Labour Party give the two fingers to socialism

by helper Thu Jun 23, 2005 18:59

he posted here a lot for a while and there are some 'hoist on his own petard' gems in there.

by eeekkkk Thu Jun 23, 2005 19:19

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/20050623165705.html

by Dermot Lacey Thu Jun 23, 2005 22:14

Don't worry he's still posting on here and happy to debate the future of Dublin and how we can best work to achieve a better Dublin. Of course some would prefer to offer their nonsense anomynously - instead of issuing your silly comments engage in real debate.

by redjade Thu Jun 23, 2005 22:52

I'm puzzled by this post - 'Cathaoirleach of the Dublin Regional Authority.' somehow inherently contradicts 'socialism' (a pretty amorphous term if there ever was one)

I don't know much about the DRA either - so this is an innocent question, if that's possible on indymedia.

by seedot Thu Jun 23, 2005 23:18

Congrats on the new position and I must echo redjades confusion on how your appointment is a betrayal of socialism.

However I must say that I doubt your commitment to real debate. In the thread about the bin tax marches last March I published a comment on the history of the bin service and its relation to the establishment of local government.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68786&condense_comments=false#comment102219

This was dismissed by yourself as a 'historical rant wrapped up in spurious ideology' and not worthy of a response. Since the history was correct and the only ideology was that at times the market may fail (which seems to be at the core of the social democracy that you hold so dear) i was somewhat confused by your dismissal.

On Q&A last week, Brendan Howlin as part of his excellent performance attacking Michael McDowell over the licensing law climbdown suggested that licensing laws should be set by local authorities. This seems eminently sensible to me and reflects the failing of the 'one size fits all' approach to government that has seen our local authorities denuded of all authority most especially since the 2003 Waste Management Act removed their core purpose.

Would the Councillor support Mr Howlins proposal? Would the councillor support the city council decision that all bins should be collected, especially as the health risk is increased during the summer months? Would the councillor oppose the spending of council money in appealing the ruling regarding the 2001 and 2002 charges to the supreme court - a fiasco which is already likely to deprive the local authorities of up to 15 million euro in funding?

Will the councillor live up to his pledge to engage in real debate - or does he prefer to come here to attack the far left while ignoring the issues?

by Dermot Lacey Thu Jun 23, 2005 23:21

Please explain the question and I will try and answer. Have no doubt that you disapprove of me politically but will try to answer anyway.

Dublin Regional Authority is meant to be a co-ordinating body of the four Dublin Local Authorities and to call the various Public Bodies in the area to account. It has been in existence since 1994. I hope to increase both the profile and the role of the Authority over the next year.

by seedot Thu Jun 23, 2005 23:28

The questions seem clear enough.


Would the Councillor support Mr Howlins proposal (specifically that certain powers currently held by central government should be held by local goernment)?


Would the councillor support the city council decision that all bins should be collected, especially as the health risk is increased during the summer months? (fairly clear I thought).


Would the councillor oppose the spending of council money in appealing the ruling regarding the 2001 and 2002 charges to the supreme court - a fiasco which is already likely to deprive the local authorities of up to 15 million euro in funding? (again fairly clear - the court case was only Tuesday of last week)

The bigger question contained in the link - since the local authorities were established to collect waste through a weekly free bin collection - do you not believe this should remain a priority?

by Dermot Lacey Thu Jun 23, 2005 23:30

Yes I do support the position outlined by Brendan Howlin. Anything that extends the power of local government on issues that in any normal society would be within their rmit has my support.

Yes I do support the decision of City Management to seek clarification from the Supreme Court. It is in the interests of everyone - whether you are for or against the Waste Charges - that there be clarity on the issue.

And Yes I have no difficulty in expressing my revulsion for the political opportunism of the far left ( and indeed the far right) though sometimes it is hard to know the difference.

by Dermot Lacey Thu Jun 23, 2005 23:47

There was a cross over in answering these questions I understood Seedots silly questions/issues. i did not understand and was hoping to answer redjades more pertinent ones.

by seedot Fri Jun 24, 2005 00:00

Good to hear that you will support the extension of local authority - although I suppose it would be quite scary if you held your new position and didn't believe so.

I am fascinated by your defence of the appeal to the Supreme Court. There was no confusion in the District Court decision - there was a defeat for the council that was repeated in three cases and in fornt of two judges. The point was established, the case was closed. the appeal seems to be purely on the basis that if this clear decision is not overturned it will cost the council a lot of money - funds which were included in the estimates you broke ranks and voted for. (tbh - while I disagree with your stance on this I have admired your consistency in defending this position).

Since the case that has been won will impact on all the councils in the Dublin region your new role could have an important part in solving this particular mess. At the very least you could help co-ordinate the activities of the various councils and discourage South Dublin Council from engaging the services of Ivor Fitzpatrick to send threatening letters in order to collect monies which are, at the very least, in dispute - if not ruled consistently illegal to date. The various councils could also be encouraged to be honest with queries regarding these cases - in the courts the barristers admit the charges are currently not enforceable, here you accept that there is at least a lack of clarity, yet when people in receipt of demands from the solicitors ring the council and mention the cases they are told they have no relevance.

Can I ask that you have a quick scan of the post in the link and explain to me where I am misguided - from my point of view the councils were established to collect the bins. Full stop - thats why they are there. Is this false?

Also - i really don't get the Far Left jibe at the end - is this an attack on me or just a general comment whose relevance escapes me?

by seedot Fri Jun 24, 2005 00:04

so the far left stuff is not aimed at me?

But, apart from your attempt to personalise a debate - how is asking if you support a city council motion silly?

How is checking if you know and understand the history and purpose of the body you sit on silly?

by translator (eekkkk) Fri Jun 24, 2005 00:06

He as far as I can make out is saying (in that sly doubletalking willie o'dea style) that opposing bin tax makes you akin to a fascist.

by seedot Fri Jun 24, 2005 00:12

Which is just as ineffective a response - "Go away, you don't know what you're talking about".

Course it was a member of his party that was good enough to supply the original research on the 1878 public health act - but maybe you don't need to know these things to sit on the council, or avoid debate or defend the marketisation of essential services. I may be silly - the councillor has yet to prove he is not ignorant of the roots of local government.

by redjade (a socialist) Fri Jun 24, 2005 00:22

OK I have a clearer picture now - a little googling will teach ya a bunch....

Dublin Regional Authority
http://www.dra.ie/

Now if someone could just define socialism for me :-)

by Stephen Lewis - Irish Socialist Network & S.I.P.T.U. (pers. cap.) Fri Jun 24, 2005 02:03

Mr.Lacey,
You betrayed the working class of Dublin and the 70,000 members in the Dublin region of S.I.P.T.U. for accepting the bin tax while being Lord Mayor of Dublin,(a union you belong to).

The union of which you are a member of oppose the bin tax.

You voted to accept the bin tax while you where mayor of Dublin.

A flagrant disregard of your very own unions publicly stated policy of opposition to a "double tax", as declared by none other than the leader of your union, Mr. Jack O'Connor

What plea do you wish to enter Mr. Lacey, guilty or not guilty?

by Margaret Fri Jun 24, 2005 09:35 Margaret at Thatcher dot Co dot UK

He did the right thing. Unions are another form of oppression, another boss, another deduction from your wage packet.
And now, here we have them, helping Al Qaeda by obstructing the security of Dublin Airport . Some priorities they have, these leaders of "wurkers", don't they?

by Watcher Fri Jun 24, 2005 18:01

And what does Clr Lacey think of the Labour Party hauling one of his colleagues, the Mayor of Sligo Declan Bree, before a disciplinary committee.

Bree said the decision of labour councillors to vote against housing for travellers in Sligo was disgraceful.

by Dermot Lacey Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:17

I did reply to these earlier but for some reason they did not end up being published. Probably my fault I am not blaming anyone else.


I want to primarily reply to Stephen Lewis not because i think he has any useful insight just because his are the most contemptible remarks.

1) I am not a SIPTU Councillor. I am a member of SIPTU - have been, first as WUI, then FWUI for over twenty years. I share and endorse very many SIPTU positions but not all. I have a real difficuly, which I share with many indyemedia posters with Social Partnership for instance.

2) I was re-elected by the people of Pembroke as a Labour Councillor. It is to them that I am answerable.

3) Yes, I broke the whip in 2003. I have explained my reasons for that ad nauseum and remain convinced that it was the right thing to do. If Comrade Lewis cannot accept the integity of my position - I do not expect him to accept or agree with the decision itself - there is little value in continuing any dialogue

4) I plead Guilty to always doing what I believe best for the people and the City of Dublin. I plead guilty to working my back off for the last twenty-five years on campaigns dealing with issues that should matter to the mildest Social Democrat never mind the wildest Socialist.

5) What worries me most is how groups such as the ISN can be concerned at issues such as the Waste Charges and an alleged Trade Union position - ask IMPACT for example and yet show no concern for ICTU yesterday effectively signing up to endorse a housing strategy that will ensure that there will be less social and affordable houses available to those in need in Dublin City. Of course simplistic "Bin Tax" campaigning has always been more attractive to the opportunists on the far left than more complex real issues.

Hope that answers your questions Comrade.

On watchers comments can I just say that Declan Bree is a good colleague. He has a point of view. Others differ. A complaint has been made. It wil be dealt with under a longstanding and fair Complaints procedure that operated when Declan was a member of the NEC and there was not problem with. I hope that the issue can and will be resolved to everyones satisfaction.

by Ci.ar.an Mo.ore aka seedot Fri Jun 24, 2005 23:49

At the top of this thread Dermot Lacey said he was happy to debate the future of Dublin and how we can best achieve a better Dublin. Yet he consistently ignores questions put to him opting instead to pick and choose what he will respond to. I am posting here under my proper name to remove the 'anonymous poster' excuse that he uses and in the hope, rather than the expectation, the councillor will actually engage in the promised debate. Can I ask for a response to the two questions I have now put four times.

Q1. Does the councillor support the motion passed in Dublin City Council to collect all bins on public health grounds?

Why is this question important? During 2003 the councillor along with others told the anti bin tax campaign that they should use democratic means of political activity. Get people elected, pass motions, all the apparatus that is held so dear. This was done. Joan Collins was elected in my ward on an anti-bin tax ticket. She proposed a motion to the city council in support of one of the key demands of the anti bin tax campaign – collect all bins. This was passed. Yet the council is still leaving rubbish in the streets of our city against this democratic decision. Will the councillor come out in favour of democracy and state that all bins should be collected until such stage as it can be proven there is no public health risk to leaving rubish to rot in the streets or on peoples property.

Q2. Does the councllor disagree with the analysis that local authorities were constituted in their present form to provide a bin service? Click to view previous, unanswered, post on this

What is the relevance here? The provision of social services is surely one of the great victories of social democracy, the placing of the collective over the individual good. For many involved in the anti bin tax campaign this is not just another stealth tax but rather a weakening of this social contract and one which will have immediate impact on our cities and our citizenry. This debate was held and decided in the 19th Century. We are not talking about communism or a control economy here – this is not based on 'spurious ideology' as the councillor has tried to imply when he first avided this debate 4 months ago. This is fairly basic social democracy I am trying to debate.

Of course the councillor has the right to appear on indymedia merely to publish his name and engage in petty political infighting. But he should not try and pretend that this is debate – he may also be advised to avoid the constant resorting to insults and dismissals of his opponents.

But i have no real expectation that he will. Rather i expect another dismissal of me as 'silly' or others views as 'contemptible' or 'not useful'. But until the debate happens I will not accept that he is either a 'social democrat' nor that he is willing to discuss the future of our city.

some of my previous bin tax posts

Some of Dermot Laceys

by Anthony G Sat Jun 25, 2005 00:58

Going by the postings from the man himself over the past year on Indymedia, I find it hard to believe that he managed to persuade people to ever elect him as their representative. I would hope that his real life persona is a lot different from his online one and that his posting record is indicative of unfamiliarity with online media rather than an inability to engage in genuine debate on politics and ideas.

Still, I find it hard to take someone seriously when they ignore or dismiss reasoned argument but will quite happily reply to - and engage in - childish name-calling along lacking in substance. Most rational people will ignore shallow point-scoring and irrelevant comments and would rather engage with - and hopefully seek to understand the point of view of - those who take the time to articulate their views in a coherent and manner. Reasoned debate is an opportunity to improve one's understanding of the world and the points of view that others might hold due to different life expereriences.

I also notice that Dermot consistently puts himself as the subject of each of his posts. Most people posting a comment or news article choose a title that encapsulates - or at least tries to - the gist of their post. Dermot either doesn't bother trying to do this (displaying a lack of effort to communicate a coherent point) or else thinks that he himself is the only subject worth posting on (betraying a disturbing level of ego-centricity).

The above points are based on my own observation of Mr. Lacey's comments over the past year - not confined this article - where he at least addresses the points made by Stephen Lewis. I can understand Ciaran's frustration at not getting a response to his (good) questions. Out of the many comments that Mr. Lacey has posted on Indymedia, I honestly can't remember anything of substance or of any news value - regardless of the man's position on political issues.

by Watcher Sat Jun 25, 2005 03:54

Dermot tells us that Declan Bree ‘has a point of view and others differ’. Of course others differ. Is it not the case that Declan Bree’s views reflect the traditional values of the labour and progressive movement in supporting the rights of travellers to have proper accommodation. Why is Dermot Lacy kicking for touch?

by Labour watch Sat Jun 25, 2005 18:09

You cant trust Bree, he went on the doorsteps of Sligo in 1992 promising not to go into coalition with FF under any circumstance. When in power he elected Reynolds as Taoiseach and allowed himself to be used as voting fodder for disgusting anti worker policies like water tax, privatisation, cutbacks etc.

Bree is a sell out. Labour are sell outs. Step aside and stop your posturing.

by John mcDermott - removefiannafail Sat Jun 25, 2005 23:59 jmcd444 at yahoo dot com Gran Canaria ,Spain

All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton )

by Colm Breathnach - ISN-personal capacity Sun Jun 26, 2005 01:47

I dont generally engage in indymedia debates but since Dermots response to Stephen involves a political attack on the Irish Socialist Network and both have the honesty to post under their own names, I wish to respond speciffically to that attack.

Dermot says: " What worries me most is how groups such as the ISN can be concerned at issues such as the Waste Charges and an alleged Trade Union position - ask IMPACT for example and yet show no concern for ICTU yesterday effectively signing up to endorse a housing strategy that will ensure that there will be less social and affordable houses available to those in need in Dublin City. Of course simplistic "Bin Tax" campaigning has always been more attractive to the opportunists on the far left than more complex real issues"

The ISN is a small organisation which cannot be involved in all the campaigns or issues we would like to be we try to work as effectively as we can in a few campaigns rather than skipping along from issue to issue. Our involvement in the Bin Tax campaign is based on the importance of that issue for people who live in the area where most ISN members/supporters are based, Finglas. I dont think any fair observer can call our involvement opportunistic since we have put real commitment into the campaign and have stuck with it through thick and thin, including three of our members serving short prison sentences because of our activism in the campaign. Far from being a 'simple issue' this, as Dermot knows well, is a very complex issue involving questions about local and general taxation, waste management, general environmental policy etc. I dont really know how Dermot distinguishes 'real issues' from 'unreal issues' unless he means that real issues are ones that Dermot Lacey is involved in! How exactly has the ISNs involvement in the BIn Tax or any other campaign been opportunistic?

As for ICTU signing up to the governments bogus housing strategy, Stephen Lewis and others on the left have consistently raised, within SIPTU, the issue of the failure of the government to hold to the commitment of providing 10,000 social/affordable housing units under the last partnership deal. On a general level we have consistently campaigned, with others on the left, against social partnership, including the publication of a booklet outlining our analysis of that process and working with others on the left in a campaign against the last deal. Of course we dont have the resources to issue an instant response to every development that a major political party would have so its simply ridiculous to expect an instant response to every issue from a small organisation like ours.

As for other 'real issues' the ISN has a proud record of work on issues that effect peoples lives, especially in the FInglas area, including direct activity to counter racism at a local level, crime and anti-social activity (we were one of the few political organisations to make a detailed submission to the Mayors Commission on Crime and have actively advocated community restorative justice), the successful restoration of bus service in Finglas South, the City Jet Strike, local planning issues etc etc

Dermot is entitled to his opinions but its downright dishonest or simply ignorant of him to accuse an organisation he obviously knows little or nothing about of opportunism. The problem seems to be that he thinks that because he is an elected councillor, that he has a monopoly on 'real work' on 'real issues'. Of course I am sure he works hard on local issues otherwise he would be re-elected but this does not confer infalibility on him. Nor does it mean that others who have a different perspective on how to bring about change are no less involved in 'real' campaigning. The ISN is committed to grassroots campaigning and change through participatory organisation. We believe that radical social change is achieved by people organising themselves rather than through top down social-democratic or Leninist organisations. You may disagree wiht that position but it is hardly less 'real' than your work as a councillor.

On a personal note, I served six years as a WP/DL county councillor on Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council, representing working class communities in central Dun Laoghaire area so I can understand Dermot's point of view to a certain extent but I can honestly say that although I worked very hard to represent the people who elected me, that I witnessed much more 'real' change in many years of grassroots campaigning activism before and after those years as a councillor.

I think Dermot should inform himself a bit better on those organisations he chooses to attack because in the case of the ISN he's way off the mark.

by Dermot Lacey Sun Jun 26, 2005 14:12

Anthony G - first of all hope the new title is OK with you.

Perhaps I have misread something but I have yet to come across the coherent and cogent debate that you accuse me of ignoring. Few people on my side on these related matters have engaged in as much debate on the issue. I have never avoided such debate and remain willing to do so - but only on the basis that my integrity is not attacked.

In relation to Joan Collins opportunistic motion. Joan knew that we had no power to enforce it and it quite simply has no legal validity. Of course Councillors were not going to allow themselves be trapped by Joan by voting against the motion - particularly when they knew it had no effect.


Local Authorities in my view should continue to be the main Waste Collection Service providers - I do not support privatisation of that service but unlike most of the indymedia posters I do not oppose a (fair) payment system.

As for Colm Bhreathnachs upset at my "attacks" on the ISN. I suggest he reads what Comrade Lewis wrote and some of the many personal attacks made on me by opponents of the Waste Charges. I think I have been moderate in my response.

by Niall D Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:16

Dermot will you answer Ciaran AKA Seedot questions. Or are they too complex for you?

by Dermot Lacey Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:21

I believe I have answered the questions. I regret that somehow you feel I have not

by Niall D Sun Jun 26, 2005 17:22

Dermot you have not. I'm sure since you believe you already have you can either point out where exactly you have answered those questions or reproduce them here

by Watcher Mon Jun 27, 2005 00:10

What about Bree's point of view Dermot ? does the Labour Party believe that travellers should be housed ?

by Dermot Lacey Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:38

The answer is Yes. Everyone who needs housing should be able to get it through appropriate State/Local Authority housing programmes. These must be designed and plannd to meet local needs.

I take it the questions I was being asked to answer related to the role of Local Councils on Waste Collection which I answered and my attitude to Cllr Collins opportunitic motion which I also answered - both above please read. If you don't like my answer that is an entirely different matter

by Niall D Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:59

Dermot you did not answer those questions. Since you seem to have convinced nobody but yourself could you either reproduce your answers or link to where you have. You seem to be completely unable to properly debate, even the basic element of members of the electorate asking you questions seem to be out of the reach of your capabilities.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:08

Niall D, I believe the text below reproduced from above answers the questions. I regret that you do not.

Dermot




Anthony G - first of all hope the new title is OK with you.

Perhaps I have misread something but I have yet to come across the coherent and cogent debate that you accuse me of ignoring. Few people on my side on these related matters have engaged in as much debate on the issue. I have never avoided such debate and remain willing to do so - but only on the basis that my integrity is not attacked.

In relation to Joan Collins opportunistic motion. Joan knew that we had no power to enforce it and it quite simply has no legal validity. Of course Councillors were not going to allow themselves be trapped by Joan by voting against the motion - particularly when they knew it had no effect.


Local Authorities in my view should continue to be the main Waste Collection Service providers - I do not support privatisation of that service but unlike most of the indymedia posters I do not oppose a (fair) payment system.

As for Colm Bhreathnachs upset at my "attacks" on the ISN. I suggest he reads what Comrade Lewis wrote and some of the many personal attacks made on me by opponents of the Waste Charges. I think I have been moderate in my response.

add your comments

by seedot Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:26

Thanks Dermot for the reponse, although I am not quite sure what your answers mean.
To aid my comprehension could you explain what you mean by opportunistic in relation to Joans motion? Since this motion was a) part of the manifesto Joan got elected on and b) something that she had been campaigning for since the introduction of bin charges. Its not as if she woke up one morning and said - I know what'll embarass the council, I'll propose they collect all bins. This is what she was elected to achieve.

As to councillors not being trapped into voting against - well the motion pased by 9 votes to 8 so obviously some didn't see any huge trap. But too often the bin charges debate has been sidelined into what one group or councillor did or didn't do - who went to the toilet at what time, who said what to whom at an election count. All this is great fun for those who play politics but are of little relevance to resolving disputes on how to manage waste in our city.

So - to help me in my slowness - do you believe the council should be leaving waste behind on the bin round or should they be collecting all bins. Whether or not I've paid my charges this is important to me, as it is also important to the IMO who called for all rubbish to be collected in Cork due to the risk of disease. This is not a question on how this should be achieved, this is not even a question on how you voted - I am asking whether, after the motion has been democratically passed in the council chambers you now support this motion to collect all bins.


On your answer to my second question I see we are closer to agreement and understanding. We both seem to believe in locally managed public waste collection and therefore the debate is centred on how this should be provided and protected. I doubt you will find anybody who is arguing for an unfair payment system so I'm assuming you believe that 'most Indymedia posters' do not accept any payment system. Firstly, could I ask you to debate my points - not those you assign to 'most Indymedia posters'. Secondly, could I ask which of the payment systems you believe to be fair? Since your new position gives you an insight into the systems delivered by all four local authorities and since each of these systems has been modified over the last five years there are a number to choose from. We also have the system which was in place at the end of the 20th Century i.e. the bin service was paid for through nationally collected taxation, the system of locally collected funds (rates) which was in place for the first hundered years of the bin service and a whole range of other proposals.

Can I assume that when you support a Hotel Bed tax you do not see this, or other income sources, being assigned to waste management?
Can I also assume that you follow the green argument that waste disposal should be 'priced' in some way to discourage it - i.e. the more waste you dispose of the more it should cost you?

(IMHO this second argument has never been dealt with fully by the anti bin tax campaign).

If you answer yes to both these questions could I also ask how you can defend the flat rate tax in Dublin City area in 2001 / 02 which has no impact on waste disposal and was not really fair. Surely it is time to accept the court decision that these years charges were indeed invalid, and move on to debating what a fair system would consist of? A system that would
a) retain public provision of waste management
b) remove the requirement to pay on those who cannot afford it
c) in some way reward reduction in waste disposal without requiring people to leave waste on their property for extended periods of time

Personally I would have one other requirement for any system of waste management, which is that public health should not be endangered by removing the service from those who do not pay. This seems to be the very definition of a public good to me i.e. it is in my interest that all waste is collected from the streets of my city. I'm not sure if you agree with this final point.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Jun 27, 2005 14:40

Here goes and I hope this answers your questions - again.

1) I believe that Joans motion was opportunistic and playing to the gallery because she knew that because of the powers that rest with the Manager the motion had no legal effect whatsover.

2) I believe that Councillors themselves knew that when out of 52 Councillors -only 17 managed to vote on the issue. Given therefore the context of the powers of the Manager and the indifference to the motion from nearly three -quarters of the Councillors that the motion was and is an irrelevancy.

3) Yes I favour bins being collected and I favour people breaking the law being penalised for that breach.

4) In general I believe that of the four systems in place the Dublin City one is the most transparent and fair one. Clearer charging regime and fairer waiver system. The multicplicity of charges in Dun Laoghaire lessen the transparency - most people do not weigh their rubbish before putting it out. I am not sure if it is still in place but the different colour tags for waiver holders and those who paid in South Dublin Co Co was in my view unacceptable.

5) I have repeatedly said that I favour a system of Local taxation/charges. If Local Government is ever to be meaningful and relevant and a challenge to the stranglehold of National Government there must be an independent source of finance.

6) Yes I think we should be rapidly moving to an incentive scheme re waste in line with green thinking.

7) Flat rate has a place to play - as far as I am concerned - to cover basic standing costs - others disagree on this but irrespective of the number of bins collected there must still be trucks, depots, staff etc.

8) On your a, b, and c, points I agree.

If I have not answered anything my apologies I genuinely thought I had already. My view on this issue needs to be reviewed in a wider context. I believe that it is in the interests of the average citizen that services are provided as close to the community as possible. I believe that real progress can be best delivered throgh a reformed Local Government system. Such a reformed system must have finance raising powers.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN-personal capacity Mon Jun 27, 2005 17:09

Dermot responds to my detailed demolition of his attack on the ISN by claiming that I should not get 'upset' at attacks on the ISN because of the attacks he has suffered from people in the BIn Tax Campaign.

First I am not at all 'upset' by his or any other attacks on the ISN. I have spent long enough in the bear pit to be 'upset' by a bit of verbal from Dermot or anyone else. In fact I welcome the opportunity to engage in vigorous and honest debate and will always engage in it as long as people use their real names, which Dermot regularly does. But it was Demot who attacked the ISN, as opposed to rsponding to Stephen as an individual, accusing the organisation of opportunism, a claim I believe I have refuted. Dermot simply dismisses my defense by saying I should not get 'upset' rather than responding to my specific points.

I respect genuine social democrats who put their views forward honestly and openly, though as a democratic Marxist I am strongly opposed to those views. I think, however, that Dermot often premises his arguments on two false notions which I tried to deal with in my own response:

1. That he is somehow unique, at least amongst indymedia contributors, in engaging in 'real' politics which benefit 'real' people, arising out of the fact that he is an elected councillor and that he views the electoral process as the primary, if not the only, way of brining about social change.

2. That all his opponents, at least on indymedia, adhere to some characatured Leninist/Trotskyist model of organisation. Of course the fact is that those he engages in debate in range from Leninists to anarchists and everything in between. The ISN is certainly not a Leninist organisation, either in its internal organisation or its ideological perspective.

In the case of the ISN, he may well disagree with us but any objective observer would agree that we conform to neither of his presumptions.

by mike bourke - bus eireann Sat Aug 06, 2005 03:39 mikebusman at eircom dot net Limerick

I am a member and a rep in SIPTU and am proud of it. However, I am not a supporter of the Irish Labour Party and I resent the assumption that all SIPTU members are.
I am a long time trade unionist and also a supporter of the natural Irish party of government, Ie Fianna Fail.
Please do not assume we are all supporters of Labour.

Thank you.
Mike Bourke.

by Tom Joad Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:06

Mike,

in your attempt to distance yourself (correctly) from the Labour Party, you have inadvertently shot yourself in the foot. So rather chosing to support the sell out labour party who are silent on the attacks against working class people, you have chosen to support the very party who carries out most of these attcks - great logic. With people like you as SIPTU reps, it kinda explains the dire state of the TU movement. Actually I thought people like you had died out, or at least hid their political affiliations. Keep up the good work!

by Granuaille Sun Aug 07, 2005 09:08

The difficulty for anyone with any integrity trying to argue these points with Mr Lacey is that he is not remotely serious about the debate. We should know better than to give him and his ilk an opportunity for grandstanding his opportunisitic right-wing credentials for the benefit of the Labour Party's potential friends in a future-coalition. I'm sure your pals in Fine Gael will be very impressed by all this, Dermot. The spectacle of Lacey and a lot of other Labour politicians like him, kicking their natural voter base - and their own party members - off the ladder behind them is not pretty. And the only 'silly' thing in this discussion is Lacey's irritation and ill-humour about being effectively cornered on specific issues. Afraid of upsetting the get-elected-at all-costs strategy that Labour have adopted across a range of issues, Lacey has nothing more to offer than cliched name-calling. 'Extreme left wing' for God's sake! Don't fall for that old nonsense, its supposed to make you feel bad about having a sense of decency and fairness about how things are done. Labour have the whiff of power in their nostrils and it seems they are prepared to use and abuse everyone and everything to get their hands on it. They are also desperate to lend an air of badly needed social concern to the stuffed shirts in Fine Gael - but nothing that would upset the vested interests that might be feeling nervous about FG's alliance with a group of (pseudo) socialists. Of course Lacey is embarrassed to be caught bang-to-rights in this unedifying role. That said, it's difficult to understand any union representative supporting Fianna Fail and not feeling conflicted to the point of schizophrenia. The only real alternatives to FF, FG, PD and Labour are Sinn Fein and the Green Party. For this voter, though, SF have had a lamentable response to the murder of Robert McCartney and until that is dealt with fully and adquately it will continue to destroy the trust that had been established in the South. Aside from that major issue, it is arguable the SF and Greens have a lot to offer. Both parties include a number of experienced and capable people and a number of SF representatives in the North have direct experience of senior government roles. The big job for these parties is to bust apart the FF/FG psychosis which so many Irish voters are locked into (cf a piece I posted here earlier this week 'Inside the Mind of a Fianna Fail Voter' - if you want to upset and amuse yourself at the same time). Labour, FF, FG and the PD's are now almost entirely irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of voters. We should ignore them except for working out how best to destroy their strangle-hold on power.