As the PDs collapse..Put People Before Profit

by PBPA - People Before Profit Alliance Wed Nov 19, 2008 09:39

There were over 90 people at the meeting with interesting talks by all the speakers. Bernard Lynch dealt with the education cuts and the public service bashing which is going on. Vincent Browne spoke of the prospect of a new left and of as he saw it a need for a change of 'mindset'. Rita Fagan gave an inspiring speech dealing with the fall-out of the collapse of the PPP projects. Finally, Cllr Joan Collins spoke of the present crisis and the need for a new left. She explained the reasons behind CWAG & CIL decision to affiliate to the People Before Profit Alliance and encourage those present to get involved in the allaince.
A variety of protests were flagged for people including: Dec 1st protest over the regeneration issue in St Michaels/O Devaney/Dominick st & Dec 6th: Education Cuts Protest.

by oneforall Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:41

The left should not be taking lectures from Vincent Browne on what it should be doing. Vincent Browne is pro-market and pro-capitalist, he is not on the left! He should not be speaking on so-called left platforms unopposed.
Why was he asked to speak at this meeting? It would be understandable if he was asked to participate in a debate so that people on the left could argue against him.
Vincent Browne may have some liberal views about war and a bleeding heart towards the impact of the cuts but if you ask him straight he will tell you that he believes that capitalism albeit in a "better" form is the best way to run society. Remember he became a personal friend and defender of Charles Haughey!
In the 1990s he was asked twice to stand for Fine Gael, and although he declined the fact that he was asked speaks volumes about his politics. Now PBPA and the SWP are putting him on their platforms!

by The Digger Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:25

VB is a crowd-puller. That's why his name heads the speakers list and is in bigger letters than RBB and t'others. He's been a bit of a weathercock in political commentary over the decades. He was a leading predator in the Fine Gael ' young tigers' during and shortly after his UCD days, then waxed warm and cold about Garret the Great, Charles J and a few other leaders and potential leaders. A workaholic journalist, he can dash off a thundering commentary on a typewriter on the spur of the moment. This spouting journalist lifestyle produces a heap of self contradiction as years go by. He's supposed to be writing a family approved biography of Charles J H and I suppose that'll be a tight ropewalk between praise and blame. "On the one hand CJH was a softie who championed widows, penniless poets, starving artists and small farmers; on the other hand he was a conniving, calculating, astringent, self serving and forward-looking ... ... ; but basically a ... ...decent chap who ... ... the workers and small farmers, while... ... the arselicking toadies, capitalists, gombeen... ..." (fill in the blanks with yer Dictionary of Slang etc.) Is that assessment balanced enough for everybody?

Boost your word power: http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/wordfrom/modernslang/

by Supporter - PBPA Wed Nov 19, 2008 13:38

Great to see some constructive comments as usual. There should be no problem with Vincent Browne speaking on a left platform and in fact he was asked some tough questions and took part in the debate. Many may have come to hear him speak but they stayed and engaged in the discussion with great fighters like Rita, Bernard and Joan- I see no problem with that no matter what one thinks of vincent browne. Well done to all who took part in the organisation of the meeting and those who contributed to it. Hope to see all of ye on Dec 1st and Dec 6th.

by Just guessing Wed Nov 19, 2008 15:32

Putting somebody on a platform doesn't mean you endorse that persons political views. It was a public debate ffs. The SP had Alan Dukes at a debate - doesn't make him a card carrying trot.

by BC - Socialist Party Wed Nov 19, 2008 16:24

Actually Vincent Browne gave the most radical speech of the night, quoting Gramsci on hegemony and arguing for a radical redistribution of wealth. Rita Fagan gave a very good account of the council housing Public Private Partnership fiasco. The rest of the meeting was pretty much as you'd expect, "join the PBPA" stuff for the most part. By the way, there were 67 people there when I counted during the third platform speech.

by G Wed Nov 19, 2008 17:05

Anyone got details of the Regeneration protest on 1st Dec referred to above

by J.O/ - none Thu Nov 20, 2008 09:10

Well the rest of the meeting was pretty much as you'd expect, "join the PBPA" as it was a PBPA meeting after all. I',d expect that people would want people to join their organisation- as do the swp, sp, etc etc at their meetings.

By the way, on the numbers I though it was quite mad that BC spent a large portion of his time counting the numbers there. I was sat nearby and I'm sure he has a pain in his neck trying to strain it to lookj around, plus he was in and out of the room like a yo-yo. In fact I find it hard to understand how he could could the numbers there while sat behind a pillar which obscured his view. I'm not getting into the number game with someone who sat behind a pillar and was in and out of the room more often than in it.

Is this what the sp do now is attend other left meetings run in and out the door and then spend their time casing the room, counting the people there? How have things got to this stage?

by PBPA 1 - People Before Profit Alliance Thu Nov 20, 2008 12:28 www.people-before-profit.org

Protest
St Michaels/Dominick Street/O'Devaney Gardens

Assemble 6pm City Hall
Monday December 1st

by BC - Socialist Party Thu Nov 20, 2008 17:35

What a bizarre and personalised set of comments from J.O, who I can only presume is a supporter of the SWP or People Before Profit Alliance.

I made no argument that there was something wrong with having a succession of "join the People Before Profit Alliance" speeches at the meeting. I just noted that there were quite a few of them. The organisers are perfectly entitled to do that, but such speeches are inevitably not particularly exciting or interesting and therefore there isn't much point in detailing them here.

It's particularly odd to note that some member of the SWP or PBPA was apparently keeping close watch on my activities on the evening in question. Should I be worried about this slightly creepy fascination with my movements? As it happens I left the meeting and returned twice - once to use the facilities and once to buy some beer for a social gathering I was going to later. Not that it's any of your business.

As for counting the numbers in the room, I apologise deeply for offending your sense of propriety and actually being curious about how many people were at the meeting. Long experience of public meetings and rallies (and in particular meetings organised by a particular group) has taught me that if you want to know how many people are there you should count. Organisers claims are regularly unreliable. If I get bored and remember to do so, I'll do the same at most public meetings. In this case there were 67 people in the room during the third platform speech.

I restricted my comments to a few sentences because there wasn't much of particular interest to report from the meeting. Vincent Browne's speech was interesting because it was more radical than I was expecting. Rita Fagan's speech was interesting because it gave an inside view of an ongoing struggle. The rest of the meeting was pretty uneventful. It wasn't massive. It wasn't wildly exciting. There wasn't too much more to report.

Now might I suggest that your own time might be better spent on something other than whining about the movements of someone you evidently sat staring at in a mildly worrying manner for a couple of hours?

by Jim - . Thu Nov 20, 2008 18:20

Well actually I don't think JO or whatever his name needed to stare- you did seem to be up and down like a mad thing every so, plus if you were so disinterested in the meeting and only came to count the numbers Im wondering why you bothered to go. I felt the crowd was quite good for a tuesday evening meeting that wasn't terribly well advertised I have to say and the speeches were quite interesting in particular the teacher who spoke about the cuts and of course vincent browne too.
I dont know many people who head to meetings to count the numbers there even though they are not really that interested in the meeting itself anyway.

by BC - Socialist Party Thu Nov 20, 2008 19:52

Who on earth said that I only went to the meeting to count the numbers at it? If that was the case I'd have left after about a minute and a half rather than staying through the whole bloody meeting. Nor did I say that the numbers were bad. I gave an accurate count of the number of people in the room at a particular point and made no further comment on the attendance.

The paranoia of our SWP or PBPA friends seems to be getting a little out of hand here. Are JO and Jim the same person, or have I somehow managed to attract the unasked for and faintly creepy attentions of multiple people associated with those groups? If you found the meeting so compelling, perhaps you'd have been better off watching the speakers rather than gazing at me.

I went to the meeting to hear what Vincent Browne had to say on the subject and to hear what People Before Profit (or the SWP) were arguing. As it happens, I didn't find the latter of particular interest as it was essentially a few variations on a theme I've heard from them many times before. Perhaps someone who hasn't been to many of their meetings before would have found it more entertaining. I did however find Vincent Browne interesting and, for different reasons, thought that Rita Fagan's contribution was well worth hearing.

Now really, if you have something of interest to say about the meeting, why not say it, rather than continue to whine about my brief and rather mild comments?