The SSP has selected Kevin McKvey as our candidate in the Glasgow North East by-election (date to be decided).

To read about the campaign go to the blog. To get involved by either donating money or donating time please contact the SSP using the contact details on the campaign blog.

Kevin McVey stands for socialism in Glasgow North East – 2nd July 2009

The Scottish Socialist Party has selected Kevin McVey as candidate for the Glasgow North East by-election.
A civil service trade union representative for 20 years, Kevin was brought up in the constituency, in Ruchazie.
Kevin joined the Labour Party Young Socialists in 1984 and was expelled from the Labour party 5 years later for being a socialist.

Kevin has a long track record of fighting the poll tax, against school closures, and for taxation of the rich to improve public services.

Kevin McVey said this evening:

At a time of daily news bulletins on the stench of corruption arising from Westminster, I am proud to publicly pledge that I will reject the £64,000 MP’s salary and live instead on the average skilled worker’s wage – not a penny more.

After the mainstream parties have been caught fiddling expenses for food, furniture, second homes, and Michael Martin was booted out for trying to cover up these crimes against people struggling to pay the bills, Labour now wants him promoted to the unelected, undemocratic House of Lords.

That’s an insult to ordinary hardworking people. Where I have worked you would be sacked for doctoring expenses or for failing to act against fiddles if you were in a manager’s post!

The people of Glasgow North East deserve a socialist MP who will fight for them, not another chancer who pockets the obscene salary and then grabs even more in expenses.

SSP Glasgow Regional Secretary Richie Venton said today:

We are proud to put up a candidate with such a long and principled history of fighting for the working class.

The SSP has been at the heart of fighting to save several local schools and nurseries from Labour’s butchery. We have helped stop the ambitious councillor Gordon Matheson becoming the Labour candidate, because even the out-of-touch Labour hierarchy knew he would be a complete liability in an area blitzed by school closures, which he was at the heart of. The SSP will make Save Our Schools a major issue in the by-election, demanding class sizes of 20 or less for all kids, to give them a decent start in life and to hire more teachers and nursery staff.

David Cameron has been all over the press today with his sweeping radical reforms as he likes to call them.

These include:

• seriously consider[ing] the possibility of fixed-term parliaments
• reducing the number of MPs by 10%
• Text alerts on progression of Bills.
• More publication of expenses
• possible curbs on the whipping of votes
• backbenchers would get powers to choose the chairmen and members of select committees

These, he claims, will transfer power from the state to the people. Sounds good, unless you realise this is a man who voted for people to be detained by the state without charge for 28 days.

So lets look at the list:

seriously consider[ing] the possibility of fixed-term parliaments.

Not only is it a pitiful reform but it is surrounded by two weasily non-commital caveats. Why not fixed numbers of terms for MPs if you want to fix terms? (The SSP voted for 2 terms at our conference a number of years back)

reducing the number of MPs by 10%

In a parliament which is a representative type this makes the body less accountable, not more.

Text alerts on progression of Bills.

Post a reply if you can name one Bill currently going through parliament.

Yep, thought not.

The bills are available here if you wish to see.

More publication of expenses

Long overdue, but whilst MPs make the rules they then defend themselves by not breaking it is toothless and purely populist.

possible curbs on the whipping of votes

How exactly would this be enforceable? Notice again the weasely caveat.

backbenchers would get powers to choose the chairmen and members of select committees

Well hold me back, that is exactly the demand being made by everyone on a daily basis, the problem with parliament being the backbenchers don’t get to choose chairmen of talking shops. Sounds more like throwing a bone to get the support from backbenchers though.

Reforms which were noticeable by their absence included

• Reducing pay of MPs or linking to some measure of wages/income. Might we suggest a maximum of 5 times the state pension? Then there might be some action on pensioner poverty.
• Abolition of the unelected and undemocratic House of Lords
• Abolition of the unelected and undemocratic Privy Council
• Recallability of MPs – by petition of a percentage of constituents or triggered by voting against election promises or by changing their political affiliation
• Proportional Representation – deliberately excluded by Cameron
• Extending the franchise
• Overhauling voter registration to remove the current ease to commit fraud with postal vote registration.

None of these are revolutionary demands. They are basic reforms which are far more radical than anything Cameron has just dreamed up. Of course further reforms would be a real democracy, with the parliament chosen by lot, rather than the oligarchy we have now.

Richie Venton on Glasgow East

Some SSP activists during election

What a phenomenal result on two parallel levels: the earth-shattering defeat of Labour in Red Clydesider John Wheatley’s seat, Labour’s 3rd safest seat in Scotland, held by them since 1922; and the tremendous achievement for the SSP in winning 5th place, the highest position for any of the smaller parties, despite all the apparently insurmountable obstacles we faced.

If we compare the votes with those of the 2005 Westminster election in the identical Glasgow East seat, Labour has gone into free-fall from 18,775 to 10,912; the SNP rocketed from 5,268 to 11,277 – in a turnout down from 48.2% in 2005 to 42.1% this time.

Thousands of Labour voters simply stayed at home in disgust with their record on food and fuel prices; failure to tackle poverty and inequality; assaults on the sick and disabled, and their wholesale neglect of the working class. Others did a straight swap to the SNP, as punishment for New Labour in an area they have treated with decades of contempt, stepping on people’s heads en route to grossly overpaid political careers.

The disgust at Labour politicians, and indeed politicians in the mainstream parties in general, was palpable on the streets, people spitting out angry words about them, responding warmly to the SSP’s policy of A workers’ MP on a worker’s wage.

Class differentials

There seems to have been a significant class differential in the turnout, with higher voting in the more affluent parts, such as Garrowhill, parts of Baillieston, Mt Vernon – which would be to the SNP’s advantage, because John Mason has been councillor for Garrowhill/Baillieston since 1998. The most deprived districts had generally far lower turnouts, to Labour’s further disadvantage.

The squeeze between the two political Juggernauts that we predicted, whilst agreeing we should stand an SSP candidate, took place with a vice-like vengeance. For example, 85% of those who voted went to either the SNP or Labour. In 2005 the equivalent figure was 77%.

My first impression of the voting figures is that the SNP upsurge was also substantially boosted by defection to them from both the Lib Dems (who plummeted from 3,665 votes three years ago to 915) and even some Tories (who fell from 2,135 to 1,639). In both cases, defecting voters judged that the best way to boot Brown and New Labour was to vote SNP.

This is an unqualified catastrophe for Labour and Gordon Brown. Labour activists were devastated, with talk of the need for a lurch to the left amongst a couple of the most unlikely Labour hacks I spoke to at the count.

The national question

There was not widespread, overt, explicit talk on the streets of this being a vote on independence. But it clearly is a clash of contrasting opinions on the Westminster Labour government compared to the Holyrood SNP government – and is a massive impetus towards independence … which will be exponentially added to when Labour’s thrashing in Glasgow East adds to the Labour crisis and therefore increases the likelihood of a Cameron government in Westminster.

All of which positions the Scottish Socialist Party well over the next couple of years, with our pro-independence but unashamedly socialist vision for Scotland, in contrast to the pro-big business agenda of the SNP.

The SNP are riding high in the opinion polls right now, and will be an even more rampant force in the aftermath of Glasgow East, but the contradictions in their all-things-to-all-classes approach are beginning to be revealed to more far-sighted sections of the working class. They face strikes by civil servants against their imposition of a 2% pay ceiling; anger from council workers facing cuts where the SNP are in control or coalition, and growing questions over why they dumped their previous commitment to bus re-regulation in the wake of SNP party funding by multi-millionaire bus tycoon Brian Souter.

SSP: the biggest small party

Given the monumental squeeze on all the smaller parties – and even the Lib Dems – the Scottish Socialist Party scored a fantastic achievement, winning 5th place with 555 votes – ahead of the Solidarity vote of 512, and with a crushing lead over the Greens (despite them having 2 MSPs) who could only muster 232 votes.

Of course we need a sense of proportion. Our 555 compares to 1,096 in the 2005 general election, before the split in the SSP. But what is quite remarkable is that the combined left vote held up so well (1,067 – almost literally identical to that of 2005). And in fact the combined share of the vote rose from 3.5% in 2005 to a combined 4.1% this time!

Given the far tighter squeeze in the focussed intensity of this by-election, the prevailing objective conditions that nurtured that dog-fight between SNP and Labour, and the serious, deep damage done to the credibility of the left through the split, it is remarkable that this was achieved, that the left vote held up so well.

This also serves to underline the destructive, reckless consequences for the socialist left caused by the small minority, led by Tommy Sheridan, who split off from the SSP two years ago. If they had instead accepted the decisions of the majority of members in the SSP and kept a united party intact, the combined vote of 1,067 would have put us in 4th place, above the Lib Dems – and that is taking no account of the huge additional vote a single, united SSP would have won.

In the tragic circumstances of a divided left, which the SSP was founded precisely to overcome in 1998, there is a profound significance in the relative votes of the SSP and Solidarity. Obviously we can’t compare figures with 2005 on this as we had one party then. The nearest comparator is the 2007 Scottish election results for Baillieston (which makes up roughly two-thirds of Glasgow east) and Shettleston (the other third).

A mere 12 months ago Solidarity got 5 times and over 4 times the SSP vote in these two seats respectively. In Glasgow East, the SSP got 53% of the total left vote!

Solidarity boasted about their 5:1 vote advantage in the by-election campaign, including at press conferences. Tommy Sheridan contacted journalists declaring the SSP was as dead as a Dodo, repeating the 5:1 differential of last year to try and convince people there was only one party of the left – his.

Solidarity will have got a very substantial family and friends vote for their candidate, and some votes from the family and friends of the child killed by an air gun in Easterhouse.

On top of that they crudely attempted to confuse people into thinking Tommy Sheridan was the candidate, with their one and only leaflet taking the format of a message from him, and the party name on the ballot forms being Solidarity – Tommy Sheridan … not even the softer option of co-convener Tommy Sheridan which they could have legally used.

Given all this, it is a signpost to the future when the SSP not only closed down the 5:1 differential but actually won the biggest vote for a left party in horrendously difficult circumstances.

For the broad mass the headline is Labour’s slaughter, the SNP’s victory. But for an astute and observant minority the SSP/Solidarity result helps explode Solidarity’s false claims to be Scotland’s foremost socialist party.

A conscious socialist vote

Considering the weight of the aforementioned squeeze on us, every vote for the SSP was an extremely conscious vote for socialism, for the rich traditions of Glasgow’s east end, in the full knowledge we were not going to win, but that our undiluted socialist message deserved support. A very courageous, conscious, socialist vote.

Some parties and journalists are trotting out claims that the good SSP vote was due to confusion over the two Currans – Frances for the SSP, Margaret for Labour. That is arrogant, patronising nonsense. Labour put out tens of thousands of leaflets explaining which Curran to vote for. So did we, with the theme that there’s only one socialist Curran in this election – Frances Curran. We spelt out the two opposing worlds these two candidates represented.

The visibility, colour, dynamism and élan of the SSP’s campaign on the streets left nobody in any doubt about what or who they were voting for. We never held back on our socialist message, in leaflets, a newspaper delivered to 45,000 homes, giant banners, through street meetings, and in media appearances. The quality of our campaign – which started out with literally no money or material exactly three weeks before polling day at the meeting of members where we selected Frances Curran as our candidate – was praised by the Greens, SNP, Lib Dems and letter writers to the Herald.

SSP pivotal to the future of socialism

We shouldn’t exaggerate what this result for the SSP signifies, given the very modest votes involved at this stage. But we have to feel vastly proud and confident that the SSP is pivotal to the medium-term unification and growth of a united socialist party in Scotland. It is a time to be proud of the principled socialism the SSP stands for; a time to join us and give renewed impetus to the rehabilitation of the socialist traditions of Red Clydeside in one of its historic strongholds.

Craig Murray (Rector of Dundee University) made a short post on Glasgow East

Hurray for Glasgow East

Apparently some commenter objected to his personal attack on Margaret Curran. He then responds explaining why he gave up civility on party politics, particularly in relation to the Labour Party. Why Margaret Curran is the cheerleader for a party which supports torture.

Margaret Curran is a lot better off than thousands of very real women, who were just as human as her, and whose lives the illegal wars of New Labour have destroyed.

It is worth remembering that Labours appalling policies haven’t just attacked the poorest members of society in Glasgow East or Dundee East, but throughout the world too, mainly in the name of “The War On Terror”.