02.12.2004

Not George Washington

Once upon a time there was a man with wooden teeth. That man led a struggle against British imperialism, and for an independent republic. Fast forward a quarter of a millennium to the present day and we find another man - one with rather similar ambitions. His distinguishing feature is orange skin - courtesy of excessive use of sun beds

The former, George Washington, boasted about his inability to tell a lie. The latter, Tommy Sheridan, has no interest in such hypocritical myth-making. Indeed, if we turn to the front cover of the book he co-authored with Alan McCombes, we find a photograph of Tommy that actually celebrates his telling a lie.

This photograph is instantly recognisable to socialists on all four corners of the globe. It captures Tommy giving a clenched fist salute as he swears an oath of allegiance to her majesty the queen. We have here an iconic image that exposes the hypocrisy of the monarchist system, one that forces socialists to lie in order to be able to represent in parliament those workers who voted for them.

This lie of Tommy’s was more than merely tolerated by long-term friend and associate Alan McCombes. Every single year, Alan votes alongside at least 95% of delegates to the Scottish Socialist Party’s conference to mandate Tommy, and all our other elected representatives, to tell this lie, to keep doing so until our struggle for a republic makes this charade unnecessary. So it is puzzling to find Alan McCombes confirming to a News of the World hack that he did recently say that he would not help Tommy Sheridan construct a tower of lies (Scottish News of the World November 21).

Before continuing, there is something I would like to get off my chest. In my article in last week’s paper, I claimed to have no idea if Tommy Sheridan was lying when he denied the allegations about his private life that have contaminated the gutter press in recent weeks - or about anything else for that matter (other than his pretence of loyalty to her majesty). Should I feel embarrassed in having to admit that I actually knew more than I was letting on? Perhaps, but I don’t. While I have no first-hand evidence of such lying, I was at the time fully aware that at least one of Tommy’s close friends has, or claims to have, such evidence. Now that Alan McCombes has gone on record to say as much, I want to make two things clear.

Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single member of the SSP who thinks Tommy is lying about the issue on which he is pursuing a libel case against the News of the World. That libel action is very narrowly focussed, and my understanding is that all party members are now happy to take Tommy’s word that truth is on his side. That does not mean the party is backing this action as a party.

Tommy stands alone in thinking it tactically wise to pursue the News of the World through the courts. Not because we cast doubt on his word, but because Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers will drag up unrelated parts of Tommy’s private life, the kind of questions which none of us would want to see discussed in a court of law, under the watchful eye of the world’s media. Every member of the party who has counselled Tommy against exacting revenge against Murdoch’s sleazy little rag through the capitalist courts is undoubtedly offering excellent advice. Along with Alan McCombes and everyone else, I think he should drop this lawsuit, and cut his losses as soon as possible, before Murdoch’s legal expenses become prohibitively high - too great for Tommy to do anything other than proceed to trial, and keep his fingers crossed.

Secondly, Alan McCombes’s quote about not wanting to help Tommy construct a tower of lies relates only to lying about issues concerning his private life. Unless I have gotten hold of completely the wrong end of the stick, there is only one reason Tommy Sheridan has lost his post as the SSP national convenor: because members of the party executive were afraid Tommy’s untruths would come back to haunt him (and, if he remained national convenor, the party also) if he was forced to admit he had lied, regardless of what the lie was actually about. I guess it is possible that there is more to Tommy’s fall from grace than this. But if there is, no one has let me in on the big secret.

Did Tommy jump or was he pushed? Did he resign to spend more time with his family or for some as yet unspecified reason? Or (as unattributed briefings from members of the executive would have us believe) was he effectively sacked? And if he was sacked, was it for the reason I believe? If not, then what on earth was that reason? The unanimous vote of the executive that appears to have forced him to “resign” was, in my opinion, an extreme overreaction, a panic measure, a tragic mistake. Some of those who voted for Tommy to step down with immediate effect now openly regret what they did.

Recently, the executive is finding it ever harder to reach unanimity. While a majority have not one iota of doubt that their decision was the only possible one, a minority are now publicly conceding that Tommy’s sacking was premature, to say the least.

Insufficient time was allowed to discuss how to deal with the allegations, allegations that had yet to appear in the press at that stage, and perhaps never would have. Tommy’s decision to tough it out may well have been mistaken. But even if that was true, there was still time to convince Tommy to pursue a different course of action. Perhaps Tommy would have been forced to admit that he had told a lie or two while the executive was still mulling over what to do.

But he would only have found himself in a position similar to Bill Clinton. If he was forced to backtrack, he could have explained that he only lied about something he believed the gutter press had no right to interrogate him about. If he said he only wanted to get these reactionary sleaze merchants off his back, I doubt that a single SSP voter would have been any less forgiving towards Tommy than Bill Clinton’s were in the land of the moral majority.

If opinion polls proved me wrong, if they demonstrated that Tommy’s having been caught telling a few white lies about his private life was damaging the party, does anyone seriously suppose Tommy would not step down voluntarily for the good of the party? That said, I have never doubted for a second that Tommy would have had nothing to worry about.

Whether or not I have vastly overestimated the maturity of those workers who vote for us (when it comes to matters of private morality), Tommy should not have been forced to resign over this issue before the specific allegations appeared in the press. Members of the executive could simply have responded to questions about Tommy’s private life with a simple ‘no comment’ - a refusal to remark on any party member’s private life.

So what happens now? Should the party simply close ranks and draw a line under recent disagreements? I do not believe so - at least not just yet. An attempt to do precisely that was made by a majority of the executive when they called an emergency meeting of the national council at one week’s notice. That meeting drew together over 100 delegates (with many more observers) from 80 branches from all across Scotland. The meeting began at 1.30pm on Saturday November 27, with the room booked for four and a half hours.

This was an extraordinary meeting in every sense of the word. In the first place, although the mass media was told of its existence, every attendee was banned from discussing what was said with the outside world - a blanket ban, I believe, which makes it extremely tricky for me to refer to it at all, other than by addressing information officially handed out by the party spokespersons.

All delegates and observers, apart from the minutes secretary, Catriona Grant (who is not at all neutral in this affair), were banned from taking even the most cursory of notes. That means I could only offer an inadequate report of such a long meeting, with so many speakers, and so many complex arguments and disputes over facts - that is, if I was permitted to give an account of anything that was said at that meeting, which I am not. However, by choosing my words very, very carefully, without identifying any comrade or what was said by whom, I think I can give a taste of the significance of that meeting, of its role in the party’s continuing crisis.

I do not think it is being kept secret that delegates were allowed only one motion to vote on. That motion was drawn up by the executive and was voted for in two parts - neither of which they would allow delegates to amend.

While several emergency motions had been rushed through branches (principally as alternatives to the executive’s motion), the executive refused point blank to let delegates discuss any of these motions, far less vote on them. One of these was passed by 20 members of the three Dundee branches, with not a single vote against, and has the support of the Committee for a Workers’ International. A second has the support of the Socialist Worker platform.

With minor qualifications, I back both motions. I would appeal to their proposers to resist all pressure from the executive to withdraw them, although they should keep an open mind where amendments are concerned. Provided the CWI and SW platform stay firm, both motions will be voted on at the next national council on December 12, and I will do whatever I can in the intervening period to persuade delegates to back these motions.

The party’s executive, desperate to draw a line under the whole business, won the vote at the emergency national council on Saturday, immediately releasing the margin of victory to the media. The executive majority obviously intends to present the four to one vote for the first part of their motion, and the nine to one vote for the second part, as all the endorsement they could possibly require. Wishful thinking, I’m afraid.

Given the scale of our party’s crisis, the national council was effectively battered into submission. After all, how could such an extraordinary meeting possibly have broken up to tell the waiting journalists that no agreement was possible? Given the fact that the executive has promised to allow the CWI and SW platform motions to be voted on at the next national council in a fortnight’s time (along with who knows how many other motions), many comrades undoubtedly felt able to give the executive a face-saving (but potentially extremely short-lived) vote of confidence. A further difficulty for those of us who argued against the executive’s motion was the fact that Tommy Sheridan leant his support to both parts, which makes it all the more remarkable that anyone voted against.

The executive’s motion lumped together many different points that gave virtually everyone something they desperately wanted. This motion was a carefully crafted compromise that attempted to unite the party, at any rate the overwhelming majority of the party. Unfortunately, this unity is on far too shaky a basis. Those who fell into line are akin to ostriches voting to bury their heads in the sand, praying that the press corps is too incompetent to ask the obvious questions.

On the polar extremes of the party on the ‘Tommy Sheridan question’, voting for this motion must have felt like swallowing a sugar-coated pill, with both sides gambling that it is the other lot who are allowing their craving for sugar to override their fear of being fatally poisoned.

I suspect that a majority of those who voted for this motion were far less focussed on which side was right. Their main concern is no doubt to heal the wounds, and as rapidly as possible. They obviously hope that the wronged side will make sacrifices for the good of the party as a whole, rather than pursue vendettas, however legitimate their feelings of betrayal.

The instincts of the latter group (the conciliators) are very healthy and mature, and entirely praiseworthy. However, we will not be in a position to unite on a stable basis unless and until the party learns the lessons of what has gone so spectacularly wrong in the recent past.

Even if Tommy has resigned himself to a less prominent role in the party for a year or so (and that would appear to be the case), the party has to decide if it made a mistake in deposing him. In my opinion there is absolutely no question that it did, and I will not rest until I persuade the majority of the party why that is so.