Local election candidates offer a Socialist alternative

by . Thu Apr 21, 2005 22:36

ggod luck to the socialist candidates in the election. It will be tight getting a vote out but keep the red flag flying.

by Observer Fri Apr 22, 2005 09:51

And there was me thinking that McCann and other socialists were running.
Oh I forgot, you are not a socialist unless you are the proud owner of a CWI franchise.

by SP Member Fri Apr 22, 2005 13:36

The above statement outlines the fact that the SP is running 4 candidates in the local elections next month. Where does it say that these are the only socialist candidates running in the election?

by McCann watch Fri Apr 22, 2005 14:55

SWP's McCann is running in a rural seat so that he does not win or come close to winning a seat. I'm sure if the SEA ran outside Derry the SWP's pandering to SF and their "revolutionary army" would not go down well with working class protestents.

by ? Fri Apr 22, 2005 17:05

why not mention the other candidates

by ?? Fri Apr 22, 2005 19:59

mention them yourself!

Why are people always on here complaining that other people dont post info. Do it yourself you lazy git!

by Swatcher Fri Apr 22, 2005 21:30

Derry City Council
Waterside Rural and Foyle: Eammon McCann
Northland: Colm Bryce & Oisín Kehoe
Cityside: Liam Friel
Waterside: David McAuley


Despite much talk recently of the left republican SEA/SWP building and becoming a province wide organisation that would stand a large slate of candidates the SEA/SWP will stand in just 4 wards all of these in Derry. Obviously the northern SWP are apeing the tactics of their comrades in the South and Britain by just concentrating in one city. In Britain the SWP barely exist outside London and in the South they barely exist outside Duhblin.

Bizarrely they are standing 2 candidates in Northland, this is obviously the result of manoeverings and attempted shaftings in the SWP as they have no chance of taking a seat. As someone mentioned earlier McCann is standing in the rural ward. This is obviously because he doesn't want to be elected. I can't see how any voter in Derry can take the SEA/SWP seriously on that basis, why vote for a party that doesn't want to even win a seat and seriously build an alternative? Mc Cann will also stand in the Westminster elections, but of course he wont win there so that's ok.

by andre Fri Apr 22, 2005 21:41

As this post shows the Socialist Party has withdrawn into isolationism, refusing to work with or even acknowledge the existence of others on the left. This contrasts strongly with the opening of the mid-late nineties when the party tried to build a broad alliance with other left forces rooted in the working class, including Seamus Healy's group in Tipperary and other independents (I think it was called the Taxation Justice Campaign). Even later they were prepared to work with other left organisations in Dublin via the Anti Bin Tax campaign.

The inward turn is not a solely an Irish phnenomena, but originates in events that occured in the CWI, the international organisation of which the SP is a section. After they were ejected from the Labour Party in Britain, and parting company with founder and chief ideologist Ted Grant, there was something of an opening in the Militant (British section) organisation and its international offshoots. Differences were tolerated and real debate occured. However the limits of this opening were reached by the start of the new century. Shaken by the expulsion/defection/collapse of the Scottish, Pakistani, South African and American sections, the leadership regrouped and the organisation closed in again. At an international level the organisations ideologue and effective leader, Peter Taffe, strenghthened his absolute control. While there are tensions in the CWI, especially between those vying to succeed Taafe when he passes on, namely Ireland's Peter Hadden and England's Lynn Walsh, no one dares challenge Taafe, his word is holy writ. This all had serious implications for the Irish section (SP), which is cherished by Taafe and the CWI as their most sucessful section, mainly because of Joe Higgins election to the Dail.

The retrenchment in the Irish SP has taken the form of an ideological stranglehold by Peter Hadden, an intelligent but pedantic dogmatist that epitomises the worst of sectarian left politics. Organisationally the party is in the grip of General Secretary, Kevin Mac Loughlin and to a lesser extent Haddens eccentric understudy Stephen Boyd, who edits the dull and repetetive party newspaper. Though Joe Higgins is the public face of the party, he certainly isnt the real leader and has never played any significant role in the internal workings of the party. Clare Daly on the other hand carefully guards her North Dublin fiefdom in a no nonsense manner, having little time for the dogmatism of the inner core but unwilling to confront them as long as she is left to do her own thing in Swords. Another fallout of the retrenchement has been the squeezing out of former General Secretary Dermot Connolly who had begun to question some aspects of the party's strategy and also of Joan Collins, now an independent councillor on Dublin City Council.

What distinguished the SP/Militant in the past and still does to an extent today, was their involvement in campaigns that were related to the bread and butter issues that effect the working class here and now, in marked contrast to the usual disdain of the far left for these 'reformist' issues. The success of this orientation is shown by the recent efforts of the SWP to emulate the SP by involvement in various broad campaigns on such issues and their new found desire to work with all and sundry. While the SP has stuck to this orientation to a large degree, best shown in the excellent exposure of the GAMA scandal, there has been a small if noticeable change. For the first time the SP has, strangely mirroring the SWP, begun to recruit young middle class members, many of them students, who have formed a sort of praetorian guard for Hadden, shrilly asserting their orthodoxy within and without the party.

The worst aspect of the turn inwards is an arrogant certitude that the SP does not really need to work with others on the left, that by itself it can build a revolutionary party of the working class. This takes the form of a constant refrain that the conditions are not right for starting the process of organising a broad left. Combined with this is the use of the SWP as a bogey man to frighten their own members from questioning the isolationist turn, even though most of the rest of the left would'nt touch the SWP with a barge pole and their constant efforts to create an Irish version of Respect. This does not stop the SP from being the only other far left organisation to remain in the Irish Anti War Movement which is widely seen as an SWP front. The only reason for membership of the IAWM is to recruit more middle class students to the SP Youth Section.

Only time will tell if the SP will open out again and play the leading role that it could in creating the space for a radical new departure in socialist politics in Ireland.

by troll watcher Sat Apr 23, 2005 00:46

i'm not a member of the sp, i do consider myself a strong supporter and i know a few members. what andre wrote is a load of rubbish. he doesn't know what he's talking about. i know a few young members and they are not middle class and are not slavish followers of some kind of isolationist leadership! andre is a troll, best bet is to ignore his attempts at putting out idiotic comments and starting a fight on indymedia.

by Joe Sat Apr 23, 2005 13:18

No idea who andre is but his long post is not trolling. Trolling is where you just throw in a few slogans/insults in the hope of starting a row. He has clearly put forward quite a detailed analysis which is something very different.

I actually find his attempt to explain the politics of the SY in terms of them being 'middle class' to be the weakest part of this post. Middle class has been thrown around so much as a term of abuse by the left that it has become impossible to know what it means, Above he appears to mean 'went to college' which IMHO is a pretty reactionary use of the term as it discourages working class socialists from further formal education least they become 'class trators' or whatever.

If you want an example of trolling see the anonymous SP poster on the republican candidates thread who pops in to recite a couple of slogans in the midst of a proper bit of debate between quite opposed viewpoints.

by joe Sat Apr 23, 2005 15:23

the sp is a very no nonsense party and doesn't like dealing with inter left squablings, it prefers to just ignore some of the small left groups rather than argue with them. An honest reason is the party doesn't see the point in arguing with a dozen or so people to win them rather than getting on with the work of building the party. The party see's things like the service charges and gama as the real work rather than the inter left polemics.
This could be a good or bad thing. let the reader decide.
If there was a decent sized and serious group on the left the sp would probably deal with them. the problem with the swp is you can't really trust them (they are a tad opportunistic) and they have a habit of embarrassing the left. Another reason is in the sp's strongest areas, dublin west, swords or tallaght there is no other left groups. So most of these members have little or no contact with the rest of the left, cause they aren't in the suburbs.

by Mark H - Socialist Party (personal cap) Sat Apr 23, 2005 17:25

I don't think that Andre is trolling. There is a difference between making an attack on an organisation or individual for the purposes of stirring up a row and making criticisms. There's nothing wrong with doing the latter as long as the criticism is considered.

The problem I have with Andre's posting is twofold. Firstly, it's strangely and unpleasantly filled with remarks about individuals which are both unnecessary to his point and often extremely innaccurate. I'm not sure if this is done because he has some kind of personal malice against some of these people or if he just thinks that it will make him appear to be "in the know" or more authoritative to readers who know little about the Socialist Party. As far as this reader is concerned it has the opposite effect, particularly when done from anonymity.

The second problem I have with Andre's posting is much more fundamental. I disagree with its political assumptions.

Joe quite rightly takes up the rather foolish categorisation of Socialist Youth members as "middle class". The vast majority of Socialist Youth activists are working class in Marxist terms. Most of Socialist Youth's membership are in school. Some are young workers. What has changed to some extent is that the Socialist Party for the first time ever now has a strong presence in a few universities.

Now quite apart from arguments about the class status of university students, given that most work while in college and most will go on to be wage workers, I have no idea why this should be regarded as a bad thing. The important point when it comes to recruiting students - or anybody else - is what their politics are and what activism and methods you point them towards. Anyone who saw student members of the Socialist Party spend years helping to build non-payment of the bin tax, or take part in blockades, or go to prison for doing so etc would be very surprised at this kind of criticism. University students are a very small minority in the Socialist Party and are not the primary focus of Socialist Youth but they have an important contribution to make.

The more general political point Andre makes is that the Socialist Party is "isolationist" because it doesn't feel that some kind of socialist or left alliance is viable. This mixes together and confuses a number of issues - to what extend different left forces can cooperate on particular issues, the creation of a new party of the working class, and the establishment of political alliances in the here and now.

For the Socialist Party the last two issues are intimately linked but they remain distinct. We have as a medium term strategic goal the establishment of a mass party of the working class. Contrary to the insinuations made by Andre, we do not at all think that we will be able to accomplish this by ourselves. A new party will have to be broad, accomodating all kinds of trends within the labour movement. However to come into existence it will have to involve substantial numbers of workers moving into political activity, circumstances which self evidently do not exist at the moment.

When it comes to the creation of some kind of alliance in the here and now, the question we pose is whether or not such an alliance will help to move the process of creating a mass party along. It is our estimation that there are not substantial numbers of workers looking for and interested in a broad alliance at the moment. The experience of the meetings held to discuss an alliance recently and the discussions in the left press suggest to me that we are talking about the same old faces. On the one hand we have the SWP, which is about as trustworthy in its commitment to "left unity" as a rattlesnake in your child's pram. On the other hand we have a few independent activists, all of whom have been around the left for years if not decades.

I have some sympathy for that latter group, but my attitude towards them is clear - if you think we are underestimating the potential for a new formation or a campaign of some sort, feel free to prove it to us. I would love to see dozens and then hundreds of workers flocking to your call. It would be a pleasure to have misjudged the situation in that regard, but I don't think that we have.

In the meantime the Socialist Party will get on with what we see as the tasks immediately confronting us - building a stronger revolutionary organisation and doing everything we can to encourage struggle, to encourage the development of the kind of conditions which would make the creation of a new party more viable. I think that even the most hostile of our critics would have to accept that on that last point, through things like the GAMA affair, we make a contribution vastly in excess of our actual size and certainly unmatched by any other force on the left.

The third issue which I think Andre has confused with the other two is that of cooperation on single issues. The Socialist Party's attitude to that has never changed - we will work with anybody we can to advance an issue though we aren't interested in cooperation for the sake of cooperation. Whether it's the bin tax or the war, or the left bodies in the unions we remain willing to work with anyone who can make a contribution to the cause.

Finally, to the second joe, your points are generally well made but I think you've overstated one point. The Socialist Party has no problem with debate with others on the left, as long as the debate serves to clarify ideas, commonalities and differences.

by john throne - labors militant voice Sun Apr 24, 2005 04:17

I do not think that the way the contributors are approaching this discussion is very helpful. Rather than starting from criticising the different left parties I think we should start from asking ourselves the following question:
What is in the interests of the working class? We can be flippant and and try and derail this discussion by answering a mass revolutionary party or a mass workers party. Neither of these are possible in these elections. So what is in the interest of the working class in these elections given the small left fources that exist?

I believe that the interest of the working class would have best been served by the different left parties and community candidates holding a conference and agreeing on a united slate of candidates and agreeing on a program related to the day to day issues facing the working class. This would strengthen the struggle against the attacks that are being made on the working class, it would increase the profile of the left, it would increase the consciousness of the working class in its own strength, it would strengthen the working class. The working class would be
presented with an alternative, even though small, and as such would be helped to consider the issues more from a class point of view.

But this is not happening. Why? It is not happening because of left sectarianism. This is where the main left parties and some of the left candidates put their own interests before that of the interests of the working class. This left sectarianism is not a disease which affects only the largest parties of the left athough they must take the greatest responsibilty for it. Left sectarianism severely damages the interests of the working class. It should be identifed, it should be openly opposed and it should be put in front of the
working class so the working class can pass judgement on it. And the parties which practise it should be asked to defend their actions. And the members of these
parties who recognize that their parties practise it should be asked to stand up and speak out.

My understanding is that there are a dozen or more candidates of left parties and groups and perhaps more candidates fighting on issues such as water charges etc. What a condemnation of the left and its left sectarianism that there has not been a conference to bring these people together to try and have a united slate on these basic working class issues. The two largest left parties have the main responsibility for such action not taking place. John Throne.

by . Sun Apr 24, 2005 13:09

John

Which left parties are you talking about? Who are the dozen or so candidates who should have come together?

by . Mon Apr 25, 2005 03:46

.

by . Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:29

as well??

by anonymous Mon Apr 25, 2005 13:04

John Throne is very wrong. He does not have any serious idea of where the left is at in Ireland at the moment. He has an inflated view of left politics in Ireland. I'm sure if the level of left activity was as high as John Throne thinks then the SP would probably want to launch an alliance. Joe Throne does not mention where these left activists are? The reason is they are not there, unfortunatley. He should know what the SWP are like. The SWP are not a serious force, have no base among working class people and are opportunists. The SWP are also liquidating themselves into a liberal party. The Workers' Party is dieing out, their only members are with them out of loyalty. I know a 1 or 2 good WP members but they are very demoralised by the complete inability of their party to offer an aternative. The ISN is a group I've respect for but they're a very small force. Looking at both sides of the argument I agree with Mark over John Throne.

by Davy - SEA Mon Apr 25, 2005 20:39 Derry

First, Waterside Rural contains a lot of large housing estates, both Protestant and Catholic. The rural bits contain fewer people, but most of the population of the ward is concentrated in estates which have sprung up very quickly with no amenities. Eamonn McCann is standing in Waterside Rural in order to highlight the city council's pro-business agenda. All the parties on the Council want to evict 17 families from their homes in order to obey Ryanair's diktat that the airport runway be lengthened. Once the ratepayers had thrown millions into this, then the airport would be privatised.

This is in stark contrast to their approach to the rail link with Belfast which McCann has also been campaigning on. The Council did NOTHING to try to save the railway until the SEA, together with the train drivers, started a lively campaign to save public transport. So, it's politics, not standing in a place that he has no hope of getting elected, that has Eamonn standing in Waterside Rural.

BTW, the SEA has tried to get all the left groups together - not as SEA, but in whatever they want - but the Workers' Party demanded support for the Belfast Agreement as a basis for talks, the SP wanted to debate the SWP's position on Russia before they would even sit down and the IRSP tried to say the INLA isn't a paramilitary group, so the talks went nowhere.

by . Mon Apr 25, 2005 20:47

So no one agreed to your terms for a unity approach! Didnt you expect it to be hard to get organisations who have a deep history of opposition to each other (in some cases a bloody history) to sit down and agree a way forward?

by Mark P (formerly Mark H) - Socialist Party (personal cap) Mon Apr 25, 2005 21:19

Your account of the various slate discussions which went on before the last assembly elections is tendentious in the extreme but I'm not posting to get into an argument about it. I do have one, seriously meant question for you though.

Do you really believe that McCann's best shot at winning a seat is in the Waterside Rural ward?

I don't live in Derry so I don't pretend to know for sure but it strikes me as much more likely that he would maximise his potential vote in one of the urban wards on the cityside of the river. It may be that McCann is such a strong candidate that he is odds on to win in any ward. It may be that he doesn't have a real chance either way. I don't pretend to know. It does seem very unlikely that standing in that particular ward is going to make things easier for him though.

I note as well that in your initial response to a comment from someone else you don't actually say that Waterside Rural represents McCann's best shot.

by . Mon Apr 25, 2005 21:53

SEA are hoping to get at least two elected this time so McCann may be one of them.

by Mark P Mon Apr 25, 2005 22:18

As I said, I don't live in Derry so I can't be sure but that sounds extraordinarily optimistic to me.

I just took a quick look at the SEA results last time around. They stood in the three urban wards they are contesting in Derry this time and in other places in the North. Their best vote was around 250 in a ward where the lowest elected candidate got 900 - 1000 first preferences and had an unelected running mate to take transfers from. In other words they were nowhere near taking a seat in any of these wards last time around. Unless something has changed very dramatically in those areas I can't see how they could be considered to be in the running.

The exception, of course is Eamon McCann. He has previously polled far better than any other SEA candidate, for reasons too obvious to bother explaining here. McCann's popularity and extremely high profile will, I would assume, again make him much more electable than the other SEA candidates.

So now I have two questions for Davy. My earlier one about whether he really thinks that Waterside Rural represents McCann's best chance of maximising his vote? And now which other ward does the SEA realistically hope to have a candidate elected in?

by . Mon Apr 25, 2005 22:22

as i understand it the SEA considers this election the best opportunity ever for the left (with the possible exception of the last one).

by confused Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:28

The WP are once again a left party whereas not so long ago trotskyists hated them as much as they now hate the shinners! At that time the shinners were a left party because they were smallish and nobody else liked them either. Has the WP become a left party again because they are now small and irrelevant?

by Davy - SEA Tue Apr 26, 2005 14:46 Derry

That's an answer as well as a question to Mark who seems to think socialists should only stand where they have the best chance of winning, as opposed to where they can best raise the issues.

The main point the SEA wants to make in these elections is about the way in which all the other parties are happy to manage capitalism and to accept the logic of neo-liberalism. So, they drive down the wages and conditions of Council workers, take on people on "schemes" to do jobs that should be done by Council employees and generally join in the race to the bottom for the working class. At the same time, they agree that "only" the private sector can draw up plans for development of the city [e.g. Fort George and Ebrington]. They agree that people at the top need to be paid an awful lot to come to Derry [£150,000 for boss of ILEX, the 'regeneration company'], while also arguing that Council leisure workers should be content to have their take home pay cut almost in half.

Nowhere is this all more obvious than in relation to the establishment parties approach to the airport and the rail. The overwhelming majority of people who use Derry airport are the better-off. Few people living on benefits or the lousy wages paid in Derry can afford to go anywhere, even if Ryanair are offering 'free seats'. But the political and business elite are so far up Michael O'Leary's ass, it's embarrassing. If Ryanair says jump, they ask how high. One of the Council officials described the families whose houses are earmarked for demolition as 'obstacles at the end of the runway' - shades of the Highland clearances there! AND none of the parties besides the SEA seems to think at all about global warming.

Meanwhile, the railway line has been run down over the last twenty years and was very close to being shut altogether, until the train drivers contacted the SEA and together they launched Into the West Rail campaign. The railway journey from Derry to Belfast takes two and a half hours for a 75 mile journey! There are jobs available in Belfast, not in Derry. So, most workers get a bus to Belfast leaving at 7am or even before in order to get to Belfast by 9. But traffic is so bad going into Belfast that it can take 2 and a half hours by bus also in the morning. An upgraded track and the new trains that NI Rail now has could see a train journey to Belfast that took an hour and five mins - with no worries about traffic.

These are big issues for Derry and, for all kind of local reasons, Waterside Rural is the place they need to be made. Yes, McCann might have got elected on first count in Cityside or Northland - on the basis of his record of fighting for civil rights and workers' rights in the city over 30 years. But the SEA is standing mainly to ensure that the issues are raised, to give an impetus to the campaigns we are involved in [including the upcoming G8 protests, anti-war etc]. Getting elected would be the icing on the cake. But the cake is more important. Hope this makes sense.

This will be my last post - has taken me nearly an hour to type all this. But anyone with further questions should go to the website - there's a HUGE amount of information on it for anyone interested.

by SWatcher Tue Apr 26, 2005 16:25

The fact is that the SWP are standing McCann in the ward where he has the least chance of being elected. The reason they did this is clear. McCann does not want to be a councillor but the SWP need his name and the respect he has in order to get a vote and some credibility for the rest of their anonomous canidates. So McCann agreed to stand in the rural ward as a compromise knowing he was not going to be elected and that allows the other SEA candidates use his name on material.

The SEA will not win a seat in Derry. There has not been a shift away from sectarian politics in the past few years. If anything the SEA vote will probably get smaller compared to the last local elections. In every election you have to talk yourself up a bit but the SWP membership seem to allways believe their own hype, it never fails to astound me how the SWP are not based in reality. Davy really does think the SEA will win seats! The SWP really do think that revolution is a year away and the irish working class are itching to rip the heads off the bourgeoisie! its crazy stuff based on fantasy and wishfull thinking instead of sober analysis.

by indie-soc Tue Apr 26, 2005 16:41

Davy - I understand the point about raising awareness of issues via an election campaign. However, would you (ie the SEA/SWP) not be in a far better position to raise issues if McCann was actually elected onto the council?

To use the example of the Socialist Party - they have what, one TD and a few councillors - but the work they have done on various issues, and the raising of their profile as a result, locally and nationally, far outweighs their representation (at least as far I can see).

This is not an argument for electoral politics as the way forward, simply that it seems to me that actually getting someone elected would be far more beneficial for the raising of issues /after/ the election - and therefore shouldn't the SEA be running McCann in the ward where he has the /strongest/ oppurtunity of getting elected.

Surely another SEA candidate could rasies the same issues as McCann does in the rural ward - and once elected McCann can continue to highlight these issues and others concerning the whole of Derry, and indeed the north.

Personally speaking, without knowning too much about the SEA/the politics of Derry in general, I doubt anyone will be elected - but I wish them all the best.

I have a question for any SPers or election watchers in general. What are the chances of Paul Dale taking that seat? Are you optimistic about it?

by Mark P Tue Apr 26, 2005 16:45

With all due respect Davy, I asked you two fairly simple straightforward questions and you haven't given me a straight answer to either of them. One you answer only by implication, the other you ignore completely.

It seems from the general tone of your answer that you accept that Waterside Rural is not the ward in which McCann would maximise his vote although you don't come right out and say it. You should note that I made no comment on the rights or wrongs of standing in a more difficult ward. There are any number of reasons why such a decision could be taken. I was just curious as to whether or not the SEA accept that they are doing so.

The second question you didn't answer at all. Someone posted on this thread that the SEA hope to get two seats in Derry. I asked if this was true and if so, which two seats did you regard as possibilities? I assume that McCann is still one of them but as an outside observer I am at a bit of a loss to work out which other seat is being discussed.

On the question you ask me, socialists stand in elections primarily to gain a platform for socialist ideas. That includes, but is not limited to, trying to actually win the positions stood for and the better platform they bring with them.

by john throne - labors militant voice Tue Apr 26, 2005 16:46 loughfinn at aol dot com

Anonymous tells me there are not enough forces in the North to have any discussions about having a united workers slate in the North for the local elections. He lists the left groups but then writes almost all of them off as useless. All except the SP it seems. He also does not mention independent activists fighting on local issues. Then Davy says there have been discussions about a united slate of
candidates but it was impossible to get agreement.

If what Davy reports is correct not only does it contradict Anonymous but it is an absolute scandal, more than that, an absolute crime against the working class. It is a crime that any of the left groups would block the development of a united slate on local elections because some of them wanted to discuss the others position on Russia or the Belfast agreement. A united slate on local elections should have been fought for on the few basic local and economic issues facing the working class throughout the North and the other differences between the left groups should have been left to be debated in their own forums and in their material.

Anonymous does what the leadership of the SP always does. He blames other groups for the inability to get together. In this case Anonymous just about blames all the others but especially the SWP. If it is true that the SEA tried to get a united slate then they must get great credit for this and the SWP must get credit for this. Anonymous condemns the SWP more viciously than any of the other groups. This is typical of the SP leaders. I assume Anonymous you are in the SP because of what you write and the fact that you have to sign your letter Anonymous.

Anonymous if you were serious about building a united working class slate and opposing left sectarianism you would raise this and fight for it in the SP. You would campaign for this in the SP. You would propose that the SP approach
the SWP leadership publicly to take such joint action and the leadership of the other left groups. At the same time you would propose that the SP approach the rank and file of the SWP and the rank and file of the other left groups along the same lines.

And simultaneously you would propose that the SP go to the union branches, the community groups, the workplaces, and campaign and explain the advantage of a united slate and who wanted a united slate and where this was being discussed and who was for it and who was against. Let the working class activists see who and what groups were standing against unity. In this way the struggle against left sectarianism would be taken into all the left groups at all levels, it would be taken to the working class activists. The damage it does would be exposed to the working class activists and those who practise it would be exposed and put on the defensive and progress would be made.

There are very good union, community and political activists in the SWP as there are in the SP. The problem is the leaderships of both these organizations have been left sectarian and imposed a top down, over centralised discipline, which can result in an undemocratic internal life for these groups. This tends to be true of most but not all of the left organizations. This with the general left
sectarian politics mean that there are far fewer activists active and far fewer in the left parties than could be and far fewer people prepared to run in elections.


An open struggle against left sectarianism and the tendencies towards undemocratic internal lives of so many of the left groups would re-energise many former activists who
have dropped out and inspire new forces to move into activity. Anonymous when you emphasise the weakness of the left in the North's politics you are bowing down before the objective process and not seeing how the subjective actions of the left groups acting in a united front manner could have an effect on consciousness and events.
John Throne.

by Ave Tue Apr 26, 2005 16:56

Why do you bother with the SP/CWI after the way they treated you and other dissidents? There is no hope for them, in this election they will get a handful of votes. They are a sectarian burnt out shell.

by . Tue Apr 26, 2005 17:57

I think the point made about discussing Russia may have been sarcasm John.

To be fair the discussions on the left which happened a few years ago did produce off spring. As I understand it the SWP CP BICO and SD where able to come together but the IRSP where not accepted into the SEA. The SP didn’t seem that interested, though they did support Eamon in the last election.

Btw John, which of the ‘left’ parties would you like to see uniting?

by Davy Carlin - carlindavid@hotmail.com Tue Apr 26, 2005 18:06

Actually I don't think it was sarcasm - might come back on a few points tomorrow seeing the SP are engaging -

by petro Wed Apr 27, 2005 00:31

John Throne appears to suggest that the SWP would be reluctant to discuss a left slate or some other arrangement with the SP and would need the SP to address both its leadership and rank and file.
The SWP has called repeatedly for a Left Bloc/Electoral Alliance or whatever. It has done this in the context of the local elections and the bin tax last year and on previous occasions. The SP has rebuffed all approaches.
The SWP appears to be sincerely trying to overcome Left Sectarianism and has publicly sought a coming together of the Left. It would hardly need to pressurised to discuss the formation of a Left Bloc when it has repeatedly called for it and requested the SP discuss it.
BTW The SP did demand that the SWP's position on the USSR as an impediment to discussion (and produced a pamphlet reproducing the correspondence). No joke, no sarcasm.
Enough to make you want to tear your hair out, eh?

by Badman Wed Apr 27, 2005 00:35

"The SWP appears to be sincerely trying to overcome Left Sectarianism"

When you consider that every single person on the left who is not in the SWP would consider the above statement to be a hilariously warped joke, you don't really need to wonder why nobody would be interested in entering into an alliance with the SWP.

What's the fable about the frog and the scorpion again?

by socialist Wed Apr 27, 2005 00:45

Petro, the SWP call for a left bloc for opportunistic reasons not for the establishment of a genuine left alliance. All you have to do is look at their antics with the Socialist Alliance in Britain (something John Throne conveniently ignores). They joined the SA, took it over, dominated it, took it out when it suited them and then disbanded it when they found another toy in Respect. The SP would be mad to form a left bloc with the SWP and a handful of other lefts. They whole thing would degenerate into an exercise in squabbling, with the left not advancing a single inch.

The issue of the SWP's attitude to USSR was raised as part of a much larger document written by the SP in response to correspondence from the SWP a number of years ago. I'm sure the SP have it on their website, have a read, maybe you will have a better understanding of why the SP and others on the left in general have little time for the SWP.

by coba Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:36

The sea had hoped to stand 16 candidates minimum in this election. Anyone know why this was cut to 4?

by Anonymous Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:46

John Throne still seems to have a very strange view of the Irish left. There is not a high level of struggle unfortunatly. There are not many credible left groups. There are not a great number of activists in the Unions and communities. This is a fact, and it's unfortunate. If a left alliance was launched would there be any more than the 'usual suspects'? In the absence of working class struggle it would likely decline into a farce, especially given the track record and methods of groups such as the SWP.

Why should the SP or any other group throw away the respect it has from the working class in Ireland by giving support to people that are opportunists and not interested in building a movement and not interested in taking up issues in a genuine way? Take for example the bin tax. Some forces in that campaign wanted to prevent militant tactics, bring in the 'Labour' party, and to gain electorally. I think that you have to realise that the SWP are not sincere in their demads for a left alliance. For example a year ago they were saying (at bin tax public meetings) they would run against the SP in marginal Dundrum and then saying they wanted left unity!! Another example is in Derry where the SEA/SWP plainly doesn't want to win a seat and seriously intervene!!

John should try to actually get active in left politics in Ireland. Why not try to build your own party here? You were active in Ireland before, surely you know what the antics of groups like the SWP is like? I find your postings rather pathetic to be honest.

by Anon eile Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:46

"Take for example the bin tax. Some forces in that campaign wanted to prevent militant tactics, bring in the 'Labour' party, and to gain electorally. I think that you have to realise that the SWP are not sincere in their demads for a left alliance."

Some forces are still involved in the bin tax campaign unlike others who have moved on.
Starter for ten:
Which political party's current paper doesn't mention anything about the bin tax at a critical juncture, a time when the council are about to issue bills all across Dublin city?

by Cheeky Wed Apr 27, 2005 19:11

"Still" involved? For the SWP to brag about still being involved in the anti-bin tax movement they would have to have made a contribution worth talking about to begin with.

by indie-soc Wed Apr 27, 2005 20:19

"Q: Which political party's current paper doesn't mention anything about the bin tax at a critical juncture, a time when the council are about to issue bills all across Dublin city?"

A: Both the SWP and SP.

Looking through my various back issues, I see that neither the of last issues of Socialist Worker (12 - 26 April) or The Socialist (April Issue) contain articles on the bin tax.

SW: http://www.swp.ie/socialistworker/2005/sw240/SW-240-web.pdf (PDF)

TS: http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/thesocialist005apr05.htm

That said, most previous issues from 2005 (from both parties) do contain articles on the bin tax.

by joe Wed Apr 27, 2005 21:46

thats some of the stuff that puts members of the party off alliances, being lectured about not having an article on the bin tax in this months 8 page newspaper!!! like the party's been doing nothing in the last few months! stupidness like that just makes me ask anon swper, why on earth would we want an alliance with you?

by hs - sp Wed Apr 27, 2005 21:52

SP position on waste charges as expressed in every issue of the paper.

"Local Taxation
- Scrap the bin charges - no to double taxation in any form. Local authorities to receive proper funding from central government funds.

Waste management
- For major investment into a publicly owned recycling service to combat the waste crisis. No to waste incinerators."

If the swp member wishes to see more articles about the bin tax issue, indymedia is the perfect forum for he or she to do so him or herself. We'll look forward to some articles.

by john throne - labors militant voice Thu Apr 28, 2005 14:33

Comrade Petra says I am calling for a left slate in the elections. This is not the case. I am raising the idea of a united workers slate. The difference is one of the consciousness of the working class in the North at this time. Comrade Tuesday says I am raising the idea for the unity of left parties. I am not. I believe that this is not possible at this stage. What I am raising is an open struggle against left sectarianism in all left parties by all those members of both parties who recognize this for the damaging method it is and for this to be carried out in front of the workers movement. That is in the parties, in the unions, in the community organizations etc in which the left groups are active along with workers. I have explained this above in more detail.

Somebody asks me why would I suggest that the SP has to approach the SWP leadership and rank and file to take up a struggle for a united workers slate and against left sectarianismism. The contributor suggests that this is not needed as the SWP have proven they are in favor of this. Well if this is the case then why does the contributor not want the SP member that I address to do this. If the SP member was successful in the SP then we would have a united workers slate and an open struggle against left sectarianism by both parties since according to this contributor the SWP is already for this. I am also suggesting to the SP member that he or she take up such a campaign in order to demonstrate to this person that he or she is very vocal in explaining how all my ideas are rubbish but does not seem to have any ideas of their own for taking on left sectarianism. I also do not believe that the leadership of the SWP have no problems of their own with left sectarianism. I would also to suggest to all SWP members as I do to the SP member to take up a struggle against left sectarianism in their own party.

I repeat the point I first made in this thread. The issue is hard to discuss if it is approached by attacking the left sectarianism of this party's leadership or that party's leadership. I believe it is much better to start from what is in the interests of the working class, recognizing that there is a real problem of left sectarianism and that this is not in the interests of the working class. That this left sectarianism should be struggled against and done so in front of the working class. Sure my ideas for doing so may be incorrect. But so far I have not heard many alternative ideas on this thread. Maybe while disagreeing with my ideas the contributors could feel some responsibility for putting up some ideas of their own. Let us hear from other contributors how they think left sectarianism should be fought. Or are have you just given up and concluded that it is hopeless.

In this regard I do not believe that raising the issue of where I live is constructive. I am sure the person who raised this, like myself, has many views on Iraq and the invasion there by the US led coalition. Or does he or she feel they cannot hold an opinion until they have visited there or tried to build a party there. And if we want to talk about that I have plenty of experience of building a party in Ireland. I was active in the movement in Derry in 1968/69 and in later in Ireland as a whole up to 1983. What is now the SP in Ireland North and South survived over these years through the much larger base that it has in the south, the Northern SP through the assistance it has received from the South and the profile of people like Joe Higgins. I was the first fulltimer for the SP, then Militant in Ireland, I recruited Joe Higgins to Militant and to revolutionary socialism. I think I know something about the situation in Ireland. John Throne

by Anonymous Thu Apr 28, 2005 14:47

I seriously believe that John Throne is out of touch with Ireland. Appeals to past glories does not mean you have knowledge of modern Ireland. The workers' movement was far stronger in Ireland and internationally in the 70s and 80s. Unfortunately there are not hundreds of working class activists in the trade unions and communities. John Throne continunally ignores this! If he looked at what the working class needs it is not an alliance of the "usual suspects" that will descend into sectarianism/opportunism and/or dillute socialist politics. If there were to be hundreds or thousands of working class activists attracted to a new formation then the SP would probably support it.

by Interested Thu Apr 28, 2005 16:25

"usual suspects"

This seems to becoming a bit of an SP mantra. Please explain this term to me.

by Dave - SWP Sat Apr 30, 2005 23:43

From the SEA website:

Eamonn McCann, SEA candidate for Foyle and for Waterside Rural
Main parties want their bums on seats

Thursday, April 27th 2005

"The only way to vote against water charges is to vote SEA in Derry and for Socialist Party candidates elsewhere."

by SP Tue May 03, 2005 16:34

The Westminster election is being held against the background of increasing sectarian division on the ground, and the breakdown of the Good Friday agreement with little hope of its resurrection and will inevitably be another sectarian headcount.

On one side it is a contest between the UUP and the DUP to determine which party will emerge as the dominant party of unionism. There is little doubt that the DUP will win this contest easily. It is not even ruled out that David Trimble's UUP could lose all of its Westminster seats and take a mauling in the local council elections, which are being held on the same day, as well.

On the other side of the sectarian divide, Sinn Fein, the party linked to the IRA, is likely to make gains at the expense of the SDLP which, until recently, had been the main nationalist party. The killing of a Catholic man, Robert McCartney, from the Short Strand area of East Belfast, by members of the IRA and the subsequent attempts by republicans to cover this up, has alienated a section of Sinn Fein's support. However the SDLP are not seen as an alternative, especially by working class Catholics, and Sinn Fein are still likely to emerge as clearly the largest nationalist party.

In other words the election will likely produce the same sectarian outcome that led to the collapse of the Assembly, except even more so.

The only candidate outside of the four main parties who has any chance of making an impact is hospital campaigner, Dr. Kieran Deeny, who is running in West Tyrone opposing the decision (taken by a Sinn Fein health minister in the Assembly) to withdraw acute services from the Omagh hospital. Dr Deeny topped the poll for this area in the Assembly election and a good vote for him again would show that it is possible for candidates running on class issues to cut across the sectarian voting patterns.

Although the lack of an alternative means that the election will lead to another sectarian carve up, mainly between Sinn Fein and the DUP, on the ground there is growing disillusionment and distrust of all the parties and politicians.

The Socialist Party are not running in the Westminster election, but are standing four candidates in the local council election. These are: Paul Dale in Enniskillen Town, Tommy Black in Belfast Pottinger, Jim Barbour (leader of the Fire Brigades Union) in Laganbank and Harry Hutchinson in Cookstown Central.

The election campaigns in all these areas are in full swing and the mood that has come across on the doors in all the working class areas, Protestant and Catholic, has been one of cynicism towards the main parties and an openness to the anti-sectarian socialist message of the Socialist Party.

When they were in office in the Assembly the main parties cut jobs and services. The Assembly has not met since it was elected at the end of 2003 and yet its members still continue to take their salaries. Since the suspension of the Assembly in October 2002 it has cost £50 million, £23 million of this in wages to the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA’s) – yet at the same time £30 million is being cut from badly needed education services.

When they were in the Assembly the four big parties agreed to water charges. Since then there has been a huge groundswell of opposition to these charges and huge support for the "We Won't Pay" campaign which was set up by the Socialist Party. Now the main parties are trying to say they are opposed to the charges. However it is striking that on the doors very few people are taken in by their "opposition". While they claim to be against the charges all are opposed to non-payment. Sinn Fein had tried to hide its position on this but, during the campaign Gerry Adams has come out publicly explaining why his party will not support the non payment call.

None of these parties represents the interests of working class people, Catholic or Protestant. The Socialist Party stands for the building of a new mass party based on the trade unions and genuine community organisations to represent the interests of working class people and young people.

When it comes to the national question the major parties are really only arguing about what colour flag working class people can be exploited under. The Socialist Party is fighting for a real peace process, not based on uniting right wing politicians, but on bringing the working class communities together in the struggle for a socialist Ireland as part of a democratic socialist federation of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales.

Of the four Socialist Party candidates, Paul Dale, standing in Enniskillen, has the best chance of making a breakthrough. Up until these election an independent socialist, Davy Kettyles, held a seat on the local council. He was the only socialist councillor in Northern Ireland!

Davy Kettyles is standing down this time and has given his full backing to Paul. He recently commented:

“Paul Dale is the anti-water charges candidate. I thank the people who supported me in the past and ask them to now vote for Paul. He will continue to campaign for working people and keep a socialist voice on Fermanagh Council." Davy Kettyles has been out canvassing with Paul as have leading trade unionists in Enniskillen from UNISON and the TGWU.

Socialist Youth, the youth section of the Socialist Party, has been active during the campaign and over the last week a group of local youth have joined their activities in support of Paul Dale

By election day next Thursday, the campaign hopes to have canvassed all 5000 houses in the constituency. The campaign has received a warm response on the doorstep and has had very good press coverage in the local press, averaging at least three or four articles each week, as a quote from a letter to a local paper shows: “On May 5th I will be voting for Paul Dale and I hope many others will join me. Not only to ensure Fermanagh continues the long held tradition of having a non-sectarian voice but also to ensure a voice for real politics is a live and kicking on our local council.”

The other big parties have also targeted this seat but there is an outside chance that the Socialist Party could win. If so, Paul Dale would most likely be the only socialist councillor elected anywhere in Northern Ireland.

In Mid-Ulster, Harry Hutchinson has used the campaign to highlight the anti-water charges “We Won’t Pay" campaign which has organised several public meetings in the area. Harry has a record of fighting against cuts in acute care at the Mid-Ulster hospital as well as organising demonstrations and strikes against sectarian killings in the early 90s.

In Belfast, the sectarian polarisation on the ground is sharper than other areas. The Socialist Party has taken the campaign to all the working class areas, Protestant and Catholic, in the two constituencies which cover much of South and East Belfast.

The East (Pottinger) constituency includes the Short Strand area where Robert McCartney lived and which is the base for the campaign for justice that has been launched by his sisters. The party has canvassed every house in this area and received a good response.

Overall in the two Belfast wards Socialist Party members have sold over 220 copies of the party newspaper, the Socialist, on the doorstep. Twenty people have expressed an interest in joining the party which given the character of the election campaign is an indication of the respect the party has built up. This is reflected in the wider activity during the election campaign where over 1000 copies of the Socialist have been sold in street stalls.

This kind of a response shows that despite the sectarian carve up on the ground, there is a desire to have a party that unites working class people to fight back against the poverty and cuts they face on a daily basis in Northern Ireland.


- Peter Hadden

by Teddy Boy - Tongue in Cheekers Tue May 03, 2005 17:07

Good to see such a wonderfully written article. Good to see pater haRdOn playing Cardinal Ratzinger. More edicts please!!
What name will he take when Pope Taaffe shuffles off his mortal coil and haRdOn takes over the Church of the Withering Inwardlooking.
Even better who will succeed haRdOn in the state of Nirvana? (The six counties to the rest of you mere mortals.)