Catherine Connolly launches her Independent campaign

by Labour Party member Sun Nov 19, 2006 19:45

Obviously any Labour Party member who canvassed for her against Michael D. would be liable for immediate expulsion from the party. So presumably Colette Connolly will now be expelled, as will Declan Bree.
Responses to hidden comments removed - editor

by Pat Mon Nov 20, 2006 13:28

The Blueshirts in the Labour Party have all ready tried to expell Declan Bree before because he supported the accomodation plan for Travellers in Sligo. There was too much support for Bree within the party that they had to back down.

There voters of Galway need he choice to vote for a socialist and only by Catherine Connolly putting her name fwd can thay have this choice, Cllr. Bree in this context was correct in supporting her.

by John Mon Nov 20, 2006 17:00

Galway voters have Michael D Higgins as a socialist to vote for, Cllr Connolly should rightly be expelled from the labour Party, Her plan to get elected will only split the labour vote in Galway and will get one of best if not finest left wng voices in the Dail silenced

by laura Mon Nov 20, 2006 17:14

Left wing voters in Galway don't belong to the Labour Party or Michael D, if they cease to be left wing or socialist then its the right to voter to vote for someone else, who will put forward the ideals of James Connolly and represent the marginalised and socially excluded in Irish Society.

If anybody should be kicked out of the Labour Party it should be Pat Rabbitt and his cronies, he could join Fine Gael where he belongs.

by tim mulcahy Tue Nov 21, 2006 15:37 timmulcahy at oceanfree dot net

As someone who spent most of his political life working and campaigning for the Labour party and who has since resigned over the Jim McGarry debacle in Sligo,I am delighted that Kathleen Connolly is putting her name fowardas an alternative to the so called "left wing "parties that claim to be the opposition to the current regime.There is no doubt that if the socialist ideals of Connolly and Larkin are to be kept alive and promoted, a new left wing Movement is required.Perhaps Kathleens decision to go foward will start something within the Labour Party that will move a few more out from under the Rabbitte/Kenny coat tails and an alternative will be offered to the people of this country.Good luck Kathleen and thanks for keeping the Red Flag flying in Galway and in the West of Ireland

by Socialist Tue Nov 21, 2006 16:00

Problem is Catherine Connolly stayed quiet about the Rabbitte/Kenny pact when it mattered. She could have spoken out against it at the Labour Party conference, where it was debated. But she kept quiet. Now, that's hardly in the tradition of Connolly (James) and Larkin. If Labour had selected her as a candidate, she'd have happily marched in behind Pat Rabitte to elect, Enda the Blueshirt, Taoiseach.

by Left Observer Tue Nov 21, 2006 16:05

Catherine Connolly is just another party member who failed to get a nomination. She's the Labour equivalent of quite a few FFers who didn't get the nomination and who'll probably go on to do well out of it. If elected she'll probably sit beside Catherine Murphy. Anybody who heard her on Morning Ireland after failing to get the nomination will realise there ain't much going on here but an attempt to seem more radical than the current Labour leader and that isn't too difficult. Murphy hasn't exactly set the world on fire.

by Dave Walker Tue Nov 21, 2006 17:02

One obvious question to ask Catherine Connolly is, if elected to the Dail, will she follow the Labour lemmings in through the lobby to elect Enda Taoiseach? Or will she take a principled 'socialist opposition' stance like Joe Higgins. A new left party is a great idea. With a bit of work and flexibility, it could transform Irish politics. But it shouldn't start out by pandering to ex-Labour Party 'names' like Catherine Connolly. Ask her the difficult questions. If she's okay with answering them, then I'm okay with her.

by KillBill Tue Nov 28, 2006 16:41

“The Blueshirts in the Labour Party have all ready tried to expell Declan Bree before because he supported the accomodation plan for Travellers in Sligo. There was too much support for Bree within the party that they had to back down.”

Rubbish, are there polls to validate this claim?

by Killbill vol 2 Tue Nov 28, 2006 19:41

I think the fact that no action was taken against Bree, even though Rabbitte's witch hunt found him guilty, speaks volumes. You may not have been happy that the witch hunt failed but the facts speak for themselves

by Killbill Tue Nov 28, 2006 23:10

In the scheme of things Bree is not important enought to warrant a witch hunt, he oppsed his fellow councillors on a halting site and sparked a row which was ultimately a storm in a tea cup. I would imagine that if Rabbitte wanted him gone, he would be gone.

by Killbill Vol 2 Wed Nov 29, 2006 18:07

Nice try son but everyone knows what happened. Rabbitte took a personal role in the witch hunt against Bree, writing a letter to the Irish Times making false allegations against him, accusing him of voting against traveller accomodation when it was in his own ward, and used his position as leader to attack Bree. It proved to be a dumb move as there was a backlash from honest people in the Labour party and the leadership realised it would be too much trouble to punish Bree for his "sins".

Now you're trying to pass it off as a "storm in a tea cup" but it won't wash. Everyone saw what happened. And the Labour party's disciplinary structures handed down this message -

"if you criticise a member of the party in a local newspaper for voting against traveller accomodation, when they have in fact done so, you are guilty of bringing the party into disrepute. If on the other hand, you criticise a member of the party in a national newspaper for voting against traveller accomodation, when they have in fact done nothing of the sort, you are not guilty of bringing the party into disrepute."

Fair play to Bree for sending Rabbitte and his goons packing, and fair play to him for supporting CC in Galway.

by Killbill Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:22

So a couple of letters constitutes a 'Witch-hunt?'
How times have changed and sensitivities increased.
What ever you think I was trying to do, I’m afraid you have me at a loss.
But I seem to have pissed off the Bree fan club in little ole Sligo.

Anyway, your personal observations do not constitute an irrevocable truth?
From what I have read on-line is that Bree criticised a couple of councilors for objecting to a halting site, although from what I gathered they’re objections had nothing to do with traveler discrimination (as Bree tried to assert) but was more to do with logistics.
Rabitte was right to rebuke him for his attempt at distinguishing himself as some sort of champion for travelers whilst scoring a couple of cheap political points at the expense of his party colleagues.
It was a ‘Storm in a tea cup’, it garnered a letter to the Irish times. Big deal? ONE LETTER! Zero other coverage in the national press, nor did Brees name pass the lips of any of RTE’s Anchors or news correspondents . I don’t think anyone over here even noticed!
So get over your self

By the way, I’m glad you have the audacity to assume you speak for all with comments like “Nice try son but everyone knows what happened”, sure they do! I’ll stop somebody on Grafton street and ask them shall I? Or better still, I’ll go to Sligo and ask someone there!
I wonder, will I get your varnished view of events, a look of bewilderment or the truth!

Oh and another thing, Your 'Son' I ain't

by Liam P Thu Nov 30, 2006 13:50

I’m not a member of the Bree fan club or any other club. I do live in Sligo and I know Bree’s record. Ask anyone in Sligo of any political persuasion and they will tell you straight off that Bree has consistently supported the traveller community since his first days in politics. (Travellers and Pavee Point people picketed Labour HQ in solidarity with Bree) Bree’s stance may not be popular but people in Sligo have come to accept it. The fact that Pat Rabitte wrote a letter to a national newspaper attempting to smear Bree is unprecedented. Can you imagine Bertie Ahern, Enda Kenny or Gerry Adams writing to the national newspapers attacking one of their own councillors. The issue may initially have been considered a storm in a teacup but once Pat Rabitte intervened in the national media and Bree was hauled before a disciplinary committee, the issue did become national news and was given coverage in all the national newspapers. Despite the fact that the disciplinary committee declared against Bree, the fact is that neither Rabitte nor his supporters had the bottle to take any action against Bree.

On the day Rabitte last ventured into Sligo, the local newspaper in a front page article carried a statement from Bree attacking Rabitte and saying that Rabitte wasn’t fit to be the leader of the Labour Party. Bree can be an arrogant pain but whether you agree with his politics or not it has to be said that he has been consistent in his views over the years. In the past Dick Spring had differences with Bree particularly on issues relating to the North, and as far as I know both men resolved their difficulties in a quiet and constructive manner. Its clear that Rabitte made no attempt to resolve any issue with Bree but went ahead like a bull in a china shop issuing letters containing serious allegations to the national press. What other Party Leader aiming to become Tanaiste would act in such a manner!

by Sligo go Brea Thu Nov 30, 2006 14:01

I see the culchie/dub divide is alive and well.

Just becasue it wasnt a bertigate sized scandal doesnt mean it was meaningless or had no impact here in Sligo, where it happened and where it mattered.
Supporting bree and supporting the truth are not mutually exclusive.
Sometimes he gets it wrong, sometimes he gets it right, i just happen to think this was one he got right.

by KillBill Thu Nov 30, 2006 14:48

Hang on Liam, Brees credentials are not the issue here. I was responding to “inferior than the original” KillBill Vol 2 who from the bat was antagonist and patronising which I don’t respond well to.
You on the other have presented a level headed and considered post explaining a few things to me of which I wasn’t aware of.

On a point of humour though and in response to your parting question “What other Party Leader aiming to become Tanaiste would act in such a manner!!” May I offer Michael McDowell?? And astonishingly, he succeeded.

But in relation to Bree, if this is the case (as you state) why on earth is he still a member of the Labour party?
Surely his position is untenable and he should resign and either search for a more accommodating party or go independent.
By reading your post it is evident that he is actually damaging himself with his continued association with what are ultimately a benign collection of champagne socialists.
Labour where doomed (or shifter irreversibly to the right) under the stewardship of Ruari Quinn and is continuing its alienation of the left with smooth talking Rabitte who now appears to be devoid of a back bone, (again derived from your post).

What annoyed me (as an outsider looking in) was some of the hyped sophism earlier in the thread which attempted to steer the debate toward Bree facing possible expulsion from the Labour Party. This really had nothing to do with the original post and is something I have noticed before.
And continuing on from that I didn’t (and still don’t) believe it to be the case.
The obvious logic is why would he remain under such circumstances.

by Killbill Vol 2 Thu Nov 30, 2006 21:42

Thanks for the waffle. I seem to have hit a raw nerve, judging by your bitter rantings, and hysterical use of exclamation marks and capital letters. Not surprisingly, you have totally glossed over the fact that Rabbitte lied in his letter to the Irish Times. But you have said that you think Rabbitte was totally right to write that letter, so presumably you think he was totally right to tell lies about Bree in an attempt to smear him.

I’ve no interest in discussing anything further with you. You appear to be as dishonest as Rabbitte himself and will keep moving the goalposts and avoiding the real issues. People can look at the facts of what happened, with the help of Indymedia’s search engine, and draw their own conclusions.

by Gerard Thu Nov 30, 2006 22:52

I live in the street (Willow Park) in Sligo beside where this Traveller accomodation was to go. I supported the site, though my family and I were probably only one of the very few that did. Those that opposed it did so because as they put it they didnt want "knackers living beside them".

The Councillors that voted against this did not do it for logistical reasons, they did it because they are anti-traveller. Plain and simple. Thankfully there are still some politicians out there such as Cllrs Bree and Gibbons who are not afraid to stand for what is right and support such housing developments.

by KillBill - Anti-Nowhere-League Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:44

Rantings?Hysterics?Raw Nerves? After that farrago it would be easy to redirect those charges back at your good self. From the venom in your type one could assume you are a close relative to Bree?
I believe the allegation is that Bree used his position as Mayor to prevent a halting site in his constituency when there where three in another councilors constituency.

And from reading a related thread this would seem to be the case. Whether he abused his position is one thing, but as I said before when Bree then got up on his soap box in an attempt to champion himself for the traveler cause then questions had to be asked. Of course this should have been done without the usual postulating and guff. Who is more pro traveler than who is irrelevant. The fact remains that from what I have read so far is that Bree wanted a halting put into a ‘Ward’ where 3 halting sites existed and he opposed the construction of a halting site in his own constituency, then attacked the councilors who disagreed with him on this basis (i.e. logistics) as being anti-traveler. Karl Rove would be proud.
That is what is plain and simple to me.

"Councillor Veronica Cawley, one of the Sligo-based councillors who rejected the programme, has said that it would have resulted in four Traveller accommodation units being sited in one ward of the city and none in two other wards."

I simply take exception to people like Bree who make a lot of noise about compassion and caring and left wing ideology when in reality he is as politically motivated as the next.

I glossed over nothing, If Rabbitte lied in writing through the organ of the fourth estate, then as a matter of recourse shouldn’t Bree (as the injured party) take legal action?

And if things have soured so badly for him within the ranks of Labour, why is he still their? Arrogance perhaps? Delusions of grandeur through misperceived defiance? The party coffers usefulness during election time?

Cue various ‘Gerry’s, Pats, Duines’ and God knows who else to clamber to his defence, But I wouldn bother, I wont be reading, Bigger fish to fry!

by Ryan Sun Dec 03, 2006 02:38

I have no idea why Bree is still in the Labour Party as it isn’t active in Sligo anymore. His name is now regularly associated with the Connolly Forum and its meetings and activities

It must be said that suggestions that he used his position as Mayor of Sligo to stop traveller accommodation going into his own ward are preposterous. The public record will show that there was no proposal in the traveller accommodation programme to locate traveller accommodation in Brees ward. The record will further show that Bree voted for an amendment to the plan proposing that apartments for new married travellers be provided in his ward.

It was also well known in Sligo that the proposal to locate the additional site in the North Ward was solely to house a number of traveller families from the North Ward who are currently living in very bad conditions in the ward. Not one residents group, community organisation or individual objected to the additional site in the North Ward during the public consultation period. Yet the councillors voted against it

by KillBill - Anti-Nowhere League Mon Dec 04, 2006 19:58

“I have no idea why Bree is still in the Labour Party as it isn’t active in Sligo anymore. His name is now regularly associated with the Connolly Forum and its meetings and activities”

Says who? I would imagine Labour to be very active in the North-West with 3 Lab reps on the county council and borough council (incl. Cllr Bree).
Source: Labour Party Web site: http://www.labour.ie/sligoleitrim/

Bree has said he won’t run as a Labour candidate in the general election, but as yet, that remains to be seen and until such time is still a member of a party which he claims enacted a ‘Witch-Hunt’ against him. Why is he waiting to announce his departure? Could he be posturing to garner as much political capital as possible before he goes independent?

Even so that doesn’t account for the breath-taking arrogance of the paraphrased comment above to assume that Labour has been rendered inactive because of the animosity between Bree and his two party colleagues within Sligo Co.Co. All that comment was trying to suggest is that Bree is the standard to which Labour must hold itself and all detractors from his point of view are heretics open to Stalinist style harrying. Too long in the trenches one could say.

As for the Connolly Forum, I have never heard of it, but it does strike me as odd that if Bree has consolidated his activities within that forum, then what purpose his continued association with Labour?

“It must be said that suggestions that he used his position as Mayor of Sligo to stop traveller accommodation going into his own ward are preposterous.”

Why? His party leader asserted that he did in writing to the Irish times. Surely he would have checked his facts and accordingly consulted with the party briefs before submitting a potentially libelous letter? What ever you may think of Rabitte, he is far from stupid. It is also interesting to note that Rabitte was not accusing but responding to an article in which Bree claimed he was being hauled before a complaints committee for supporting the rights of travelers. That is simply not the case and is misleading in the extreme. Bree was being reprimanded for his harsh inaccurate criticism of his party colleagues in the public arena which could be viewed as a calculated act of political opportunism.

Bree offered the minutes of a meeting of the council to show that he voted in favour of traveler accommodation for newlyweds within his own electoral ward and during his tenure of mayor. What has this to do with the proposed halting site that was at the centre of this particular dispute?
They must be a smokescreen as they are not substantive enough in their own right to support any forthcoming legal action that he should have taken to clear this up once and for all.

However as outsiders, it is impossible to know the full extent of the information available to both parties. But I can take it as a given that Rabitte would not submit a libelous accusation in writing to the Irish times without evidence. I can also take it as a given that if Rabitte had lied Bree would in that case do all he could (including legal action) to refute such accusations and clear his name. The fact remains that he didn’t.

“Not one residents group, community organisation or individual objected to the additional site in the North Ward during the public consultation period. Yet the councillors voted against it”

I have no idea whether the public consolation process conducted in this regard was exhaustive or well advertised. My own experience here in Dublin is that they tend to spring up out of nowhere and with little or no time afforded to the possible mobilisation of effective opposition. The demolition by Dublin City Council of a community centre last year being a point in case.
In any event are you suggesting that all the councilors involved are anti-traveler?
It has already being been stated in this thread by Gerard that he and his family were alone in their support of the halting site in their area. Surely in this case it would seem that the councilors voted with the interests of their constituents in mind?

Further to this, had there been no opposition publicly or privately I would have thought, politicians being politicians, they would have grabbed the minority card with both hands and voted in favour.
What is being suggested instead is that all these councilors except for Declan Bree acted against every political fibre in their body by voting down a politically enhancing initiative which had public support and missed a priceless PR opportunity to boot all in the name of bigotry.

Now that is unbelievable.