Norwich SWP Resignations

Just when you thought the dust had settled after the bulk resignation of Socialist Workers Party members in Doncaster, news reaches me of another flutter of departures from their ranks. A trio of comrades have resigned from the Norwich organisation, and I reproduce their letter below. Their arguments reveal the three ex-members (whose full names I've omitted) were ill at ease with the SWP's response to the coalition's round of cuts. This reflects wider debates concerning the SWP's Right to Work campaign. Comrades who've been round the far left block a few times are well aware of the SWP's habit of setting up party fronts for any issue that seems like a goer, and justifiably many activists are weary.

That said, I do think a couple of claims made in the letter are slightly off. The SWP should have approached other existing groups and campaigns with a view to building something united, but they cannot be blamed for not tapping into the wide but diffuse anger out there. The fact is the labour movement and class consciousness is where it is. We can work to change and build it up into a force that can present a systematic challenge to capital, but it's a long and drawn out process. It demands patience and consistent work by the most conscious and active parts of the labour movement. No left group, not even the SWP, can jump over and short circuit this development. I also think the comrades' boosterism for the Coalition of Resistance smacks of hyperbole - for all its faults the RtW campaign has mobilised the largest demonstration against the cuts so far.

Do these resignations mean much? It demonstrates that Counterfire's positions - whatever one thinks of them - still exercise an influence in some sections of the SWP. It makes you wonder how many others could make a similar move over the coming months.


To Martin,

After many weeks of deliberation we have come to the conclusion that we must leave the SWP. This decision has not been a light one, but we feel that the choices taken by the Central Committee in regards to the events in Doncaster have highlighted a deeper problem with the party’s leadership and perspective. Furthermore, we believe the strategy taken around the recession has been misguided, and that the SWP is unfortunately incapable of leading a consistent fightback against the incoming austerity measures.

The impact of the party’s failure to create a genuine united front against the recession and the incoming austerity cannot be underestimated. The limited success of Right to Work and its inability to tap into the huge levels of anger against the class nature of the austerity measures (around bankers bonuses etc) and crucially to develop as more than a ‘party front’ we believe reflects a much wider political problem within the party. The inward-looking approach of the organisation that has led to the unwillingness to build a genuine united front has also manifested itself in some significant tactical errors (for example, its response to anger over bankers bonuses and its relegation of Stop the War). This has led us to believe that these are more than a series of unfortunate mistakes, and that this perspective is a product of a deeper conservatism within layers of the party; a conservatism that we believe can no longer be overcome.

More recently we believe that the response to the Coalition of Resistance, which has tapped into an unforeseen level of anger, is a perfect example of the party putting its aims before the needs of the class. We feel this is further evidence of the inherent weaknesses within the SWP.

We are grateful that the SWP has given us the opportunity to work with some of the best activists in the class, however we feel that we can no longer be the best activists, and be honest with the class, working within the SWP.

Emily
Liam
Alex

Norwich SWP/University of East Anglia SWSS

Chilean Miners

Unambiguously a good news story. This footage courtesy of Russia Today.



More from Harpymarx and Union Futures.

Ed Miliband at Prime Minister's Questions

It's not often I blog about the weekly ritual of Prime Minister's Questions. Most of the time there seems very little point. This ritual, which gives an appearance of accountability, seldom sheds lights on the government's actions - especially when the PM is a slippery customer deft in the art of answering everything but the question. And don't even get me started on friendly "don't you think the government are the best thing since sliced bread"-style queries. It's small wonder the public at best don't care or, at worst, find the whole spectacle alienating. It really puts the endless commentary trying to apportion points to the PM or the Leader of the Opposition into perspective.

But because today's questions saw Ed Miliband's debut at the despatch box, there will be a bit more interest than usual. As a new leader uneasy with the manner of his election and a whole host of Big Issues before Parliament, his performance had to satisfy the party faithful and those MPs eager to seize on any pretext to wield the knife. For once the points game did matter.

And how was it for Ed? Presentationally he did well. His measured questioning and passive-aggressive sparring with Dave may come across well. Ed stuck to the issue and stuck Dave with a barb where appropriate, whereas the PM came across as an Old Boy braggart desperate to win points through colourful insults. Those who tuned in might possibly see Ed's performance as a step away from Punch and Judy.

Ed Miliband's choice of issue, however, spoke volumes about political pose he wants to be seen striking. On the benefit cap and more medical tests for disability living allowance, Ed promised to work with Dave on supporting the coalition's proposals. But it was on the scrapping of universal child benefit and the well-publicised anomalies the proposed changes will throw up that Ed chose to attack the government. While any socialist worth their salt should defend universal benefits, Ed's angle focused on their "unfairness" rather than the correctness of the principle.

True, the government deserve condemnation on this matter, but given Ed's trajectory since winning the leadership I'm left wondering. Did he go for this (even though the Browne report is juicier) out of genuine concern, or because it's an issue championed by the self-proclaimed daily papers of Middle England?

It is right for Labour to try and win over relatively affluent voters in swing seats. But that Ed chose to do so on his first outing while the concerns of the vast majority effected by the cuts go unvoiced tells us who he wants to be seen championing. If this is the shape of Labour strategy to come, we might as well have voted in his brother.

Marxism and Higher Education

In their continuing quest to ensure a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of rich people and their families, the Browne report, released yesterday, gives the Tories and LibDems the green light to dismantle higher education provision in this country and let the market take over. There's commentary and opinion here, here, and here.

Again, for all of Saint Vince's faux reluctance the government's enthusiasm for dismembering the university system and organising it along the lines of the oh-so successful American model is justified by the deficit. Once again it is the cover for an experiment in neoliberal social engineering. And like similar policies in the past, and quite apart from the social consequences, the effect this could have on the profile of British capitalism is potentially catastrophic. In his recent book, The Writing on the Wall: China in the 21st Century, Will Hutton argued that the key advantage Western economies have over China is their 'soft' cultural and institutional infrastructure, on which successful capitalist economies depend. As technological innovation, entertainment, knowledge and other forms of "intangible" commodities become more important for global capitalist production the greater the advantage accruing to those countries with large further and higher education sectors. From the standpoint of British capital, the government's attack on higher education threatens the preeminent place it occupies in the global knowledge economy. While science and advanced manufacturing are to be protected by subsidy, the so-called soft subjects which sustain strategically important entertainment and creative industries, as well as providing the kinds of transferable analytical skills essential for any advanced economy are threatened by the government's reckless plans. In plain economic terms, market share and billions of pounds are at risk.

One argument advanced by opponents of free HE, whether Liberal, Labour or Tory is how unfair it is for the poor to subsidise the education of people who, on average, will earn far more over their working lives (curiously, the logic of this argument is never deployed in relation to corporation tax cuts and tax breaks for business). This is an example of bourgeois economism, of deploying a "common sense" that appears to stand up for the economically weak while reinforcing a socially regressive agenda.

If you want to get all Marxist about it - and I do - capital gains far more from a well educated workforce than the economic rewards accruing to individual workers. As regular readers and anyone with a passing acquaintance with Marx know, the ultimate source of profit lies in the difference between the amount of money paid out as a wage (determined by what is necessary to reproduce a worker at a historically and socially given physical and cultural level) and the total wealth they generate over the course of the working week - this difference accruing to the employer. From this perspective, qualifications serve to make available workers with certain sets of skills to fill particular niches in the social division of labour. Regardless of their wage, salaries and other privileges, graduates are as economically exploited as any other section of the working class.

Until the abolition of free education by Tony Blair, HE funding from general taxation reflected this (to an extent). Capital profits from a well educated workforce, and so capital paid. Under the Tory/LibDem-endorsed Browne report, capital will will receive all of those benefits without having to pay for the cost - in effect, students will be picking up the tab and subsidising their future employers.

As with any other measure being pushed by the Tories and LibDems, it is a statement of intent. It can be stopped by mobilising as wider a coalition as possible against the cuts. If, as the political elite like to think, a new spirit of cooperation and working together is abroad, then let our movement be the repository of it. Let us turn their slogan of 'all in it together' into our own. Students, public sector workers, the elderly, parents, public-dependent private businesses: this is the vast constituency the government are determined to clobber. It is the labour movement's challenge to bring it together and give it shape and a sense of direction. Because if we don't, these counter-reforms, this decimation of the social wage is a recipe for generations of misery. It's not much, but where HE is concerned there is a march on 10th November. Details here.

100 Years of UK Public Sector Debt

You know the UK's public spending deficit? The one we're saddled with because Brown and Darling used buckets of taxpayers' cash to bail the banks out, thereby transforming a financial crisis into a public spending crisis? The very deficit the Tories and LibDems think is going to eat babies once it's finished breakfasting on the economy? It kinda looks very small when placed in historical perspective:

Now read this post on Boffy's evergreen Marxian economics blog. Don't let the coalition fool you: there is nothing unprecedented about this debt.

Tristram Hunt on the Coalition's Prospects

At Friday evening's branch meeting of North Staffs and East Cheshire's Cooperative Party, new MP for Stoke Central Tristram Hunt gave a brief talk on what the prospects of the Coalition government. Will they disassemble at the first hurdle or are they likely to go the distance?

He began with a potted history of previous coalition governments. The first coalition in modern times was the six month-long Fox-North coalition of 1783, a Tory-Whig lash up George III dismissed after nine months. The one 19th century experience of a coalition (during the Crimean war) was also an inglorious episode. Small wonder Benjamin Disraeli famously declared "England does not love coalitions". But given the two parties' duopoly in an adversarial system, any alliance between the two made little sense. Because this party system has survived in various permutations down to the present day, Britain stands out among West European nations in not having much experience of coalition government outside of war (Crimea, 1st and 2nd World Wars) and economic crisis (the 1931-35 national government notoriously presided over by Ramsay MacDonald, and the Tory/National Liberal "coalitions" prior to the war).

This is something not lost on the Tories and LibDems. Despite not being historically enormous, the deficit is dressed up as a mortal economic menace demanding extreme measures - such as a coalition - to get rid of it. They pretend it is an instrument designed to work in the national interest, but the colouration of cabinet and junior minister appointments owes more to political expediency than anything meritorious. This is even clearer when it comes to the coalition's constitutional plans. The Alternative Vote referendum is a Tory sop to those LibDems who are at best lukewarm over the cuts - even though the measure is unlikely to win, it might buy off a LibDem revolt while the first cuts package is going through parliament. Then there is the fixed parliament with its two thirds majority threshold for dissolution. And not forgetting the major boundary exercise which will, at a stroke, snuff out 50 constituencies. By pure coincidence the majority of whom are Labour-held seats.

That said, Tristram thought the coalition, as a piece of political machinery, is working well. Because this is an alliance of Orange Book LibDems (i.e. the party's dogmatically neoliberal wing) and the Tories, they already share a very similar outlook. It is this ability for the two to rub along nicely. If the coalition lasts the five year distance the personal and political friendships will help see them through, as well as their mutual culpability for the dark deeds they are committing. This is what his head thought, but his gut was telling him something else: it gave the coalition three years tops. Again, it comes back to the AV referendum. After it has failed many LibDem members will be wondering what they have got out of the coalition (apart from undying enmity and a deserved reputation for opportunism). Therefore it's likely the centre and centre leftish LibDems are the ones to give the coalition a headache. Meanwhile backbench Tories might moan and make themselves difficult, but not to the point of bringing the government down. Good Tories never put principles before power.

Moving on to questions, Tristram added that the Tories and LibDems entered the relationship without an exit strategy. While there has been some speculation about joint election campaigns (something that would screw Labour for the forseeable future), neither body of activists would stand for it - unless faced with the prospect of total wipeout.

Asked about the boundary review, Tristram thought this would cause the coalition innumerable problems within its own ranks. Many LibDems sit in marginal constituencies - a movement of a boundary here or there could tip them into the hands of the other parties. In addition, the loss of 50 seats will see many MPs from all sides of the Commons absorbed in internal selection battles from the middle of the parliamentary term on. Hardly a recipe for rebuilding public trust in politicians.

Another point Tristram made, which seems to be what many Labour MPs are thinking but I'm not entirely sure about, is that people like the coalition. It's becoming received wisdom that the public prefer to see parties working together rather than knocking lumps out of each other. I certainly haven't encountered this sentiment outside medialand, nor have I spoken to anyone chillaxed about losing their job or pension rights because it's a coalition wielding the axe. But if you believe there is a mood favouring consensus, Ed Miliband's decision to appoint Alan Johnson over the consensus-challenging economic policies favoured by Ed Balls makes sense. But it doesn't make it any more right.

In all a worthwhile look at the problems the coalition face. Unfortunately, in my opinion Labour lacks the leadership to make the most of them. Just as it was under Thatcher the strongest opposition will come from *outside* parliament.

Why Alan Johnson?

As stupid choices go, there can't be many dumber than Ed Miliband's decision to make Alan Johnson the shadow chancellor ahead of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper.

You've got to wonder what's going on in Ed Miliband's head. On the one hand you have a couple of Keynesian economists who favour an agenda more in tune with public opinion than Osborne's frenzied cutting and Alastair Darling's "slow and shallow" cuts. On the other you have Alan Johnson, a cabinet minister so useless, so compromised by Blairite authoritarianism and neoliberalism that even the union he once ran refused to back him in 2007 for deputy leader. I would have thought it a no-brainer. But no, Ed's decision seems counter-intuitive for counter-intuition's sake.

So what the hell is happening? I think there are two interrelated things going on.

1) Ed Miliband is still shit-scared of the press. Were Balls or Cooper heading up the response to the Autumn Spending Review Osborne would have faced a social democratic critique. That would have played well in the country away from the Westminster Village, but not in the medialand Ed Miliband inhabits. As we have seen before, leading politicians seek to inhabit the domain of non-punishment. For the sake of an easy ride in a declining press, our shiny new leader is prepared to sacrifice a coherent alternative to Tory/LibDem cuts so he won't be dogged by the 'Red Ed' tag.

2) When the wheels came off Brown's premiership, the Blairites proved time and again to be a bunch of treacherous bastards. Ed is all too aware that if he's seen to stumble the knives will come out. And the Blairites too are aware there's a question mark over his legitimacy as leader due to the circumstances of his election. By appointing an (inexplicably) popular Blairista as shadow chancellor, he binds them to his leadership. As the old saying goes, keep your friends close ...

Dave and BigSoc

Thankfully, rumours Dave's Tory conference speech would be performed in the style of a rap with an electronic/grime accompaniment proved unfounded. But the cod philosophy delivered in its stead was equally unwelcome. Dave's hour in the spotlight was all about his Idea, the Tories' vision thing, the warm huggery of liberal conservatism: BigSoc.

Wisely Cameron has turned his back on the individualism of the Thatcher years while preserving its philosophical core of individual responsibility and freedom, but at the same time locating it in an updated version of One Nation conservatism. This is more in tune with the trajectory of British society over the last 20 years than John Major's sad attempts to rebrand Toryism in terms of afternoon cricket, warm beer, and Spitfires. But that is the limits of its originality. During his speech, Dave singled out 96 year old Tory activist Harry Beckhough, a man who's been batting for the class enemy since 1929. One can't help wondering if he'd heard Harold Macmillan uttering similar platitudes over 50 years ago.

The thing is it's difficult to disagree with Dave's big wheeze. Just like Andy Burnham's foray into pop political theory, on paper there is nothing objectionable about BigSoc. A redistribution and decentralisation of power, the phasing in of limited democratic checks on the police, more accountable and less bureaucratic public services, a voluntary citizens' service, more social activism, a balance of rights and responsibilities - if one ignores the waffle about the 'entrepreneurial economy' you might have found this sort of rhetoric in social democratic manifestoes of years past. And even shades of it in the odd list of Trotskyist transitional demands too.

Of course, BigSoc's deliberately designed to be all things to all people. Dave might genuinely believe in the list of nice fair things he and his advisors have thrown together, but it's hard to see it as anything other than the ideological cotton wool wrapped around the axe the Tories are currently sharpening. In the name of choice and accountability public services are to be "broken open": this is Cameron giving the green light to capital to percolate even further into the fabric of public services, albeit with cooperatives, voluntary organisations and social enterprises to act as business's Trojan Horses. Time and again they will be wheeled out as the success stories while capital gorges on profits at the expense of outcomes away from the media spotlight. Nice.

BigSoc needs to be placed in context. Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the 'end of history', the crashing and burning of the metanarratives, mainstream politics have sought to define itself in terms of post-ideological pragmatism around unassailable neoliberal nostrums. BigSoc marks an evolution in this condition: we're not so much as experiencing a return of ideology (in the sense of the open espousal of big ideas) but the appearance of its return. BigSoc is an empty signifier marking the absence of anything beyond the latest iteration of neoliberal managerialism.

Dave can talk about responsibility, activism, aspiration, values, citizenship or whatever BigSoc buzzword suits the occasion, but all the while his party is the instrument of forcing the working class to pay for capital's crisis.

The Big Society, Tennessee Style

From Cory Doctorow. The shape of things to come?

Homeowners in the region outside the town limits of South Fulton, TN, have to pay $75 to come under the protection of the town's firefighters. Late in September, the house of Gene Cranick, who had not paid his $75 for the year, caught fire. When the fire department arrived, they announced that since Cranick had not paid his fees, his house would be allowed to burn to the ground. Cranick offered to pay the $75, but the firefighters weren't having any of it. They eventually acted to put out the fire when it spread to the home of a neighbor who had previously paid. As the mayor said, " if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck."

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

We asked him why.

He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

Unbelievable.

Tommy Sheridan on Trial

How many of us enjoy a trip down memory lane? Unfortunately, tomorrow's start of the trial of Tommy and Gail Sheridan on perjury charges is one blast from the recent past we could all do without. In the summer of 2006 when Tommy successfully sued Murdoch's News of the World for libel, I had a ring side seat via the UK Left Network of the pain, anger and tragedy the action brought down on the Scottish Socialist Party. Whatever one thinks of the SSP's politics and the various takes on the resulting split, Tommy's libel action tore apart a collective of dedicated class fighters who were tempered by the fight against the Poll Tax and whose hard work had built the most successful left-of-Labour socialist organisation since the Communist Party's heyday. And over the next 50-odd days we get to rake through it all again.

Regarding the trial itself, the Socialist Party is right to question the huge resources thrown into putting the case against the Sheridans together. But equally, the charge sheet (reproduced below via Lallands Peat Worrier) can hardly be described as a set of "trumped up" charges: all pertain to the specifics of the original trial itself.

Another depressing aspect of this trial, just like the civil suit, is the appearance of erstwhile comrades of Sheridan on the witness stand. Last time a number of SSP witnesses testifying against Sheridan were roundly denounced as class traitors and scabs by Tommy and his supporters. Those tempted to use their reappearance for more tired grand standing might like to reflect that as the state is prosecuting, anyone failing to respond to a citation could face a contempt of court charge with the prospect of getting banged up for two years. Not the same as going to prison for not paying your poll tax, is it?

The comments are open but will be very tightly moderated due to sub judice. Discussion of the wider context of the trial is fine, but comments on the details and/or expressions of opinion on Tommy and Gail's innocence or guilt are out of bounds. The trial is being blogged from an observer in the public gallery here, and the charge sheet is reproduced below for information purposes.

Thomas Sheridan, born 7 March 1964, whose domicile of citation has been specified as Paisley Road West, Glasgow, and Gail Sheridan, born 4 January 1964, whose domicile of citation has been specified as Paisley Road West, Glasgow, you are indicted at the instance of The Right Honourable Elish Angiolini, Queen's Counsel, Her Majesty's Advocate, and the charges against you are that

(1) you THOMAS SHERIDAN having raised an action of defamation in the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh against News Group Newpapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts, being the publisher of the News of the World newspaper, in which you alleged that on 21 November 2004 the said newspaper had published an article communicating the false idea that you had visited a "swingers club" with Anvar Begum Khan, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, and knowing that a civil jury trial had been fixed for the hearing of said action on 4 July 2006 and having on 9 November 2004 at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Scottish Socialist Party held at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow, attended by, among others, Colin Fox, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, admitted attending such a club and in particular Cupid's Healthclub, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and knowing that accurate minutes of the said meeting existed and had been lodged on 16 June 2006 at the said Court on behalf of the said defender and that said Colin Fox was to be called as a witness at said trial did on 18 June 2006 at the premises known as The Beanscene, 67 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh attempt to suborn said Colin Fox, to falsely depone as a witness that the minutes of said meeting were not accurate and you did thus attempt to suborn said Colin Fox to commit perjury;

Friday (2) on 21 July 2006 at the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh you THOMAS SHERIDAN being affirmed as a witness in a civil jury trial of an action for defamation then proceeding there at your instance against the News Group Newspapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow as publishers of the News of the World newspaper did falsely depone:

a) that at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Scottish Socialist Party held on 9 November 2004 at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow you had not admitted you had attended Cupid's Healthclub, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester known as Cupid's on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and that you had not admitted that you attended there with Anvar Begum Khan c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh;

b) that at said meeting on 9 November 2004 Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara, both c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh did not state that they had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true;

c) that at said meeting you denied having visited a swingers' club in Manchester;

d) that Allison Kane, Keith Robert Baldassara, Alan William McCombes, Allan Green, Colin Anthony Fox, Barbara Jane Scott, Carolyn Leckie, Catriona Mary Grant, Joanna Harvie, and Rosemary Kane all c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh had lied in evidence during said civil jury trial when each gave evidence that: - they had heard you admit at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that you had visited said Cupid's in Manchester; and they heard it being stated at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true;

e) that you had not admitted in 2002 to said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that you had attended a sex club in Manchester;

f) that you did not say at the said meeting held on 9 November 2004 that you were not prepared to resign as convener of the Scottish Socialist Party unless there was proof that you had attended a sex club in Manchester and that you did not believe that there was any evidence to prove that you were lying about not attending said club;

g) that in a pub known as the Golden Pheasant,2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch on or around Friday 12 May 2006 you were not given the minutes of the said meeting of 9 November 2004 to read;

h) that said Alan Green lied during his evidence in said civil jury trial that in said pub known as the Golden Pheasant on or around 12 May 2006 he had shown you the minutes of the said meeting of 9 November 2004;

i) that there was not an event on 14 June 2002 or at any other time at the Moathouse Hotel, Congress Road, Glasgow organised by Matthew McColl, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh which you attended along with Andrew McFarlane, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh at which you and said Andrew McFarlane went into a bedroom with a girl and had sexual relations with said girl;

j) that Helen Todd Allison and Lily Anne Colvin both c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Road, Edinburgh lied in their evidence during said civil jury trial when each gave evidence that you were at the Moathouse hotel with said Andrew McFarlane;

k) that a conversation between you and said Keith Robert Baldassara had not taken place when said Keith Robert Baldassara had asked you about "madness" somewhere in a hotel in Glasgow and that you said to him that you did not participate, but were present at the event when a lady from Birmingham was brought in;

l) that said Keith Robert Baldassara lied in his evidence during said civil jury trial that he had asked you about "madness" somewhere in a hotel in Glasgow and that you said to him that you did not participate, but were present at the event when a lady from Birmingham was brought in;

m) that you had not attended said Cupid's in Manchester along with Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle all c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh towards the end of 2001, or had ever visited a swingers' club;

n) that you had an affair with said Anvar Begum Khan in late 1992 for six months only and that you did not have a sexual relationship with her from 1994 to 2002; and

o) you never had a sexual relationship with said Katrine Trolle and had never been with her in the house occupied by you at Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow or with her at Kingennie Court, Dundee; the truth being as you well knew, that on 9 November 2004 at the Executive Committee meeting of the Scottish Socialist Party held at 70 Stanley Street, Glasgow, you did admit to attending said Cupid's in Manchester on two occasions in 1996 and 2002 and that you had visited said club with said Anvar Begum Khan;

B) that at said meeting it was stated by said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that they had previously raised the issue of you attending a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true; that at said meeting you did not deny having visited a swingers' club in Manchester; that said Allison Kane, Keith Robert Baldassara, Alan William McCombes, Allan Green, Colin Anthony Fox, Barbara Jane Scott, Carolyn Leckie, Catriona Mary Grant, Joanna Harvie and Rosemary Kane had not lied in evidence during the said trial when they each gave evidence that:

i) they had heard you admit at said meeting on 9 November 2004 that you had visited the said Cupid's in Manchester on two occasions and ii) they had heard it being stated that said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara had previously raised the issue with you of your visits to a sex club in Manchester and that you had admitted to them that it was true; that:

ii) on 3 November 2002 in the course of a journey between Glasgow and Edinburgh you did admit to said Keith Robert Baldassara that you had attended a sex club in Manchester; ii) on an occasion between 4 November 2002 and 31 December 2002, at the City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, you did admit to said Alan William McCombes that you had visited a club for swingers in Manchester and

iii) on 1 November 2004 at the City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, you did admit to said Alan William McCombes and Keith Robert Baldassara that you were the MSP referred to in the News of the World article published on 31 October 2004 and that you had attended said Cupid's in Manchester with said Anvar Begum Khan; that you did state at the said meeting held on the 9 November 2004 that you were not prepared to resign as convener of the Scottish Socialist Party unless there was proof that you had attended the said Cupid's in Manchester and that you did not believe that there was any evidence to prove that you were lying about not attending said club;

G)/ that on 12 May 2006 at the premises known asThe Golden Pheasant, 2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch said Allan Green did show you the minutes of the said meeting of the 9 November 2004; that said Allan Green had not lied during his evidence during said civil jury trial that on 12 May 2006 he had shown you the minutes from the said meeting on 9 November 2004 at said premises known as The Golden Pheasant, 2 Stepps Road, Kirkintilloch; that you did attend the said Moathouse Hotel on 14 June 2002 at an event organised by said Matthew McColl along with said Andrew McFarlane at which you and said Andrew McFarlane went into a bedroom with Beverly Anthea Dixon, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh and you did have sexual intercourse with said Beverly Anthea Dixon; that said Helen Todd Allison and Lily Anne Colvin had not lied during their evidence during said civil jury trial when they said that they had seen you at the said Moathouse Hotel with said Andrew McFarlane; that between 15 June and 15 July 2002, both dates inclusive, at the City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, said Keith Robert Baldassara did ask you about "madness" somewhere in a hotel in Glasgow and you stated to said Keith Robert Baldassara that you had been present at said Moathouse Hotel when a lady from Birmingham had been present and that this event had been organised by said Matthew McColl for said Andrew McFarlane; that said Keith Robert Baldassara did not lie in evidence during said civil jury trial that between 15 June and 15 July 2002, both dates inclusive, at the said City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow, that he had asked you about "madness" in a hotel in Glasgow and that you had said to him that you had been present at the Moathouse Hotel when a lady from Birmingham had been present and that this event had been organised by said Matthew McColl for said Andrew McFarlane; that on 27 September 2002 you did attend said Cupid's in Manchester with said Andrew McFarlane, Gary Clark, Anvar Begum Khan and Katrine Trolle and that you had visited a club for swingers; that between 1 January 1994 and 28 September 2002 you did have a sexual relationship with said Anvar Begum Khan; and

O)/ that between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005, both dates inclusive, you did have a sexual relationship with Katrine Trolle, that she had been in the house occupied by you at Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow with you and that you had stayed overnight with her at 16 Kingennie Court, Dundee.

And the charges against Gail Sheridan:

Monday (3) on 31 July 2006 at the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh, you GAIL SHERIDAN being sworn as a witness in a civil jury trial of an action for defamation then proceeding there at the instance of Thomas Sheridan, MSP, your husband, residing at Paisley Road West, Cardonald, Glasgow against News Group Newspapers Limited, 124 Portman Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow as publishers of the News of the World newspaper did falsely depone:

that you saw and spoke to Katrine Trolle, c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, at the Scottish Socialist Party Conference held in Perth in 2005, and that said Katrine Trolle told you there that the News of the World had been at her door, asking her if she had had an affair with Tommy Sheridan and had offered her money and that she hugged and kissed you and touched your "tummy";

that you had checked your diaries and the diaries of said Thomas Sheridan for November 2001 and November 2002 and that the entries confirmed that you had been at home overnight during every weekend in November 2001 and November 2002;

that you could recall that you spent every weekend in November 2001 and November 2002 with said Thomas Sheridan; that you were present and witnessed said Thomas Sheridan on an occasion telephoning Directory Enquiries and asking for the telephone number of Cupid's Health Club, 13-17 Sutherland Street, Swinton, Manchester known as Cupid's and said Thomas Sheridan telephoning the said Cupid's;

that your aunt, Annie Healy c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh arrived into Scotland from the United States of America on 14 June 2002; that said Thomas Sheridan was in your company during the whole of the evening of the 14 June 2002 and returned home with you after midnight on 15 June 2002;

and g)/ that you and said Thomas Sheridan visited Andrew McFarlane c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh, at his home at 216 Tweedmuir Road, Glasgow after 10pm on the 14 June 2002 when said Andrew McFarlane and James McManus c/o Lothian and Borders Police, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh were present there between that time and when you left with said Thomas Sheridan after midnight on the 15 June 2002;

the truth being as you well knew, that you did not see or speak to said Katrine Trolle at the Scottish Socialist Party Conference held in Perth between 11 and 13 February 2005 and that the said Katrine Trolle did not tell you that the News of the World had been at her door asking her if she had an affair with Tommy Sheridan and had offered her money and said Katrine Trolle did not hug and kiss you and touch your "tummy";

that you had recorded in your diary that you had travelled to Miami on Tuesday 20 November 2001 and you were in Miami on the weekend of 24 and 25 November 2001 and that said Thomas Sheridan had recorded in his diary that you were away between 21 and 28 November 2001;

that you were in Miami on 24 and 25 November 2001 and you did thus not spend every weekend in November 2001 with said Thomas Sheridan; that on 23 November 2001 you were not present on the occasion when said Thomas Sheridan phoned directory enquiries and said Cupid's in Manchester;

that your aunt, said Annie Healy arrived in Scotland from the United States of America on 12 June 2002; that you were not with said Thomas Sheridan during the whole of the evening of 14 June 2002;

and that you were not in the company of said Thomas Sheridan, Andrew McFarlane and James McManus within 216 Tweedmuir Road, Glasgow continuously between 10pm on 14 June and 1am on 15 June 2002.