ISN article on the general election

national | politics / elections | opinion/analysis

Thursday June 07, 2007 18:47

by Colm Breathnach - Irish Socialist Network

breathc at hotmail dot com

This article outlines an initial analysis of the general election results from the Irish Socialist Network.

MORE OF THE DEVIL WE KNOW: THE WINNERS AND LOSERS OF GENERAL ELECTION 2007

END OF (BOOM) TIMES

There’s no denying that this was a bad election for the left. Setbacks turn into major defeats in the absence of rational analysis of what went wrong. This is an attempt to start such an analysis.

The Fianna Fáil victory and the rise of Fine Gael’s vote happened for a number of reasons but the key element seems to be that Irish capitalism has convinced the majority of people that it alone can deliver prosperity. The problems related to public services, health, crime and transport are important to people but could not trump the notion that any progress on these issues could only be based on the continued health of the capitalist economy. Many people feared the future demise of the Celtic Tiger, which has delivered short term increase in the standard of living, more than they resented the massive inequality and dreadful state of public services. This does not make them selfish or part of the ‘contented majority’. Given the level of information available to people and the dominance of right-wing ideology in all social and political structures, it is hardly surprising that people took this view.

That said, it was not simply a matter of people voting out of fear of a fall. It would be a strange capitalist boom that did not produce a certain level of satisfaction with pro-capitalist parties, even amongst those on whose exploitation it rests. For relatively short periods of time, capitalism can simultaneously exploit people and satisfy some of their basic needs. As Marx correctly observed growing inequality can sometimes be accompanied by a rise in the absolute standard of living of workers. Previous capitalist booms, including the long boom of the 1950s to 1970s, led to an increase in the standards of living of workers in developed capitalist countries, though such booms are often based on increased exploitations of workers and peasants in underdeveloped or newly emergent regions of the world.

The Celtic Tiger has lasted a long time and, though the signs are ominous, it may have a few more years in it. In such long periods of capitalist prosperity, where all classes do well in absolute terms, the working class can be rendered largely quiescent, especially if the state is dominated by a right-populist party wedded to some form of corporatism, a characteristic of both the Asian and Celtic Tigers. FF is not as exceptional as some people think; one has only to look at the record of that Liberal Democratic Party in Japan or the Peoples Action Party in Singapore. Often in such cases the radical left and, if they’re not running the show, the centre-left, are marginalised while the boom lasts. This is not an argument for fatalism, nor a denunciation of working people as some sort of ‘labour aristocracy’, just an identification of a major brake on radicalisation of the class.

IT’S THE HEGEMONY STUPID!

Of course boom-time prosperity does not mean that inequality ceases to exist or that the super-profits of the rich are no longer based on the exploitation of workers. Nor does it mean that people are unaffected by quality of life issues such as poor services, transport chaos etc. The difficulty is that they do not connect everyday problems to the capitalist system nor do they see any genuine alternatives. This leads us to another factor in the victory of the right: the absolute hegemony of right wing ideas which ensure the dominance of the ruling classes in Ireland today. A large variety of agencies, including the education system, informal cultural practices and in particular the media, act as essential conduits for the transference and dominance of conservative ideas. The Irish media in particular is completely dominated by right wing ideology, whether the brash in your face version of Independent Newspapers or the softly-softly approach of the Irish Times. This is hardly surprising given the ownership structure of the Irish media. In contrast to other European countries there is no national media outlet that challenges ruling class ideology, even from a soft-left/reformist position.

This right wing ideological dominance goes a long way towards explaining why coverage of left-of-centre parties’ positions on coalition centred solely on their willingness to drop radical reformist policies. Few, if any, mainstream journalists questioned the logic of entering government with parties of the right. The abandonment of radical policies by Sinn Féin and the Greens were almost universally welcomed as signs of ‘maturity’ and suitability to enter government, while any resistance to this process was condemned as outdated and unpopular. To a certain extent this is what burst the Green and SF bubbles. The existence of parties that seemed to offer a more trenchant critique of the existing order was a glitch in the smooth TINA mantra, so they had to be brought to heal, and what tame little doggies they turned out to be!

Another manifestation of the hegemony of ruling-class ideas played a major role in putting the squeeze on all the small parties and independents. Every effort was made by the media to portray this as a battle royal between two presidential figures. Everything was reduced to Bertie versus Enda. This Americanisation of the election campaign is indicative of the hollowing out of democracy evident in many western countries: everything is reduced to personalities backed by two big parties which are almost identical ideologically and effectively represent the same class interests. Is it any surprise that many of those who feared for the future opted for FF, while those who wanted change opted for FG, when all other options on the menu appeared in small print at the bottom of the page?

RIGHT TURN AND CRASH

Although it would be foolish to write off the party, SF suffered its first reverse in many years. It is true that the party’s vote increased slightly overall but they suffered a serious setback in working class areas of Dublin. The extent of the defeat is evident from comparing the votes received in the local elections of 2004 with the general election result. A look at the Dublin North West constituency reveals this starkly. SF has been the major force on the left in this constituency since the demise of the Workers Party. It has a strong constituency machine and two hard-working and popular councillors. In the two wards that make up the constituency, Finglas and Ballymun/Whitehall, SF topped the poll in the 2004 local elections, gaining a combined total vote of 6570. Yet in the general election, with turnout up by 8%, the total SF vote fell to 4,873. In percentage terms the fall was even more dramatic. In the local elections SF got 32.9% in Finglas and 24.2% in Ballymun/Whitehall, yet in the general election the overall percentage fell to 15.7%. It is apparent here and in other areas that large numbers of working class voters abandoned SF and voted for the conservative parties.

The general factors already mentioned certainly contributed to SF’s losses but specific issues were also involved. Hammered by the media for being too left-wing and dying to get into government, the party rushed to the right. At the start of the election the party’s Ard Comhairle literally abandoned their mildly reformist taxation policy, replacing it with a ‘business friendly’ position of zero increase in corporation and higher earner taxation. This rush to the right damaged them: if all they were offering was the same economic policies as the right combined with an ever-so-slightly left-of-centre social policy then why not vote for FF?

For the first time the intervention of the Northern leadership was shown up as clumsy: forcing the move to the right on a partly unwilling southern cadre, imposing middle class ‘new Shinners’ such as Mary Lou on the grassroots, banking on a peace dividend that did not materialise because that had been cashed in long ago when they ended the armed struggle and thinking that Adams generalised rhetoric could compete with the detailed economic arguments of the right. While no one should underestimate the ability of the SF leadership to wriggle out of a tight corner, this time things may not go so smoothly as they have never dealt with internal opposition based on strategy in the south. On a positive note, it is possible now that the barely audible rumblings of internal dissent will become more open and that some elements of the party’s grassroots may begin to perceive how badly they have been mislead by the right-ward moves, even if these have been accompanied by the honeyed tones of the leadership’s revolutionary rhetoric.

If SF failed to make the expected break through, Labour just stood still. Too far right to feel the squeeze on the left but unable to make anti-government hay because FG had all the advantages, all Labour could do was facilitate the remarkable recovery of FG and its idealess, principle-free, clockwork bunny of a leader. While much of its recovery happened in rural and middle class areas, Fine Gael actually also made significant inroads in traditional working class areas, indicating that many working people saw them as the only serious anti-government alternative. The liberal middle and upper income groups who form a large part of Labour’s support base went for the bigger of the ‘Alliance for Change’ parties. This was also the case for the Green Party, now solidly embedded in the neo-liberal consensus along with Labour. That’s about the sum of it since both these parties are irrelevant to any debate about the future of the left other than the sad fact that small numbers of genuine leftists still cling to the entirely irrational hope that these parties can be miraculously transformed into engines of radical social change. And pigs will fly.

A QUESTION OF POWER

The failure of the centre left parties to make any progress once again raises the question of the location of power in a developed capitalist society. According to their script, you ‘get power’ simply by being in government: any government for Rabbitte, Adams and Sargent, a ‘left-majority’ government for the left-social democrats in Labour Youth etc. and a fully fledged left government for some on the far left. Once in power, you ‘deliver’, that is you bring in reforms from above to improve peoples lives. The idea that those with the real power in society, those who control the wealth of society, will allow you to ‘deliver’ anything that seriously endangers their hold on society seems not to have occurred to them. Not only do centre left parties in coalition inevitably fail to ‘deliver’ and end up paying the price, fully reformist governments often fail to deliver any serious reforms. Most reforms implemented are the result of campaigning on the ground or long term social processes and changes which eventually force concessions from above, concessions that are made in order to protect the long term interests of the capitalist class.

Even if we accept that reformist leaders are not just cynical careerists, what’s missing in this ‘stand and deliver’ strategy is any understanding of where the real centres of power lie: in elite domination of the economy and of cultural and social structures. Being in government is not inconsequential but it does not overlap exactly or even predominantly with being ‘in power’. Secondly, the fundamental assumption underpinning this reformist concept of power is that you take power on behalf of people and ‘deliver’ to them. In other words you follow the exact path to power permitted in a capitalist democracy, because the other path involving the participation of the mass of people in their own emancipation threatens the very foundations of the capitalist system. According to this view it simply is not possible to do anything other than to reform from above within the bounds laid down by the current system. Even the prospect of radical reforms is eschewed since these would not be acceptable to the local ruling class, multi-national capital and the imperialist powers.

Unfortunately, with its simplistic ‘betrayal narrative’ of the constant rightward shift of former radicals, most of the far-left has failed to come to grips with this question. If we are to seriously challenge this reformism-lite, as well as its now largely defunct parent social democracy, we have to outline how an alternative strategy rooted deeply in the participation of the mass of people and aimed at the revolutionary transformation of society would work. We also have to answer the difficult questions with something other than generalisations. What about the flight of capital and consequent economic crisis? What about the embeddedness of state structures in the EU super-state? What about the blockages to radical changes inherent in the Irish constitution? What about the crucial role of the judiciary, the legal system in general and the coercive forces of the state?

We need to come up with convincing answers to these questions if we are to fully expose the failure of what passes for reformism in Ireland. If we, correctly, argue for a seizure of power from below, for the secondary role of electoral activity, for a radical democratic restructuring of the political superstructure and a socialisation of the economic base, then we better work hard on coming up with convincing and detailed arguments to these questions.

ONE STEP BACK

One thing is certain about this election. It was a big set-back for the radical left. Right across the board left candidates did badly, falling back significantly from the promising progress made at the 2004 local elections. In most cases they lost support to FF or Fine Gael. Thousands of working class voters abandoned socialist candidates and voted for the parties of the right. Now much of this can be explained by the factors already discussed: relative prosperity, the big two scenario etc. But other more left-specific factors may also have come into play. It seems that many left groups simply had not put down deep enough roots in working class communities. The bin tax campaign, which formed the solid basis of the 2004 local election successes, had ended and the roots put down by the left during that campaign proved too fragile. By and large, the left failed to campaign consistently on issues that effected people directly.

Without any finger pointing, since the Irish Socialist Network was as guilty as others, one could fairly ask: where were the on-going left campaigns on housing, health, public transport or social partnership? By this I mean real campaigns mobilising and involving masses of ordinary people rather than ephemeral ‘petition and poster’ ones mainly aimed at recruitment? Basically it seems that there was no mystery to this failure of the far-left: real campaigning involving people in their own communities and workplaces did not happen on a consistent basis.

In relation to specific organisations, the loss of Joe Higgins’s seat is undoubtedly a heavy blow, not just to the Socialist Party but to the working class as a whole. He epitomised in the eyes of a large number of Irish people what socialists stood for: principled, hardworking, standing up for the underdog. He was a lone voice in the Dáil, exposing and criticising the right wing parties, showing up the docility of the centre left parties, attacking the system rather than just those who administered it. Why he lost the seat, why Clare Daly failed to win one in Dublin North and why the other Socialist Party candidates did poorly in relation to local election results, was in my view largely a product of the general circumstances though some specific elements particular to the SP may have also contributed. It is to be hoped that this will lead to some reassessment on the part Socialist Party rather than a retrenchment and battening down of the hatches.

Turning to left-independents, the loss of Seamas Healy’s seat in South Tipperary and Joan Collins failure to win one in Dublin South Central were also heavy blows to the struggle. Their strong advocacy of class politics and their immersion in working class communities made their election important for the development of the radical left. Once again they were swept aside by the unstoppable tidal wave of the right. Though there are no simple answers (except for the religio-marxists who always have the right answers), one thing is certain: whatever we have been doing so far has not been good enough, so we have to analyse developments carefully and look at what changes we need to make in our strategy and tactics.

One organisation that, on the face of it, fared rather better was the Socialist Workers Party. A more detailed look at the evidence reveals this exception to be more apparent than real since only two out of the five SWP/People Before Profit Alliance candidates made any impact in the election and those two owed much, though not all, of their success to local factors. In Dublin South Central, Bríd Smith increased her vote substantially. A glance at the last local elections results explains this gain: Smith’s base in Ballyfermot ensured that she gained about half of the 1,920 votes received by the Gregory-style independent and Lord Mayor of Dublin, Vincent Jackson, who did not stand in the general election. This brought her vote up to 2,086 from 1,094 in the local elections. This is not to take away from the fact that effective campaigning work in the area ensured that she was in a position to do so. In Richard Boyd Barrett’s case, an impressive record of local campaigning also contributed to strong support in the working class enclaves of the Dun Laoghaire constituency, though the existence of a large left-liberal section of the middle and upper income groups in that constituency, impressed by his anti-war campaigning and work on the Dun Laoghaire Baths issue, also contributed significantly to his vote.

Despite the unique local factors involved, the manipulative antics of the SWP should not blind us to the fact that that these two candidates weathered the storm better than the rest of the left partly because of their involvement in local campaigns and, in contrast to the usual SWP on-off attitude, their ability to stick with them. A possible negative reason for their relative success was their failure to identify themselves as socialists: standing as PBPA candidates and only mentioning their socialist allegiances in the small print. In fact their election literature was little different to that of SF and left-leaning Labour candidates. This moderate disguise probably also helped to save them from the deluge that washed over the rest of the far-left. It is ironic that the neo-trotskyists of the SWP now follow the ‘popular front’ tactics usually associated with the orthodox communist parties in the past: you set up a front organisation in alliance with naïve intellectuals and liberal-lefts and win popular support on that basis. If and when you win significant support you face a real problem because that support is based on, at best, reformist illusions, and you can hardly suddenly take off the mask and switch to radical socialist policies.

This critique is not based on out of date workerism. Of course we recognize that the majority of what are called the middle class are workers, though capitalist societies are not divided simply into proletariat and bourgeois and there are many class fractions and intermediate groups with differing and shifting interests. Whatever view one takes of these middle groups, taking the short-cut of appealing to them on a populist basis is a dead end. A slower but more fruitful strategy in the long run is to win middle income workers over to socialism via an open commitment to class politics based on campaigning in the community and workplace, using a modern articulation of the language of class.

The ISN did not escape the overall trend in this election. Our vote in Finglas did not collapse but, in line with most far-left candidates it was reduced significantly from the local election result, falling from 845 to 505. But rather than taking the usual head in the sand ‘the working class really support us, they just didn’t show it in the privacy of the voting booth’ attitude, it is incumbent on us to try to analyse the result honestly. This fall in support was to a large extent related to broader factors outside our control but it also indicates that the ISN is not sufficiently rooted in the working class communities of Dublin North West. Despite the hard work of local members, including the regular production and delivery of a local newsletter and action on various local issues, there was a certain decline in active work on the ground after the last local election. This was partly due to our efforts to build the ISN and clarify our politics, tasks which reduced the time available for local campaigning work. Another contributing factor was the fact that the only major local campaign we were actively involved in, the bin tax campaign, had effectively ended as a mass campaign after 2004. We were correct to stick by the people who refused to pay (indeed we still do) and correct to refuse to abandon the campaign but perhaps we should have been more realistic about putting a lot of work into a campaign that had lost mass support.

Of course we could have done things differently. We could have directed all our energies towards electoral work; we could have dumped our decision to encourage people to deal with everyday problems through collective campaigning rather than aping the clientelism of the major parties. We could have toned down our explicit class politics. We could have done all these things and possibly added a few votes but at what cost? If we were going to go for wishy-washy, vaguely left-of-centre, ‘I looked after you, now you vote for me’ politics, we might as well join the Labour Party. No thanks!

Let there be no doubt about it the radical left has a hard struggle ahead. Some, sitting on the sidelines, will demand instant answers of us. The ISN, like the rest of the far-left, must ask ourselves some tough questions. One advantage that we have is participatory democratic nature of our internal structures, which allows for open and critical debate, while precluding the ready made, top down decision making process of hierarchical organisations. However, this alone will not ensure that we have learned and absorbed the lessons of this defeat. Engaging with working people in campaigning work, learning from that engagement and developing our politics on that basis: this is key to healthy renewal. Revolutionary politics grows in the mass struggles of working people or dies. It’s as simple as that.

save preference

Comments (39 of 39)

good article

by jon

Thu Jun 07, 2007 19:01

Not a bad analysis. Regardless of what group that socislists belong to the ashes of this election neeed some serious proding.

Good, thoughtful piece.

by Rory Herbert

Thu Jun 07, 2007 19:16

This is a great piece of writing. A very honest and thoughtful reaction to the election. Well done.

my ya

by herbert rory

Thu Jun 07, 2007 22:32

sorry this is a pile of horse

Election result and Loss of SP seat...

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI

Fri Jun 08, 2007 00:57

Just for information purposes...

If Dublin West had the 4 seats that it was constitutionally entitled to Joe Higgins would have comfortably held the seat.

If Dublin North had the 5 seats that it was constitutionally entitled to Clare Daly would have won the last seat in the constituency (the quota would have been over 2,500 votes lower and Kennedy of FF would have had a surplus of 1,800+. Clare Daly would have picked up considerable more of this surplus than Brendan Ryan and won the last seat).

As regards the overall analysis - I would not agree with your contention that 'Irish capitalism has convinced the majority of people that it alone can deliver prosperity' etc. I believe that an anxiousness exists amongst large sections of society (including large sections of the working class) about the future prospects of the Irish economy and people voted for the 'devil you know' etc. This was clearly begining to manifest itself on the canvas in the last few days before the election. I think most people recognise the fact that an economic downturn is on the way and this does not equate to the 'notion that any progress on these issues (health etc) could only be based on the continued health of the capitalist economy'. This is not to say that the majority of people are drawing socialist conclusions or anything like it, but I believe that you are giving too much credit to Irish capitalism on its success at brainwashing the general population. It is more a case of not seeing any clear alternative rather than accepting the fact that progress on public services is conditional on the health of the economy.

I would also disagree with the contention that the Celtic Tiger still exists. The Celtic Tiger died with the brief economic downturn in 2001. The nature of the economic growth is now fundementally different to pre-2001. The Celtic Tiger existed during a period of expansion of manufacturing and services, with an export led boom. The economic recovery since 2001 has been based on a housing bubble and a huge expansion of personal credit - something that has the potential to lead to severe difficulties in the Irish economy over the next few years. There is now relatively little growth based on the factors that existed prior to 2001.

In relation to the difficulties for the GP and SF. First it must be recognised that the votes of these two parties come from different sectors of Irish society. The GP draws its votes mainly from the middle class and certin sections of better paid workers. In the early stages of the election they developed a momentum and took some support from FG. However, as the election campaign developed and the idea of an alternative became a possibility the GP lost all the support it had taken from FG and more besides.

In contrast the SF vote is primarily working class ( in particular based in local authority housing estates) in urban areas. This is a vote that they have managed to poach from FF and to a lesser extent from LP. In the course of the election they lost a significant amount of this vote back to FF, representing the trend of the 'devil you know' as FG was not trusted by these sections of society.

Personally I think this whole idea of a presidential battle is over blown. The so-called squeeze of the small parties had more to do with the fact that there was no political difference between FF, FG, LP, GP, SF and PD's - and as such why vote for small parties when you can vote for two big ones that will do exactly the same thing.

Colm - could you please clarify who you were referring to with the comment 'fully fledged left government for some on the far left. Once in power, you ‘deliver’, that is you bring in reforms from above to improve peoples lives.'

With regards the campaigning work of the far-left. I can only speak for the SP. We actively attempted to consistantly campaign on all the issues mentioned. The SP regularly held meetings on planning issues, transport issues, management fees, aer lingus etc. However, a small left organisation cannot pluck campaigns out of thin air, 'mobilising and involving masses of ordinary people'. While many people regard these issues as important there was no mood to actively campaign on these issues by 'the masses'.

For analysis of the SP's election results please consult here http://www.socialistparty.net/

In DW and DN we succeeded in counter-acting the impact of people voting for the 'Alliance for Change'. We felt that if the election had been held a week earlier we would have won both seats. Unfortunately in the last week we didn't have sufficient time to counter-act the shift to FF and subsequently lost votes in certain areas costing us both seats.

As regards DSW and CNC - the SP had greater difficulty counter-acting the impact of the 'Alliance for Change' stuff and consequently lost votes in both directions.

The loss of Seamus Healy was a bad blow. Indications were that, despite the hype in the media about him losing to the LP, Healy was never in trouble from that front. Unfortunately, Healy also lost out to the shift to FF in the last few days. While Joan Collins had a chance to win a seat, I always felt it was a very outside chance - particularly with the bin tax campaign drifting into the background. Joan was only ever going to win if she got ahead of Eric Byrne and managed to stay there and even then the seat would not have been guaranteed. In order to do this she needed significant momentum something that was distinctly lacking for the left in this election.

I think your review of the SWP/PBP campaign is reasonable. Part of Brid Smyth's vote could also be due to the claim that in Ballyfermot, when the SWP found a SF voter the argued that O'Snodaigh was safe and vote Smyth 1 and the SF 2. As regards the vote of R. Boyd-Barrett, I think there may be an over-estimation of the impact of his campaign. RBB dumped all pretence of socialism from his campaign. When asked about this Kieran Allen actually said that it was losing them votes. There was also an element of celebrity campaigning although it is questionable if this had any real impact - but in the leafier parts of DL you never know. RBB's vote is soft at best and there is a serious question about the SWP's ability to maintain it at even the next local elections. I certainly think that RBB's comments in todays Irish Times are well off the mark (and politically questionable also):

“Against the background of a very poor overall performance for the left, the shock caused by the People Before Profit Alliance in Dún Laoghaire in coming so close to taking a seat may be a small but significant pointer towards a possible way forward. With such disappointing results nationally, the left should surely now reappraise the failed strategy of coalition with the two big parties of the centre-right and overcome the differences and divisions that have prevented it from developing as a viable and independent force in Irish politics. Without overstating its significance, the vote for the People Before Profit Alliance in Dún Laoghaire suggests such a rethink might produce surprising results.”

While I have raised some points here I would acknowledge that the analysis of the ISN is more accurate than others I have read.

Finally - 'Why he (Joe Higgins) lost the seat, why Clare Daly failed to win one in Dublin North and why the other Socialist Party candidates did poorly in relation to local election results, was in my view largely a product of the general circumstances though some specific elements particular to the SP may have also contributed. It is to be hoped that this will lead to some reassessment on the part Socialist Party rather than a retrenchment and battening down of the hatches.'

Colm - maybe you could indicate what 'specific elements particular to the SP may have also contributed'?

The SP has and is discussing the election result - not just in terms of the result for us, but the election in general and in terms of the overall political and economic perspectives over the next period. The SP is not and will not 'batten down the hatches' - we will do what we have always done - agitate, educate, organise. There is going to be no sharp turn in position - the political perspectives have not been dramatically altered by the election. The SP recognise the need for a mass left party, and our election material outlined the need for such a development. However, the fact is that this election, in my opinion, actually confirms the view of the SP that there is no material basis for the building of a mas left party at this point in time. If there was the left would have secured a significantly better result than was achieved on 24th May.

explain

by curious

Fri Jun 08, 2007 09:22

Interesting and thoughtful comment from SP. However, at the risk of driving this discussion down a side-road, can I ask our SP friend to clarify one remark on the SWP/PBPA?

"RBB dumped all pretence of socialism from his campaign. When asked about this Kieran Allen actually said that it was losing them votes."

When and where did KA compain about RBB hiding his socialism? I must have missed this. We hear this occasional references to a division between KA and RBB in the SWP but no evidence has ever been produced. Rumour-mongering is not the same as evidence.

If your aunt had balls......

by Kojack

Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:01

"In DW and DN we succeeded in counter-acting the impact of people voting for the 'Alliance for Change'. We felt that if the election had been held a week earlier we would have won both seats. Unfortunately in the last week we didn't have sufficient time to counter-act the shift to FF and subsequently lost votes in certain areas costing us both seats."

So successful in fact that in DW the AfC won 2 seat out of 3. FG Gain.
Ok in DN FG gain was at the expense of Lab. No gain for the AfC but the Labour candidate was the candidate in the running for the last seat.
As to the ifs. I think they were answered in the Supreme Court yesterday. And you can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't seem to be remember DN being mentioned in that case.

In response

Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:28

to curious who said 'When and where did KA compain about RBB hiding his socialism? I must have missed this. We hear this occasional references to a division between KA and RBB in the SWP but no evidence has ever been produced. Rumour-mongering is not the same as evidence.'

RBB was challanged on a stall by, I believe a relative of a member of the SP, over the airbrushing of socialism from his campaign. As occurred on a number of occasions during the campaign, RBB fumbled to find an answer to a direct question. Kieran Allen, who was with RBB, then bluntly stated 'talking about socialism was losing us votes'

As for Kojack

The reason Joe Higgins lost the seat in Dublin West was because a certain number of people who previously voted SP switched to FF this time out. In the first two weeks of the campaign there was a drift to LP from the SP but it was clear with about a week to go that this was not sufficient for either FG and LP to both win ahead of the SP. Indeed the LP was terrified the Sunday before the election that Joan Burton's seat was gone. The shift in momentum to FF during the last week impacted on the SP vote and the SF vote (SF dropped over 800 votes about 500 of which would have transferred to the SP). There was insufficient time to counter-act this impact. The SP lost the seat primarily because of the shift to FF rather than the earlier (and smaller) shift to LP.

In Dublin North - On the 7th count Clare Daly was 11 votes ahead of Brendan Ryan. The LP looked for a re-count, the result of which was a 13 vote swing leaving Ryan 2 votes ahead of Clare Daly. The returning officer then refused the SP request for a second re-count (The only time in my recollection in a lot of elections where a returning officer has behaved in this fashion).

As regards the extra seat. Dublin North is currently in breach of the constitutional guidelines for Dail representation - i.e. more than 30,000 people per TD. The court case taken by Finian McGrath and Catherine Murphy was about the general issue of constitutional guidelines for representation - not about a specific constituency. A second case brought by a resident in Dublin West was specifically about that constituency. Dublin North would only have been mentioned if a resident in Dublin North had also brought a case, which would have happened if the others had been successful.

As I explained on another thread, if the extra seat that should have been allocated to Dublin North had existed, Clare Daly would have won the seat. The extra seat would have reduced the qutoa leaving Michael Kennedy with a surplus of about 1,800 votes. Micheal Kennedy and Clare Daly compete directly for votes in Swords. I was at the tally and Clare Daly was the clear winner in second preferences over Brendan Ryan. Remember she only had to regain three votes to get ahead of him on the 7th count (she would have been a couple of hundred votes ahead of him), he would have been eliminated and Clare Daly would have won the seat on Ryan's transfers.

LP tallymen in both constituencies accepted both scenarios.

In order to understand the ins and outs of the above - you first must understand how PR-STV operates - it appears you do not.

Response

by Colm Breathnach - ISN-pc

Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:29

Though I usually dont respond to anonymous contributors, I will try to deal later (busy at mo) with the detailed and well thought out points posted by Jolly Red Giant of the SP who posts regularly under that moniker.

If your aunt had balls.... The sequel

Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:10

I do understand the PR-STV system. Maybe you have a problem with reality. I've just looked at the RTE election website, Election Ireland and the IT election website. They all state that the AfC won two seats in DW. They all have the Labour candidate in two counts more than Clare in DN.
You have a lot of scenarios and ifs. When the Dáil resumes on the 14th will Joe and Clare be at the gates looking for admittance based on these scenarios and ifs?

And...

Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:36

Leo Varadker, Joan Burton and James Reilly will be cosying up to one another on the opposition backbenches (unless of course the LP end up in coalition with FF) - Brendan Ryan will be dropped by the LP in Dublin North so fast he won't feel his a*se hit the ground.

So much for the 'Alliance for Change' - They should be renamed 'The Alliance for Changing Nothing'

SP2TDs?

by Dub

Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:56

I agree with 'Jolly Red Giant'. If you actually look at the votes you would come to the conclusion the SP would now have 2 TDs if there was an extra seat in DW and DN as it should be under the constitution. In DN Clare Daly was eliminated after being 1 vote behind. If there was an extra seat the quota would have been lower. Therefore Kennedy would have a surplus. I know a FFer in DN and he told me that Daly were getting heaps of #2s off Kennedy as both are Cllrs in Swords - almost as much as the 2 other FFers!! So I think it's right to say Daly would be the 5th TD in DN. Joe Higgins is obvious, he would have got in if there were 4 seats.

Joe Higgins, Catherine Murphy, Clare Daly, Richard Boyd-Barrett & Seamus Healy did very very well. They all got #1 votes higher than a significant number of TDs in 30th Dáil.

PR System

by Goblin

Fri Jun 08, 2007 13:15

Perhaps we should scrap the PR system then. It is becoming a moot point voting in Ireland as the outcome can be reasonable forecast with a reasonable level of accuracy everytime.

I'm also annoyed the electorate now seem to use the locals rather than the GE to give the government a bloody nose. Nothing changes and FF bank on that.

Campaigning on the ground

by hs - sp (personal capacity)

Fri Jun 08, 2007 13:45

In dublin west over the last two years (and more) we tried over and over again to get local campaigns going on all of the issues colm mentioned. We leafletted, held meetings and went door to door. Where people were mobilised in areas like castle curragh it was on issues that directly effected them (mainteanence fees for estates), in all other cases no one was interested, its as simple as that. I personally think the whole modern outer suburban liefstyle,( longer underpaid hours in work married to ever longer comuting times.) means people are less likely to get involved in grassroots politics unless it affects them directly. People are up earlier and working and commuting longer. How we deal with this is another question... There's no pint in putting out the anarchistic mantra... the left should organise local campaigns with real people.. if the people aren't interested. We all need to seriously consider the answer to the lack of activism in suburban dublin over the last few years.

Catherine Murphy

by curiouser

Fri Jun 08, 2007 13:54

"Joe Higgins, Catherine Murphy, Clare Daly, Richard Boyd-Barrett & Seamus Healy did very very well."

What's Left about Catherine Murphy? Never heard her kick up about anything outside her constituency. We're dropping the bar very low, folks. Using this criteria, why not include Jerry Cowley, Finian McGrath and Tony Gregory? What's Left these days?

Today - Radio Show.

by Apparat - ISN - p.c.

Fri Jun 08, 2007 15:05

Joe Higgins, Richard Boyd Barrett, and Ivana Bacik on the today program discuss the future of the left.

--C

Where are the results?

by ID

Sat Jun 09, 2007 13:43

What constituency did JohnO'Neill stand in?

Dublin North West results

by e - swp (pc)

Sat Jun 09, 2007 16:24

Here you go

http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=200...ns=99

Thanks for that e

by IOT

Sat Jun 09, 2007 22:52

Any chance of providing a link for the swp results in the last election.
BTW ID if you had read the article you would have know which constituency John O'Neill ran in. That's unless of course you weren't just teeing up e.

Results

by Jolly Red Giant - Scoialist Party/CWI

Sat Jun 09, 2007 23:32

Th anks RJG

Sun Jun 10, 2007 02:20

Didn't see a swp candidate amongst those links? Did you post the right links.

2002 results?

Sun Jun 10, 2007 05:05

Sorry yes it was Dublin North West where John ran for the ISN (and where I live)

Do you mean the 2002 results for the SWP? Here they are from the same site:

http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=200...ns=97
http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=200...s=103
http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=200...s=104
http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=200...s=113
http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=200...s=113
http://www.electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=200...ns=61

SWP

Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:20

The SWP ran under the name of their front organisation People Before Profit (PBP). They were actually described as Independents on the ballot paper as their application to register PBP as a political party was lodged too late for the election.

Point of information

by brian

Mon Jun 11, 2007 08:30

Mr Jolly is incorrect. In Dublin city at least, it isn't possible to have 'Independent' on the ballot paper. The returning officer gives you two choices either a) leave it blank or b) opt for Non Party. Most will leave it blank. According to the RO the term Independent is a "media invention" and is never placed on the ballot paper.

Well done

by Jolly Red Giant

Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:42

You caught me on that one - should have said non-party - and this takes away from the point I was making how?

Mr Jolly

Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:54

I dont think it takes away from your point at all.

RBB, Hearne, Smith, Kenny are Non-Party!

by Politics Graduate

Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:52

I think it a disgrace that Richard Boyd-Barrett, Rory "never been in a major party" Hearne, Bríd Smith and Gino Kenny described themselves as "Non-Party" on the ballot papers. It is EXTREMELY misleading and politcally DISHONEST. I understand that they ran as People Before Profit. As that "organisation" was not registered in time as a political party why dod they not use "Socialist Workers' Party" and the designated party symbol of a clenched fist?? SWP are a registered party and should have been used by them. If I was the Returning Officer I would not have accepted their designation as "non-party" as it is misleading to voters.

jaysus christmas

by leftie

Mon Jun 11, 2007 14:16

Colm Breathnach of the ISN has clearly put a bit of thought and time into this analysis in order to assist a proper assessment of what happened. In no time at all, though, the discussion has boiled down to a squabble between the SP and SWP over who has a bigger **** than the other! Do you not think you're missing the bigger picture lads and lassies?

Both the SP and SWP/PBPA did relatively okay. No breakthough but do you want to focus your parties on electoralism and running after seats? Is this what 'building' a socialist movement now amounts to?

I'm confused

by Paul McCarthy - none - formerly swp

Wed Jun 13, 2007 00:47

Er, I've been out of the country for a while, so sorry if there's a really obvious answer to this, but Sargent said he'd resign as leader of the Greens if they went into coalition with FF:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0224/green.html

So what's changed? Can anyone explain it?

PS Congrats to Richard and Brid. Really sorry to hear about Joe Higgins' vote, but the eviction of the rottweiler almost made up for it!

SWP didn't mention the S word.

by Mr Hiphiphurrah

Wed Jun 13, 2007 09:31

I have Richard Boyd Barretts leaflet from Dún Laoghaire here, and there isn't any mention of socialism. Not that I can see anyway.

Why don't we take a look at the material?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity)

Wed Jun 13, 2007 15:16

I was rather surprised by E from the SWP's claim that the People Before Profit candidates did state that they were socialists and SWP members. So I took two of them at random and went through their election material looking for the words "socialist", "socialism", "SWP" and "Socialist Workers Party".

Firstly I took a look at Rory Hearne's material.

Rory is a long standing SWP activist and socialist. He appeared on the ballot paper as non-party. His election posters described him only as a member of the People Before Profit Alliance. In other words there was no mention of any of the above words on the ballot or on his posters. I've just gone through the array of press releases on his website. Again none of them mention any of the above words. There is a biography of the candidate on the website, which lists a whole range of political campaigns he has been involved in, but strangely omits his involvement in the SWP and doesn't mention his socialist beliefs.

I then moved on to the rest of his extensive website and to his main election leaflets. The first of the leaflets again omits all of the above words and phrases. So does all of his website bar the fifth page, which is a description of the People Before Profit Alliance. There in a sidebar, "socialists" are included in last place in a list of types of people who are involved in the PBPA. There is no reference to Rory being a Socialist or to his SWP membership. His two other leaflets include a similar section in the small print, listing the "Socialist Workers Party" as one of a wide range of components of the PBPA. Again no reference is made to Rory being a socialist or an SWP member.

In conclusion, some of Rory's material made reference in the small print to the SWP or socialists as one component part of the PBPA amongst many. Most of it did not even do that. None of it described him as a socialist or as an SWP member.

Then I took a look at Richard Boyd Barrett's material.

Richard again is a long standing SWP member and socialist and is, like Rory a member of the central leadership of the SWP. Like Rory, he appeared on the ballot paper as non-party. Again, like Rory his posters described him only as a member of the People Before Profit Alliance and made no reference to his SWP membership or to his socialist beliefs. There are no less than 27 press releases on his website. I've just bored myself almost to tears by going through all of them. Unsurprisingly not one of them mentions any of the words "socialist", "socialism", "SWP", or "Socialist Workers Party". This includes the assorted press releases which explain who Richard is, what he stands for and what his views are. I think some of us may have started to discern a pattern at this stage.

Similarly the biography on his website and the section on what he stands for make no mention of his long and ongoing involvement with the SWP, nor do they mention his socialist views. The first of his main election leaflets again makes no reference to any of the above terms.

One of his leaflets and the corresponding page on his website to the one I mentioned above include ,on a sidebar, "socialists" as the last group amongst a series of types of people involved in the PBPA. They do not mention the SWP, nor do they mention that Richard is himself a socialist. A second leaflet is a minor exception to this pattern - buried in the small print on page 2, it refers to "socialists like Richard" as one of the groups involved in the PBPA. This is the only place in his huge quantity of material where he is described as a socialist. Nowhere at all is reference made to his membership of the SWP.

So in 44 pieces of election material examined, covering two different SWP leaders standing as PBPA candidates we find: One reference in the small print of a leaflet to Richard Boyd Barrett as a socialist. No references to Rory Hearne as such. No references to Richard as an SWP member. No references to Rory as such.

I look forward to E's reply.

SWP/Marnie's Green Vote

Wed Jun 13, 2007 15:34

Marnie Harlborough from SWP was on the RTÉ Radio 1 News at 1pm. She was interviewed outside the Green convention at an IAWM protest/intervention. She was interviewed as a IAWM member outside. Fair enough. She made good points about the pre-election pledge that the Greens would be breaking if going into Government without any change on Shannon. Fair point. She then went on to say many Green voters backed them as an anti-war stand. Fair point. She then said "Green voters like myself....". Marnie, who is a leading SWP member in SIPTU, voted for the Greens!!! Marnie is not some young innocent recent recruit to the SWP. It would indicate something about SWP leadership thinking/

Marnie's comment means one of two things about the SWP's line of argument. 1. They are "grabbing the mood" of disgruntled Green voters and trying to direct it in an anti-war direction by saying they voted Green. This does not explain why a prominant SWP member inside IAWM will publicly endorse the Greens. You can critcise Green Party and tap into a mood without saying you vote for the Greens. SWP are very cynical if Marnie actually did not vote Green and this smacks of treating people like idiots. OR 2. Marnie actually did vote Green Party. This shows that the SWP are moving in a right-ward direction as Marnie should know better about Green policies on Bin Tax, public services etc. If Marnie actually did vote Green it shows that she was engaging in "lesser of 2 evils" politics between the two "alternative governments". Why did you not spoil your vote Marnie? "E - SWP" who did you vote for?

Personally, I think that Marnie's comments alongside RBB's comments on RTÉ over the past week show that they have serious illusions in the Greens. They are orientating to that middle class layer in society. SWP are ditching socialism and clear working class politics for fuzzy liberal middle class votes.

Or maybe

by Devil's advocate

Wed Jun 13, 2007 15:56

To the best of my recollection Marnie lives in Dublin Central. I suppose she could have voted for your man Perry but I suppose she went for Patricia on foot of her own personal stance on issues. I don't recollect any revolutionary socialists running in that constituency. (I don't think Bertie is a revoutionary.)
Dub a question for you. How come you are not a member of the SP? Or were you?

Perry

Wed Jun 13, 2007 16:02

If she lives in Dublin Central why not vote for Perry? At least it's keeping her support within the workers' movement. Or indeed if no decent people why not spoil her vote? Ultimately who cares about who voted for who. the reality is that the SWP are dishonest in their political approach. If a serious movement is to be built then it needs political honesty. My politics: I'm a socialist. I think socialists should be open about it.

McKenna

by pat c

I reckon Marnie could have voted for Patricia on the basis that she trusted Patricia to stick to her word. Patricia McKenna has always been a loose cannon as far as the GP leadership have been concerned.

I honestly could not see PMcK voting for coalition with FF unless US military flights were stopped. Even if the convention voted for the deal I doubt if PMcK would have obeyed the party line.

Further to the word searches

Wed Jun 13, 2007 16:10

Out of curiousity I decided to start looking for the phrase "working class" in the People Before Profit Alliance election material. I don't currently have time to do as thorough a search as I carried out above, but I have just looked through Richard Boyd Barrett's website and his three main election leaflets. The number of times the phrase "working class" was used was... zero.

There was a brief bit about "workers rights" to join a union in one of his leaflets, amongst a number of very supportable demands, but there was absolutely no attempt to put his overall worldview and political approach in a class politics framework.

Mc Kenna & Party Line

by Green Day

Wed Jun 13, 2007 16:34

Marnie could have easiy voted for Patricia Mc Kenna, albeit ten places down the list!!
Such is the mechanics of PR-STV!!
Being facetious of course in reaction to opportunity to attack the SWP. Just because you cannot vote SWP in an election, doesn't mean voting Green is out as well. I would guess Marnie went with the next best partial/radical option but not too impressive today as Mc Kenna saying she is "surprised by the Media's repsonse" to proposals, so sounds like she sticking to Party line? No?

SWP = Green Lite.

Wed Jun 13, 2007 16:39

Point is not that Marnie gave PMcK a 10th preference, point is that she is portraying herself as a Green supporter opportunistically AND/OR has illusions in the Green Party. Certainly her comments today are not the comments of a socialist. I think Mark P's research proves once and for all the dropping of socialist policies and class politics by SWP. I would be interested to see if he or "E" do a search of the leaflets of SP, ISN or any other socialists.

Green Day

Wed Jun 13, 2007 17:11

"not too impressive today as Mc Kenna saying she is "surprised by the Media's repsonse" to proposals, so sounds like she sticking to Party line? No?"

Hi Green Day

Did PMcK say this on radio/TV or is it online anyehere? If it is please post an excerpt here. It certainly sounds disappointing.

by Greenday

Wed Jun 13, 2007 17:18

Yes it was part of Sean O Rourke's Intro on today's News at 1. Just heard Boucher Hayes citing her belief/endorsement and ratification of same.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

ISN article on the general election

Comments (39 of 39)