Eamonn McCann responds to Joe Higgins' call for new left party

by 2213 Mon Apr 24, 2006 23:17

This was bound to happen. The reports in the papers of statements made by Joe Higgins at the SP conference were incorrect. Someone from the SP should reply to this statement from SWP and put them out of their misery and anybody else who thinks that SP has changed its position. You shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers.

by ImSickOfLeftyInfighting Tue Apr 25, 2006 00:09

whether the papers are right or wrong, I really dont care. I'm sick of "the SP said this" and "the SWP did this" meanwhile the neo liberal capitalist scum , united in greed, laughing all the way, goosestep into the next government.
For fecks sake cant the left parties for once act like adults and get together to give us an alternative to another four years of fianna (whatever) / PD hell. Its all very well sticking to your principles to the letter but it is of no use if you never have any power to change anything. I know there are differences of opinion but no matter how bad they are, surely the alternative is much worse.
So please, I appeal to all left independents and left parties with candidates (and the greens) . Get together . Find your common ground and offer a united left challenge to these idiots. Show us you can do it and the irish people, who I'm certain are at least as fed up as I am of crap government not giving a damn about the real needs of human beings, will show you their support. Dont blow this opportunity. Get your asses into the dail and show us all what you can do.

by UNITE Tue Apr 25, 2006 00:22

Great to see McCann respond so positively. I think a united left would have an impact on irish politics way beyond the sum of its infighting parts at the moment. Don't thing any of the bull about reasons the left can't do it for this or that sectarian reason stand up to reason. Good on you Eamonn.

by MC Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:52

The infighting is monumental pain in the A, alright. But aside altogether from whether or not a united left can get itself elected, there is still a vital need to unite around a forceful and principled opposition. That's what this country lacks most of all - parliamentary accountability. There must be many disgusted labour party reps, local and national, who could deal a real blow to what is happening if they stood as independents.

If we trebled the number of independents then it would be easier for people to unite on specific issues even if they cant agree on everything. Over a couple of parliaments, this would begin to have a significant effect on politics - the voting blocks would be much less predictable and it would weaken the influence of the party whips. It might also give some spine to back bench TDs who remain within the political parties.

Party politics are the real cancer. We should cut it out.

by Dermot Lacey Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:10

May I join in the general welcome for the idea of Joe Higgins and Eamon Mc cann linking up. What great boost ofr the real Left!

by Lacy Dermot Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:40

May I join in the general welcome for the idea of Enda 'Give them both barrels' Kenny and Pat 'there's 40 millon Poles' linking up. What great boost ofr (sic) the real Right!

by Heres hoping Tue Apr 25, 2006 18:17

OF sp having an electoral alliance with SWP. Nothing to gain everything to lose.

by Paddy Power Tue Apr 25, 2006 22:26

I would give you better odds on Ireland winning the 2006 World Cup than I would on SP and SWP having an electoral alliance.

by Ha Ha Tue Apr 25, 2006 23:14

If you look at what he actually said:

In his speech to the Socialist Party annual conference in Maynooth, Higgins said his party was open to working with "principled political groups with a real base, genuine local campaigns and community groups who may be considering standing in the general election".

Are the SWP a principled political group?

Do they have a real base?

Are they involved in genuine local campaigns?

Don't think Joe Higgins comments were directed at the SWP. After all could they really answer yes to any of the above questions.

by ImSickOfLeftyInfighting Wed Apr 26, 2006 01:40

To cut a long (and endlessly tiresome and counterproductive) story short

REPEAT
SWP are bad because [ insert criticism here ]
the SP are bad because [ Insert criticism here ]
Labour are bad because [ Insert criticism here ]
Sinn Fein are bad because [Insert criticism here ]
greens are bad because [insert criticism here]
the independent [ Insert name ] is bad because [insert criticism here ]
no we're not. yes we are (x 100)
UNTIL COUNTRY GOES DOWN THE TUBES

and fianna fail / fianna gael / PD's are "wonderful well meaning honest people with the best interests of all irish citizens at heart" and whom it looks like we will leave in government in one configuration or another until they have wrecked our country, because our only hope for a change of direction lies in a bunch of short sighted people squabbling with each other powerlessly on the fringe.

We get the government we deserve.

Fuck it, why do I bother. I think I'm going to join fianna fail, stop being vegan, sell my bike and buy a big SUV, get a pile of shell and monsanto shares and lobby for looser labour laws, GM crops and wide ranging cheap mineral right licences, pay off a few of the boys to help me rezone some land then a few of us can get together, exploit a few blatant tax loopholes and get a troop of underpaid polish tradesmen to build yet another huge apartment block where we can suck the marrow from a bunch of wage slaves for a few years, then sell it and I can live in comfort on my share on a tax writeoff yacht in the med while the auld sod burns. Let the environment, the old, the sick and the weak in society go to hell. Whats the point of polishing the brass on the titanic? If you cant beat 'em, join 'em. Lets just enjoy the excess while it lasts folks.

by Hugo Wed Apr 26, 2006 02:40

ImSickOfLeftyInfighting grow up. Stop being so lazy and make the effort to try to understand history and how our society works, and is changed. Your rant is simply a cry for the easy solution to a complex and difficult struggle. But there isn't an easy solution the history of human society proves that and the Socialist Party is not prepared to destroy everything it has built and worked for by making a major mistake and throwing its lot in with the SWP, Sinn Fein, Labour or whoever else. It doesn't take much effort to realise that all of the above have betrayed working class people and will never be capable of riding this country of capitalism. In the case of Sinn Fein, Labour and the Greens they don't want to get rid of capitalism, they simply want to perpetuate the status quo with little changes here and there. And in the case of the SWP they would sell their proverbial grandmother if it gained them an iota of extra support. So ImSickOfLeftyInfighting in the words of a better man than me, Malcolm X, think, think and think again - put in the effort find out why the world is so fucked up and why working class people have so far failed to change things and then try to come up with a plan to change things, don't just say everyone should just get together because the capitalists are bastards!

by ImSickOfLeftyInfighting Wed Apr 26, 2006 06:05

because evidently the SP already have it all figured out.

In the words of a greater man than I (leonard cohen)

"He was starving in some deep mystery...Like a man who is sure what is true"

Seriously

Interesting that you quote malcolm x, a man who was always changing his views. Perhaps you could learn something else from this great man: more flexibility of thought.

Look Hugo, Perhaps its not evident from my comment but I believe I do have a little understanding of how things work. I'm well aware that any joining of the left parties waters down and compromises each of the participants set of beliefs. I appreciate that you believe that your approach is the only one that can save the workers from rapacious capitalism. Perhaps your beliefs may be completely at odds with the state and party politics. I would tend to agree with you if you were to say the whole premise of party politics and our so called democracy itself may need to be rejected in favour of something better and fairer

However I have been to socialist meetings. perhaps they were not representative but if they were, it is quite clear to me that the very small number of people attending such meetings desperately trying to recruit new members and unable to get together even a mailing list to follow up the meetings to keep the new members interested, will not change the world much on their own, however impassioned their speeches.

So, the frustrated people of ireland get an alternative, the SP get a voice, some power to improve things within the current (albeit flawed) framework and as a result perhaps more members.Win win.

Sure, the real solutions to all our problems in the long term might demand far more radical ideas. For instance,some say the complete abolition of the state as we know it , the whole idea of private property, and the formation of many decentralised autonomous anarcho syndicalist eco communes living a much simpler existence might be the way to go.

Meanwhile we have an out of control right wing govt doing whatever they like.

Personally I'd prefer a drift in the right (left!) direction and perhaps more people as a result voting for left candidates than rapid acceleration the opposite way. Which is what we have now.

Maybe what you would prefer is for things to get so bad that people have an epiphany and run out onto the streets and start the revolution. I really dont think the powers that be are stupid enough to let it get quite that bad. That lesson has been learned. There will always be bread and circuses.

Even monkeys know that tactical alliances bear fruit and help to advance causes. Why not the Irish left?

I'll go away and try to improve my understanding of how the world works if you will go read a little Sun Tsu! All the best.

by John - dunaree2000 Wed Apr 26, 2006 15:07

All your problems and frustrations derive from the fact that the total Left vote in Ireland only amounts to 30 per cent. The other 70 per cent is taken by FF, FG and PDs. And that's using a very generous definition of 'Left vote'. I doubt if many of those who vote Labour could actually be described as left-wing. The hard Left vote in Ireland amounts to a mere 10 per cent to 15 per cent. Why don't you face up to that central fact? The only way you can improve things from your point of view to is to bring forward considered and costed proposals for the improvement of government in Ireland. If you did that, you might attract some votes from the 70 per cent of the electorate who have never been more prosperous and who are very happy with the way Ireland is being governed, minor differences between FF and FG supporters notwithstanding. But, you don't do that. All you do is scream hysterical abuse, vile language, accusations that anybody who doesn't share your wildly pessimistic assumptions about the state of Ireland today is a fascist, neocon, or whatever other adjective is currently in fashion in your circles for describing those who have the support of the vast majority of people in this country. This isn't how political movements should behave. Its more like adolescent tantrums, that stage around 15 to 22 that we all go through when we think all grown-ups are stupid, that all authority must be mocked and that every problem in the world has been caused by wicked capitalists. No wonder you make no progress. The Left vote in Ireland is as low as its ever been. Jiggle around with as many new parties as you like. It won't make any difference. We've had new left-wing parties before, dozens of them. Remember Matt Merrigan's Socialist Labour Party? Or was it the Labour Socialist Party? Who knows? Who cares? In the real world outside your own narrow little circle, nobody gives a fig about the difference between the SP and the SWP, or between the WP and the SWP. You're crazy if you think Eamonn McCann is going to lead you to victory. He's stood in every Westminster and Stormont election in Derry since 1965. Never won any of them, never came close to winning any of them, and that's with a PR system that allows people to win seats with 15 per cent of the vote. One day you'll grow up.

by Richey Wed Apr 26, 2006 15:24

"One day you'll grow up."

Indeed you will John, indeed you will. We can only hope it happens soon

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Apr 26, 2006 15:32

Richey,

If you check this John's 'debate' with some of us on the issue of the DCC postering ban ('Shut Up'), I am sure you will conclude, as I have, that there is a serious doubt that John has any reasonable chance of growing up.
Miracles do happen of course....but I wouldn't hold too much hope.

by Bronstein - sp Wed Apr 26, 2006 15:46

There is no doubt a certain programme of economic demands that the SWP and SP could unite around but other serious issues present problems. Our different analysis of the National Question for one, which I wont go into here.

More worrying is the manner in which the SWP have lined up with Islamists, joining demos supporting the wearing of the veil, supporting the right of Muslims to censor the press, generally abandoning support for womens rights and LGBT rights. If this is how the SWP behave then can we be certain that they still support womens rights in Ireland?

The SWP are renowned for their electoral opportunism and boy are they clever. They played the Race Card in a coy manner inDun Laoire with their demand that locals get prefference in employment on building sites in the area. I would not be surprised if they suddenly made a turn to Catholicism if they thought there was votes in it.

So, if you are supping with the SWP, use a long spoon.

by John - dunaree2000 Wed Apr 26, 2006 15:52

You're proving my point precisely. Thank you. Not the slightest attempt to deal with any of the serious points I made, just childish abuse.

by Richey Wed Apr 26, 2006 16:37

Ah, the stench of hypocrisy - something we've got used to from John's contributions. Having urged people to "grow up" and abused them as "immature" because they don't share his ultra-right political views, he then starts wailing when he gets a taste of his own medicine.

by Davy Carlin Wed Apr 26, 2006 16:52

SP - SWP electoral pact anytime in the next decade - Zero chance. Told the SWP 'Leadership' that even when I was in the SWP

Can 'anyone link me to or provide info on this - because despite my probs with SWP, and apart from all the rest you raise, I still would find that hard to believe that

'Quote - 'They played the Race Card in a coy manner in Dun Laoire with their demand that locals get prefference in employment on building sites in the area.

I really really hope though that this is not the case- Oportunism is one thing but this is something different altogether - but if the case, well the networks will be made well aware of this..

by ImSickOfleftyInfighting Wed Apr 26, 2006 16:59

So I must be doing something right!! :-)

by John - dunaree2000 Wed Apr 26, 2006 17:13

I'm not wailing. I said you'd proved my point and I thanked you for it. Always happy to be proved right. Looking at it from your own narrow interest, do you never have moments of self-doubt and consider that your approach might be one of the reasons why the Left vote is so low in Ireland? Ireland is unique in Europe in the fact that the Left has never won a majority at any election in the last century, or even come close to one. The Left vote in Ireland today is the lowest of any European country. Ireland is unique in Europe in both the Government and the main Opposition party being on the centre-right (or no doubt fascist, as you would probably call them). Do you ever wonder why this is? Do you ever consider that it might be due to the way the Left behaves? Their obsession with protest, conspiracy theories, abuse of opponents and simplistic slogans, rather than formulating detailed and costed proposals that the electorate might be attracted to. Leftists used to blame the Civil War or the Catholic Church for their failure to make a breakthrough. Neither of these are factors now. Yet the Left in Ireland is as far from an electoral breakthrough as ever. I rejoice in this and thank leftist politicians in Ireland for making it so.

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Apr 26, 2006 18:00

Smash the right wing!
"Fascism is not to be debated. It is to be smashed... "

See you on the other side of the barricade !

A broad left wing front against neo-liberalism in a 32 county Dail Eireann should be welcomed, lets build to get that national parliament and national democracy.

What would this left coaliation stance be on partition?

by John - dunaree2000 Wed Apr 26, 2006 18:14

Define fascism. If you mean FF, FG and PDs, you're mouthing meaningless slogans. First, no one outside the extreme left considers these as fascist and second, they outnumber you ten to one and, if you try to smash them, they'll smash you. If you don't mean FF, FG and PDs but mean parties to the right of these, you can smash them all you like because they're virtually non-existent in Ireland and have no power, so what good would it do you to smash them? A 32-county Dail would have a bigger anti-Left majority than a 26-county Dail, as the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland are unionists who are rather conservative and anti-Left. Barricades? You don't even have the numbers, organisational ability or power to erect one barricade in the dingiest backstreet in Ireland, let alone the larger number of barricades you'd need to erect all around the country to take power. Stop fantasising about a Revolution that isn't going to happen and go and do some useful work. You've watched Dr. Zhivago once too often.

by Richey Wed Apr 26, 2006 18:19

Indeed you were "wailing" by denouncing as "childish abuse" the very things you'd been saying yourself a few minutes earlier.

To repeat, in John's world:

1) When he tells someone to grow up because they disagree with him, it's serious political commentary

2) When someone responds by telling him to grow up himself, it's childish abuse

Flawless logic John, flawless! It's good to have you around, giving us ceaseless amusement with your silly warblings.

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Apr 26, 2006 18:20

What about partition? is your Ireland 26 counties or 32?

by John - dunaree2000 Wed Apr 26, 2006 19:02

I do not know what you mean by 'your Ireland'. I don't own it. Geographically Ireland has 32 counties. Politically it is divided into two states of 26 and 6 counties respectively. A mechanism exists for making it 32 counties politically as well. Its called the Good Friday Agreement, voted in by 95 per cent of the electorate in the south and 70 per cent of the electorate in the north. The Agreement will result in a 32 county Ireland politically when and only when separate majorities in the south and in the north vote in favour. Until that happens there is absolutely nothing you can do about the current division, no matter how much you bluster. The extreme left-wing politics you advocate may very well delay such an outcome since virtually no unionists in the north have the slightest interest in becoming part of a socialist republic. In fact, they are terrified of it. It will be difficult enough to persuade them to become part of a capitalist republic.

by Dave - SWP Wed Apr 26, 2006 19:11

I'd say Bronstein is a troll and not genuinely a member of the sp as the comments are so mindless. It would be just sad for lefties to be just inventing bullshit about each others organisations just to excuse sectarianism to their membership when there are no principled obstacles to an electoral alliance of the left. Anyway everything he says about the swp is a load of rot. Its the type of turning the truth inside out that would really make you want to vomit.
Ballybrack Three statement here at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74501
Hijab protest covered here http://www.indymedia.ie/article/63104
swp statement on cartoons here http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74125

by Bronstein - sp Wed Apr 26, 2006 19:19

Anyone who reads this site regularly will know that Dave is the only troll on this thread. Go to the Ballybrack and the other threads and you will see Dave and other SWP hacks arguing the indefensible. Dave defends the idea of jobs in Dun Laoire being reserved for Dun Laoire residents! Thats worse than the jobd for the Irish line!

The same is true of the unsavoury coalition formed between the SWP and Islamic Fundamentalists both here and in Britain.You cannot have it both ways, you either support womens rights against all comers, be they mullahs or bishops, or you are a sell out. The SWP have chosen a turn to religion. I would not be suprised if they next find common cause with the Bishops and say that raising the issue of clerical child-abuse is racist. It makes as much sense as saying that criticising Islam is racist.

by The Digger Wed Apr 26, 2006 19:29

Dave appears to have overlooked a couple of other stories on the Ballybrack issue. In these threads a lot of discussion took place regarding the demand for local labour clauses. Read them and make your own minds up about whether or not the SWP were being their usual opportunist selves.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74303

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74191

by Rosa Shaw - none Wed Apr 26, 2006 21:53

Don't waste precious time and energy arguing with 'John' and his ilk. There's work to be done.

by Principled objection Thu Apr 27, 2006 00:00

Dave - SWP says "there are no principled obstacles to an electoral alliance of the left." Read the following and you will see there are many obstacles.

The Struggle for Socialism Today
A reply to the politics of the Socialist Workers Party

http://www.marxist.net/ireland/anti-swp/

by Objective Principal Thu Apr 27, 2006 01:13

"Read the following and you will see there are many obstacles.

The Struggle for Socialism Today
A reply to the politics of the Socialist Workers Party

http://www.marxist.net/ireland/anti-swp/"

Ironic that the author of this SP pamphlet (Dermot Connolly) elaborating these "principled objections" to the co-operating with the SWP left the SP in disgust a short while later.

by Principled objection Thu Apr 27, 2006 01:55

The pamphlet was written by Peter Hadden. It was written in 1999, and Dermot Connolly left the SP 5 years later, not a short while later as you state.

by well Thu Apr 27, 2006 09:05

be the same peter hadden whose the biggest obstacle to the sp joining any alliance not controlled by him

by BT20 Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:04

If you want to read about the type of shenanigans the SWP are getting up to in the English local elections go to http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/621/respect.htm

by Davy Carlin Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:47

Well that's that's, thanks for the links.

On the electoral alliance I say again , there is absolutely no way that the SP will get into an electoral alliance with the SWP. They would not do it in the North at the height of the then Belfast SWP s' support, and the representation 'we' then could pull around us, in relation to the SEA. Therefore what chance now, given the SWP's now almost complete demise here

In the South, well as it is widely stated- ' it would do them more harm than good'.

The reasons therefore are not only on 'principle {as with the SP responses} put tactical as well, I would believe.

Saying that, the SP do work in campaigns with the SWP , and such unity is welcome, but an electoral alliance, well as stated {even if they got around the numerous historical and ideological differences, which seems to have to be dealt with before such talks even begin}, if it did not happen when the SWP where at the 'forefront of mass Anti War - Anti Racism and local campaigns and movements, etc it ain't going to happen now.

I am just being realistic and I’m not saying anything I did not say to KA at the time when we where sending out call after call to the SP – to an extent I had told him that it was getting embarrassing.

by Bronstein - sp Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:04

Thanks for the link. I found some interesting stories there about the SWP dropping their Asylum campaigns and I will post a few paras below to whet the readers appetites.

"There are also nuanced differences in the literature being distributed. While their comrades in Tower Hamlets promise more community policing and “humane and prosperous” boroughs, SWPers in Hackney promote grassroots campaigns and opposition to closures. They will “stand up to big business” and defend asylum-seekers.

Interestingly there is no reference at all to asylum-seekers in the Tower Hamlets literature. Nor is the issue mentioned in the ‘Respect east end charter’ posted on its website on April 18 (www.respectcoalition.org). Is this seen as a vote-loser? Another inconvenient policy dropped because of unpopularity on the doorstep?"

"Being anti-establishment is something that some other Respect candidates elsewhere cannot be accused of. Councillor Abdul Karim Sheikh BEM came over to Respect from Labour in Newham recently. The British Empire Medal is an award given by the queen for community services of one sort or another. I could not locate when and for what services this was awarded, but it is a title that Mr Karim wears with pride, as it is listed after his name on all occasions - except on Respect leaflets actually.

Another is Shamim Choudhury, who stood for the Conservatives in the St Dunstan’s and Stepney Green ward in the Tower Hamlets May 2002 election, and received 566 votes. Choudhury is standing for Respect in the Shadwell ward in May. Again it would be interesting to know the reasons for the switch."

by Davy Carlin Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:37

I had thought Respect would be an important project, when it started out. More especially its ‘campaigning work, as was the case with the SEA {as even then I had my ‘issues and ‘problems with elections, and so wanted to ensure the priority of campaigning and street work and agitation}

Indeed I had turned down recent requests to stand for various positions including most recently for the SEA in West Belfast {although the SEA actually only organises in Derry, but indeed does some good campaigning work it must be said - in Derry}.

On Respect - I have found though that their positions are moving further and further to the 'right' and if what I read through such links and on what 'Bronstein - sp, above states, if the case, then I am therefore not surprised that it can embrace 'many ' views, persons and classes.

-But was Respect set up as a 'specific left organisation 'Party' or was it set up to Represent' and give electoral outlet for the Movement of the 'centre left?

Whatever the case either such is being moved further to the right by its make up - or indeed it's central component {the SWP} are moving both it and themselves further to the right?

Indeed - maybe there is no contradiction there?

Whatever the case, I'll let others debate that - for now.

by EMcC Thu Apr 27, 2006 16:10

Those betting that the SP will never share a slate with SWP members should not put their house on it. Look at the tide on the left again. The body with which the SP would/will ally is not the SWP, but the People Before Profit Alliance/Davitt League, in an alliance/new party including the Campaign for an Independent Left and others emerging on the left. If you haven't noticed, the PBPA are building all over the place.

by Emily Thu Apr 27, 2006 16:17

PB4P? Ha! Ha! Its nothing but an SWP front. Its meaningless and has no independent existence. After a Dublin meeting passed a motion in support of the OWFI the SWP over-ruled the meetings decision and ensured that no contact was made between PB4P and the OWFI. The SP are not stupid and wont be taken in by SWP Front No. 666.

by Curious Thu Apr 27, 2006 16:19

"If you haven't noticed, the PBPA are building all over the place."

I haven't noticed. I know they have had the odd meeting here and there, which isn't the same as building.
BTW, how's the Ballymun PBPA going?

by Davy Carlin Thu Apr 27, 2006 16:30

Quote -'

'The body with which the SP would/will ally is not the SWP'

Yep, just as I said they will not ally with the SWP.

This PBPA - I don't know enough about - but if it is seen as SWP then they will not touch it with a barge pole, I believe.

If it has though been set up and has proven to be a genuine, democratic, honest and accountable electoral - campaign alliance, then, who knows,?,

More especially as this is whom they seek to reach out to.

Activists in the 26 would know better about the PBPA as I have not been following it in full in - is it a Genuine group?

Whatever the case, this is but my personal opinion through knowing both groups over the last decade or so.

PS - is that sarcasm about the Ballymun group or a genuine question - Curious?

by Goretti Horgan - SWP Thu Apr 27, 2006 16:52

On several other threads, Emily has made this allegation about the vote at the People Before Profit's meeting for International Women's Day being ignored or 'over-ruled' in some way. As one of the speakers at the meeting and a member of the SWP, but living in the North and not knowing what had happened to the unanimous decision of the meeting, I was concerned to check out what had happened. I contacted Ailbhe Smyth, who was the main organiser of the meeting, and was assured that Mary Muldowney, another speaker, and the proposer of the motion in support of Women in Iraq, had agreed to contact them and pass on the meeting's message of support.

I understand that Cathy Swift of People Before Profit's coordinating committee has also made this clear on other threads, yet Emily keeps repeating this lie.

As for the other allegations made here about SWP, they have all been answered on other threads.

by Emily Thu Apr 27, 2006 17:38

Mary Muldowney made no such undertaking. She only said that she would personally contact the Iraqi women. If anyone has contact details for Mary please ask her to confirm this here. PB4P were supposed to contact the OWFI and pass on the support of the meeting. Why didnt this happen?

Easy to explain: the SWP hate the OWFI and call them Islamophobes. Why: because the OWFI raise the issue of Womens rights. The SWP see this as divisive. They wouldnt openly oppose the motion at the PB4P meeting but they ensured that nothing would be done with it afterwards.

SWP! The Mullahs Party!

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Apr 27, 2006 18:48

What a nasty thread.

Anyway on the original post, I suspect that a few people in the Socialist Party will be surprised to see the fuss Joe Higgin's restatement of long standing policy has caused. The Irish Times, the SWP, today it's in Village and according to that article the CIL are getting all excited too. Joe didn't say anything the Socialist Party hasn't said a few hundred times before.

by Davy Carlin Thu Apr 27, 2006 19:20

It has got a bit messy. So rather than watching people call each other Lairs, I had trawled back over the PBFP threads, and indeed have made up my own mind.

And all one is left to say is - that I was not surprised, and it further cements for oneself everything that I had both said and knew.

Sigh!

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Thu Apr 27, 2006 19:28 breathc at hotmail dot com

Marks comments are usually measured and perceptive, so Im a little surprised at the patronising tone of the above comment about the CIL etc. getting 'all excited' Joe Higgins speech. As one of the people quoted in The Village, I can say personally, that its not a question of hanging around waiting for the SP to take this or that position on the need for a new party, but simply welcoming what I see as an advance in the SPs stated position. The ISN have cordial relations with the SP but that does not mean that we just stop and wait for the SP to get involved in a campaign for a new party, we get on with our own activities and working with others in the CIL to advance that project, just as the SP gets on with what it deems to be the prioities for socialists at this point.

What is significant about Joe's speech, in my view, is the fact that until now the SP has always said that while they agreed in theory with the idea of a new party, the time for launching such a party or even campaigning to promote the idea, had not yet arrived, due to objective conditions. Yet, in his speech, Joe clearly stated the need for such a party NOW and he outlined who the SP believed had a role in building such a party. The important point here is not whether the SP believe the SWP etc. should be involved (thats a different debate) but that Joe has advocated the creation of a new party, not some time in the future, but now .

Now maybe this is not what he meant or maybe he was giving his personal view but thats definitely a different position from the previous position of the SP which explicitly ruled out the possibility of building a new party in the current situation. I would be genuinely interested in clarification from Mark on this point, not for any point-scoring purpose but because I believe that it is in the interests of the working class that such a new party should emerge, not overnight but through a patient process of campaining.

by Goretti - SWP Thu Apr 27, 2006 20:06

Anyone who reads Socialist Worker will know that the SWP always stands with the underdog. At this time of rampant islamophobia that means standing with muslims. It does NOT mean bending the knees to the Mullahs. Emily and others who continue to make these allegations here are like those people that the Iranian socialist who spoke at the SWP's Marxism conference complained about. She said: "I don't have a beard, therefore they think I cannot be Iranian". She spoke against the publication of the cartoons, against the occupation of Iraq, against any attack on Iran AND against the regime in Iran. It is possible to do all these things you know.

As for the People B4 Profit meeting: the organiser of the meeting told me that Mary Muldowney had said she would write ON BEHALF OF THE MEETING. That's what I'm told happens in People B4 Profit meetings about other issues: if a motion is passed, someone undertakes to carry it out there and then. If it is the only way to prove that Emily's only concern is to slander the SWP, I will get back to Ailbhe, ask for Mary M's email and check out what she understood by it. If she hasn't done what I understood she had agreed to do, I will ask Ailbhe to write on behalf of P b4 P (as the organiser of the meeting).

by Mark P Thu Apr 27, 2006 20:06

Colm, I wasn't trying to patronise you. I'm well aware that a few snippets of a conversation with a journalist can have a distorting effect on tone, but that was the general flavour of the Village article.

The Socialist Party's view (and Joe's as a central leader of the organisation) remains as it has been for some time now. We think there is a need, now and for the forseeable future, for a new party of the working class with a mass membership and support. We don't think that meeting that need is on the short term agenda unfortunately. I think you probably agree with us on that.

The best way we can put meeting that need on the agenda is by doing everything we can to encourage a higher level of working class struggle and political activity, and given our modest resources I think we make a useful contribution to that. As far as immediate initiatives around campaigns, electoral alliances, wider unity and so on are concerned we try to evaluate each opportunity on its merits. Will one proposal or another get an echo? We have no blanket policy against (for instance) electoral slates - we were the mainstay of one in the late 1990s and were willing to consider one in the last local elections - but we don't overestimate their importance.

So for example I think we would view the prospect of standing together with a number of serious left or campaign candidates, with some base and some prospect of making an impact, in a very different light to the prospect of lumbering ourselves with a handful of embarassingly shoddy electoral campaigns of the kind some sections of the left have developed a reputation for mounting.

by Mark P Thu Apr 27, 2006 20:13

Goretti, I wouldn't bother responding to someone who is so obviously trying to wind you up. I have many criticisms of the approach the SWP has taken to Muslims particularly in Britain. I think they have at times confused (rightly) defending Muslims from attack with acting as advocates for religion. More significantly I think that Respect's occasionally rather crass approach to Muslims on a religious rather than class basis and through rather than against established "community leaders" is dangerous. But even I can see that Emily is motivated more by malice here than anything else.

by Emily Thu Apr 27, 2006 20:21

Its quite clear whats happening here: the SWP retain some radical policies on paper but will not put them into practice. Why are your members attacking me and others on Indymedia because we raise the issue of womens rights in Islamic countries? We are called Islamophobes. The Iranian and Iraqi Socialist-Feminists who fight for womens rights are also called Islamophobes. SWP members posted comments on Indymedia mocking the fact that Peter Tatchell got death threats from Islamists.

Do you disagree with this? Then all you have to do is say that women in Iran and Iraq should have full and equal rights. You could also say that it is wrong to smear Iranian and Iraqi Socialist-Feminists as being Islamophobes. Surely as a woman you can find it within you to go against the party line and support womens rights.

by Emily Thu Apr 27, 2006 20:27

You really do not know very much about me. I am motivated by anger rather than malice. Anger at the fact that PB4P was still-born due to the SWPs manipulation. I'm also very angry at the way the SWP literally piss on women and gays so that they can cosy up to Islamic Fundamentalists.

I am not in agreement with the SP on some things but you do seem to have a better analysis on gender issues and religion. Even in Britain though the SWPs opportunism is counter-productive even for opportunists. There are only 1.6 million Muslims in Britain but 36% of all Britons aged 18 - 34 define themselves as atheist or agnostic. The SWPs turn to religion was mistimed.

by SP member Thu Apr 27, 2006 21:17

This whole thread is completely pointless. The SP has not changed its position at all, the reality is that the Irish Times misrepresented what Joe said, other publications have picked up on this and a non story has grown legs. The SP will not be involved in any election alliances with PBFP or the CIL.

by SP member Thu Apr 27, 2006 21:52

CB - "What is significant about Joe's speech, in my view, is the fact that until now the SP has always said that while they agreed in theory with the idea of a new party, the time for launching such a party or even campaigning to promote the idea, had not yet arrived, due to objective conditions. Yet, in his speech, Joe clearly stated the need for such a party NOW and he outlined who the SP believed had a role in building such a party."

What you have read is was from a press statement not a speech. SP position has always been that there is a need for such a party immediately and that not only have we a role to play in building it, the reality is that we will play a fundamental role in building it. We also believe that there is a necessity to have a mass revolutionary party now and that the time for overthrowing capitalism is now. Don't confuse what we see as necessity with what we think is possible - now!

CB - "The important point here is not whether the SP believe the SWP etc. should be involved (thats a different debate) but that Joe has advocated the creation of a new party, not some time in the future, but now .

I have already answered this above. But would add that the SP will not be getting involved in any form of a pact, alliance etc with the SWP or the CIL - now!

CB - "Now maybe this is not what he meant or maybe he was giving his personal view but thats definitely a different position from the previous position of the SP which explicitly ruled out the possibility of building a new party in the current situation.

Correct, this is not what he meant. Joe was not giving his personal view, Joe was giving the SP view, Joe's views and the SPs views are identical, Joe Higgins does not speak in a personal capacity, he believes in democratic centralism, unlike some!

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Thu Apr 27, 2006 23:15

Thanks Mark for your response, it clarifies current SP thinking for me at least. As for electoral alliances, these are important but starting the process of building a new party, for me, is far more important. Having said that I think its no harm to start discussing such an alliance at this stage, even if its not clear at this stage who would be 'in' or 'out' of such an alliance.

As for 'SP member', he/she essentially reiterates points made by Mark, though it has to be said in a far more hostile tone, Personally, I don't engage in debate with anonymous contributors for reasons I have often articulated on indymedia. If he/she cares to post under their real names I will certainly engage in debate.

by Buffoon watch Fri Apr 28, 2006 09:48

"Joe's views and the SPs views are identical, Joe Higgins does not speak in a personal capacity, "

Does everybody in the SP follow Kerry come the Championship?

by Davy Carlin Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:49

As I said from the very onset that the chance of an -

'SP - SWP electoral pact anytime in the next decade - is Zero chance. Told the SWP 'Leadership' that even when I was in the SWP'.

Well we got there in the end.

Although I must say that there was 'some interesting links provided and points raised during this, which also got me trawling through past threads on PB4P - and now know the craic.

by John - dunaree2000 Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:29

As an amused outsider in all this, I think I can summarise the advantages and disadvantages of an SP/SWP pact better than those who are emotionally involved. As I see it, the main advantage of such a pact is that, instead of the SP and SWP each polling about 0.001 per cent of the vote at the next election, they could increase it to 0.002 per cent between them. But, set against this is the fact that SP and SWP members, being socialists and therefore full of brotherly love for all mankind, would have to work closely with members of the rival party, whose guts they detest and with whom they can not bear to be in the same room. Its a tough decision but I wish you well.

by Optimist Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:35

No after the next election the SP will have at least 2 TDs which doesn't fit in with your dismissive comment and pessimistic outlook.

by Long Term Optimist Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:42

And by the year 2417 the SP will have a majority in the Dail going by their present progress rate, none of whom will have personal views, all will all think identical thoughts and be propelled on the new age fuel of democratic centralism.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Apr 28, 2006 13:34

I quite agree Colm, there's nothing wrong with discussing these things now or with discussing anything else for that matter. I've no idea why "SP Member" felt the need to take such a surly tone either.

And in fact on one point I tend to agree with you more than him/her. The central issue for us isn't whether or not the SWP (or the CIL or any other particular group) are involved in a particular alliance or slate or campaign, but what wider forces that alliance could attract and what kind of hearing it could get in the working class. If there was a prospect of a serious left slate for an election involving a range of strong candidates with bases in their local communities, coming from community campaigns, the unions, socialist groupings or wherever and with some degree of useful political agreement between them I would tend to favour it. I'm sceptical about the possibility of such a slate being assembled at the moment, and I certainly don't think its of vital importance, but there is no harm in considering it.

To the poster making various snide remarks about Joe Higgins and his personal views: We make no apologies for insisting that our elected representatives put forward our agree views. In fact I am of the opinion that any political organisation which allows its elected representatives to do otherwise is asking for trouble. A notable thread in the history of the workers movement has been a quest by elected reps, and members of parliament in particular, to gain more independence from the rank and file of their organisations. Such a change has almost invariably led to MPs and similar figures taking a more reformist line and assembling their own power bases independent of party democracy. The Socialist Party is very clear with its prospective candidates that if they want to represent us they will have to agree to very strict conditions. These include not materially benefiting from their position in terms of expenses and the like, not accepting more than the average workers wage and putting forward our agreed views rather than any personal ones they may have on an issue. They retain, of course, the right to argue for a change in our organisations views within our structures - and they frequently do exactly that.

by SP Member (nothing personable at all) Fri Apr 28, 2006 16:00

The reason why I took a surly tone with CB is because I am tired of his patronising attitude towards the SP and Joe Higgins. He says he won't engage with anonymous posters but I don't know of any SP member called Mark P, which makes you anonymous! More like he won't debate with people who aren't prepared to treat him with kid gloves.

by pat c Fri Apr 28, 2006 16:13

the trouble is if you insist on maintaining your anonymity then how do we know for certain that you are for real? mark p exists, i'm sure other named sp members will confirm this.

by Buffoon Watch - A Long Term Optimist Fri Apr 28, 2006 16:52

"To the poster making various snide remarks about Joe Higgins and his personal views:"

Perhaps some SP members take dogma at face value. It's understandable, my party right or wrong is such a youthful mistake (or for those older who don't grow up), easy to understand.

I was mocking the following statement:
"Joe's views and the SPs views are identical, Joe Higgins does not speak in a personal capacity, he believes in democratic centralism, unlike some!"
Now correct me if I'm wrong but democratic centralism doesn't mean that a members views and the SP's are naturally the same. What it means is that once decided upon the views of the member are muted so as not to conflict with the party's. The SP member surely has a wrong view of democratic centralism, a view he claims to support (not one I do). Maybe they need to be re-educated.
What's wrong with snide remark when dealing with such stupidity?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Apr 28, 2006 17:23

I'm afraid my dear Optimist that your own grasp of "democratic centralism" seems little better than that contained in the statement you mock "SP member" for making. It does not mean that a member's views are muted so as not to conflict with those of the party. It means, quite simply, freedom of discussion combined with unity of action. Some organisations choose to interpret that to mean that members shouldn't publically disagree with the agreed positions of the party, but many organisations have interpreted it in quite different ways.

The Socialist Party for instance has a policy of requiring its candidates and elected representatives to put forward the agreed views of the organisation in preference to their own, but there is no rule in the SP constition requiring other members to do the same. It is unimagineable that the Socialist Party would discipline someone for saying "the view of the Socialist Party is x, but personally I think y" as long as they proceeded to do their best to carry out our agreed actions. And in fact to my knowledge (which on these matters if on little else is reasonably extensive) we have never done so.

To SP Member: You may find Colm tiresome or patronising, but you would do well to remember that we will be knocking around the same campaigns and meetings as others on the left for the forseeable future and there is nothing to be gained by being pointlessly antagonistic towards people we will no doubt end up working with again. There is no point in using a discussion style which generates more heat than light. Apart from anything else you should remember that there are other people reading apart from the target of your ire, and sounding like a surly teenager is unlikely to encourage them to listen to the content of your arguments.

by Long Term Optimist Fri Apr 28, 2006 17:46

A very cogent response in theory but in practice I think you will find that my grasp is closer to the mark.
I.E. in practice you are allowed articulate what you want but in practice suddenly something like subsciption arrears are a major issue.

by Mark P Fri Apr 28, 2006 20:24

I suggest that a decade of not paying subscriptions, attending meetings or doing much of anything else would be considered an issue by pretty much any political organisation.

by Colm Breathnach - ISN personal capacity Fri Apr 28, 2006 21:49 breathc at hotmail dot com

I am quite willing to debate with 'SP member' or anyone else in as a robust a manner as he or she wishes, on one condition: that he/she uses his/ her real name. Expecting to be treated with kid gloves in a debate? I have faced far worse than you and if you care to give your real name we can compare our respective records of activism.

I challenge 'SP member' to use his/her real name so that we can have an open and fair debate...no gloves.

by Mary Muldowney Fri Apr 28, 2006 22:29

Goretti Horgan emailed me today asking for clarification of who agreed to do what after the People before Profit meeting on 10th March and I had just replied to her when I read an email from a friend telling me that I had been mentioned in the latest installment of the SP/SWP 'debates'.

Emily is quite correct in her recollection that I said I'd be sending a personal message (which I did) to the Organisation for Women's Freedom in Iraq. I wouldn't have agreed to send anything on behalf of People before Profit because I am not a member of that organisation, although I did propose that the Women's Day Statement by the OWFI which I had circulated before the meeting should be adopted, which it was unanimously. There seems to have been a genuine misunderstanding about this but I went away for more than three weeks shortly after the meeting and wasn't aware of any controversy until I got back.

I assumed that other people who were at the meeting would be sending messages of solidarity to Houzan Mahmoud, the OWFI organiser who has been based in London since she had to leave Iraq in 1996. Her contact details were on the leaflet that I circulated at the People before Profit meeting and my suggestion about solidarity messages seemed to be well received.
I told Goretti tonight that it's not too late to contact the OWFI, on behalf of People before Profit or on a personal basis.

In the next week or so I hope to be able to submit an article to Indymedia with an update of the situation in Iraq based on an interview with Houzan Mahmoud. One of the reasons that I circulated the OWFI statement at the People before Profit meeting was that I was there to speak about abortion rights (or the lack of them) in Ireland and in particular how that infringement of human rights impacts on women with low incomes or from the immigrant community. It seemed timely to remind people that the same political parties who refuse to deal with the issue of abortion in Ireland also supported the invasion of Iraq. One outcome of that war is the rise of extreme Islamic groups, some of them supported by the US and Britain, whose treatment of Iraqi women is truly barbaric.

by Belfast SPer Sat Apr 29, 2006 00:21

This is not really the place for SP members to be discussing democratic centralism. If there are members of the SP here who have questions about DC and how it works within the SP then they should raise theirs points within the party for discussion and debate. A discussion on indymedia cannot clarify or deal with this issue.
Mark P you should discuss the points you have made in your contribution with your comrades because they conflict with how I believe DC works within the CWI. You wrote "Some organisations choose to interpret that to mean that members shouldn't publically disagree with the agreed positions of the party, but many organisations have interpreted it in quite different ways.
The Socialist Party for instance has a policy of requiring its candidates and elected representatives to put forward the agreed views of the organisation in preference to their own, but there is no rule in the SP constition requiring other members to do the same."
This is not correct DC requires ALL members to publicly argue for the ideas and agreed positions of the SP not just elected representatives. If a SP member was to argue at a public meeting or in a publication against the party's position on the national question or in the anti-bin tax campaign for example against the SP position on bin charges it would be viewed as a very serious breach of DC and in some circumstances could lead to disciplinary action and possibly even expulsion.

by Belfast Sper Sat Apr 29, 2006 00:25

Amendment to my own comments:
This is not correct DC requires ALL members to publicly argue for the ideas and agreed positions of the SP not just elected representatives, while members have the right to debate and discuss any differences or doubts they may have within the party, including the right to form factions, publish internal material arguing for alternative views and so on.

by Rick O'Shea Sat Apr 29, 2006 00:44

I have tried to read through the debate here and I can not understand what is happening here - are we against the move to the right or are we together WHo gives a fuck about Kronsdrad or even Eamon we are not in the days of free Derry - yes you were part of the movement in those days of '69 and nobody will say you were not Who can forget Bloody Sunday and what happened afterwaards
I want to ask the socailists who read this about the 'carnival of reaction' that we were promised about a certin Mr Connely and what is the next step.
There is more to unite the left to unite us than to divide us =

by By Any Means Necessary Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:02

"Can power be seriously challenged without a response, will the robber baron, the tycoon, the fùhrer allow us to seize his privilege without resistance?

Can we steal it away from the greatest bandits of all time by sleight of hand alone?
Incredible!".

The Trot left cannot communicate its ideas to the revolutionary class while its locked into farcical debates about tactics..the work needs to be done now brothers and sisters.

Take over the unions, get your vision into the homes of workers, work with and in the community groups,get the message into the schools, live the revolution as you mean to implement it, educate the workers: in the work place, on the picket line in the bars in the clubs in the streets, on the terraces, tell them that we want to give give this state back to the people.

Talk is cheap, activism takes some sweat and tears.

An Irish Workers Republic will be built after activism not sterile, political posturing which workers dismiss as intellectual masturbation. Nor will it be won by selling papers, articles in Hot press or the belly laugh. Criticism a of the system is not enough..building an alternative and communicating the vision for revolutionary change is the answer.

Look to the struggles of the Black Liberation struggle world wide, at the collective struggle against colonialism..its not rocket science..does your struggle begin today or are you waiting for the revolution to come to you? Nicely packaged with red ribbons on it?

'It is not enough to take sides on the question of political slogans; it is also necessary to take sides on the question of an armed uprising. Those who are opposed to it, those who do not prepare for it, must be ruthlessly dismissed from the ranks of the supporters of the revolution, sent packing to its enemies, to the traitors or cowards; for the day is approaching when the force of events and the conditions of the struggle will compel us to distinguish between enemies and friends according to this principle'

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sat Apr 29, 2006 16:02

I find a certain irony in you prefacing your comments with a statement that this is not an appropriate forum to discuss the nature of democratic centralist organisation only to go on to give your own view on the subject.

I have in front of me, by the way, a copy of the Socialist Party constitution, a document which no doubt you've read. In it you will find a general requirement that members promote Socialist Party policy, a general statement of a type which can be found in the constitution's of a range of political organisations democratic centralist or otherwise. Nowhere in the constitution are members forbidden from publically mentioning points of disagreement with party policy. Neither am I able to recall any conference decision to that effect. And I am, as mentioned above, unaware of any factual example of disciplinary action of any type being taken against someone for making a statement along the lines of "the Socialist Party view on this issue is x, but personally I think y". If you can think of any example to the contrary feel free to email me about it at the address above.

To be clear about this, I am not arguing that we do (or should) operate a tower of babel style of organisation. I think that it is incumbent on members to use the democratic structures of the party to argue for a change in policy rather than engaging in megaphone diplomacy through outside channels. I think that when the party has democratically agreed on an action (such as for instance the bin tax example you mention above or the other example of holding a public meeting to promote our policy) it is entirely binding on members to try to act to implement that decision as best they can and to refrain from any action which would serve to undermine it. But I also think that the idea that members are forbidden from at any stage mentioning a disagreement with a party policy to anyone outside the party is alien both to the experience of the Bolshevik party and to our own constitution and rules.

Anyway, as I mentioned above you should feel free to email me at the above address.

by Seán de Barra Sun Apr 30, 2006 03:42

Fact of the matter is that most people do hate the govt and want to change things.

The other fact is that most people consider the SP and the SWP to be a pack of weirdos for even thinking, never mind fundamentally arguing, about Communist Russia.

Go néirí libh...

by hs - sp (per cap) Thu May 04, 2006 00:50

Firstly on Joe's speech, I think the newspapers took what they probably saw as the most interesting segments, while leaving out nuances about timing and such. I did notice over the conference the term "over a period of time" being used alot, which really for anyone not used to the political culture of the party or the left is pretty meaningless. So the papers just headlined the parts that seemed newsworthy and probably didn't notice the rest. Hardly suprising but nonetheless I saw the speech and joe wasn't calling for a left wing alliance anytime soon. I do personally think (if i'm allowed to say before next yeasr's conference beflast comrade!) that the party should endorse genuine working class candidates who are against joining right wing parties or coalitions. We have done this many times in the past without forming opportunistic alliances. This wasn't discussed at conference but it's something we'll have to start thinking about.

Secondly on Mark P. I know who he is as do most of the party, so he's not anonoymous as in hiding behind another name, I could say the same for myself. I choose to do this because I'd rather not have my name splashed everywhere and thats all.

On Democratic centralism and debate. While when we do come to agreements on tactical issues we should support the line when representing the party, (of course there's times when a member may be representing a community group or a campaign or a union rather than the party)and we should especially insist so of party reps. Would you (belfast sp) think we cannot have public debate on general issues and historical issues publically, can we only discuss within the ranks of the party, and then come out like robots reapeat the same lines? Democratic centralism means we debate (and shouldn't be afraid to do so) issues and then come to a decision, your idea would seem to be the other way round. And anyway we don't have a party line on everything! I'm also familir with the constitution and nothing in it implies anything close to what you are saying.

On PB4P and CIL, i have a mistrust of pb4p and no one has been able to explain to me how I as a member of the group would have any say in the decision making of the group, seems to be another of these mysterious "steering committees". On CIL I would be personally alot more open alot but I would need alot of convincing as I would fear us getting caught up in red herrings of new left parties rather than building up some sort of movement a party could organically grow out of. I don't think we can wish this party into existance. But I think it will happen.

by Seán de Barra Thu May 04, 2006 03:04

There is space for a major party of the left. But, in any true major party of the left, the SP and the SWP would only have a small per cent of support, or their views would have.

There is space for a new republican left wing party. The SP and the SWP are doomed. Their views on Nationalism are totally out of step with most people in Ireland.

Also, any new left-wing party, nationalist or not, would never become major while they were secularist. It just aint going to happen in Ireland. The new left-wing party would be better off not being for or against the Church in its role in society, but should rather critcise- or praise- on every given issue- instead of a "dirty blanket" approach.

I know the SP are just making these waves and have no intention of forming another party until at least after the next GE. Then if they get another TD, they will probably never stop going- particulary if they have a more than decent chance with a couple of other candiates for the following G.E.

They have to ask themsleves though, are they happy with exposing scandals like GAMA, while never having a chance to fundamentally have the power to change the system?

They are going around in circles, and the SWP, well-apart from Eamonn McCann- are just going nowhere. The SP are going nowhere either, but it will take Joe Higgins to either go insane or retire before the rest of them realise that.

by Emily Wed Feb 14, 2007 15:23

"I assumed that other people who were at the meeting would be sending messages of solidarity to Houzan Mahmoud, the OWFI organiser who has been based in London since she had to leave Iraq in 1996. Her contact details were on the leaflet that I circulated at the People before Profit meeting and my suggestion about solidarity messages seemed to be well received.
I told Goretti tonight that it's not too late to contact the OWFI, on behalf of People before Profit or on a personal basis."

I am still curious as to whether People before Profit actually sent the message of support to the Organistion for Womens Freedom in Iraq. If they have done so then it would be a good way of proving that PBFP actually supported womens rights in Islamic Countries and that PBFP was not actually dominated by the SWP.

It is now almost a year since that meeting was held.

by Emily Wed Feb 14, 2007 15:41

Sorry if I caused confusion with the comment above but Mary Muldowneys clarification was posted on this thread. Heres the actual motion which was passed at PB4P International Womens Day meeting in 2006.

"The war and the occupation of Iraq by the US and UK have opened the way for reactionary forces in Iraqi society to impose a constitution based on Islamic Sharia and other forms of religious-tribal law. We the undersigned organizations and individuals condemn the introduction of religious law. We demand freedom and equality for Iraqi women and support their Struggle for a democratic, secular and egalitarian constitution."