Where Now for Labour?

by LR Wed Mar 12, 2003 18:00

John, I agree that any future formation on the left if it to develop into a new mass workers party it must be open democratic and inclusive. I also agree that the SP may develop into a semi mass party with a few thousend members however it is not the role of the SP to be a broad mass party, the SP is a revolutionary trotskyist party and has quite defined policies. Not all workers that will be moving into struggle will agree with the SP's policies straight away (and many wont at all!) but will wish to participate in a working class party. John, I don't think it is really fair to be asking the SP to water down or abandon it's structure in order to build a mass workers party out of the SP. I think we need a new party in which the SP can participate.

by TROTWATCH Wed Mar 12, 2003 15:32

THE FACT THAT YOU NEEDED TO USE IT SHOWS YOU SUFFER FROM AN INFERIORITY COMPLEX.

by Oisin Kelly - SP Wed Mar 12, 2003 15:18

"The socialist party has the potential to become a mass party of the working class"

John, I think you misunderstand what the SP are. We will play our part in the building of a mass workers' Party, but this is not just our task. A mass workers' Party can only really come about when far more workers move into struggle and decide to establsih a mass party. The example of the firefighters is a good example, also the Trade Unions moving away from the Liberals and forming the Labour Party.

Furthermore, I think that you have a misunderstanding of Democratic Centralism. The key word is Democratic! There are very open discussions within the SP, to say otherwise is simply incorrect. The SP is not a mass workers' party, it is a revolutionary organisation- and we will raise the call for a mass workers party and play our part in building it.

by Angrier Activist Wed Mar 12, 2003 14:30

Oisin has a mandate for building a mass Workers Party! The students of UCD proved they stand four-square behind the SP by electing Oisin.

UCDSU now fully back all of the SPs policies.

by Daithi Wed Mar 12, 2003 13:59

Oisin, a polite suggestion, when you are talking about the development of a mass workers party, perhaps it's not necessary to say that you are VP-elect of UCDSU; you just KNOW that someone is going to say that you're trying to misrepresent the SU somewhere down the road. You can hear the creaky logic processes working already in UCD LawSoc; "Oisin said on the internet blah blah blah". Think most regular users will know who you are, anyway.

Just cover your back ;-)

by pat c Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:35

"PS
Pat C should just stop putting up lies and slurs against the Socialist Party. He's doing no-one any favours except the few internet activists/ingrained sectarians on indymedia that want to stir it up."

Oisin everything I wrote about the SP is true. The fact that you are unable to point to any specific "lies and slurs" proves my point.

The fact that you have to send out anonymous fools and your Tots n'Trots to abuse me says a lot about the SP.

by pat c Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:31

"What's my beef?
by Labour Lover Not A Labour Fighter Tue, Mar 11 2003, 7:01pm

My "beef" mad Pat is that you contribute nothing to this IMC except for lunatic rants about the Socialist Party. No wonder nobody from the SP will bother replying to you. You are the political equivalent of a deranged stalker and you should really get some help.
"

Lunatic rants? Is that what the Poets against the War piece was?

A stalker because I tell the truth & point out the lies of the SP?

Why dont you make political points? Are you only capable of abuse?

"I am not a member of the Socialist Party but I respect the work that they do. I am also well capable of reading their views for myself without having them filtered through your dementia. Now go take a long look at yourself you fucking idiot."

Again, what political point do you think you are making by abusing me twice in the above para?

Everything I said about the SP is true.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Mar 12, 2003 02:19

So far there has been no serious attempt by the SP to respond to PatC's points, instead a campaign of personal attacks and vilification is heaped upon him.

I don't agree with PatC on many things, but this interaction with SP has been revelatory as regards the methods of the SP.

For that, if nothing else, I thank PatC for spurring the SP into creating a valuable public record of their duplicity and underhandedness.

The SP (through doheochai/DominicHaugh) clearly attempted a campaign of misinformation and violence-hype.

There has been no offical SP condemnation of this behaviour even though Haugh signed himself as a member of SP (ie not "personal capacity). From this it is reasonable to infer that the SP has no problem with this behaviour.

Thus PatC is telling the truth and the Tots'n'Trots (nice coinage pat!) are trying to divert him from this criticism with personal attacks.

by John - ISN Wed Mar 12, 2003 01:13

The problem with trying to build a mass workers party is that you will fail unless you decide to drop democratic(sic)centralist organisational structures. People need an alternative to the labour party but it has to be one that allows for different points of view. Not an organisation that will isolate members if they veer from the party line. The socialist party has the potential to become a mass party of the working class but if it is serious it must broaden to allow for people with different marxist interpretations than the ones they presently hold. For example "the North"-the SP present line is more connected to wishful thinking than objective realities. I have to agree with some of what Pat C says, insofar as it appears that the SP take the position that North Belfast is essentially "two tribes" involved in a turf battle which may be partially true but only partially. The fact is that 99% of the attacks in North Belfast are by Loyalist mobs. Ignoring this because you desire (as I do) workers to unite actually damages your credability as a Left organisation.

I think a marxist group should look at ways of exploring broad alliances with other left/progressives and enter into meaning dialogue instead of constantly feeling threatened by others on the left.

by Oisin Kelly - UCDSU Education Vice President elect - Socialist Party Tue Mar 11, 2003 23:37

I accept much of the points that Jim is making, we do need to break with the tweedledum tweedledee politics that exists in this country.

The Socialist Party does want to build a Mass Workers' Party, and we do call for that. The Social Democratic Parties have moved to the right and they are now bourgeois parties through and through. In the past the Labour parties did have an active membership to a certain extent, they did have a respect from workers.

The task now for the Labour movement is to build a fighting alternative to the corrupt capitalist parties. Building a Mass Workers' Party is not just about getting a few left parties toghether in an alliance. It's about new layers of workers and youth moving into struggle and establishing a party to fight in their interests.

The FBU in Britain moving away from Blair's Labour Party is an indication of Workers looking to establish an alternative and should be welcomed.

http://www.worldsocialist-cwi.org

PS
Pat C should just stop putting up lies and slurs against the Socialist Party. He's doing no-one any favours except the few internet activists/ingrained sectarians on indymedia that want to stir it up.

by Jim Monaghan Tue Mar 11, 2003 20:46 jbm7 at tutor dot open dot ac dot uk

I should have been clearer on this. Right these were not necessarily Labour supporters. But the fact is that because there is no alternative they for the most part will end up with Labour electorally or worse.Even 10% recruited as activist would be a seachange. I beleive there is a potentail to break the rigid patterns of Irish politics by showing that something else is possible. Alas with their playing with potential coalitions the Greens and possibly Sinn Fein are leaving it open to revive the FG and Labour. Rabbittes game plan is to deceive the 100,000 plus as a pretend antiwar leader and then use it at most to lead a pretend alternative to FF?PD or settle for Endas crumbs. Anyway just a lesser evilism not an alternative.
Right I am jaundiced with the SWP. But they and the SP are there and have to be reckoned with. We cannot wish them away.The rest of the Left is not much better, I am shocked and sometimes cynically amused that there are 4 anarchist organisations.

If the far Left and the Left TDs do not create a national Left alliance say like the Danish Green Red alliance after the dust settles the bulk of politics will drift back to the safe tweddledum tweedledee joke it has always been. This is what Rabbitte figures. He will use those who he would purge from his own party and when the real tests of politics come he intends to be the winner.The same applies in the unions Geraghty, Rabbitts ally has to be challenged continually.

Whatever about the leaders of the far left groups and grouplets the rank and file want unity in action sothey dont waste their lives in sterile and acriminous debates going nowhere.My past is littered with failed opportuinities. Maybe they would have failed anyway but the bad omens were accelerated by sectarianism
Beir bua
Jim Monaghan

by Labour Lover Not A Labour Fighter Tue Mar 11, 2003 20:01

My "beef" mad Pat is that you contribute nothing to this IMC except for lunatic rants about the Socialist Party. No wonder nobody from the SP will bother replying to you. You are the political equivalent of a deranged stalker and you should really get some help.

I am not a member of the Socialist Party but I respect the work that they do. I am also well capable of reading their views for myself without having them filtered through your dementia. Now go take a long look at yourself you fucking idiot.

by pat c Tue Mar 11, 2003 19:06

It really is amazing how the SP and their supporters wont engage in proper debate. M O Brien ran for cover as soon as he was confronted.

They have to send out the Tots n' Trots to abuse and lie on their behalf.

by pat c Tue Mar 11, 2003 18:51

"Thanks for that Pat. Whoever it was who described you as the village idiot of the Irish left was obviously feeling generous that day. If you think that anyone who uses this IMC views you as anything other than a maniac you are sadly mistaken."

Whats your beef, everything I wrote above is true. I am a maniac because I write the truth abiout the SP?

Glad to see that you know how every one on imc feel. Do you look into your heart? Or does the SP party line of the day inform you of that?

"I've read the posts on indymedia which you are talking about and your unhealthy little obsession is pushing you into misrepresenting pretty much everything you can."

What did i misrepresemt? Brian Cashill on several occasions has described Holycross as a sectarian turfwar. The SP support the right of the Orange Order to march through area where they are not welcome.

The SP spread scare stories about Shannon. Joe Higgins stabbed GNAW in the back.

"I would suggest that you go and get some medical treatment but I fear that your idiocy may well be congenital. In the meantime why don't you run along and play with your grudge somewhere else."

So you propose the same silencing as was used in by Stalinists in the USSR. If you disagree withe party line you must be mad. If you point bout that the party is lying, uou must be locked away.

You SPers are Stalinists at heart.

You also seem to be incapable of rational debate.

Your lies will get you nowhere. You cannot apply Stalins Airbrush to indy.

by Labour Lover not a Labour Fighter - Not the SP Tue Mar 11, 2003 18:02

Thanks for that Pat. Whoever it was who described you as the village idiot of the Irish left was obviously feeling generous that day. If you think that anyone who uses this IMC views you as anything other than a maniac you are sadly mistaken.

I've read the posts on indymedia which you are talking about and your unhealthy little obsession is pushing you into misrepresenting pretty much everything you can. I would suggest that you go and get some medical treatment but I fear that your idiocy may well be congenital. In the meantime why don't you run along and play with your grudge somewhere else.

by pat c Tue Mar 11, 2003 17:28

Really now, the SWP are worse than the SP?

Have you ever disagreed with the SP on the north?
I have. Because I didnt buy their line, I was called, a fascist, catholic nationalist, pat catholic, anti protestant.

The SP support the right of the Orange Order to march down the Garvaghy road.(despite the fact that 12 people have been killed by loyalists to assert that right. after the 3 Quinn brothers were burned to death by the UVF even some hardened loyalists withdrew their support for this march)

Instead of supporting the primary school children at Holycross the SP "dont take sides" they describe it as a "sectarian turf war".

They ignore the siege of the short strand.

They support the right of the Orange Order to march down the Ormeau Rd. (past the site of Grahams where 5 catholics were killed by the UDA. on previous occasions orange men have held up 5 fingers as they passed the site.)

They dont take sides in Israel/Palestine either. Arafat is just the same as Sharon to them.

All of the above has been posted on indy by SP members.

Joe Higgins denounced GNAW as "virtual warriors " at the same time as they were facing up to the gardai.

The SP spread all kinds of scare stories about shannon.

Wow! These RRRRRR-Revolutionaries are an inspiration.

by Labour Lover not a Labour Fighter Tue Mar 11, 2003 17:13

Jim those 100,000 people plus who marched don't belong to the Labour Party.

Labour has a little over 3,500 paper members left which makes it a tiny organisation too. What Labour does have is an effective electoral machine and plenty of donations from the rich (if not on the same scale as the Fianna Fail version of each).

So can we "write off" those 3,500 people? For the most part, yes. There is still the odd sincere, decent left winger in there who just can't summon the courage to admit that their historic party is dead as far as progressive politics are concerned. But even that handful of well meaning fools play an entirely negative role now by helping to keep the life support machine going for the careerist scum.

As for "presenting a national alternative", I see that you are still fixated with the idea of an alliance between the Socialist Party and the SWP. Face it, that isn't going to happen and if it did it would be a disaster. The Socialist Party has its problems but lets face it the SWP are impossible to deal with on any kind of serious basis and the SP are quite right not to touch them with a ten foot stick.

by Jim Monaghan Tue Mar 11, 2003 16:25 jbm7 at tutor dot open dot ac dot uk

I left the Labour Party eons ago. But I know alas that the combined Left SP, SWP, Anarchists and odds and sod could not at this stage call themselves a national alternative in any real sense of the word. Divided if not disintegrated makes that possibility even more distant.But in writing off the careerists and worse I dont wnat to find myself writing off the decent supporters of Labour and the Left of it ( For example those who support PANA).The 100,000 plus who marched and shook the system. Proof of it is that Rabbittee and co marched not for idealist reasons but they saw an opportunity. So how do we continue this movement of the 100,000 plus further in our direction.How do we makje sure that they do not drift back to supporting the status quo or various versions of lesser evilism. See the line up. We are going to be presented with either the awful Bertie or a repackaged Kenny/Rabbitte with Greens and Maybe even Sinn Fein in tow. (If only Sinn Fein will look at the cul de sacs all previous parliamentary Republicans went down in the pursuit of the semblance of power) If only the independent Lefts weould present an alternative alliance and do what the Clan na Phoblachta and other Left alternatives talked about and not bother with technical alliances in the Dail talk shop.The awful experience of my generation was the SLP of Browne and Merrigan destroyed by ultraleft naievite and rightwing opportunism.
Aot of people are questioning the system and od not trust the politicians. There is a chance of a permanent break with them. But if our alternative is childish and easily and accurately portrayed as not being serious, then when the dust settles we will have Bertie and Enda as the only show in town, with of course Rabbitte and the rest as the usual extras.
JIm Monaghan

by pat c Tue Mar 11, 2003 15:41

Those who disagree with the party line can do so openly. the SP & SWP are "democratic" centralist and you wont find any of their members openly disagreeing with the party line.

even SF allows democracy, Justin a fulltimer, was able to disagree with the SF line on Shannon here on indy. Camn you imagine a SP or SWP fulltimer doing something like that? If they did, how long would it be before they were unemnployed?

Some radical people jopin & remain in SF & LP because they see it as the best hope of advancing their politics (rather than themselves).

I never cease to be amazed at how the few hundred members of the SP & SWP believe that all truth resides within their ranks.

by Labour Lover not a Labour Fighter Tue Mar 11, 2003 15:31

Jim that's a far too generous view of the few left wing people left cowering in the Labour Party. Labour is a right wing party no different to Fianna Fail or Fine Gael.

The only thing those few "leftists" who can't quite tear themselves from its stinking corpse achieve is to lend scum like Rabbitte a tiny bit of extra credibility.

As for Labour "building" anything, name one useful thing the Labour Party has done in five years. Just one.

by Jim Monaghan Tue Mar 11, 2003 14:52 jbm7 at tutor dot open dot ac dot uk

I am tempted to write off all the Labour Party especially people like Rabbitte and the ex stickies when I think of their attitude to the Columbia 3 and other issues.Rabbitte is hungry for power and will supp with the devil whether FF or FG to get to be Tanaiste.But are the Greens and Sinn Fein on the same road. Both Parties are leaving open the road to coalition. Only a root and branch restructuring of Irish society will bring fairness and an end to exploitation.All Rabbitte offers is that he would be a more competent administrator of Ireland PLC on belhalf of our overlords the Smurfitts and the O'Reillys.
The challenge is to create a real alternative not get sucked in to maintaining the status quo.
I know many in the Labour party and can see where they are coming from. The sectarianism which wrecked the Socialist Labour Party of Merrigan and Browne left these people despairing. When I look at the sniping and downright vulgar abuse that goes for debate I can see their point. They say that except for episodic events such as Feb 15 that Far Left cannot build anything of substance and this gives them no alternative except dropping politics or trying to swinmg the Labour Party in a Left direction accepting the realities of life. The realist wing of the Greens and Sinn Fein are probably giving in to the same arguement.
Jim Monaghan

by Chekov Tue Mar 11, 2003 14:44

If you are to call me a liar, please let's have some evidence. If you want evidence of Dominic Haugh's scaremongering or RBB and Joe Higgin's denigrations then it is very easy to find. If you want evidence of Trot attacks on DA before the peace camp/MK/CW5 actions, it will take a big more digging but there is loads there too. I challenge you to find any contrary evidence before you call me a liar.

On the other hand, I, and many people in GNAW, have no problem co-operating with anybody in anti-war activity and will continue to attend and promote all events that may have any positive impact on the anti-war movement in general. I will even continue to seek dialogue and co-ordination with the Trots who control the IAWM despite the fact that I find it an extremely unpleasant task and one that ages me prematurely.

On the other hand I simply won't sit back and allow facts to be gobbled up by the Marxist memory hole. So if people post here talking about what great supporters of direct action the SP or SWP or SF are, I'll bring these facts up. If this makes me a 'splitter' then that makes you stalin.

Anyway, the SWP/SP/IAWM seems to be in disarray and it's hard to see any good reasons to affiliate to it as it stands. After months of concentrating on chasing the liberals ('build the movement') they get the heave-ho as soon as the real politicians realise that this is a vote winner and there is no reason to allow some uppity trot to hog the limelight.

So the IAWM faces a choice. Either try to transform itself into something resembling a democracy where the executive positions aren't divvied up between the trot cabals (with a few 'useful idiots' thrown in - to quote Lenin), and there is some space for diversity of approaches, open dialogue, regional and local input into policy and so on. Or else it can become yet another SWP/SP front which concentrates on eliminating rivals while the energy of the anti-war movement gets pissed away.

Meanwhile we'll hopefully keep doing our thing and if any opportunity arises for real co-operation and dialogue with other elements of the anti-war movement arise, we'll continue to enthusiastically take it.

by pat c Tue Mar 11, 2003 14:40

"Never mind Pat Corcoran he has some issues
by Pat Corcoran Hater Tue, Mar 11 2003, 1:28pm

Pat Corcoran, why dont you get real. You really think that the SP support US warplanes re-feulling in Shannon! You obviously just want to attack the Sp regardless if there is any truth in your accusations.

LOOK PAT, SHE DUMPED YOU, GET OVER IT, YOU DONT HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT ON EVERY SP MEMBER!"

Why cant the SP engage in political debate and answer questions? Why do they send the SY Tots n' Trots out to post juvenile rubbish?

I've pointed out what Haugh posted on Indy. No jibes from the SP can airbrush that out.

Michael O'Brien also raised the Red Herring of medical back up in an email to Chekov. Thats on the GNAW list.

I never said the SP are pro-war , I am merely pointing out that they are opportunists.

The only lies around here are the ones coming from the SP.

by Pat Corcoran Hater Tue Mar 11, 2003 14:28

Pat Corcoran, why dont you get real. You really think that the SP support US warplanes re-feulling in Shannon! You obviously just want to attack the Sp regardless if there is any truth in your accusations.

LOOK PAT, SHE DUMPED YOU, GET OVER IT, YOU DONT HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT ON EVERY SP MEMBER!

by Pat C Tue Mar 11, 2003 14:20

Domnic Haugh used every scare tactic in the book. Abbeylara, garda/ army snipers, the need for medical back up. He used double-speak regarding direct action. He claimed that direct action by driving US airlines out was putting the workers jobs at risk and therefore puuting them off taking strike action. The fact that strike action would also put their jobs at risk was avoided by Haugh.

Haugh accused me of having contempt for the Shannon workers because I pointed out that the Airport Police had assaulted activists.

The SP have yet to in any way criticise the activities of the Airport Police. These Templemore rejects have bullied, assaulted & harassed activists and independent journalists.

This is all available on indymedia. The SP are not yet in a position to apply Stalins Airbrush there.

No one put any words in Clare Dalys mouth.

Given Haughs actions I would query his committment to permanently getting US aircraft out of Shannon.

by W Rork Tue Mar 11, 2003 13:38

I think many people involved in the GNAW 'direct action' are bitter and are attacking those in the IAWM. The fact is we in the IAWM are not going around 'condemning' GNAW, we think that your motives are absolutly right, but your tactics are wrong. Direct Action has its place, and Shannon on March 1st wasn't the place for tearing down the fence.

We've had our differences over tactics, it's time the GNAW move on from March 1st and learn from their tactical mistakes. There's is no point in falsely accusing Clare Daly and Dominic Haugh of saying things and doing things they've not said or done. Nothing is to be gained from groups attacking other antiwar groups. I think that all those opposed to a war on Iraq with or without a UN resolution should affiliate to the IAWM.

by Chekov Tue Mar 11, 2003 13:15

"If you are serious about carrying out successful direct action you don't post up your plans on the internet"

If you are serious about supporting direct action you don't create a situation where your only known member in the area engages in shocking forms of scaremongering about violence, mass shootings of protestors by army, special branch and so on. In fact Dominic Haugh, R-R-Revolutionary extraordinaire, engaged in worse scare-mongering than any of the gutter press, who knew that their readership simply wouldn't believe them if they stirred up crazy scare stories of the army/branch firing into unarmed crowds.

You also don't go on national radio and denigrate the size and organisation of the protest when you know nothing about it (as RBB did). Finally you don't then sneer at the 300 or so extremely brave people, who turned up and gave it a go, despite the massive scaremongering which created a real possiblity of serious violence from the state, as 'virtual warriors'. As Joe Higgins did.

Frankly your R-R-Revolutionary pretensions are in tatters. Any genuine revolutionary within your ranks needs to take a serious, long, hard look at the conservative, rhetoric loving organisations that they have found themselves in.

by Chekov Tue Mar 11, 2003 13:04

The R-R-Revolutionary parties are full of this stuff of how they support the actions of Dubsky, the peace camp and Mary Kelly. Yet somehow things are different now. New times, new tactics.

Well it's all too easy to support something AFTER it has happened and AFTER it has been shown to have been succesful.

I remember coming home from several Shannon demonstrations before some of these actions had taken place (October 2002 and January 2003 for example) and EVERY SINGLE speaker from the R-R-Revolutionary parties attacked the idea of direct action as elitist and destined to alienate the poor simple common folk. It seems that this has been swept into the memory hole and now they fully support those actions cause they were needed to raise awareness then but now they would be 'substituting ourselves for the Shannon workers'.

The IAWM's support of direct action would be a hell of a hell of a lot more credible if they could point out a single example of supporting or promoting a direct action BEFORE it happened. It would also help if they hadn't done their utmost to undermine the only 2 direct actions that they had an inkling of in advance, also the only 2 actions which attempted to involve large numbers of people.

Note for beginners:
Mass tresspasses = direct action
Ploughshares actions = direct action
Going on strike = direct action
Hoping for somebody else to go on strike while you do nothing = doing nothing.

by John Throne Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:40

But Mr Trot, direct action has succeeded in driving 3 out of 4 US airlines (carrying out Military work)out of Shannon. Your hypothetical strike action is just that, it only exists in your heads.

Its one thing foe Clare Daly to put about petitions and motions and calls for strike action. But Dominic Haugh has argued agaibst DA on the basis that jobs could be lost in Shannon . You cant have it both ways.

You are afraid of being associated with job losses at Shannon and the knock on effect this woulkd have for Clare Daly. By distancing yourself from DA you can deny any responsibility for job losses that result. 'Nothin to do with us Guv'.

So what if you supported DA in other campaigns? You are not doing it in this one. In the other campaigns, DA gained you votes. You fear you will lose them in the Anti War Campaign.

How can you defend Joe Higgins calling GNAW 'Virtual Warriors' at the very moment that they were face to face with Pigs, army and your friends the Airport Cops?

by John Throne Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:58

Look on ye mighty and despair!

by Michael O'Brien - SP Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:50

A few points

1) The SP has set out its position on direct action in the current issues of its paper "Voice" and journal "Socialist View". Indeed we point out the role of Eoin Dubsky and the Peace Camp in raising awareness. It is a tactic and not a principle and a mass trespass in Shannon won't stop the ongoing use of the airport by the US military. This material is sold is Shannon as much as anywhere else the SP has branches.

2) In terms of Clare Daly. She got a motion of support for the Irish Anti War Movement through her branch of Dublin Airport. She has publically called on SIPTU to back any initiative by the workers in the airport in meetings in Dublin City Centre, North County Dublin and Drogheda in the last few weeks. "The Fingal Voice" which will go into 20,000 homes in the coming weeks will argue the same.

3) The Socialist Party has participated in SUCCESSFUL direct action when the occasion has required it. The impeding of water inspectors and stopping David Irving in UCC spring to mind. If you are serious about carrying out successful direct action you don't post up your plans on the internet. That is the stuff of "virtual warriors".

by John Throne Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:26

The SP are increasingly being exposed as being insincere regarding the Gulf War. Joe Higgins condemned GNAW as Virtual Warriors; at virtually the same moment as they were face to face with the filth.

The SP call for strike action which they know will not take place. They refuse to criticise the airport cops, it might damage support for Domnic Haugh.

They oppose sirect action because they are terrified of being linked to job losses at Shannon. They fear this will have a knock on effect with airport workers in Dublin airport and lose votes for Clare Daly.

by Cian Mon Mar 10, 2003 23:30

Perhaps the details of this poll, who conducted it when etc. could be published.

Perhaps at least some indication of where the results of the poll were published would be interesting.

by say it in an Aussie accent Mon Mar 10, 2003 21:04

pet rabbit

Pat Rabbite is to Irish Labour Party what TB is to UK Labour Party .. sent to corrupt and dstry

... At least the Greenies will stick with Anti-War Position with or Without a UN Mandate

by Paddy X Mon Mar 10, 2003 20:53

The middle-aged, middle-class, stalinists who now control the Labour Party have not taken an unequivocal anti-war position. They are hoping, like Ahern, for the cover of a U.N. resolution. They are not people of principle.