25.11.2004
Bring back Tommy
The Weekly Worker has argued that the executive of the Scottish Socialist Party has succumbed to "presbyterian moralism" in forcing Tommy Sheridan to resign following 'revelations' about his sex life. SSP member Tom Delargy believes there is more to it than that
This latest obsession of theirs does not impress all 3,000 members of the party, however. It is beginning to dawn on many of us that, without a thorough-going purge of the executive, we are not going to wake up from this nightmare, the gruesomeness of which was barely hinted at in the article in the last issue of the Weekly Worker (November 21). I personally have lost all confidence in the existing executive, at any rate its majority. That is why I am lending my full support to the motion of no confidence in the executive, originating in the Edinburgh North and Musselburgh branch, to be voted on at the national council on December 12. Those who have created the mess in the SSP are demonstrably incapable of clearing it up (with the crisis further spiralling out of control every time an official spokesperson intervenes in order to put a lid on it), I am contributing this piece, which may be the first of several - this story is going to run and run over the next few weeks, if not months. Perhaps I should start by pointing out that, although Tommy Sheridan announced his resignation with the unconvincing explanation that he wanted to spend more time with his family, anonymous members of the executive gave off-the-record briefings calling Tommy a liar: he had been sacked by all 19 members of the executive. Alan McCombes (SSP policy coordinator, and Tommy’s closest collaborator for a decade or two) backed up Tommy’s version of events. He did so at a specially arranged press conference of all our MSPs (Tuesday November16), explaining that Tommy was one of those who voted for his own resignation. A week later, though, the face-saving spin has finally broken down. It is now admitted by everyone that Tommy was sacked. But when members of the executive and party spokespersons are asked to explain why he was sacked, journalists receive nothing but stonewalling. Nor was he sacked because he lied about these allegations. So what was he sacked for? Journalists and everyone else are being asked to wait for the full facts to leak out after all 3,000 members of the party are briefed in closed branch meetings over the next month. An edited version of the minutes of the November 9 EC meeting is also promised some time after that. It does not seem to have occurred to members of the executive that it is impossible for a ‘secret’ to be kept by 3,000 people - members are being told not to pass on what is deemed to be highly sensitive and confidential information. It says something about the competence of the executive majority if they genuinely believe that the full facts will not leak to the wider public, probably within hours. Indeed, we can expect several slightly different versions to leak, since different spins will be put on what is revealed at these dozens of closed meetings. The fact that only the executive’s version of events will be laid out before branches is also worrying. Why won’t Tommy be available to put the record straight if he believes the executive’s representative is guilty of distortion? The ludicrously long period of preparing members before informing the press further exacerbates our crisis. The party is totally paralysed, since all members are expected to keep shtoom on this issue until every last one of us is briefed in private session. And we are incapable of addressing any other question in the media, because our leadership crisis is the only story they are prepared to talk to us about. I have not been told the full reasons for Tommy’s sacking. Although one executive member promised to hand me every detail necessary to convince me to stop defending Tommy Sheridan inside and outside the party, when I heard all that comrade had to say, I was far from convinced. But it is obvious that Alan McCombes is correct about one thing, and the Weekly Worker article seriously mistaken: Tommy Sheridan’s fall was not a simple result of our executive’s surrendering to a reactionary ‘back to basics’ morality. It is true that during our recent debates over the decriminalisation of prostitution a section of the party has revealed itself as holding many reactionary attitudes where sex is concerned. But these comrades could not carry a vote within the executive to sack Tommy for this reason - certainly not a unanimous vote of all 19 members present. So, one or more other explanations are required. It surprises me that so many intelligent people I have spoken to are on the lookout for a single explanation for what has been going on. I detect maybe a dozen motives mixed up here. Some comrades will be completely conscious as to what they are up to, others no doubt lacking more than the most primitive self-awareness. A few probably do believe the SSP should not be led by someone who allegedly did the things Tommy is said to have done. They undoubtedly constitute a very small minority. I have been told by members of the party executive (and this is deemed the killer argument by their most enthusiastic apologists) that Tommy’s unforgivable crime was publicly lying about some of the allegations that have appeared in the press. When Tommy denies the allegations made about him in the gutter press, is he telling the truth? I honestly do not know. More to the point, I could not care less. If he is lying, then he is lying about something that is none of my business - nor is it the business of any other member of the party. So what is utterly unforgivable is that the executive have taken the collective decision to embroil 3,000 members of our party in what is essentially a private matter. Perhaps it might be best for members of the executive to mind their own business. Those who are focusing everyone’s attention on Tommy’s private life ought to be ashamed of themselves. The executive has no right to inform anyone about such matters, any more than they would have the right to out a gay or bisexual member of the party who remains in the closet. Indeed no socialist has the right to out a closeted homosexual, whether inside the party or not. It is up to the individual to choose how and when they come out to their friends and family, workmates, the wider public - if, indeed, they choose to come out at all. Although Tommy is not being accused of being gay, he deserves exactly the same courtesy. Is that the end of the story? No, of course not. We are left searching for an explanation as to why 19 members of the executive could have miscalculated so spectacularly as to what party members had a right to know about Tommy’s private life. Some probably were motivated by unprincipled electoral calculations. Mud does stick, and a few may believe the allegations despite Tommy’s denials. Some voters may desert the party because they believe Tommy is being economical with the truth, and, as far as they are concerned, lying is always an issue, even when the thing lied about is utterly irrelevant. I have to focus on this question, because it is the most important for many sincere, but, as far as I am concerned, very misguided comrades. Just because there are many things socialists must tell the truth about, that does not mean that we cannot lie about anything. Lying is sometimes acceptable, obligatory even. If an armed psychopath asked for directions to someone I believed they intended to murder, I would misdirect them. When Tommy Sheridan swears an oath of allegiance to the queen, I do not denounce him as a hypocrite. So lying per se is not the issue. But what about in this particular case? Well, my understanding (which has yet to be verified by a definitive account) is that Tommy was instructed by the executive either to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his private life when asked about it, or else refuse to discuss it at all. In all probability, this is what led to his downfall. I can certainly appreciate why all 19 members of the executive might vote for Tommy’s resignation if he categorically refused to be bound by such an ultimatum. I would not consider it a terrible crime if this was the reason why members of the executive voted for Tommy to step down. I would, however, consider it a tactically mistaken course of action. The executive, in my opinion, had no right to issue such an ultimatum, which was far too inflexible. Comrades should be allowed considerable leeway in pulling the wool over people’s eyes where their private life is concerned. It is no one else’s business. If individuals lie about such a thing, who gives a damn? If our party persists with the moralistic attitude towards lying about our private lives that appears to have brought down our national convenor, then we will set in motion a feeding frenzy of all the tabloid press to uncover more and more salacious stories about members of our executive, party spokespersons, and perhaps even rank and file members. Our only hope of calling a halt to such a witch-hunt is by declaring our private lives as a matter for ourselves alone. And if party members want to tell a few white lies about their private lives, that is also the business of the individual and not of the party. If comrades are asked by the gutter press or anyone else to confirm or deny what Tommy says about his private life, then they should respond as he did when asked by the Scottish Mirror what he thought of how Alan McCombes conducts his personal affairs: “I never comment on other people’s private lives.” I now turn to a motive that was dismissed out of hand in the Weekly Worker article: a coup precipitated by factionalism, personal ambition or simple maliciousness towards Tommy Sheridan. I am not nearly so dismissive. While clearly this was not the primary motive of all 19 members of the executive, I am sure that it was for a handful, at least. How else can we interpret Tommy’s reference to “black arts” playing a key role in his removal from office? Frances Curran and Alan McCombes have both categorically dismissed this notion - the obvious implication being that Tommy is suffering from paranoid delusions. However, I am convinced that Tommy is on to something. It strikes me that some comrades who lacked the courage to challenge Tommy for the leadership openly have manoeuvred behind the scenes to prise open a vacancy. Currently lurking in the shadows, they probably would have thrown their hats into the ring by now were it not for the reaction to Tommy’s resignation, inside and outside the party. Partly as a consequence of constant media speculation since Tommy’s resignation, there appear to be the beginnings of a backlash inside the party against his political assassins. It is hard to calculate at this stage how widespread this backlash is or how deep it goes beneath the relatively thin layer of activists into the large mass of passive card-carrying members. The Edinburgh North and Musselburgh branch motion of no confidence in the executive may be a sign of things to come. And it is not the only sign. At the time of writing, two of our MSPs have broken ranks since last Tuesday’s press conference, both now openly displaying the loyalty towards Tommy that was in such short supply on November 9. Colin Fox and Rosemary Byrne now personally display full solidarity with Tommy in his libel action against The News of the World, loyalty that Alan McCombes felt unable to extend in his televised interview last Friday. Although the consequences of a defeat for Tommy Sheridan could be his being bankrupted, Alan found it impossible to do more than “hope” Tommy wins. This information could be used to drag Tommy’s name through the mud, or (still worse) could be used to trap Tommy into coming a cropper during his libel action. Since at least one member of the SSP executive appears to have no problem with leaking highly sensitive and confidential information to The News of the World, Alan McCombes’ characterisation of it as honourable and full of integrity seems downright misleading. Perhaps Duncan is the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps he alone will be caught having disgraced himself. Then again, perhaps not. As far as I am concerned, we have undoubtedly witnessed an unprincipled power struggle that succeeded in toppling our national convenor - something I deeply regret and hope might be reversed, even in the short term. I have no doubt that those who initiated this attempted coup exploited the allegations about Tommy’s private life (and may have been instrumental in bringing them to the attention of the gutter press in the first place). The fact that Tommy was at loggerheads with the rest of the executive in how to deal with these allegations appears to have been the final straw. I have no reason to believe that those who behaved dishonourably and without integrity constitute more than a small number of executive members. I do not believe they were ever united behind a single candidate as Tommy’s successor. All the alternative candidates amongst our MSPs are, however, in my opinion liable to drag the party considerably to the right. If the vote of no confidence in the executive is passed on December 12, then Tommy will hopefully return as national convenor. I would prefer it if the executive recognised the many mistakes it has made in the last period and itself appealed to Tommy to return to the helm. If they do not do that, and if the vote of no confidence is lost, then and only then will we be forced to turn our attention to selecting a new national convenor. The executive committee of the Scottish Socialist Party have invented a new extreme sport: shooting themselves in the foot with a machine gun. Over the last fortnight they have gotten it down to a fine art, and appear to have an inexhaustible supply of ammunition.
“Curiouser and curiouser.” That was the response of Iain McWhirter when he and Glen Campbell discussed the latter’s interview with Yet Alan McCombes on Politics Scotland (November 19). According to Alan, Tommy was not sacked because of any of the sex allegations made against him.
Outside the party, there is virtual unanimous hostility to the toppling of Tommy; with media pundits smelling an unprincipled coup, it is argued that those who orchestrated it will live to regret it (as will all sections of our party, given the considerable political skills comrade Sheridan has at his disposal).
In his televised interview, comrade McCombes felt unable to describe Tommy as having acted with honour and integrity, other than with the remarkable qualification, “in his own terms.” His interviewer, Glen Campbell, afterwards laid a lot of stress on this odd expression. According to Alan, those who voted to remove Tommy immediately, rather than allow him to remain in post until February’s AGM, had acted with honour and integrity. But does that apply to all 19? Take Duncan Rowan, for example. It is possible that the transcript of the taped conversation between our North East regional organiser and a hack that was printed in the Scottish edition of The News of the World (Sunday November 14) was a forgery. However, assuming the extracts printed thus far are genuine, then (as Duncan himself predicted in the transcript) he is finished. He appears to have been caught on tape offering The News of the World the name of one of Tommy’s alleged former sexual conquests, a name allegedly uncovered by the party’s executive.