Change in Bin Tax Tactics?

by Charlie Burges Mon Nov 17, 2003 17:28

"Interestingly a number of SP fulltimers including the editor of their paper and national organiser have apparently signed forms sent to them by Dublin City Council giving undertakings that they will not interfere with the Bin Collection."

The quote above shows that this story is not very good. Legally the Council couldn't and wouldn't get legal undertakings by sending out letters and looking for a response- it's a high court injunction not the Reader's Disgest! BTW neither of the mentioned people are on the Dublin CIty injunction!!

It is true that there is TO AN EXTENT a need to change tactics. The Councils are not implementing non-collection in the same way as they have in the past, ie they are not going all out for non collection. Things are forever changing, a particular tactic at one stage is not necessarily the best tactic at another stage.

by Leonid Mon Nov 17, 2003 18:00

This one has come up before about the SP fulltimers. So whats the exact truth. Charles B. says that what LM reported was incorrect, so what is the true story Charles, seeing as you are in the know.

Did the SP fulltimers who had their names taken at the Dublin city depots blockades receive any communications from the City Council or its solicitors? What was their response?

If LM's report is totally inaccurate then all you have to do is outline precisely what happened and how the SPers responded. If you cant or wont do that then it would be fair for people to conclude that theres some truth to Mellowes accusation.

PS A little bird in the SP who is close to the centre did tell me that at least four SP fulltimers got a letter from DCC or their legal team and that they were trying to avoid court but didnt say anything about them giving a commitment not to be naughty in future

by Leonid Mon Nov 17, 2003 18:16

Now if you cant reply to my question , there can be only one conclusion: Yes Mellowes got the details wrong but the SP fulltimers have in fact received some sort of legal communication and are rather embarrassed about their response. This would explain why Charlie and others have challenged the accuracy of this story on indiemedia but have failed to give an alternative account of what really happened.

So once again can Charlie or any SP member tell us what exactly happened?

by Bin there - Done that Mon Nov 17, 2003 18:22

If a reality check is being taken, it's not before time. Street blockades did not work in Fingal and eventually removed whatever sympathy the general public had for the campaign. Jailings have lost their impact. Last set of jailings were barely reported, if at all. Can't blame media for this as their attitude relects opinion on the ground ie. public don't care (enough). I am not going to risk jail to get SP candidates elected.

by Mickey - SP (personal capacity) Mon Nov 17, 2003 18:36

Indymedia isn't an appropriate place to discuss this kind of thing. The anonymous gossipy nature of the original posting is all very entertaining but it isn't a serious way to start a discussion about the tactics of the anti-bin tax campaigns.

I'm going to stick to addressing two points. The SWP, Sinn Fein and the groups dismissed as "micro" can defend themselves as they see fit.

1) Tactics change and evolve over the course of a long struggle. What is absolutely necessary at one point may not be a good idea at all at another.

The huge number of blockades that met the imposition of non-collection in Fingal and the various solidarity blockades transformed this issue. If they hadn't happened and if people hadn't been willing to stand up to the councils, government and courts, the issue would have been finished in a week. At that time, the blockades and their extension across the city was the key argument.

It is fairly clear, in the absence of a mass response to the most recent jailings, the mood which existed for blockades day after day isn't there on the ground right now. The councils aren't trying to implement non-collection seriously in most areas at the moment. As I see it - and this isn't any kind of "official" statement from the SP, just my view - the key thing at the moment is to fight the councils guerilla non-collection with a flexible strategy of blockades where possible and the throwing of rubbish into trucks where they aren't. While we do this, we have to prepare the ground for another outbreak of the kind of huge blockading we saw in the first phase of the campaign.

2) It has never, NEVER, been the policy of the campaigns or of the Socialist Party to encourage people to go to jail for the sake of it. The important thing was to stand up to the state at key junctures where the campaign would otherwise have been smashed.

That's why Joe and Clare (two members of the SP) went to prison. That's why nine Fingal residents (including members of the SP) were prepared to go to prison and got off on a technicality. That's why people from Finglas, Inchicore, Ballyfermot and Tallaght have gone to jail. That's why seven are still in there (including three SP members).

All through that time, other campaign activists (SP members amongst them) gave undertakings to cease for a variety of reasons from the personal to the tactical. Neither the campaigns nor the SP have ever been in any way critical of those decisions and nor should we be. I don't know if four people have recently given such undertakings by post. I do know that a forum that we should all assume is read by the police is not an appropriate place to discuss it.

Finally the idea that Joe or Clare are regarded as "reformists" by anybody in the SP is beneath contempt.

by Non-payer Mon Nov 17, 2003 18:59

We need to seriously work out where the campaign is at now. Most importantly, what are rates of non-payment.

About four weeks ago the Dublin City manager claimed that complete non-paymnent (people who never paid a single cent from day one) was 19%. In the Dublin Central constituency it was 26%.

Have the other campaigns got accurate and recent figures?

Blockades were a good idea, and many 'ordinary' people who never got involved in anything like that before took part. But the Councils were able to counter us with non-collection, jailings, fines and - probably most important - dragging things out. There are only so many leave and sick days people can take off work. Without the prospect of a quick win, a lot of our neighbours were not prepared to keep taking days off.

So now we need to calmly work out what alternative strategy we can propose.

One suggestion has been to keep the campaign going as a low level agitation until next June's local elections. This may well suit the electoral ambitions of the SWP, SP and whoever else wants to run for the Council but what does it have to do with getting rid of the bin tax?

A few anti-bin tax councillors can't change anything. Even a majority couldn't abolish the charge (even if they kept their promises, and that would be a first in Ireland). The City Manager has the power to overrule the Councillors and set a charge anyway.

Let's get real. If non-payment collapses the Councils will know they have us by the balls. And no amount of new councillors can change that. I didn't spend the last three years knocking on doors, organising meetings, blockading trucks & depots, donating cash and all that just so that some politician can get his or her arse into a City Council seat.

by Spinner Mon Nov 17, 2003 20:35

The councils have continuously put out false or misleading statistics about non-payment. The campaigns have repeatedly sought and received statistics under the Freedom of Information Act.

The most recent statistics we got were for Dun Laoghaire / Rathdown and South Dublin. I can't remember them off the top of my head but something like 12,000 households had paid in full in DL/R, which is a small minority. The same was true in South Dublin, where again the majority are non-payers.

You can't believe the statistics put out by the City Manager etc. In most cases they just make them up. In other cases, they heavily spin the real figures so an area where 70% of people either have a waver or haven't paid a cent in more than a year would be described as an area "where only 26% of eligible people haven't paid at all"...

You are right that the local elections aren't the most important thing at the moment. The campaigns decided early on to fight the issue in a militant fashion rather than as an electoral campaign. That doesn't mean that the elections are meaningless though.

by nlkflkjdfh Tue Nov 18, 2003 00:52

The SP unlike others are not opposed to blockades of trucks. It was the SP with some others who were the organisation that initially advocated these militant tactics in the early days of the campaign.

The thing is that the mood is continually changing and we must be flexible in our tactics. At the moment, lets face it, the jailings and the attacks by the state have had an effect upon peoples willingness to participate in the blockades. The jailings of the 7 in South Dublin have only really caused a ripple in the media and in the working class areas of Dublin. People are still without question opposed to the tax and the jailings but are not yet prepared to be active in a real way. The task for the campaing now id to harness that support in such a way as it maximises the pressure on the councils and the councillors.

by ridley Tue Nov 18, 2003 01:03

The council elections are probably not the priority right now but I think they will become important in the near future especially after Xmas. The fact is that the vast majority of councillors value their cushy number in the councils above anything else, they are essentially careerists. Councillors can be put under pressure if they think they will lose their seat. For example the Labour Party, many independents and even SF have nominal 'anti bin tax' positions because of this pressure.

In saying this the key is indeed non-payment the bin tax will ultimately be defeated by opposition in the communities through non payment, not through parties like Labour and SF. But to rule out using the council elections as a tool to express the anger of workers, to build the campaign of non payment and to put pressure on the establishment is just ultra left posturing.

by steelie Tue Nov 18, 2003 01:15

I am apparently an ultra-left posturer. Please explain to me a plausible scenario (I won't be strict) where any conceivable result in the local elections could lead to the scrapping of the bin tax?

Because, as far as I understand it, the tax is currently being imposed by the city manager, and the councillers have no influence on it whatsoever. I also understand that any council that refuses to pass a government imposed budget estimate that includes the tax will be scrapped. So please describe your scenario in which the results of the local elections will have any real meaning for the campaign.

I'm off to posture now.

by Jonah Tue Nov 18, 2003 01:43

The results in the Locals won't have any impact on the campaign but they COULD have done so had a systematic approach been taken.

To stop the Bin Charges we need political strength. There are many ways of measuring such strength but the most obvious is through elections. (Being the most obvious does not make it the most important)

The Anti-Bin Tax campaign says x number of people support it. The only proof of this that most people would accept would be a vote of something around X for anti-Bin Tax candidates, or for candidates of other parties pressurised by the campaign into signing on to an anti-Bin Tax platform.

The election of half a dozen candidates standing on an Anti-Bin Tax platform would nto, at a stroke, do away with the Tax, but it would be an extremely powerful message, a fantastic show of strength and a base the campaign could use to build on.

None of this will happen btw. From the very beginning the campaign ignored to a large degree the fight in the Council chambers and concentrated on non-payment. Now I support non-payment, but I also support a multi front approach to struggle. Fight them in every aspect.

The simple truth is that councillors, certainly on City Council anyway, were neither sytematically targetted nor lobbied. No Councillor lost his or her seatin 2002 because of the Bin Charges. At no time, no time at all, were Fianna Fail councillors scared of the campaign, and only on one or two occasions were a small minority of them vaguely nervous.

Indeed, councillors who voted for the Bin Charges got elected to Leinster House. When USI were fighting the fees, they arranged for literally thousands of emails to flood the offices of local representatives. The campaigners against Adamstown systematically targetted their representatives. The Section 481 Campaign has ensured that many TDs have been hit by literally dozens of constituents on the issue.

In all of those cases, that pressure brought Government supporters around to the other side. Enough by themselves? No. But a valuable contribution to any campaign? Absolutely.

Now, I realise some people may reply either pointing to the pickets of the City Council, or claim that in THEIR area, intensive lobbying was carried out.

While the pickets were important, they were mostly activists, not voters. Establishment parties don't fear activists. They fear the ability of activists to mobilise people. If the activists are not succeeding in this, they're not really going to be scared.

As for the intensive lobbying some might claim was carried out, I neither saw, nor heard, nor have read about any such lobbying taking place in a systematic manner. I am willing to believe people if they claim it took place because I won't call someone a liar, but having some familiarity with the campaign from the pro and anti side of it, I don't think any was done.

by Scornful Capitalist Tue Nov 18, 2003 02:55

Looks like another embarassing climbdown for the awkward squad.

I'm lovin' it!!!

by The Bell Tue Nov 18, 2003 12:05

You are probably right that this is not a good idea but as a member of the SP you perhaps reap what you sow.

Your point 1 is a good review of where the tactics are at and how they might change.

Unfortunatley your point 2 is a mere SP smokescreen. Nice turn of phrase "it has never been the policy of the campaigns or the SP to....."
If the truth be told, the SP's big problem is that it thinks it is the campaign. This is evident in its aversion to proper democracy. It is accepted that there is some form of democracy in the SP but that doesn't go as far as believing in it when involved in campaigns. Otherwise they wouldn't have secret meetings with the micro groups to win them over to strategies that they have already decided upon. And sure it gives the micros a sense of importance. Worse still the spinning against your own members who might not be perceived to be onside is most alarming.
How the 'micros' now respond as the SP disembark from the campaign to 'build the party' should be interesting.

"All through that time, other campaign activists (SP members amongst them) gave undertakings to cease for a variety of reasons from the personal to the tactical. Neither the campaigns nor the SP have ever been in any way critical of those decisions and nor should we be. I don't know if four people have recently given such undertakings by post. I do know that a forum that we should all assume is read by the police is not an appropriate place to discuss it."

More bluff. If the council have the written replies, I'm sure the police know. The difference here is that undertakings to date have been in the open. These were not. The SP knew the risk that was involved in having the professional revolutionaries in the dock and purging. It would send the wrong message to their own members, to the campaign and to the councils. That is why most of the campaign were/are unaware of this development. They thought they had a lucky break. Perhaps the 'leaders' just don't have the bottle.

"Finally the idea that Joe or Clare are regarded as "reformists" by anybody in the SP is beneath contempt."

With Jim Barbour as a candidate anything is possible.

by Sean Russell Tue Nov 18, 2003 13:01

I assume that all the post on here about 'micro groups' come from members of a certain party who are in themselves a 'micro' establishment party.
I know it's hard for these people to comprehend (freedom of thought etc...) but it's possible that the 'micro' groups actually agree with some of the tactics of the SP instead of been led by the devious SP!!
The jailing of people was never a tactic of the campaign, it was a consequence of the state being frightened by the support the campaign had. If we had backed down then the campaign would have collapsed. If the increase of a week in the last jail sentence and the fine of €1,500 per person has frightened ordinary people than obviously new tactics are required.
Unfortunately, if the campaign was defeated it would suit a lot of our 'fair-weather' supporters.

by Leonid Tue Nov 18, 2003 13:02

The SP members have simply refused to answer my question. Its quite obvious that the full timers did receive a communication from the City Council and did respond to it in a manner that kept them out of court. If its just a matter of a rational change of tactics then its not a problem so why not just say it openly and explain it instead of avoiding the question.

So once again a clear quuestion: Did the SP activists receive a legal communication from the City Council and what was their response. Straight question, just a straight answer.

by SP Member Tue Nov 18, 2003 13:39

"Its quite obvious that the full timers did receive a communication from the City Council and did respond to it in a manner that kept them out of court."

The previous post made the point that the City Council sent a communication to the SP full timers. I can tell you this is not the case. First of all they do not know who the FTers are. Second of all there is NO LEGAL BASIS for such a communication demanding a reply! As someone said before we're talking about the High Court not Reader's Digest!

This is just some bitter person that wants to stir up an argument from nowhere.

by pat c Tue Nov 18, 2003 13:41

"The micro-groups WSM, WCA, ISN "

All of these groups have played a major role in the struggle.In particular in the Cabra, North Wall/East Wall and Clonliffe/Ballybough anti bin tax groups, WCA have more influnce and support than SP and SWP combined.

by LR Tue Nov 18, 2003 14:09

More bluff from SP member.
"The previous post made the point that the City Council sent a communication to the SP full timers. I can tell you this is not the case."

How can you tell that this not the case? Just saying it is not the case, doesn't make it so. In fact eh, if I remember correctly blockader in a previous thread came on to say that the contibutor was not a troll. In effect that the story was true. SP member is just a blind loyal party person who it would seem is outside the loop. Open democratic party - I don't think so.

"First of all they do not know who the FTers are. Second of all there is NO LEGAL BASIS for such a communication demanding a reply! As someone said before we're talking about the High Court not Reader's Digest!"

It's not brain surgery. If the police got the names of them at a blockade, these would be passed onto the council for them to decide what course of action to take. It would seem that they decided to contact the SP FTers by post and requested an undertaking. Its not that complicated. The fact that two 'high ranking' members chose to send back signed undertakings is what this is about. They are full time 'revolutionaries' after all.

"This is just some bitter person that wants to stir up an argument from nowhere."

That would be a safe and simple way to view it but ultimately wrong.

by politico - none Tue Nov 18, 2003 16:39

I think people are going into their own postions here. Anarchists are always against elections and reason they are never useful. But to say joe higgins election had no effect on the water charges is simply wrong. One or two council seats may not be enough to bring in a law or get rid of one but it can scare TDs who are watching their seats. After joe nearly won the byelection it had two effects, first it showed the popular support for the campaign (and never took away from the militancy) and second scared the shit out of politicians.
And most importantly it worked!!!
But the political campaign cannot exist without the street campaign. Now I have alot of problems with the Socialist Party but they have definitely put the work in on the street. I think there should be a political campaign not by the SP but anti charges candidates while continuing the street campaign. The two suport each other.

by Joe Tue Nov 18, 2003 16:53

"Death & opportunity

When Brian Lenihan, the Fianna Fail TD for Dublin West died it became obvious that his seat would be contested and Councillor Joe Higgins was going to run for the vacant seat as a Militant Labour Candidate. Joe had always spoken strongly against the water charges and campaigned tirelessly against them. On 13th January an All Dublin Activists Meeting was held at which Joe sought the endorsement of the campaign for his candidacy in the forthcoming by-election.

Members of the WSM present at this meeting spoke strongly against this proposal. We said that we would much prefer to see the charge defeated by the working class organising on the streets to show their opposition. We believe that people have to seize back control over their own lives and this is not done by electing some official to fight your corner. Empowerment would come from defeating the combined forces of the state, the government, and the local authorities, by organising together and fighting against the imposition of this charge. Now that we were winning, we just had to keep on pushing forward with our demands to have this charge abolished. Electing Joe to sit in the Dáil to argue our case was never going to be empowering. Joe would have been ignored just as on the local council his opposition to the charge was ignored. While our arguments were well received and considered, the decision of the meeting was to endorse Joe's candidacy."

From the article at http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr3_water.html

by politico - none Tue Nov 18, 2003 17:42

never saw this before, a very good report. I believe that joe running for the campaign did help and I believe that running anti bin charge candidates would also be helpful. But I imagine the socialist party would have been in the elections even if there was no charges after all thats what political parties do. Therefore I think that other bin charge candidates should stand alongside them. Which could be picked or endorsed by the different campaigns . I don't see how it takes away from the campaign. the Sp will be running anyway. And whatever about the trolls shitstirring we've seen both leadership members and ordinary members locked up for it. i don't think they'll betray us as soon as they get a few seats (anyway they're not that stupid).
In the end elections are a good idea.

by IO Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:10

"But the political campaign cannot exist without the street campaign. Now I have alot of problems with the Socialist Party but they have definitely put the work in on the street. I think there should be a political campaign not by the SP but anti charges candidates while continuing the street campaign. The two suport each other."

Fair enough point but where the problem lies is that the SP sees itself as the campaign. They have now moved to a 'meet and greet' strategy in areas where they have not been previously been well organised. By 'meet and greet' I mean seperate SP meetings to campaign meetings, which is causing confusion.
This is going to cause problems because they don't have the sophistication to include others, even those who might have been cloest to them.
Watch this space!!!

by 888 Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:28

"WCA have more influnce and support than SP and SWP combined"

That's utter rubbish, who are you fooling pat?
The SP are far bigger than the WCA, the SP have a TD and 2 cllrs as well as having a good bit of support in areas like Tallaght and Rathfarnham. You may not like it Pat but why fool yourself?

by LR Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:33

Nothing to further to say?

by Kenneth Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:41

The Dublin West by election is a clear example of how elections can be used as tools in the campaign. The Dublin West by-election showed to the establishment that people were opposed to the water tax and were willing to reject the parties that implemented the tax. This really drove it home to the careerist politicians and was important in putting pressure on the politicians to abolish the tax. I am NOT claiming that the way to defeat the tax is through elections, this is the position of the Labour Party. Real change will only come through working class struggle. But to reject out of hand the idea of standing in elections is wrong. It is ultra left, ordianry people look toward elections (whether right or wrong) as a way of expressing their political opinion. The bin tax campaign should be there to stand candidates so as to reach these people. In doing this we can explain to anti bin tax supporters what is needed to defeat the tax and build non payment.

by Charlie Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:44

I am wondering what is the purpose of this thread?
Is it an attempt to damage the campaign?
I don't think we should be discussing internal campaign matters on a public forum like Indymedia. There are activist meetings and organising meetings where issues like this can be discussed. Did the person who started this thread intend that it would descend into a bitching session between the political groups? It probably suits the purpose of those who don't really support the campaign to highlight all this infighting. Genuine activists shouldn't get dragged into these bitching sessions.
Having said that, a lot of serious questions have been asked and need answers. I just don't think a public website is the correct forum.

by Steelie Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:51

Please explain to me a plausible scenario (I won't be strict) where any conceivable result in the local elections could lead to the scrapping of the bin tax?

Because, if you can't answer that question then any attempt to try to turn the anti-bin tax campaign into an electoral campaign would be dis-honest in the extreme. The tens of thousands of members of the campaign joined to try to defeat the tax, not to support a project of getting leftist people onto councils.

Sure, I've nothing against leftists running for a council seat and hope they do well, but unless they can provide a convincing argument as to how this will lead to the elimination of the tax, then it should be done as members of their parties, or as members of some independent electoral alliance.

A few people have claimed that a good vote for candidates who include 'against the bin tax' on their programme would let the government know how much support the campaign has. They have a full and complete list of payment which is a much more accurate and powerful way of gauging our support. 20,000 votes means that 20,000 people bothered going out to vote, taking maybe half an hour each. 20,000 non-payers means that 20,000 people are breaking the law, standing up to the state in the face of massive intimidation. Since the campaign has limited energy, and very few activists, it should clearly concentrating on defending non-payment, not garnering votes. 20,000 votes are oh so easy to ignore, 20,000 non-payers much less so.

by Kenneth Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:53

All of these arguments and discussions have been had before and have been published in the various journals and papers of the different organisations. BIn Tax meetings are public. I have no problem with defending the idea of standing in elections as a way of building the campaign on this public forum, as long as it is done in a genuine, comradely and troll free manner.

by Kenneth Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:56

STeelie, Nobody is claiming that getting x number of councillors elected will defeat the bin tax. What I am saying is that the elections can be used as a platform to give confidence to supporters of the campaign, it can build non payment and show to the establishment that people do care about the bin tax. I can't see the harm it can do to stand candidates.

by IO Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:56

"There are activist meetings and organising meetings where issues like this can be discussed."

Perhaps but only select entry to the meeting before those meetings.

by Mickey - SP (personal capacity) Tue Nov 18, 2003 20:48

I don't think that there is any suggestion that the anti-bin tax campaign should be turned into an electoral campaign, steelie.

What happened during the Water Tax campaign was that Joe Higgins' candidacy was endorsed by the campaign, but Joe stood as a Militant Labour candidate. In my view that's the way to handle electoral forays.

There are reasons why I think it is important for groups and individuals who support non-payment to stand in the elections. It can act to give campaigners a useful platform and it can also act to seriously worry the politicians, all of whom are very attached indeed to their posts. Platform and pressure, in other words.

That such a stand can be useful is obvious to me. That doesn't mean that an electoral foray should ever be seen as a substitute for non-payment (or if it ever happens for trade union action). Our real power is in the communities, not on the councils.

by Blockader Wed Nov 19, 2003 00:04

You say that the Socialist Party is now using a meet and greet tactic! Why have you used this phrase? That is the tactic argued for by the SWP and counter posed by them against the tactic of blockades which has been the Socialist Party tactic. The Socialist Party has never argued for a meet and greet tactic and still doesn't. In some areas the Socialist Party has been putting the rubbish of non-payers into the bin trucks whilst Council officials and the Gardai have been trying to stop them. This is not like what the SWP stand for i.e., passively pleading with the bin workers to collect all of the bins.
You also make a point about the Socialist Party holding public meetings in areas in their own name. The Socialist Party has always held public meetings in its own name in every campaign that it has ever been involved in, and on any major issues. The Socialist Party is a separate political party and has the right to organise what ever meetings it chooses to as does any other party or organisation. At the same time as the Socialist Party is organising its own meetings it is also working with others in the campaign to organise campaign meetings, including in areas where the campaign has been weak, these are not Socialist Party meetings as you suggest but anti-bin tax meetings. The Socialist Party has never argued for an electoral strategy to defeat the bin tax. That has been the cornerstone of the position of the SWP and other conservative elements in the campaign. The Socialist Party has consistently argued for a strategy based on building the campaign in the communities directed towards community based direct action linked to non-payment. At times the Socialist Party has had to argue this position along with other real and genuine anti-bin tax campaigners (which includes the WSM, ISN, WCA etc) against conservative elements in the campaign including the SWP. This thread is based on the proposition that there has been a change in the Socialist Party's tactics. The reality is that there has been a change in the tactics of all of the genuine forces involved in this campaign. This change has not come about by choice but has been forced upon us. The campaign has suffered a blow and a setback. The catalyst for this change was a combination of the jailing of seven people from South County Dublin for three weeks and the fines imposed on them. These jailings have had a negative impact on the campaign. This combined with the lack of any credible involvement of the trade unions and the mood of resignation that exists amongst the bin workers means that to continue to try and implement the tactic of blockades at this stage of the campaign would be counterproductive. There are many other obvious reasons why the blockades can’t just be pursued as before and for those who have been “really” active in the campaign these reasons do not need to be spelt out, and it is better that they are not spelt out in such a public environment as this website.
It is also against this background that a decision was taken by some in the campaign to try and avoid further jailings. If more campaigners had’ve been jailed following the seven from South County Dublin then it would have exasperated difficulties that the campaign is facing. More jailings would have impacted very negatively on the campaign. What had been essential in order to stand up to the intimidation of the state, and to strengthen the campaign at once stage, has now turned into its opposite and unfortunately has actually weakened the campaign. This decision was taken not as some here have suggested because of cowardice, nor because of selfish party interests or because of doubts over the political motivations of Joe Higgins or Clare Daly, but simply in the interests of the campaign. As an aside the comments made about Joe and Clare are reprehensible and a slur on two campaigners who have worked tirelessly to try and defeat the bin tax.
I have used the term real and genuine anti-bin tax campaigners. I use this to categorise those in the campaign who have attempted to build a community based campaign, as opposed to those who have played lip service to this idea. From the 10 September till now the Socialist Party and the other real campaigners have worked hard to thwart non-collection through community based direct action. Unfortunately there have been others in the campaign who have not only opposed this tactic and this work but who have at times tried to sabotage our efforts. Now that the campaign is in a new phase it is important that the real campaigners don’t become divided. We need genuine discussion on the way forward, what we don’t need is cheap jibes and attempts at the distortion of the facts. On this thread some have tried to distort what the Socialist Party is doing, this is not constructive and it is also dishonest as the accusations thrown are untrue. We need unity amongst the real campaigners based on honest debate and discussion. That is the way forward for the campaign and the best way to stop it being undermined by those who have chosen to abandon the struggle against the bin tax, i.e., those who actually did pursue a meet and greet tactic!

by Supporter - but reflective Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:31

One of the better contributions to the thread, Blockader. Having said that it is now clear that there is no realistic prospect of "community based direct action" emerging. I am unhappy with the tactics of bag throwing as all it does is piss the workers off. It is ineffective, unsafe for the workers and disrupts them from finishing their route. It does not affect management or the unions - should we be pissing workers off? While some genuine people are involved, the main group of people who are benefiting are the type of people who will support any campaign that is in their personal financial interest. Should we be seen facilitating this?

PS The workers will really be pissed off as it gets nearer Xmas for obvious reasons.

by pat c Wed Nov 19, 2003 11:25

""WCA have more influnce and support than SP and SWP combined"
That's utter rubbish, who are you fooling pat?
The SP are far bigger than the WCA, the SP have a TD and 2 cllrs as well as having a good bit of support in areas like Tallaght and Rathfarnham. You may not like it Pat but why fool yourself""

I wrote: "In particular in the Cabra, North Wall/East Wall and Clonliffe/Ballybough anti bin tax groups, WCA have more influnce and support than SP and SWP combined. "

Why did you truncate the sentence and deliberately misrepresent my opinions?

It is a fact that in these 3 areas WCA would be more influential than the SP or SWP. I was responding to the person who described WSM, ISN & WCA as Micro Groups, not making any attack on the SP.

I have been on blockades where there were: 6 WCA members and 2 SP members; 6 WSM members and 1 SP member; 6 ISN members and 2 SP members; 4 WCA members and no SP members. This just represents the balance of forces in certain areas.

by IO Wed Nov 19, 2003 12:52

How did Joe and Clare get on with the 'meet and greet' last night?

So you don't deny that 'high ranking' members did cut a deal?

by Hang on a minute Wed Nov 19, 2003 15:09

Have'nt noticed any high ranking members throwing bags into bin trucks, only the gullible and easily led.

by angry - NONE Wed Nov 19, 2003 17:41

don't try to change history, joe and clare were the first to be jailed. And they've done alot more on the campaign than hurlers on the ditch like you. (if you've ever left your computer)

by The Bell Wed Nov 19, 2003 18:04

Liam Mellows wrote:

"It may also be the result of a fear of losing control of the campaign if their fulltimers are out of the picture nor can the possibility be discounted that they may fear a reduction of their influence within the party itself and the ascendance of Clare Daly and Joe Higgins whom they distrust as potential reformists."

From which Blockader gets:

"As an aside the comments made about Joe and Clare are reprehensible and a slur on two campaigners who have worked tirelessly to try and defeat the bin tax."

The comments were not made about Joe and Clare. It was obviously made about the full timers of which Blockader is probably one. Another example of an attempted SP sleight of hand. Piss poor effort though.

by Watcher Wed Nov 19, 2003 18:59

Nice piece blockader. Now just ignore the anonymous trolls who are trying to cause trouble in the campaign.

by Blockader Thu Nov 20, 2003 01:53

"Liam Mellowes" comment was a slur on Joe and Clare as it inferred that leading members of the Socialist Party did not trust them and suspected that they might be reformists. This comment and yours reflect that you don't know Joe and Clare nor do you understand in the slightest the politics of the Socialist Party. Joe and Clare are 100% committed to the ideas and programme of the Socialist Party. They are Marxists, and leading members of the party. The idea that there maybe differences amongst the leadership of the Socialist Party is just wishful thinking.

by IO Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:26

"The idea that there maybe differences amongst the leadership of the Socialist Party is just wishful thinking...."

....now that Dermot has left.

by Leon Thu Nov 20, 2003 13:53

Aw poor Blockader must be one of the SY puppies, he's so enthusiastic he lets the cat out the bag; 'There are no (and I emphasise no) differences amongst the leaders of the SP'. None at all eh? No different opnions, no differences on any question? Just one monolithic block eh?

If its true, then the SP is exactly what its critics say it is: a cult led by Peter Taafe. If its not true then poor blockader is either delusional or just a party hack who repeats the line ad nauseum.

By the way Blockader next time you talk to Clare Daly ask her if she has any differences with Steve Boyd.

by Blockader Thu Nov 20, 2003 19:27

I was attempting to raise important political issues regarding the anti-bin tax campaign in my first posting. However it seems that some contributors are just not interested or maybe capable of discussing the issues that I have raised. So I would suggest if you don't have a serious contribution to a discussion on the way forward for the anti-bin tax campaign that you would stop taking up space with ridiculous jibes and silly questions.
I am not a member of Socialist Youth and I know that Stephen Boyd and Clare Daly do not have any "differences" as one of you has raised, and I do know that there are no major differences or divisions amongst the leadership of the Socialist Party.
By Blockader A.K.A. Stephen Boyd

by binned Thu Nov 20, 2003 20:07

just having a think on the bintax thing again.

would a comprimise approach be to ask the government to allow people offset the amount they pay in bin-charges from the amount they pay in general taxation. at least then people may make a direct link between what they pay and what happens with the money.

by LR Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:27

Did the council send you back a confirmation slip?

by Genuine Activist Fri Nov 21, 2003 13:41

You are very sly. Do you think Steven's jailing would provoke a mass response at this juncture? What is your strategy for the campaign LR?

by Realist - Planet Earth Fri Nov 21, 2003 14:24

Surely it can only be an exit strategy.

by LR Fri Nov 21, 2003 16:14

"You are very sly. Do you think Steven's jailing would provoke a mass response at this juncture? What is your strategy for the campaign LR?"

Did the jailing of the last seven people provoke a mass response?

It just strikes me that there is a different code in the SP for FTers who are not up for election.

The grunts can do the porridge but the generals must stay out.

The question for SP member - do you know whether they got that subsciption for the Readers Digest.

by Genuine Arsonist Fri Nov 21, 2003 16:51

Of course there would be a mass response to Steven's jailing. There'd be a bleeding huge party, with half the SP celebratin the incarceration of Son of Hadden. But the demo to protest against his release would be even bigger.

by Genuine Activist Fri Nov 21, 2003 17:12

Just answered my question. It is precisely the lack of a responce to the previous jailings of the the South Dublin activists compared to the earlier jailings that poses the need for a review.

You forget that among the 11 people from the Blanch blocade who were due to be jailed the week after Clare and Joe and were let off on a technicality included two SP full timers MW and AL so your division between full timers and non full timers is a wrong one. Joe H has effectively been a full timer since 1977! Mick B in Cork is also full timer who has served jail time for Bin Tax activity.

Members of WCA were also involved in the correspondance with the Corpo so the picture you are painting of double standards is an unfair one.

So come on let's have a proper discussion about how to take the campaign forward. Bring any genuine doubts you have about the role of the SP to the All Bin Tax conference.

by Statto Fri Nov 21, 2003 18:19

MW and AL are hardly 'generals' no matter what they might think.

Joe H - candidate Mick B - candidate

"Members of WCA were also involved in the correspondance with the Corpo so the picture you are painting of double standards is an unfair one."

Bit rich SP posters coming on here and claiming that this is not the proper forum for discussion (which I'm inclined to agree with) and then give info like this out.

by Genuine Activist Fri Nov 21, 2003 18:33

It's only ok to discuss or make insinuations about the legal situation of SP members. Very little is given away by my remarks in any case.

So Statto and LR do you reckon the campaign would have advanced if all the people you are refering to including WCA got banged up given the points we agree on re the lack of responce to the previous jailings in South Dublin?

Try forgetting you personal antipathy to Steven for a few minutes and address the issues in a serious fashion if that's not asking too much.

by Statto Fri Nov 21, 2003 18:40

I just happened to be following the thread and made some observations. I don't have any personal antipathy towards Stephen. I've never spoken to the fellow. I don't agree with the way LR or others have come on here and dished dirt but don't see much difference in the way you have attempted to spread that to show that it was not just the SP involved.

by Genuine Activist Fri Nov 21, 2003 18:46

I support the decision made by the members of SP and WCA. The import of LR's line of argument is that they made the wrong decision and that it was borne of a double standard approach by the SP full timers. According as the discussion developed his problem narrowed down to leading SP full timers who aren't election candidates ie Steven.
LR has stubbornly refused to engage in a serious discussion about strategy for the campaign. Statto you aren't fairing much better on this score either I'm afraid.

by Grouplet Watch Fri Nov 21, 2003 19:25

Its obvious that LR and IO are Paul Maloney and Colm Breathnach of the ISN, or one other of that quartet.

by jim travers Sun Nov 23, 2003 16:38 jimtravers at eircom dot net 4571672

Waste….. Whose problem is it?



Jim Travers

tel:01-4571672

email jimtravers@eircom.net

Can you publish this?


Waste be it concrete, metal, plastics or even our everyday household rubbish, has become a hot potato for our overworked government ministers. The main reason for this is because, any minister who is directly or indirectly involved in a business or has business associates in any form will be directly involved in their obligations to environmentally disposal or recycles the products they produce. In the past, we were all prepared to place our commercial or household waste outside our businesses or homes in the hope that if the bag raiders did not get your throw outs then the local authorities will to do the mopping up. The very thought of having to go to a waste disposal facility and deposit something that you have no further use for was viewed as just a complete waste of time and effort. Sure, why not leave it for the itinerants to take it from your door or just wait until its dark when you think Joe and Mary next door has long gone to bed before you can haul the old rubbish out the door and dump it on some unfortunates doorstep or back lane. This sort of mental thinking went on for years with the full support and backing of government ministers who believed that by placing glossy television advertisements encouraging us to deposit our rubbish in litter bins scattered throughout the city and suburbs than we would suddenly become litter conscious. The use of wheelie bins for the storage and disposal of waste was for a long time being used in European countries and America while Ireland’s politicians sat back blindly in hope that nobody would expose the problem. Oh dirty Dublin was really dirty Dublin in them good old days. The days when you could cross the road without having to book an ambulance, just in case you happened to be creamed by a taxi driver who thought reversing up Dame Street was the easiest was of securing a fare. When someone spoke about the environment in those days what they really meant was the countryside. Ah yes the countryside, a place where man is in close harmony with nature and the land. A place where one could step out of the big smoke beyond the Poitin Still and find one’s self up to his knees in the beauty of nature and the environment.



So what has made us more environmentally conscious now, considering that there was times when nobody gave a hoot and you could not walk into the city without being choked by car and chimney fumes or industries that pumped toxic fumes into the atmosphere as if it was an unlimited skybound rubbish tip. As you made your way across that road in the thick of the smog and carefully manoeuvred around heaps of chip bags and ice pop sticks to witness the lads in the corporation discussing on a corner which six would hold the brush and who would push the cart. Mary Harney’s smokeless fuel legislation was an outward and progressive policy even if it meant that the poor so and so’s who could barely afford to keep themselves warm with what they had, were now obliged to purchase a fuel that had to be heaped onto the fire to get any form of heat return and was also more expensive to purchase.

So what obliges us now to be environmentally conscious, apart from the logical understanding in the value of protecting our environment. The answer is money.

You see Mary Harney got it right but failed to say that in order to clean up the mess that successive government ministers had allowed to escalate into disaster, we as consumers had to pay for the privilege. As consumers we are now being asked to become more environmentally conscious because instead of the consumer being told to pay for the mess, the EU in all its splendour introduced Directives on environmental disposal based on the "polluter pays principal" which means the manufacturer and not the consumer is responsible for the waste.




In the Dublin Waste Case the use by the Judge of the "polluter pays principal" to impose personal liability on the directors (where the Act only allows for criminal offences) is a very significant extension of the existing powers to prosecute directors ect personally for criminal offences under various environmental and other statutes.

What is now happening is that the consumer is being asked to pay for the disposal of a range of products that are clearly defined under the Directive’s as being with the "polluter pays principal" and that is the manufacturer. So long as the government drags its heels in enforcing Directives the more likely it will become, that the public will be coerced into paying for the recycling and disposal of manufacturers waste products.



The introduction of the plastic bag tax was not introduced as a method of reducing the problem of plastic bags (although the tax worked) purely because if you were prepared to purchase these bags then you were allowed to damage the environment. Under the EU Directive the manufacturer was responsible for the disposal/ recycling of these bags and therefore the consumer should not have had to pay for this process. The manufacturer could have included a hidden cost to the retailer for the purpose of disposal/recycling but in reality this cost would eventually in time be lost to competition between manufacturers of the product.

This in turn and under the EU Directive would have forced manufacturers to produce biodegradable bags and be competitive in the sale of these bags to the retail sector. They could also have included a return charge, which would have prompted the establishment of small to medium size home based recovery businesses or community funding recovery projects. Instead the government jumped on the bandwagon and introduced a bag tax, which we very well know will not go towards the support of any environmental initiatives other than the granting to established businesses profiteering funds.


What we now see is a whole range of environmental companies with

initiatives based on the principal of " if you want to get rid of it they you have to pay for it" which is completely negative to the principals of EU Environmental Directives. This is why both government and a considerable number of companies here in Ireland are stalling with compliance of these Directives in order to create a public climate of "we as individuals have to pay for our waste". As in the past, Ireland will once again be threatened with the European Court for non compliance of EU Directives, these delays will allow the government time to introduce a range of taxes in the form of environmental initiatives in order to cushion the cost to industry.



If we take for example our general household rubbish bin and analyse the contents for recycling/ disposal we find that the cardboard packaging, bottling and plastic contents, are covered by the EU Directive and the "polluter pays principal". What are left are organic materials that in reality can be made into compost or will decay safely in landfill.

On behalf of manufacturers, Repak is supposed to look after the end destruction or recycling of these products but based on Irish companies willingness to comply voluntarily with EU Directives, time, will allow government ministers to act while at the same time appear to be complying with the EU Directives. So where does the charge come in for the collection of our waste, especially if the local authorities are telling us that the charge is not for the collection?

of the waste but for its disposal. If our local authorities are bogged down in fighting a court case on the validity of their charges then why have they not properly explained to both consumers and the anti bin charge movements exactly were this justification is coming from?

In a South Dublin County Councils newsletter with the heading "Household Waste recycling to Increase from 10% to 60%" dated June 2002 the council stated:

"Under the plan all 75,000 households in the South Dublin County Council area are to receive three wheeled bins which will enable users to segregate waste for recycling. To fund this enhanced service, the council has introduced an annual waste charge of Euro190. The County manager Mr Joe Horan said the move is in line with that already taken by other local authorities in Dublin and across the country, to adopt the EU "polluter pays" policy to waste management and increase the level of recycling."

This in reality is incorrect because both the manager and the whole organisation of alleged county councillors are incorrect with the interpretations of the " polluter pays principal". This leads back to my analogy of Dail Eireann members as being a load of "twits". Now our councillors are in the same boat.

This was also the case when a colleague and I were called to a meeting with the Society for the Irish Motor Industry towards the end of 1999 to explain our research into environmental disposal of motor vehicles. After nearly two hours of explanations and examples of the "polluter pays principal" the penny suddenly dropped and the room went into a state of awe. Now I would have thought that a representative body like the SIMI who got a number of proposals to government wrong on previous occasions, would have learned by their mistakes and fully investigated this proposal for a Directive at that time. Now, in the year 2003 there is no credible move towards proper and acceptable environmental disposal of motor vehicles in accordance with the EU Directive. The laughable part of this continued saga is that the Directive is based on the "polluter pays principal". This is why Ford, Rover, Nissan and a number of motor manufacturers have got together in order to develop a system that will comply with this Directive because they know that the polluter pays principal means "them"

The Irish motor industry (once again relying on outside to solve their problems) in all its efforts is trying to include a charge when you buy a new vehicle for the environmental disposal of that vehicle. This charge will, in time, be forgotten and lost through price competition at the time of sale. So, in the case of our local authorities, if I put my old Nissan Micra in my wheelie bin (not to difficult) I am then obliged to pay for its disposal………I don’t think so.


Diredtive94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste requires Ireland to achieve a 25% recovery rate by 2001, increasing to 50% by the end of 2005."Recovery" means energy recovery or recycling. In the absence of energy recovery capacity, Ireland is significantly disadvantaged in terms of meeting the specific recovery targets compared to other EU states and is primarily dependant on recycling to achieve the targets. The Directive is based in the "polluter pays principal". Producer responsibility is a fundamental element of this principal, whereby producers (manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers) –as the effective generators of waste –are required to take responsibility and contribute towards the waste management cost at the end of life of products which they have placed on the market.

The Waste Framework Directive lays down basic obligations for member states when it comes to dealing with waste. The government and business is trying to re- interpret these Directives in order to give themselves more time (before judicial compliance) in order to oblige consumers to believe they are responsible for this waste.

In the case of the illegal dumping of clinical waste in a number of unapproved sites around the country, it must be said that the people who approved the dumping of this waste either by sheer unprofessional acts of silence or total negligence, are not the ordinary everyday people who we are told need to be informed and educated on environmental matters. The ordinary citizen who genuinely wants to environmentally dispose of an appliance in the interest of both the environment and his children’s future is forced to continuously consult the yellow pages in an effort to secure someone who will honestly and truthfully environmentally dispose of the appliance at a price that enables him or her to act as a concerned individual. But the price is not the argument; the argument is that the manufacturer and not the consumer are obliged to pay for the disposal. How the manufacturer goes about paying for this disposal is his own business, but one thing is for certain, the consumer should not.

The public’s contribution to environmental disposal should be looked upon as their efforts to assist the manufacturers through the separation of their products and the collect of the waste products by the local authorities. The public are constantly being asked by their local authorities for their assistance in promoting environmental awareness by storing and using waste bins but are then hit with a charge for using this un-asked for service. After all will South Dublin County Council or Dublin City Council allow you to park your car on their property without paying for the pleasure? I think not. But yet they ask you to store unsightly smelly bins that you never requested on your property for nothing. Councils please, business is business. There is a simple way to show your disapproval to a system of penalising the consumer and that is by not paying the refuse collection charges. Those who have already paid should refuse to use any other bin for disposal purposes other than the general refuse bin.

Environmental disposal is big business and it is with this in mind that everything is based around convincing the general public that it is their duty to pay for environmental damages in the protection of business. The uncovering of the illegal disposal of clinical waste is not something that has suddenly come to the attention of the authorities as if there were moments in time when the nation fell asleep and the Garda mistook a lorry full of needles as a tractor pulling a cart full of bulls around for their evening ramble. This my friend’s was big business at a time when you could charge the earth for disposal and blame the travelling community for desecrating our land.



But you see now it’s a time of EU Directives and the withholding of EU grants and subsidies due to non-compliance with EU laws. Government and business cannot sweep everything under the carpet and pretend it does not exist because dirty washing is now required to be cleaned and hung out to dry. Despite our political leaders constantly waffling to us about the importance of Ireland and the skills of its workforce, Ireland is a two-bit country with little or no political clout other than a voting number for the big boys. With regards to the ability of its workforce, oh yes Ireland has a good workforce but so has China, England, Wales, Malta, Korea and need I go on. The reason that Ireland is so attractive to big business is

because Ireland pays big business to employ its workforce. If Ireland had nothing to give to big business then Ireland would become a third world country at the flick of a switch. So where do I go from here, well if Ireland does not take the initiative and develop its own environmental recycling and disposal systems then nobody else will help unless we pay them handsomely for our inability’s.



Take another example, the EU Directive on End of Life Vehicles, this Directive makes manufacturers responsible for the environmental disposal of motor vehicles. There has been a proposal for the environmental disposal of motor vehicles submitted to the Department of the Environment and Irish motor importer distributors by an Irish company nearly five years ago. This proposal would enable both government and manufacturers the opportunity to establish approved disposal facilities for the recycling and disposal of motor vehicles in compliance with the Directive. It would remove the constant problem of abandoned cars and company cars, which in turn would save lives and clean up our environment. To date both the Department or the representative body (SIMI) of the Irish motor industry has not as much as sought a meeting in order to further this proposal. Why? Because owners of old vehicles are being asked to pay for the removal and alleged environmental disposal of these vehicles at a cost. Despite years of talking and discussion nobody has come up with a strategy for the disposal/recycling of these vehicles in accordance with the Directive and other associative Directives.

We are being asked to pay for a whole range of products from TVs to washing machines and three-piece suite. The Directive enables us to call the retailer where we purchased the product and request they take it back for recycling or disposal. The cost for this recycling/ disposal facility is paid for by the manufacturer as set out in the Directive. So, in theory if you purchase a pizza you can ask the retailer to collect the packet it came in when you are finished with it. If you bring the packaging back to the retailer you are doing him a favour and helping to protect our environment. This can also be said in the case where a fast food chain was taken to court by a local authority for littering a pavement with a hamburger box. The food chain argued that they had no control over the individual throwing the box on the pavement but lost the case because the court found that the food chain sold the individual the hamburger and provided the box as a means of carrying the burger. The food chain lost its case.

We cannot be completely negative about the successes of the EPA and other interested bodies. Their work and dedicated efforts has most certainly improved our environment but we must question to who did it costs. There are numerous projects that are publicly financed and constructed or operated by the private sector only to find that when the projects do not make money they are then thrown into the public lap until the day comes when it is right for a take-over. The Luas is both a financial and environmental disaster that the Minister Brennan has indirectly agreed with other people’s analysis. On his visit to the Red Cow roundabout Naas Road, he could not believe the traffic congestion that was taking place. No wonder the Irish Medical Organisation is calling for tachometers to be fitted in ministerial cars because if Minister Brennan has never seen this then speed restraint must not be his problem. What started as an Euro288 million project is now set to topple Euro700 million and rising. The damage to the environment around will be with us for years to come, combined with the total inconvenience caused by traffic delays and disruption of communities. Exhaust pollution will increase due to continue and prolonged traffic congestion. Passengers aligning the trams at the end of their journey especially on the Naas Road will be subject to traffic passing either side of the platform.

Elderly people will find it difficult to walk safely from point a to b. There will be an increased tail back of traffic on road that would normally be used to relieve congestion due to the frequency of trams passing given points. The security of track and the safety of children in nearby housing estates will be a major concern. The example of this is the stretch of railway line at the bottom of Ballyfermot when in the past children were injured or killed playing on the tracks. If the motorist are forced to use public transport on mass then the profits from the transport system will go to private interests and not in the public interest. The motor industry will go into decline, jobs will be lost and the state returns on fuel, road and service taxes will decline.



Luas was an ill-conceived badly researched project that was promoted by politicians with not a hint of environmental, social or engineering skills. Its success will be dearly paid for and subsidised, in order to prove a point and save blushes.We have built a fortified fence around the city that will strangle the life out of the city and condemn it to those who can afford to live within its expensive walls. God forgive me for saying, " Hitler did not do us any favours when he bombed Dublin in the Second World War." For if he had done this (and I mean no disrespect to anybody that was killed or injured) we might now have a city with a road infrastructure that was made for improved development and not rejuggling. The original construction proposals for the Red Cow roundabout was for a three lane roundabout but was scuttled again by interference for a two lane roundabout. Because motorist thought they were on the track in Mondello the big boys decided to make the Newlands Cross stretch from a

three lane to a two lane to a bottle neck one lane. This in turn caused tailbacks as far as Rathcoole. When they got over this problem by widening the roundabout (now don’t forget the original proposal) and creating side slip roads the roundabout was just about coming right when O’Rourkey baby came up with another idea. Lets come up with a project that would cost millions and once started would be impossible to stop. And let us appoint a rail server whose track record is as shaky as the track it once operated. And let us give it to CONNEX and sure if they fail then we can take it back into public ownership, after 10 years blame those who have died, set up a tribunal and waste more millions and then tell the public not to be supporting hair brained ideas in the future.

Now enter Luas …………ah let’s forget about the rest.



What has all this to do with our environment? Well quite a lot. You see ill thought out concepts and projects cause environmental damage that the public has to pick up in environmental financial costs. This in turn deprives other service like hospital admissions and operations to be delayed or cancelled. It causes under funding for our education system and stifles the progress of other public transport projects. It causes governments to raise taxes to fund services or at worse borrow to meet our everyday needs. It basically put our economy into a state of decline that in turn causes unemployment. With a total population of just over 4,000,000 people, this can be broken down into six categories


The young (school going ect)
Second and Third level students
Employers
Workers
Social welfare recipients
The Elderly
There is a huge responsibility being placed on the third and fourth categories who are being asked through all forms of taxes to support the system. Employers never seem to grasp exactly what in time this means to their businesses through wage increases and other operating costs. Their belief that the cost of a project like Luas will eventually enhance their business through the movement of people from one place to another rapidly, is ill founded. In all its efforts government will try and justify the need to borrow in order to portray a sense of continued economic health leading up to another election. The opposition in all its splendour will silently go along with this plan for after all who wants to take over a declining and troubled economy with the future problems of taking the wrath of disapproval from the electorate at its decline, while the opposition sits back and reminisces on the good old days when they helped with the birth of the tiger. We seem to always try and compare Dublin to London, Milan, New York or any other country that has for decades been on the map of places to be. But let us not forget the people of Cork, Limerick,Galway, Clare or anywhere else outside of the country called Dubin with its satellite countries around it. It is the people outside Dublin who are being forced through their taxes to pay for a system that is reckoned to accommodate 20,000,000 passenger fares and not 20,000,000 different people in a year.

Politicians of all political parties are responsible for the true state of our country and should be held accountable for this. For so long as Dail Eireann operates with a membership akin to a superpower and a belief that their sole role is to manage the country like an amusement park while at the same time bleed it dry, then nothing in the future will change.

.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN (personal capacity) Mon Nov 24, 2003 13:11 breathc at hotmail dot com

It is a great pity that people make anonymous accusations on indymedia, designed to sow sectarianism and undermine activists of all and no affiliation. While it is probably unwise to respond to such cowardly attacks, since I have been named in such an attack by 'Grouplet Watch', I feel I have no option but to respond.

Neither I nor Paul nor any member of the ISN are LR, IO or any other anonymous poster on the recent threads relating to the Bin Tax. ISN members have played a small but extremely active role in this campaign and have cooperated closely and effectively with a number of other left organisations during the campaign. The aim of most of those posting seems to be to sow discord amongst the groups involved rather than advance the campaign.

On a political level, I am of the view that this sudden attack on the ISN is an attempt to cause difficulties for the Finglas Anti Bin Tax campaign. The Finglas campaign has been remarkably successful, partly because of the degree of cooperation between ISN, Socialist Party and grassroots members of SF in the area. It now seems that someone is trying to disrupt this by rumour mongering.

There has also been a bit of spinning going on in the last week or so against the ISN, designed to create division between us and other groups and individuals on the left. I suspect that this is coming from someone with an individual grudge and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

As to the person calling himself or herself 'Grouplet Watch' why don't you post your false allegations under your real name? Perhaps then we would be in a position to judge your credibility as opposed to activists such as myself and other members of the ISN, SP, WCA etc. who have a proven record of struggle in the Anti-Bin Tax campaign, including in my own case and that of John O Neill also of the ISN, a two week jail sentence. Failing that, you can contact me at the above email address, this time without the cloak of cowardly anonymity.

by Left Republican Mon Nov 24, 2003 18:48

Bad luck Grouplet Watch, Genuine Activist and Blockader all of which I assume are the same person. And it was Blockader who offered up his real name. So there was nothing sly in what I said. Now, after slandering your WCA dupes, you have a go at your ISN puppets. By the time you are finished there will be no mini sects left to do your bidding. But then thats what they deserve for doing their masters bidding.

I would have assumed you would have put two and two together and copped that I am aka Left Republican. That's how I entered this debate on another thread. You see LR short for Left Republican. Sorry if it was too complicated for you.

Anyway after a lot of 'you don't know what you are talking about', 'he's a troll' and some nonsense about the Readers Digest it would seem that I touched a nerve. So bad in fact that others are getting caught in your scattergun defence.

Just one final question if the tactics were correct, please tell me why you deemed it alright to allow people in their fifties, sixties and seventies to go through the public harrowing ordeal of giving undertakings to the court yet you deemed it fit to keep your undertakings secret. Surely there was some political mileage to be made from showing that the council wanted to avoid court cases. Or was it that you decided that it might make you full timers look weak and so better to let as few people know as possible?

by Genuine Activist Mon Nov 24, 2003 19:05

Because I ain't Steven. You show a disrespect to all the groups involved in the campaign and have yourself singularly failed to make a contribution to the debate about which way forward for the campaign. You haven't really engaged with any of the points I raised in trying to interpret events. In other words you are a troll.

by Stephen Boyd - Socialist Party Wed Nov 26, 2003 02:35

Just saw your latest diatribe. I agree with Genuine Activist you are just a troll and a shit stirrer. Nothing that has happened in relation to Dublin City Council is a secret. I could explain exactly what took place but to do so in such a public forum would only give the Council information that may assist them. Anybody who wants to know what happened can contact me, the number is in the phone book.
I have not attacked the WCA or the ISN, so your remarks are off the wall apart from the fact that they are completely condescending towards the people involved in those organisations non of whom are dupes for anyone.
I won't hold my breath waiting for your analysis of the bin tax campaign so far or your proposals for how it should move forward as that would involve you trying to make a positive contribution which you seem to be incapable of doing.