The Boyd Done Good

by righteous pragmatist Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:45

The Fianna Fail member of the panel turned to him and said he had to drag a condemnation of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship out of him after Boyd Barrett ranted for several minutes about the "unjustifiable" American liberation of Iraq from Saddam's tyrannical regime.

Boyd Barrett was shown up for what he is.
An opportunist with an agenda.
He doesn't care about Iraq or the Iraqi people or about teenage drinking on O' Connell Street or the postal workers or any other of the issues they discussed on the panel show Questions & Answers.
He thinks he can just parrot the same tired old Left wing Anti-war Green Marxist claptrap and think people are going to swallow it.

The march in Dublin at the weekend was nothing short of a catastrophe.
In February of 2003, 120000 people marched against the Iraq War.
On Saturaday only maybe 2000 or 3000.

Talk about the bottom falling out of the ocean!

by Euro voter Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:54

I think he did very well considering how Bowman selected pro-war contributors in the audience. I'm not his greatest fan either and certainly not of his party but that said I truly believe that he should run in the Euro elections on an anti-war platform. He is certainly well known as the leading figure in the movement.

by anon Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:56

Like most contributors to this site, I loathe and despise everything the SWP stands for. Yet I have to say RBB more than held his own in a fairly intimidating situation, and put forward the anti war case as well as anybody possibly could.

I suppose its indicative that the issue is not going to go away. Saturdays demo was fairly good as well, can t wait for Dubya.

by David Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:30

Sean flemming accused rich boy of having never spoken out against Saddam because that was his 'secret weapon' and then when RBB said that he and others had condenmed Saddam ever since the very beginning and then Sean Flemming basically put his hands over his ears and went "lalala i can't hear you, you never condenmed saddam..."
that one moment really annoyed me.

And yer one with the huge hair (whoever she was) didnt say a single word of sense in the whole show even though she never stopped talking

by non-aligned Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:43

I would also like to add my praise for RBB as a spokesperson. I can think of many great speakers that Id put before him but I commend him for his approach and for the fact he puts himself in the spotlight - unlike many of his peers.

by Clippy Tue Mar 23, 2004 13:01

Your waiting years for RBB/SWP to condemn terrorist acts and then lo and behold you get two condemnations on the one show.
Must be an election coming up!

by Pleased Tue Mar 23, 2004 13:45

'righteous pragmatist' is on many other threads as is only a sore bastard; never a good word to say- only complaining.
Again, I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Boyd Barrett or the Socialist Workers Party but I have to say thought he did really really well last night- fiar play and well done!
Bring on June and Bush

by babybromley Tue Mar 23, 2004 13:53

Anybody who suggests that Fianna Fail representatives are genuinely motivated by a desire to condemn Saddam Hussein is seriously wide of the mark. That particular dictator makes only the barest of impressions on their concsiousness. The bottom line is that the government supports (in a mealy mouthed and dishonest way) the occupation of Iraq because they claim that it is in our economic interest to row in behind the US, regardless of the consequences for other populations. As long as Ireland can squeeze a comparative advantage, however miniscule, the line of greatest convenience will be pursued. Self-interest and pragmatism (and certainly not the righteous kind) created this war. Ireland stands for nothing more than the desire to suck off the powerful. That has always been our consistent position, and pragmatism has always been our guiding moral principle. Pathetic isn't it!

by Anonymous Tue Mar 23, 2004 14:17

Thought he did very well indeed. Vital that the anti-war movement is presented in a coherent, strong manner as this - whoever it is doing the presenting. Very professional.

I noticed though he side stepped the issue of socio-economic inequality being related to violence on the streets. I guessed he would do this though he did mention the word social reasons on at least one occasion.

Alcohol affects every single strata of society. And so much more must be done to tackle it. I also noticed he didn't take up on capitalist reasons why more is not being done to tackle it. Eg. Advertising. Which I believe, as with cigarettes, there should be a blanket ban on in the morning.

However I believe there is a deeper cause underneath alcohol that is largely being ignored by the media and, conveniently, by the politicians. This is the issue of social & economic inequality, disadvantage and depredation. An inequality in opportunities in life, education etc. etc. Though as said, alcohol affects all strata of society, Brian Murphy being the obvious current example, I feel, on average, far more threatened by the disadvantaged than by the middle classes on the streets of our cities.

On the flip side of this there is another factor emanating from capitalism that has a bigger affect on the middle classes - i.e. the whole rat race of capitalism. The pressure that is put on kids do well in the education system, the very subjects they are taught - all geared towards commerce & industry to the total neglect of subjects on "life" - the pressure for points and college places etc. etc. And then once in the work place the pressure to achieve and the societal emphasis placed on money. The ruthless pressure from managers who they themselves are under much pressure to succeed. The long hours people are working - etc. etc. - Surely these must also be influencing factors why people are drinking so much.

But these two underlying causes are nearly totally ignored by the media & politicians alike. Hardly a surprise - 2 guesses as to which political ideologies both are biased towards.

Rather the cry is for the usual easy option, quick fix, scapegoat response - MORE POLICE! MORE POLICE! - While of course, very important and totally inadequate at present, will certainly not solve the problem on its own.

by xax Tue Mar 23, 2004 15:22

//I noticed though he side stepped the issue of socio-economic inequality being related to violence on the streets//

socio-economic inequality would never explain the black bloc - nor the swp

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Tue Mar 23, 2004 17:42

>but I commend him for his approach and >for the fact he puts himself in the spotlight

I'm not sure this is always something to be commended - surely we've had a WEE bit too much of the cult of personality
in left wing politics.

That said I think he is getting a lot better at dealing with the media and fair play was good the tiny bit of it
I saw.

Conor

by memyselfandi Tue Mar 23, 2004 21:58

it's not an easy thing to put yourself in the spotlight but hen again politicians need to it's a necessary evil in the game,
but having said tha the bit i saw of the programme (the ? on Iraq etc.), I thought the Boyd did do quite well, but I also think we as activists politrickers underestimate the viewers listeners etc I think an oppertunity like that should be used to urge people to get involved etc, like getting down to Shannon, using their vote., Anyone watching Q and A have heard the arguments a million times at this stage your now hardly still confused over the pro war, anti-war issue, the lies that are still being circulated bty the pro heads should just be ignored and air-time used to convince joe bloggs he can make a differnce!!

by observer Wed Mar 24, 2004 04:43

I am no fan of SWP or trotskyism in genral but hats off to Boyd Barrett for his Q n A appearanc. Espcially in comparison to that creature Fleming.

by John Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:32

While Richard Boyd is fairly good perfomer, don't believe he dealt well with the audience.

Tony Allwright ( i thik it was him, he's a regular contributor to the Irish Times) but three points to RBB.

1) His figure of 10,000 plus innocent Iraqi civilians being dead was inaccurate, The acutal figure, according to the Guardian which is the IAWM source on their website claimed possibly 5-10,000.

No response to this by RBB

2) Allwright made the point that everyone thought that Iraq had WMD, even Hans Blix and the UN, and that it was the premise of Resolution 1441 that Iraq had to prove it didn't have WMD.

RBB responded by saying that Scott Ritter and some othe Un figure thought Iraq didn't have WMD.

3) Allwright rubbished RBB's claim that the US Security Service had immunity during their stay in Ireland.

RBB didn't repond.

RBB scored points off Fleming, but anyone could that. The Panel was piss poor, with no one there actively supporting the war, allowing RBB a free run on the panel.