obvious contradiction.
I am sure Spartacus' men would have stuck by him whether he had lied ir not. The election results should be a lesson to the SSP that most people agree.
They based their whole last three years work on the idea of whether somebody lied or not, when it is obvious that the public dont care one way or another. Most people are far more disturbed at the sight of so called freinds and comrades standing in courts to back gossip in tabloids than they are about what the details of the story actually are. |
If it is a question of loyalty, why didn't those who left show the same loyalty to the SSP and remain and fight their corner? I don't want to rake over old coals but you're right, my jibe about your pseudo was a bit infantile and i apologise. However, my point about Solidarity members leaving the SSP is still valid. why didn't you stay and fight?
|
Rinty
|
Fight for what?
We came to the conclusion that the SSP was a tarnished image and a prize not worth winning, the election results show that most agree.
I left the SSP for many reasons, the most serious being that the party had taken over by a clique who ignored internal party democracy.
A further fight for control of the SSP would have done no-one any good. What would have been left to win after that fight Jim?
Surely people like me leaving was a chance for the SSP to move on, but you failed to take that chance and continued with the "sheridan is a b****rd" campaign. It didnt fool the jury, or the electorate and the continuation of it will destroy whats left of the SSP.
Is there nothing else that you lot can find to talk about?
|
jimtrot
|
| Rinty wrote: | Fight for what?
We came to the conclusion that the SSP was a tarnished image and a prize not worth winning, the election results show that most agree. |
That wasn't Tommy's attitude on leaving the court, was it, Rinty? TS only decided that the Convenership wasn't worth fighting for when he realised that he probably wouldn't top the Glasgow list and, as for the tarnished image of the SSP, who tarnished it?
| Quote: | | I left the SSP for many reasons, the most serious being that the party had taken over by a clique who ignored internal party democracy. |
What "clique"? Where is your evidence for this putative plot? This is just a straw man concocted by yourself and others to justify your leaving the party. I don't know why you left the SSP, Rinty but please don't use this hoary old chestnut as an excuse.
| Quote: | | A further fight for control of the SSP would have done no-one any good. What would have been left to win after that fight Jim? |
What about the minds of the members that stayed with the SSP, left unity and possibly some socialist representation in Hollyrood. Everybody knew that, whatever its outcome, the court case would be electorally damaging to the Left but a split was nothing short of suicidal.
| Quote: | | Surely people like me leaving was a chance for the SSP to move on, but you failed to take that chance and continued with the "sheridan is a b****rd" campaign. It didnt fool the jury, or the electorate and the continuation of it will destroy whats left of the SSP. |
I don't know what you mean by "people like me", Rinty but personally speaking, I must say that, given their history of wrecking tactics, I was neither surprised nor sorry to see the SWP go and, as an aside, if I was a member of Solidarity and knowing the relationship that the SWP has with Respect in England, I would be a wee bit concerned about the news that the latter organisation is considering intervening in Scottish politics. Do you really trust the SWP? I think that the SSP will going strong long after Solidarity has left the stage.
| Quote: | | Is there nothing else that you lot can find to talk about? |
I think this is a bit rich coming from you, Rinty after Sheridan, yourself, Wight and Delargy have spent the last seven or eight months attacking and vilifying the SSP in the media on sites like this and UKLN. Aren't we allowed to defend ourselves. It gives me no joy to carry on a polemic with other socialists but there have been things said and attacks made on the integrity of good comrades that are simply unforgivable.
|
SLG
|
| jimtrot wrote: | | I think this is a bit rich coming from you, Rinty after Sheridan, yourself, Wight and Delargy have spent the last seven or eight months attacking and vilifying the SSP in the media on sites like this and UKLN. |
To be fair, I don't think Rinty has vilified the SSP on this site at all. Only given his opinion on them and his reasons for leaving when asked.
|
Rinty
|
"That wasn't Tommy's attitude on leaving the court, was it, Rinty? TS only decided that the Convenership wasn't worth fighting for when he realised that he probably wouldn't top the Glasgow list"
Jim, we can only disagree and ask those reading to take on board what they think is true or untrue re the split. At first, Tommy was not the only one who thought that fighting to take back the SSP for the members was a good idea. He changed his mind, as did many others, after discussing it. The idea of a bloody battle for control of the SSP was, we felt, more likely to leave both sides worse off rather than better.
I was one of those who persuaded Tommy to go for a new start rather than stay in the SSP. He was reluctant at first but finally agreed after talking to comrades. You, on the other hand, are just repeating propaganda and were not party to the various discussions at the time. One of the final straws was a meeting at Tommy's house when we received confirmation that that the SSP had changed the locks on Tommy's office, even though it was funded by rent from the parliament, an MSP wasnt even allowed in to the offices of his party.
"as for the tarnished image of the SSP, who tarnished it?"
We are probably all partly responsible. The walk out of parliament, Fox in his Robin Hood suit, Rupert Murdochs gossip rags.... I know that to you it is only sheridan this and sheridan that, but there were lots of things that made the SSP a tarnished image and, as I said, we have to take into consideration what damage an internal fight for control would do. At least you are admitting that it is a tarnished image, some wont do that and will keep their head in the sand, despite the election result.
"What about the minds of the members that stayed with the SSP, left unity and possibly some socialist representation in Hollyrood. Everybody knew that, whatever its outcome, the court case would be electorally damaging to the Left but a split was nothing short of suicidal."
Thats up to each individual to make their own minds up, one election defeat is not the end of the project of left unity, it is still on board as three or four different groups have joined solidarity. The SSP cant claim to represent left unity when your leaders are actively saying that they are glad that left groups like CWI and SWP have left, that they wont work with us. And it is hardly a united left now that they have lost the "platforms" of CWI, SWP, SRSM, have lost their only trade union affiliate, and have lost members in every region of the country.
"Solidarity and knowing the relationship that the SWP has with Respect in England, I would be a wee bit concerned about the news that the latter organisation is considering intervening in Scottish politics. Do you really trust the SWP?"
Jim, I used to hear this sort of propaganda from the right re the "sinsiter" SWP, When they were in the SSP just months ago you would have rejected this sort of caricature.
"Wight and Delargy have spent the last seven or eight months attacking and vilifying the SSP in the media on sites like this and UKLN. Aren't we allowed to defend ourselves"
Thats just nonsense. On UKLN only a handful of Solidarity members take part in a forum that is largely pro-SSP re the split and has dozens of SSP members. I see my contributions on that site as defensive. Of course the SSP have the right to defend themselves, but surely we do too.
"there have been things said and attacks made on the integrity of good comrades that are simply unforgivable."
Dont think I didnt notice, now who is being "a bit rich"?
|
|
|
|