Sincere thanks to SP and SF

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:48

This may be funny in the schoolyard, but grow out of it for fucks sake.
Are you really incapable of making your point some other way?

by OK - SP Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:48

The technichal groups is not a united front or an alliance.

The SP have serious disagreements on a range of issues with many (if not most) in the group. It's set up so that smaller parties and independents could avail of more speaking time.

I accept that Lowry has the right to speak, that does not mean I support what he says.

I think you should focus on the 'Labour' Party for their disregard for Hepititus victims and there cosy deal with Bertie Ahern.

The 'Labour' Party are long sold out as a voice for ordinary working people. They are nothing but a bunch of careerists that only care about what they will get out of the next deal with FF-FG-PD-IBEC.

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:03

Now its hardly news that the Labour Party have sold out is it. I know you guys thought it was the best thing since sliced bread until the day they threw you out (a decade back?) but anarchists have spent the last hundred and twenty years attacking the Labour Parties. Anarchists don't think Labour Party is way forword is not the stuff of headlines, is it?

In short while the SP for obvious reasons wants the Labour party at the centre of criticism its not surprising that somewhere like indymedia which is dominated by people who think the Labour Party is cool would see the SP in bed with Lowry angle as more important. I'm frankly amazed to see such a major compromise this early for such a tiny gain. I'm also still curious as to who made the decision that this should go ahead.

by bysshe Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:03

This is a comment on
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=15832

Not a seperate post should be moved there.

"In general, posts may be removed for any of the following reasons:
being comments, not news - comments belong with the story being discussed - to have your say in response to a story on the site, use the "add your comments" link at the bottom of each story."

by pat c Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:04

wny is ray so cranky re this? is it because ray himself is incapable of writing satire? (his attempts are toe-curling) or was his sense of humour extracted when he joined the imc priesthood?

i think sf & sp deserve this piece & it should not be deleted.

i dont hold sectarian views towards sf or sp but on this occasion they have made a serious error in banding together with lowry. i know what a technical group is & both the sp & sf know as well as i do that they didn't have to include the crook lowry.

come on cdes, you are not stalinist hacks. you don't have to support your leadership under every circumstancve.

by Nicholas - GP et al. Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:07 Cork

It was probably a bad idea to allow Michael Lowry of all people into the technical group. Other independents may not agree with our politics, but we do know what function politics has in Lowry's life. £$£. The alliance does allow Lowry to have more of a voice in the Dail as well as every other group/individual in the alliance.

Having said he probably won't use it, or be listened to if he does. The alliance requires nothing of the political positions of those within it.

I have nothing against the Labour Party trying to get more of a say for itself within the Dail (though the whole time allocation system needs radical reform) but the fact that they did a deal to let Bertie off the hook in order to get it is appalling.

by OK - SP Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:15

Despite what Andrew Flood and 'Nicholas' say it is not an "ALLIANCE" with Lowry, SF, GP, or anyone else.

It is a technical group for the purpose of getting more speaking time. Time which all TDs should get regardless of the size of their party etc.

by Nicholas Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:17 Cork

It is called a technical alliance. This is just the same as saying it is an "alliance" (with the quotes). Technically it is an alliance within the Dail - that's the point.

But no, as I tried to make clear, it is not a political alliance.

But yes, it also gives Michael Lowry more of a chance to speak in the Dail.

by Joe Higgins - Socialist Party Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:19 joe.higgins at oireachtas dot ie Leinster House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2 016183038

Press Statement – 24th October 2002

Labour attempts a smear campaign to cover up its shabby sellout to Fianna Fáil

Joe Higgins T.D.
Socialist Party

The Labour Party is involved in a desperate bid to divert attention from its shabby deal with Fianna Fáil allowing the Taoiseach to be absent from the Dáil on Thursdays.

That Labour should be prepared to make this sellout in order to get its speaking snout into the trough in the Dáil ahead of representatives of the Technical Group is beneath contempt.

The Labour Party is now attempting a smear campaign against the main groups in the Technical Group, claiming it has “rehabilitated Deputy Michael Lowry”.

The Labour Party knows well that the Technical Group is merely a technical arrangement to provide speaking and other rights for those elected to Dáil Eireann. It is the only recourse left to the smaller parties and independents to arrange time as of right under the rules of the Dáil, which the Government refused to change. Nobody has the right under these rules to exclude any member from being in the Technical Group.

Labour’s cheap smear is a desperate effort to divert attention from its shabby sellout which, even by the historical standards of the Labour Party, reaches a new low.

For further information, contact Joe Higgins T.D. at (01) 618 3038

by pat c Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:20

technical group.

if the sp & sf had stood firm, lowry could have been excluded.

who would have defended his right to join the technical group???????????

by Defiant Democrat Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:22

Surely Lowry has the right to speak

Ok if you disagree with him, you can disagree with him and dont vote for him.

the point is that ALL TDs should have speaking rights.

I think that this debate is really an attempt by a certain number of anarchists to have a go at SP and SF. Grow up!

by David L Anderson Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:27

I think the point is clear. this is a technical group who is seaking to use the structures in the dail to get more speaking time. Just like standing in a bourgouis parliament, it is a tactic and not a principle. The key is the stuggle that the group is waging in general society.

Also when lowry gets painted with the symbols of money why not SF who are one of the richest parties on the island?

Some proportion from the anarchists please.

by patc Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:40

outside of the technical group.

so stop putting up false arguments.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Oct 24, 2002 17:22 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

>>why not SF who are one of the richest parties >>on the island?

And yet despite our riches were outspent by FF, FGand Labour at the last general election, making us the fourth richest in the South and, unsurprisingly, we're the fourth biggest. Sure, we're rich by Anarchist or SP standards, but by establishment party standards, we're still playing catch-up.

by contra - diction Fri Oct 25, 2002 01:29

hmmmmm, i wonder why the anarchists are getting so damn upset about a TECHNICAL, i reapat TECHNICAL, grouping in an institution that they claim to abhorr. after all everyone in the dail is a self professed 'leader' arent they? is that not your platform girls and boys?

in my opinion, everyone in the dail if elected should be entitled to an eqaul speaking platform. why? because they are elected, and this includes that muppit lowry. anarcists are all about 'the people' arent they? well my friends, im afraid that your beloved 'people' saw fit to elect mr lowry in spite of the shity nature of his politcs, and therefore he has a right to speak in the dail.

i can see why the tech grouping was formed, cos the rules of the dail (constantly changing) are against the smaller parties and independents. so a group was formed to ensure democratic rights for those who have none in the dail.

the main question here has nothing to do with lowry or other rightist indos in the group, but the deal done between labour and ff, a truly dispicable manouvere. so now bertie can, as the green geezer said, "open irish pubs in europe" and avoid genuine dissent from those who are willing to do so ie joe, tony, finian, seamus, sf and the greens. also remeber that tony gregory went into coalition with ff back in the day, so obv he should not be included in the tg either.

ffs anarchists, get yer shit together, if u wanna whinge about 'leaders' then do so, by all means ITS YOUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHT! as is the right for equal speaking allowances in the dail. but dont bitch about people who are trying to secure a proper debate in the dail to, guess what(?!?!?), try to raise peoples consciousness through tackling the government face to face in the dail. it is a propaganda platform, nothing more, hell even an illiterate drug feind alco like myself understands that. but then, i suppose anarcists are totally pure. and that why theyve been waiting 120 years (and counting) for theyre revolution. arise the people, but for fucks sake dont let anyone who we dont agree with have a platform.

and you are still bitching about kronsdat, when you were in alliance with the WHITE FORCES OF IMPERIALISM. oh your purity amazes me.

jesus you sound like the fecking sparts, cop yerselves on!

by Andrew Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:11

The rant above is really weird, not least in the ending. It starts by assuring us that the agreement reached by the SP with Lowry is not an alliance because ? and ends with telling us the very old lie that the Kronsdadt reples were in alliance with the whites. Obviously somewhere between the start and the end the author made his definition of an alliance a lot looser as obviously there is a releationship now between Higgins and Lowry (call it what you will) whereas this is what the Bolshevik soldiers taken prisoner during the struggle had to say to the idea of an alliance with the whites.

---

A RESOLUTION BY PRISONERS OF WAR

At a general meeting of 240 prisoners of war, being cadets, officers and soldiers, taking place in the Army Stables, the following resolution was passed unanimously.

"On March 8th, we, Moscow and Petrograd cadets, officers and soldiers, received an order to attack the town of Kronstadt. They told us that White Guards had raised a mutiny in the town of Kronstadt. When we came without a shot to the shores of the Town of Kronstadt, and having met the forward units of sailors and workers, we became convinced that there was no kind of White Guard mutiny in Kronstadt. On the contrary, the soldiers and workers had overturned the power of the commissarocracy. Right there we voluntarily crossed to the side of the people of Kronstadt. We now ask the Rev. Com. of the Town of Kronstadt to add our strength to its army units, since we want to stand up as defenders of the workers and peasants, not just of Kronstadt but of all Russia also.

We consider that the Prov. Rev. Com. of the Town of Kronstadt has really taken the true path in the cause of liberation of all laborers, and that only with this slogan, "All power to Soviets, and not Parties," is it possible to bring to an end the work which has been begun.

We promise to tell of anyone noticed propagandizing against the actions and orders of the Prov. Rev. Com. of the Town of Kronstadt, and to send them on the the Rev. Com.

(signature), President
(signature), Secretary

As published in the last issue of the Kronsdat Isvestia, in full at http://struggle.ws/russia/izvestiia/issue14.html

---

On a final and ironic note. If the trots don't want to talk about Kronsdadt why do they keep bringing it up? I mean its hardly obviously relevant to the thread above is it?

by Pat Rabbitte - Labour Party Fri Oct 25, 2002 16:04

Dear Anarchists,
Thank you very much for defending my party on indymedia. I thought that deal we did with Fianna Fáil might have exposed us as the right wing careerists that we are. But you were very successfull in distracting attention away from us and attacking Sinn Féin, the Greens and Socialist Party. The critisism of SP and SF going into an 'Alliance' with Lowry was particularly good, thankfully not many people seemed to remember who gave him the oppurtunity to abuse his government position by going into coalition with his party. Again I express my thanks to you Anarchists, hopefully when the time of revolution comes we can work together in order to cause havoc, scupper the revolution, call for restraint and butcher the workers movement.

Yours,
Pat Rabbitte
(Soon to be leader of Labour Party)

by Anarcho watcher Fri Oct 25, 2002 16:09

There's an old seanfhocal that I think applies to the anarchists. 'The best hurlers are always in the ditch' In other words, it's always those sitting on the sidelines that are the ones to be the most critical and say how they could be doing it better.

I reckon the anarchists are just plain jealous of SP SF and the Greens because they know they are nothing in terms of support among ordinary people. They are just a pimple on the arse of the workers movement. Anarchists grow up, get over your hatred of Joe higgins just because he has support.

by Chekov Fri Oct 25, 2002 18:58

"I thought that deal we did with Fianna Fáil might have exposed us as the right wing careerists that we are"

Unfortunately it's a bit late for that. For anyone with half a clue, this exposure happened many decades ago. It's like saying "Fianna Fail exposed as the right wing populists that they are". Forgive us anarchists if we don't get too excited by these types of exposures. Is there any left-wing activist in the world who doesn't know only too well that the labour party has long (maybe even always) been a capitalist party full of careerists? So it's hardly news is it.

On the other hand, the claims of SF and the SP to be something different to the established political parties have a great deal more credibility in the eyes of many left-wing activists, this is why anarchists have emphasised the fact that this deal with Lowry among others does indeed expose the so-called lefty TD's as opportunists who have been compromised by the dungheap in which they find themselves.

Also it is a disingenuous argument in the extreme to say that any criticism of the SP and SF is illegitimate since it distracts from the criticism of the Labour party. It's like saying that we shouldn't criticise the Labour party or FG for their part in planning corruption since it distracts from FF.

Finally a question for any SP or SF people on the site:
If Barrett or Ni Chonaill was in the Dail instead of Lowry would yez have done this deal?

by red alert Fri Oct 25, 2002 19:03

Just because the SP, and other 'leftys' have Dáil seats doesn't mean they've sold out.

You just dont like the way that other left wing groups actually get substantial support from working people.

Just because Joe Higgins, Gregory, Seamus Healy etc work in Leinster house doesn't make them the same as Lowry, Burke, Ahern, Haughey, Spring etc.

by chekov Fri Oct 25, 2002 19:07

How are we sitting on the sidelines? Are you really claiming that we are politically inactive. In fact I'd say that the anarchists in Ireland undertake the highest volume of political work per head compared to any political movement in Ireland. This is achieved in a situation where virtually all of us have full time jobs - no full timers for us.

Or maybe you think that the only valid political activity is in the oireachtas? Maybe we are just whingers who would love to get in there but are too unpopular and marginal to garner the required support? In that case it would be odd that this anti-parliamentary approach has been a constant factor in the 130 odd year history of the anarchist movement.

Would you say that the CNT in Spain in the 1930's which had the ability to physically take over large parts of the Spanish state and had membership in the millions were just unpopular whingers when they refused to participate in elections?

Principles are a very difficult concept for many politicos to comprehend.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Fri Oct 25, 2002 19:14 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Hmmm, the point about Barrett and Ni Chonaill is an interesting one and frankly the only decent argument I've heard advance.

I think the difference, for I do see one, is that Barrett and Ni Chonaill represent not just their constituents but are also a threat. Giving them a platform, gives the Irish right a platform, gives Fascism a platform. They are people who could use speaking rights to grow and develop. Lowry has sinned, and is corrupt, but while his past sins are great he's not a threat now, he doesn't have or want a platform. He doesn't speak in Leinster House. He's purely concerned with local issues and probaly couldn't give a shit if the whole place drifted off into the sea so long as his wages were paid.

It's probably not an answer you'd expect but I do see a difference between forming a purely technical team with Lowry than with say Barrett. Perhaps best summed up by saying if Lowry gets a speaking platform, I honestly couldn;t give a flying damn. If Barrett gets one, that;s another story.

by chekov Fri Oct 25, 2002 19:14

I would consider doing a deal with an obviously corrupt politician like Lowry to be unprincipled and opportunist. Maybe when I grow up I'll realise how stupid I've been, but I doubt it.

Incidentally, your simplified regurgitation of my argument (where did I say that anybody was "selling out"?), is a misrepresentation of what I actually wrote.

Still waiting for a response about Barrett/Ni Chonaill - any takers?

by Chekov Fri Oct 25, 2002 19:23

But to be honest, I'd say that the reasons that you wouldn't enter into a technical group with a racist go beyond the danger of giving them a platform. I mean, if there was a motion to create a new system giving all TD's a fair amount of speaking time, regardless of affiliation, I'm sure you'd support it (even I would), even if there were racists in the dail.

What I'm getting at here is that, such an association (or whatever you want to call the technical group) does imply to the observer that you are somehow working together, or at least are not diametriacally opposed. I'd say that, even from your own point of view, this is a very poor decision. I can just imagine FG canvassers on doorsteps saying "SF, sure they pretend to be different and uncorrupt, but sure after we kicked him out, they went into an alliance with him..."

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Fri Oct 25, 2002 19:30 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I have to say I agree with a lot of what you said, certainly about speaking rights (Note on that on the bottom) but also on the image it presents. Labour are already doing it, FG can do it now etc. I know we've gt complaints from party members who were concerned at us forming an 'alliance' as they called it with the Greens. Much entertainment has been had imagining what kind of calls the Greens are getting :) Ours tend to be okay when it's explained though. Long story short, if you ask me if I'd prefer a Tech Group without certain TDs, then maybe, not because it makes a difference to ideology or politics, but because of the image it can be used to present. Our politics haven't changed, our ideology hasn't, but we've accepted as inevitable the damage we're taking and I think we'll still come out on the right side of the ledger over five years. In fairness, once you've been called a 'cop murdering sectarian bastard' by a voter, the possibility of being challenged about Lowry doesn't fill me with fear :)

Note: One note about speaking rights I think I might have picked up somewhere. People were criticising the Tech Group for wanting to speak before Labour. This sounds extremely petty but the truth is that the media deadlines on Dáil business mean that if you talk after say 6pm in the Dáil you may as well speak in Croatian. While I agree with the idea of giving everyone equal time, the order and time of speaking is also important if we are to use the Dáil to raise issues in the public conciousness.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Oct 25, 2002 21:38

All the parties taking part in the farce of the Dail are co-operating within a system which gives a "platform" to any other elected representative to abuse as they will. Will SP and SF pull out of the Dail of Ni Chonaill or Barrett are elected and use it as a "platform" to promulgate their racism?

Face it: this is all how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-pin type argumentation to excuse partaking in an institution which gives an undemocratic power to those that are in it: SF, SP, Greens, FF, Labour all argue that _they_ are the true keepers of the flame and the problem isn't that the institution appropriates power, but they haven't got enough of it. Entering into this to get a platform means you enter into a world of "technical" deals and alliances with scumbags on a daily basis. It means entering into an agreement to share out the power over the Irish people and decide things for them. It means entering into a system that was designed to limit dissent and provide a facade of democracy.

The SP line about "getting the message out" doesn't make sense for two reasons:
1. The press is all capitalist and isn't going to report what J.Higgins says if it can help it. If it does report it it'll be buried somewhere that very few people are going to read it.
2. Even if Higgins were to get the message out there's not much the Irish people can do about it using the parliamentary structure. They'll be faced with having to elect another set of promise-you-jobs boyos who will be able to do whatever they like because that's what we all agreed to.

Actions like Clare Daly's support of the Cityjet people probably do a lot more to get the message out that socialists want to get out.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Oct 25, 2002 21:43

I notice that the SP people were very quick to lay the blame for the "criticism" at the door of anarchists. While it's true that most @s completely agree with this I think that the anonymous posting that started this and many of the comments me be coming from some other grouping that dislikes the SP.... I wonder who? (Actually I think we can all guess and they're busy trolling IMC as they've lost nearly any argument on it).

by red alert Sat Oct 26, 2002 01:08

"1. The press is all capitalist and isn't going to report what J.Higgins says if it can help it. If it does report it it'll be buried somewhere that very few people are going to read it."

It's not just about getting in the media (because Joe doesn't get into the media much). As a TD you get to use a range of fascilities in the Dáil, the elected position also gives a greater profile in general. It gives socialist ideas a platform, not just getting into the media. It's a great way of getting a greater audience for your ideas.

"2. Even if Higgins were to get the message out there's not much the Irish people can do about it using the parliamentary structure...."

I agree, the SP acknowledge the failings of the Dáil, it is a bourgeois parliament. The parliamentry system is not the way forward. We are a revolutionary party, you cannot get a revolution out of a parliament.

"Actions like Clare Daly's support of the Cityjet people probably do a lot more to get the message out that socialists want to get out."

Yes, that's probably true. It's the duty of socialists to get active in their trade unions, in their communities, etc. It's not the task of socialists to run for office, that is not a prime concern. The main thing is to get active among fellow workers and the spread ideas of socialism. That is done within the workplaces, but can also be done from a parliamentry position.

by voice of reason Thu Jun 24, 2004 15:48

On RTEs Prime Time recently Enda Kenny wouldnt rule out Michael Lowry rejoining Fine Gael. With all the disgusting corruption associated with Lowry could someone from Tipperary please explain why he is so popular there, and why dont people speak out about him?

by VOR watch Thu Jun 24, 2004 16:39

Enda ruled out a return for Lowry as recently as last Monday's Q & A on RTE.
Please keep up to date.

by voice of reason Thu Jun 24, 2004 16:46

Sorry, I meant Q&A. I think he said: in theory he could join, but technically he wont join. Then he changed the subject.
I think he'll be coming back. Please some come back with an exact quote.

Anyway, why's he so popular?