Can Coalition With Parties of the Right Bring Real Change?

by Socialisticus - None Mon Mar 27, 2006 18:03

Fair play for organising such a debate but isn't there a risk with 3 out of 4 speakers in favour of coalition (only Healy is anti-coalition) that the debate will be stacked in favour of the pro-coalition argument?

by Gaz B -(A)- Mon Mar 27, 2006 18:18

Labour youth are anti coalition. I think Dillon will be arguing against going into coalition with either FF/ FG/PDs

by Jolly Green Giant Mon Mar 27, 2006 18:30

Greens are not committed to coalition. The conference just decided that the GP would not stand as part of a pact. If the TDs want to have mercs after the next election then they will have to convince a special conference. By no means an easy task, its likely they will be given a set of demands they cannot deliver on. It might end up with a split in the party.

by phm Tue Mar 28, 2006 13:01

Fine Gael and Labour activists are caught between a rock and a hard place.

The numbers just don't stack up for an alternative to FF/PD which does'nt include SF and the GP.

Infortunately the views of SF/GP on immigration are scaring their core voters into the arms of FF who are considered a safe pair of hands.

Readers of indymedia simply have no idea as to how crucial illegal immigration and asylum abuse has become in the minds of the ordinary voting public. Just because normal opinion has been intimidated out of public sight by screeches of 'racism' by the small unrepresentative refugee industry doesn't mean that it isn't a tipping issue with the ordinary voter (The recent agitation by the trade unions as to underpayment of foreign workers is not motivated by altruism but is transparently an attempt to disincentivise the hiring of perfectly legal non-irish workers)

If the voters consider that alternatives to the present coalition are dodgy on illegal immigration the incorporation of the GP will not compensate for the loss in the FG core vote.

by Socialist Tue Mar 28, 2006 13:33

NO

by historian Tue Mar 28, 2006 14:18

Perceptive post. Particularly in relation to SF. Shinners of my acquaintaince are bewildered as to why the IRA decommissioning has not led to upsurge in polls. Reason is as phm states that many SF voters and potential SF voters are opposed to the party's position which is seen as unquestioning support for mass immigration.

by Topper Tue Mar 28, 2006 18:45

"Socialist", if a one word answer was enough, then we'd have no trouble persuading the majority of the population to support the radical left. Unfortunately, the majority of them don't support us, so it might be an idea to engage them with arguments.

Meanwhile, surprise surprise, we have some more anonymous people stridently insisting that immigration is the only thing that matters these days. I wonder what their agenda could be - what could it possibly be?

by Raymond McInerney - Global Country of World Peace Tue Mar 28, 2006 22:34 raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie Limerick 00353860638611

Only by creating coherence in National Consciousness of Ireland.

by Socialist Tue Mar 28, 2006 23:23

The question posed is:

Can Coalition With Parties of the Right Bring Real Change?

The question can be answered in one word:

NO

The comment was not about the idea behind the meeting rather an answer to the question.

I would pose the following as the title for the meeting:

'Coalition with parties of the right cannot bring real change, time to build a party of the left'

by Another Socialist Thu Mar 30, 2006 00:12

Thats fine Socialist, I agree that the answer is 'No' but single word answers never won anyone over to socialist ideas, so we have to work to convince people that our view is correct.

Once you convince someone that coalition is a dead-end for left parties then it logically follows that, since Labour, SF and the Greens are all wedded to the idea, there is a need for a new party of the working class which rejects the idea of coalition as a matter of basic principle.

by Socialist Thu Mar 30, 2006 01:15

...

by c. Thu Mar 30, 2006 03:10

Is this some type of quiz that you are involved in?

Will there be an assessment of who was the most right on, always on the right side?

Or is this an opportunity for communication? Maybe there's the opportunity to say something people weren't expecting, shake them out of their pattern and convince them that a new left party is worth working for?

If the sum of your argument is two characters, you'ld have to ask - whats the point of posting?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Mar 30, 2006 09:44

Gaz, I don't want to put words in Paul Dillon's mouth. Perhaps he personally is anti-coalition, perhaps not, I don't know. But as I understand it Labour Youth as an organisation voted against having a specific electoral pact pre-election, rather than against going into coalition with the main right wing parties. That is they don't oppose coalition, but instead think that better coalition terms can be achieved by not tying the Labour Party to one or other of the larger parties before the poll. Those are very different things.

by question Thu Mar 30, 2006 15:12

Who are the Campaign for an Independent Left (CIL) has Healy gioven up his idea of building a new party with that CWUAG group?

by CIL supporter Thu Mar 30, 2006 15:47

Brief intro:

http://www.irishsocialist.net/cil.html

by X Thu Mar 30, 2006 18:17

The CIL is the formal title of the alliance that is campaigning for a new left party. It includes Seamus Healy's Tipperary Workers and Unemployed Action Group, the Commmunity and Workers Action Group (based in Crumlin/Drimnagh) and the Irish Socialist Network, along with individuals associated with the journal Red Banner.

by confused Sat Apr 01, 2006 15:03

Why is there three left-wing groups that are against coalition? I mean this CIL group, the People before Profit alliance and the Socialist Party. Why dont they just put aside their diffrences and get together to make a strong alliance that would really take on the pro-coalition parties?

And Im not interested in hearing how their policies on China etc. etc. are so different that they just can't possibly work together.

by Ois Sat Apr 01, 2006 16:00

People before profit are dominated by SWP and nobody wants to work with them for various reasons.

SP think that the 'objective conditions' are not right for the creation of a new party.

And the CIL are doing what you suggest.

Personally I think the CIL is a waste of time and energy but there you go.

by confused Sat Apr 01, 2006 20:00

Thanks Ois but now Im even more confused. Why wont the others work with the SWP? Is the SWP willing to work with them? Are the Socialist Party against making an alliance with the others or just against joining together in a new party?

I really dont understand what you mean about the CIL? Do they think they're the alliance of the left and are they unwilling to work with the other two?

by John Meehan - Campaign for an Independent Left Sun Apr 02, 2006 13:50

The following CIL statement appears in the current edition of Village magazine

===========================
Coalition deals weaken the Left

One likely outcome of the next General Election is that neither Fianna Fáil-PDs nor Fine Gael-Labour will have enough TDs to form a stable government.

This means they will look to others for support: the Greens, Independents and possibly Sinn Féin. These forces are looking to “hold the balance of power”. They believe they can implement some of their policies by being in government, or by doing a deal on specific issues in exchange for supporting a particular government.

But the history of parties with a radical agenda entering coalition governments is disappointing. Has Labour brought about significant social change while in coalition? Or has it revived Fine Gael at the expense of becoming a serious force representing working people?

Notwithstanding local community deals – which are short-lived and have not challenged the root causes of inequality and poverty – coalition and deals with Independents have weakened the left. Every controversial vote compels all who support a government to choose: leftwing TDs have been and will be forced to support the rightwing policies of governments committed to the interests of big business. Opportunities to build a real alternative to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have been and will be squandered.

This is a crucial issue for those who want change in our society. Should those with a radical agenda support governments which will continue the neoliberal assault on working people and allow Shannon to be used in Bush and Blair’s imperialist wars, in exchange for what will turn out to be minor concessions?

Instead of doing parliamentary deals with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, the left can work inside and outside the Dáil - building a real opposition and mobilising working people to achieve real change through their own struggle.
Séamus Healy TD and the Campaign for an Independent Left do not think that supporting Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael in government is the way to promote the interests of ordinary people. We are interested in discussions with other independents on how those with a radical agenda can work together without doing such deals.

The Campaign for an Independent Left will discuss this at its public meeting: ‘Can Coalition With Parties of the Right Bring Real Change? on Tuesday April 4, 8.00pm, Teachers' Club, 36 Parnell Square, Dublin 1. Speakers: Séamus Healy TD (Tipperary South) – CIL; Patricia McKenna (Green Party Dáil Candidate, Dublin Central); Paul Dillon (Labour Youth); Daithí Doolan (Dublin City Councillor, Sinn Féin). Chair: Harry Browne.

For further comment on coalition and information on the Campaign for an Independent Left:

Séamus Healy TD 087 280 2199

Councillor Joan Collins 086 388 8151
=========================

by JD Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:10

CIL is a waste of time and energy? What are the alternatives SF, Labour have both indicated they are "ready for Government". Lizzie says no way to Lab and FF govt, why? If you argue that the only real way to influence Government is to be in one why would you swallow coalition with FG and reject it with FF? whats the difference - answers on a postcard to Dick Spring the ranch Kerry.

by James Mon Apr 03, 2006 14:52

Well, Ois is an anarchist, so probably he considers the best way to influence Government decisions is for working people to cause enough trouble (strikes being especially good) so that they will prefer to give a few concessions rather than risk an escalation which could spread and mobilize the population. A population actually taking an active part in deciding policy is the ultimate nightmare for all leaders, right across the spectrum.

If working people can cause enough trouble, then it doesn’t really matter if it's FG + Labour or FF + Labour or whatever, the concessions will be coming. Conversely if the population are fairly apathetic then there won’t be any significant change coming from the government, irrespective of Rabbitte et al holding a few ministries.

Moral: change comes from below. And like all good morals, that’s a good example to follow! Presumably, Ois's view on CIL is that by participating in electoral politics, which depends on getting well known individuals elected so they can fix things on our behalf, they are undermining that grassroots approach. But's that an old chestnut.

by strawberry girl - the unmanageables Mon Apr 03, 2006 16:32

........

by Jack Lynch Tue Apr 04, 2006 01:06

Ois and James, non participation in electoral politics can also be used as an excuse to do nothing except preach to the common people. Good examples are the slogans refugees are welcome here -when they are clearly not in a lot of areas and abortion on demand - without having to argue the points with ordinary people. At least participating in electoral politics forces the left to engage with working class people and what an eyeopener that can be - for both sides!!!
Participation in electoral politics is not necessarily a negative thing provided those participating don’t see getting elected as the sole focus. The election of Joan Collins is a good example, as a councillor she is entitled to lots of information about the bin tax figures, PPP’s etc.. that the campaigners wouldn’t have access to if she wasn’t a councillor. Tony Gregory speaking up for the disadvantaged in his area also highlights the problem to a greater extent than a hundred copies of socialist worker.
Electoral politics will not defeat capitalism but it can certainly help politicise people. Using anti electoralism as an excuse anarchists can save themselves the litmus test of putting their policies and ideas before joe public and having to defend their arguments. It’s so much easier to debate with likeminded people. Saves a lot of embarrassment.

by Paul - Labour Youth Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:30

It is the position of Labour Youth to reject coalition deals, before national elections or after,with right wing parties and seek instead a Left Led government.

by curious Tue Apr 04, 2006 14:09

Will Labour Youth dissaffiliate when the party goes into coalition after the next election?

by Luxemburg Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:01

Have'nt got time to go into details, even a decidicated revolutionary has to earn a crust, but it was a very well attended meeting, with a packed room at the Teachers Club. Many of the usual suspects but a lot of new faces as well. Hopefully someone will have time to fil in on the actual debate.

by BC - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:04

The meeting room was certainly packed (and extremely hot). 64 people were there, at least for the second half which was all I caught. I'm not too sure about the "new faces" bit though, as far as I could tell the minority of faces unfamiliar to the lefties were mostly from Labour, Sinn Fein or the Greens! I'm sure somebody who was there for the whole thing will give a proper report.

by AD Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:17

"I'm sure somebody who was there for the whole thing will give a proper report."

Perhaps the objective conditions aren't right for giving a report yet.

by After Dinner Wed Apr 05, 2006 17:50

Not only are the objective conditions not right for giving a report, even the suggestion of giving a report is premature although we are fully in favour of the idea of a report being given .....sometime.....theoretically.....maybe.....when the centre tells us...er...um.

by sean Wed Apr 05, 2006 18:13

64 people is not a good turnout at all give the fact that it had such a good lineup

by Shawn Wed Apr 05, 2006 22:06

Well, Sean, I'm sure you'll be keen to give details of all the meetings you've been organising recently, and the turnoout you've achieved. Won't you? We're all ears

by Dan - ISN (pc) Wed Apr 05, 2006 22:43

Don’t really have time to write up a full report on the meeting (can’t remember every comment that was made anyway) but a few points that people might find interesting.

None of the speakers argued in favour of coalition with right-wing parties. Daithi Doolan was adamant that SF would never go into government with Fianna Fail. He said SF wanted to build an alliance of the left. Paul Dillon also argued against coalition.

Seamus Healy spoke about the experience of left parties entering government and said that it always weakened the left and strengthened the right. He argued that it was important to build up extra-parliamentary activism.

Paul Dillon also argued for putting the emphasis on work outside parliamentary politics. He said it was necessary to challenge the ideology of consumerism and empower people. He also said it was important for the left to use the right language when communicating with people and not alienate support.

Patricia McKenna was very critical of the Labour party. She also criticised her own party and said its leadership was buying into the media line that it had to water down its politics if it wanted to make real headway. She criticised SF for meeting with George Bush and questioned whether the party was really as democratic as Daithi Doolan made out.

Daithi Doolan defended SF against her criticism (which was also made from the floor) and said it had been necessary to meet George Bush so that he could put pressure on Tony Blair to adopt certain positions.

From the floor, Pat Dunne argued that members of Labour Youth were wasting their time trying to shift the party to the left: he had been in their position 25 years ago and seen all the genuine left-wingers in LY either leave the party or get forced out by the leadership.

Des Bonass put forward a suggestion for a conference/meeting sponsored by the ATGWU that could bring together different people on the left.

Dermot Connolly said that this was a good idea, and suggested that it might consider launching a campaign around the health service. He said that the left could pick some issues around which to mobilise people and launch a protest campaign. If some victories were achieved, even small ones, it would give people confidence and encourage more activism.

That’s about all that sticks in my mind. If anyone wants to add more fire away.

Overall I thought there was a good discussion, but it was only a starting-point, there were still a lot of other things that could have been said (you can only get through so much in a two hour meeting).

I think there was a bit of confusion when different speakers were talking about unity, because there were different versions of unity being proposed. The first kind would involve people on the left coming together to campaign around an issue, the second would involve coming together around a long-term political project.

The first kind of unity can obviously involve members of all sorts of different groups: Labour, SF, Socialist Party, CIL etc. The second kind of unity requires a lot more consensus (obviously it doesn’t make much sense to get involved in building a new left-wing party if you’re still an active member of Labour or SF).

Plenty more that could be said, but there was food for thought from the meeting anyway. As I see it, any moves by the left over the next while, whether coming from the CIL or anything else, should be focused towards campaigning and building up activism much more than next year’s elections. Everyone at the meeting seemed to agree, so how we do it is the next question.

by seedot Thu Apr 13, 2006 00:56

Last Tuesday the campaign for an independent left met in the Teachers club, the same building, so I was informed at a previous CIL meeting, that saw the foundation of Clann na Poblachta. Meetings like this take place in the context of a history, both recent between the people and organisations in the room and through a wider knowledge of the way these things tend to work out. While the meeting wasn’t cynical, you knew that it was not naïve – it was a testing the ground and sensing the mood type of meeting.

The CIL was pretty up straight about what it believed. While Harry Browne was a good neutral chair, the introduction piece by Seamus Healy and the contributions by Pat Dunne from the floor and Dermot Connolly in closing the meeting laid out the stall pretty clearly. They had distributed a leaflet which listed 10 points of unity the first of which was no coalition with parties of the right: defined as FG, FF and PD. This was the commitment they were seeking from people.

The people at the top table were Seamus Healy putting the case, Daithi Doolan from Sinn Fein, Paul Dillon from the youth wing of the labour party and Patricia McKenna from her wing of the Green party. The workers unemployed action group TD from Tipperary gave a subdued speech which talked about the history of left wing parties which had gone into coalition with ‘parties of the right’. He didn’t repeat the 40 seat figure given by Harry Browne at the start of the meeting but he laid out the arithmetic in a way where only one conclusion was possible: Fine Gael and Fianna Fail could be forced to agree a Taoiseach between them.

Next, Paul Dillon gave some context to the discussion, mentioning managerialism in politics and youth apathy. Mr Dillon was very in tune with the CIL argument and the Labour Youth contingent looked and felt like the youth wing of the campaign for an independent left. Given his position in relation to the elected representatives of his party who will be voting for Taoiseach his speech was unsurprisingly general.

What was surprising was the general support for the left and for a campaign for an independent left that came from Daithi Dollan next, whilst avoiding the question. Daithi is a good speaker as he proved later on, standing at the stump putting forward Sinn Feins claim to be a revolutionary movement. The orientation to the structures and issues of the left are obvious from Dublin Sinn Fein spokespeople these days and Daithi jumped on the offer of T&G support for the initiative later on. But it seems that the move from abstentionism is now so far that a Sinn Fein representative cannot say his party can accept a principle of no coalition. He accepted all the other points on the CIL programme while claiming that no party or group had a right to tell another what to do. Perhaps Mr Doolan should check out the history of Clann na Poblachta, the last Republicans to leave abstentionism straight for government and think about whether the best way of dealing with the left is to offer to support each others street campaigns but refuse to discuss electoralism.

Patricia McKenna arrived late and was disturbed by the prospect of Trevor Sergeant being the phone call she missed. She gave out about the media and pondered the potential for more power to be available through a minority support for a Taoiseach, outside the mercs and perks. Her phone problems and the comments were enjoyed both by the TU people who made them and a few greenies I recognised in the audience along with standard attendees. The room was overfull – I recognised a comrade from the SP who had come along, not to speak because the time is premature, but to stand at the doorway being jostled by an over large crowd. Patricia’s speech was a sign that this went beyond the language of the left and that many voices will take part in this discussion.

The meeting was not the type of thing you run out of afterwards to change the world and set up the organisations that will do this. It was a laying out the stall and the agreement was that there was a need for a campaign for an independent left. I think maybe for too many of the people they came expecting a campaign to save the left. This seems to be a campaign to free the left. If, in the next Dail, there is a block of forty plus who have said they will sign up to the CIL pledge and a Taoiseach elected by agreement between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael there is the potential that this campaign will succeed and the left will be free to decide how it wants to use electoralism.

by One more for the road Thu Apr 13, 2006 09:50

'If, in the next Dail, there is a block of forty plus who have said they will sign up to the CIL pledge and a Taoiseach elected by agreement between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael there is the potential that this campaign will succeed and the left will be free to decide how it wants to use electoralism.'

Pigs will fly