SSP results

by Archivist Fri May 06, 2005 18:41

These should have been ideal conditions for the SSP. In part, I think their decline can be accounted for by the recent factional in-fighting which saw Tommy Sheridan stand down as party convenor. It created the impression of squalid factionalism, and of a party marooned on the far left fringes where such things are commonplace. More broadly, it - yet again - suggests that an alternative to New Labour will not be built by creating phantom new parties, factional alliances and fusions of tiny sects. Despite everything, New Labour retains its trade union affiliations and is looked to as the only alternative to a much worse Tory Government. It may be replied that working clas people are not now active in New Labour - true - but they are also far from active in any of the tiny sects bleating on the sidelines either,

In which context, it is worth noting that the vote for the Socialist Party in England was also absolutely abysmal - as to Scargill's ghostly SLP it is not even worth mentioning.

When the leaders of the old Militant Tendency, from which the SSP largely emerged, split from Labour it was, in retrospect, a catastrophic mistake.

Maybe, at last, leftists will learn from this, and accept that - however distasteful or difficult it seems - an alternative to Blair will only be built in and through the Labour Party.

by Slow down Fri May 06, 2005 18:58

The SSP had a rough time of late, didn't bother too much with the Westminister elections and didn't run any of their higher profile candidates.
The next locals will be run on PR and the SSP will be able to bed down their hard work.
And as for:
"an alternative to Blair will only be built in and through the Labour Party."

Dream on.

by Wallace Fri May 06, 2005 20:07

These comments are ill-informed and partisan. The SSP vote was certainly dissappointing but to write off the most successful left party anywhere in the UK because of a Westminster performance is very premature. A party that has six members of the Scottish Parliament, three thousand members and branches in every part of Scotland is not going to just dissappear because of a poor electoral performance. It is important to note that the SSP (and other small parties like the Greens) performed very well at the last Scottish Parliament elections. One of the reasons for this was that the electoral system used was based on a constituency and party list/regional vote rather than the grossly unfair 'first past the post system'.

The fact is that no one expected the SSP to make a breakthrough in this Westminster election and the party certainly did not see it as crucial. That said, the recent internal problems and the resignation of the party convenor, the charismatic Tommy Sheridan, from that position, has obviously caused some damage to the party. These problems now seem to have been overcome and the real test will be the crucial local elections, due to be held under some form of proportional or list basis. If the SSP repeat their Scottish parliament vote in those they will win council seats throughout Scotland.

As for working within Labour and marginalised sects, the above post displays remarkable ignorance of Scottish politics: the SSP is no sect, it has a real base in the working class, and has united almost all the left within its ranks. More importantly the majority of its members are not members of the internal left factions (called platforms) and many are completely new to politics. Its internal regime is ultra-democratic, a complete contrast to the usual 'democratic centralism' of the leninist sects and the stage managed top-down oligarchy of Labour. This is what marks out the party as exceptional in these islands.

Good luck to anyone who would like to waste their time arguing for socialism in Labour. In Scotland, that party is even worse than in England, being a collection of fiefdoms run by what are little more than corrupt gang bosses. There is no excuse for being in Labour when there is a healthy democratic and open party to the left.

Finally, despite the mutterings of sectarians, the SSP is not a electoral or parliamentary organisation but an active campaigning class struggle party, so a setback in Westminster elections is not going to cause it any major problems. See you all at the G8!

www.scottishsocialistparty.org

by CWI Fri May 06, 2005 21:28

Ronnie Stevenson - Glasgow South - 1,303 (3.39%)

Jim McFarlane - Dundee West - 994 (2.69%)

Alan Manley - Angus - 556 (1.46%)

Harvey Duke - Dundee East - 538 (1.37%)

Gary Clark - Edinburgh West - 510 (1.13%)

Philip Stott - Perth and North Perthshire - 509 (1.11%)

by John Meehan Sat May 07, 2005 01:05

An inital SSP reaction to the party's Westminster General Election Result can be read here :

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.info/2005/05/ssp-responds-to-general-election.html

by weegies Sat May 07, 2005 09:44

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=491342005
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6448
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5038576.html

by Archivist Sat May 07, 2005 15:45

Any party that aims to replace New Labour in terms of popular support, most clearly essential if society is to be changed, must also replace it electorally. It is frankly bizarre to suggest that you can be a campaigning class based party and therefore elections are relatively unimportant, or that you can focus on elections other than those for Westminster. These are a crucial barometer of whether you are on target to grow or simply melt away into insignificance.

As to the SSP being a sect or non-sect: I would say that any party on 1.9% of the vote is clearly a sect. What else could it be 'a small mass party?' Look at the actual votes for many of the candidates - in the low hundreds. This is completely insignificant. It is worse than that: utterly disastrous. For that matter, 3000 members out of a population fof several million is also insignificant, when weighed against the need to change society - it is certainly also the sign of a sect.

The fact is that attempts to organise outside the Labour Party have led and always will lead nowhere, just as attempts to set up new radical trade unions outside official trade union structures also lead nowhere. Let us face reality on this one, and focus energies where there is some chance that it might yield results. On the fringes of the official labour organsiations, however detestable their present leaders and however small their existing activist base, nothing can possibly be achieved.

by Wallace Sat May 07, 2005 16:55

I repeat my comment that Archivist is simple illinformed about the situation in Scotland:

"that you can focus on elections other than those for Westminster. These are a crucial barometer of whether you are on target to grow or simply melt away into insignificance".

The fact is that different elections have varying importance in different places. Since the founding of the Scottish parliament, the Westminster elections have receeded in importance, a fact verified by the lower turnout at Westminster elections. So its hardly surprising that these elections would not be the priority of a party which lacks the huge resources of the capitalist partie. Of course this election was, to a certain extent, a barometer of support and no one is denying it was a bad result for the SSP but its way to early to write them off. I repeat the point that for a class struggle as opposed to social democratic party, change is achieved through campaigning activity on the ground, which should then be reflected in electoral success, not the other way around. If this result is repeated at local/Scottish parl. elections then it will be an indication that the party has failed to maintain its grassroots campaigning activity, not that we should all give up and join the pro-war/pro privatisation Labour Party.


"For that matter, 3000 members out of a population fof several million is also insignificant, when weighed against the need to change society - it is certainly also the sign of a sect."

You have a remarkable definition of a sect. Unfortunately very few people are actively involved in politics in Scotland, so the SSP largely working class membership is quite large in comparison to the other parties in Scotland, almost as large in terms of active members, as Labour. If being a sect is related to the proportion of members in relation to the size of population then most moderately sized parties in these islands would qualify including many Irish parties such as Sinn Fein, Labour etc.

However the real definition of a sect is not just related to size but to internal regime. Sects have top-down structures, unchallengeable leaders who are treated like religious gurus. Anyone who has ever been at an SSP conference can see that the party is an open democratic organisation, with vibrant debate, a myriad of opinions, and a healthy disrespect for 'leaders'. I know of no party in Scotland that has such a democratic culture of participation.

"The fact is that attempts to organise outside the Labour Party have led and always will lead nowhere,"

This is dogmatic rubbish. There are arguments for working within the structures of 'official labour movement' in certain circumstances but certainly not in Scotland. Why would socialists join the most pro-business, corrupt, undemocratic political gang in the country? Why join this outfit when there is an open, radical democratic party of the left in existence and a regional electoral system that allows for the growth of smaller parties? In most western european countries there are at least one if not more successful parties to the left of the Blairite/social democratic parties: the Left Bloc and CP in Portugal, Rifodazione in Italy, The LCR and PCF in France, the Red-Green Alliance and SPP in Denmark etc. etc.

What makes it difficult for the radical left in Britain is the hugely undemocratic 'first past the post' system which automatically excludes smaller parties, though as Ive said this has been partially overcome in Scotland and Wales by the party list system. Archivist should familiarise herself/himself with the facts about Scotland and the SSP before he/she starts spouting off about a party he/she knows nothing about.

by Marty Sat May 07, 2005 23:13 Cork

Anyone know?

by deco Sun May 08, 2005 17:40

Eamonn McCann's vote fell from 2,200 last time to about 1,500.

Tomorrow (Monday) is the count for the Local elections. It should be interesting to see how SEA did in Derry. They fielded 5 candidates, all guys (What's that about, hombres?), two in the same ward, and produced a poster with the five macho hunks looking like a promo for the "A Team".

Did the SEA "forget" to include women on their panel?

by coba Sun May 08, 2005 17:51

sea hope to take 3 seats in derry in the local election.

by Mark P Sun May 08, 2005 18:59

Someone said on another thread that the SEA hoped to win two seats. I presumed that one of those was McCann but nobody could tell me who else they consider to be a real contender. Now someone says that they hope to win three seats. Who are the other possibilities?

by archivist Sun May 08, 2005 19:16

Wallace attempts to dismiss the notion that the SSP is a sect, on the basis that it does not have the so-called 'democratic centralist' regime found in organisations like the CWI. I agree with him/ her that it is a much more open and democratic formation. But all that proves is that the organisation is not a cult. I think Wallace is confusing the two: ie cults and sects.

A sect to my mind is a small organisation incapable of buildings its support beyond a statistically insgnificant section of the population. If, beyond that, it is hopelessly undemocratic in its internal life (like the SP in the North or in England) then it is a sect and a cult. I believe that the SP is not a cult. But it is a sect.

3000 members is small, whatever you say about the size of other parties, and its share of the vote is trivial. I therefore conclude that it is a sect, and another futile exercise in building a working class party distinct from Labour that will aim but fail to replace that party.

I draw an analogy with trade unions. Often they are led by careerists and right wingers who do not put the interests of their members first. But socialists do not walk out of them and say: lets start afresh. Workers rightly conclude that however difficult the task of reclaiming a union is, setting up a new one is a damn sight harder. I say it is the same with political representation, and that attempts to go down this road will only ever produce sects - or cults.

Beyond that, I am not sure where my alleged ignorance of scottish poliotics has been shown. I just draw different conclusions from the facts, I fear.

by Socialist Sun May 08, 2005 19:56

makes the SSP a sect then I am sure both themselves and their supporters would not be too bothered with your classification.

By the way, do you consider the Green Party a sect. In Scotland they are of similar size and similar vote getting ability as the SSP.

by deco Tue May 10, 2005 00:13

Any comment on the disappointment McCann & his fellow macho guys must feel at having none of their MEN elected?
C'mon HOMBRES did you really believe that?
The A Team doesn't always win!

by Wallace Tue May 10, 2005 01:12

I don't necessarily agree with all his conclusions though I think it is an honest attempt at assessing the party's bad election result, but for the record here's the response of Alan Mc Combes, SSP policy coordinator, to the party's election result.

"There is a time-honoured tradition in politics for parties who have suffered a setback to put on a brave face and to spin defeat into glorious victory.
Last Thursday, five of Scotland’s six parties had poor results.
Of these, only the SSP refused to put a gloss on a gloomy result.
Convenor Colin Fox, expressed our disappointment in colourful language by quoting the words of former Manchester United manager, Tommy Docherty:
“We got beat four nil and were lucky to get the nil.”

We had no illusions that this election would be anything but difficult.
In the Scottish elections of 2003, and in the European election of 2004, every vote potentially counted towards the election of a Scottish Socialist MSP or MEP.
But in this election we had no possibility of winning any seats – and made that clear to our supporters from day one. Nonetheless, the slippage in our share of the vote from 3 per cent in the last first-past-the-post general election in 2001 to 2 per cent in 2005 was disappointing.
The result illustrates the magnitude of the task we face of building a mass socialist party capable of creating an independent socialist Scotland.
It underlines the fact that we cannot expect linear progress forward and upward; reverses along the way are inevitable.
There is no single explanation for this setback; it is the product of a complex combination of circumstances.
The party itself has come through the most difficult period in its seven year history.
Following the resignation of Tommy Sheridan, we were subjected to a sustained media onslaught, mainly based on ignorance and misinformation.
Nor has the party had time to fully establish the public profile of the new convenor, Colin Fox.

But we also have to acknowledge that there were other, more powerful forces, working against us in this election.
Since the creation of the Holyrood parliament, Westminster elections have become increasingly hostile terrain for the three Scottish-based parties, the SNP, the Greens and the SSP.
In 2001, that was partly disguised by the fact that the general election was a foregone conclusion from day one, with Labour’s eventual landslide victory never in any serious doubt.
In this election, Labour were able to whip up fear among working class voters of a Michael Howard victory.
The Daily Record, for example, set out to scare the living daylights out of voters who might have been tempted to abandon Labour.
“Today your house is in danger. So is your home, your pension and your kid’s school,” screeched the paper on election day, its front page depicting Michael Howard morphing into Margaret Thatcher.

An even bigger problem for the SSP, the SNP and the Greens was the emergence of the Liberal Democrats in the guise of a left opposition.
They promised to tax the rich and scrap the Council Tax while portraying themselves as a progressive anti-war and anti-racist party, in stark contrast to the Tories and New labour.
In practice, the Lib Dems are a right-of-centre party. In Holyrood, they have opposed the abolition of warrant sales, voted down free school meals, supported privatisation and PFI, and failed, even after five years in coalition government, to move one millimetre towards scrapping the Council Tax.
They oppose public ownership of the railways, support nuclear weapons on the Clyde, and refuse to call for troops to brought home from Iraq.
But in politics perception is everything. In a grand hoax that would have turned Darren Brown and David Blaine green with envy, the Lib Dems managed to create an illusion of an old labour style reformist party.
In this, they were assisted by uncritical blanket coverage in the UK media and by the inability of the big parties to tear away the mask.
Like the spectacular vote for the UK Independence Party in the 2004 European election, this Lib Dem breakthrough is unlikely to be consolidated into a permanent revival, especially in Scotland.
In 2007, they will be fighting the Holyrood election, not as a critical opposition party, but as a governing party defending a dismal track record.

All other parties had a disappointing night in Scotland. As part of its UK-wide slump, Labour lost five seats and saw its vote fall by 4.5 per cent.
The Tories – who won a majority of votes in England – failed to make any advance in Scotland and are stuck on 15 per cent with just one MP, even after eight years of Labour in power.
After winning two seats, the SNP has projected an air of jubilation. But although the party has made local advances, it has suffered a further seeping away of support at national level.
Despite the return of Alex Salmond, widely acknowledged as a strong, charismatic leader, the party received under 18 per cent of the vote, 2.5 points down compared to the 2001 general election under John Swinney.
It would be mistake to draw the conclusion that this represents a weakening of support for independence, any more than the losses suffered by the SSP signifies a backlash against the idea of socialism and wealth redistribution.
Four polls conducted during the election show support for independence running far higher than during the 2001 general election (ICM:29 per cent; BBC:33 per cent; YouGov:34 per cent; System Three/TNS: 46 per cent)
These polls also confirmed a long standing pattern which shows support for independence by far the strongest among younger voters under 45, and among semi-skilled and unskilled workers.
These figures underline the paradox that sympathy for independence is running way ahead of the combined support for Scotland’s three pro-independence political parties.
But for all except the hard core pro-independence voters, this was not seen as an election that could strike a blow at the future of the United Kingdom. Nor was it seen as an election that could deliver socialist change.
Instead, most Scottish voters saw this as an as an election in which the main priority was to stop the Tories by voting Labour.
Others, especially younger voters, saw it as an election in which the priority was to weaken New Labour’s supremacy in Westminster by voting Lib Dem.

Scottish-based parties were marginalised by the British broadcast media, including the BBC, ITN, Channel Four and Radio One and Two, the smaller Scottish parties were doubly marginalised.
The Scottish Greens and the SSP received virtually zero coverage, even from most of the Scottish media.
At the start of the election campaign, the Greens talked of the possibility of Scotland’s first Green MP, based on the strong vote they had received in Glasgow Kelvin and Edinburgh Central in last year’s Euro elections.
Instead their vote declined sharply, especially in their Edinburgh stronghold, where it fell from over 14,351 to 8,619.
Across Scotland, the Green share of the vote was around 1 per cent, though they only stood in one third of Scotland.
Taking into account the fact that the 19 seats targeted by the Greens were their strongest potential constituencies, it is likely that if they had stood across Scotland, they would have won around 2.5 per cent of the total vote.
Just as the poor result for the SNP does not signify a shift towards British unionism, neither does the vote for the Greens reflect a diminishing concern for the environment.
Nor does the vote for the SSP reflect a shift to the right, away from socialism and wealth redistribution.

Based on this general election result, both the SSP and the Greens would be obliterated in the next Holyrood elections. But the 2007 elections will be fought on far more favourable terrain.
In this election, all Scottish parties were reduced to their hard core, bedrock support.
Many people decided that, for this election only, they would transfer their vote to one of the big parties rather than “waste their vote” on their first choice party.

The SSP is also suffering from the continuing trend towards ‘differential turnout’ based on class.
While middle class constituencies such as East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire had turnouts of over 72 per cent, the turnout in some working class seats in Glasgow slumped well below 50 per cent. Within these seats, some wards had turnouts no higher than 25 per cent.

With the next national elections two years away, the SSP has time to assess its future electoral and campaigning strategy.
For example, in the 2003 Scottish election, the SSP was the only party campaigning to scrap the Council Tax. Now the Lib Dems and SNP have jumped onto that bandwagon, after remaining silent on the issue for five years.
In the run up to 2007, the SSP will face the task of delineating itself more clearly from the other parties, not just in an abstract way, but on concrete policies that we can actively fight for.
There is also an argument for at least discussing a more focussed, targeted approach in future first-past-the- post elections, including the constituency elections for Holyrood.
In Scotland the SNP were able to defy the national trend in their six target seats by concentrating all of their firepower on these constituencies.
The dramatic victory of George Galloway in Bethnal Green and Bow would not have been possible, even in this highly politicised constituency containing the largest Muslim population in the UK, without Respect pouring in big resources, canvassing every household and waging an intensive propaganda campaign on the ground.
In contrast, both the Greens, and especially the SSP spread our meagre resources thinly - across 58 seats, in the case of the SSP.
This effectively prevented us from seriously countering the BBC, the ITN and the daily media.
While the big three parties enjoyed saturation exposure in the media, the SSP was forced in most of Scotland to make do with our single A5 leaflet and a four minute election broadcast. This was like trying to drown out the cacophony of a chanting football crowd with a tin whistle.
Although this was a difficult election, the SSP lives to fight another day.
Despite the fact that we have just come through the most difficult period in our seven year existence, we were able to mount a national challenge in 58 seats from the Borders to the Northern Isles – where Orkney & Shetland candidate, John Aberdein, managed to increase the SSP vote to an impressive 5.6 per cent, our highest share of the vote nationally.
We distributed 3.2 million election addresses plus hundreds of thousands of street leaflets – and during the campaign received hundreds of applications to join the party.
We now move onto new challenges, most immediately the G8 summit in Perthshire in July, which will provide the opportunity of taking our vision for Scotland and for the planet to a new generation of young people.
Electorally, we now have a welcome two year breathing space.
And as convenor Colin Fox, pointed out after the count: “This Westminster election was an away game for us. Holyrood will be home game, where we’re playing to home fans.”