|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Rabbitte backs role for private firms running public services national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Monday May 12, 2003 18:55 by Labour move to Right
 The Labour Party must be more flexible about accepting a greater role for private firms in delivering public services, the party's leader, Mr Pat Rabbitte, has declared. Indicating a significant change in the party's attitude, he said the public were more interested about the quality of services, rather than who provided them. In his first conference address as party leader, Mr Rabbitte told 1,000 delegates in Killarney that Labour had not always acknowledged the increase in the number of middle-class voters. "Modern citizens as taxpayers are often more conscious of themselves as consumers and customers than they are preoccupied with the ownership structures of any given enterprise," he said. "As a result of wider participation in education, there are now hundreds of thousands of people who enjoy, or aspire to, middle-class lifestyles," he declared. "That doesn't mean that they are lost to the Labour Party unless we act and talk as if they were. We have to adapt to the new Ireland that we ourselves helped to create," he went on. Voters wanted fair health insurance from the Voluntary Health Insurance and BUPA, but, he told The Irish Times, they were not concerned about whether the VHI was "run publicly, or privately". In a part of his speech deleted because of lack of time, Mr Rabbitte made it clear that teachers, CIÉ workers and health workers must all embrace changes. "Labour cannot make transport policy only for transport workers, although their input is vital. We cannot make education policy only for teachers, though their input is essential. "We cannot make health policy for doctors, although to exclude their contribution would be unthinkable," he had written. Yesterday, however, he said Labour's future attitude would be decided on a case-by-case basis, citing the sell-off by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats of Telecom Éireann. The sale to the Valentia consortium, which includes Tony O'Reilly, had not improved competition and it had left the Government with no levers to speed up the establishment of an Internet broadband network. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (48 of 48)
Jump To Comment: 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1The SP membership is definitely a paper one. At the last conference while they claimed a paper membership of 30 in the North, less than half would be active. Of their total 300 paper members. only a hardcore of 100 would really understand the issues of CWI involvement or how it differs from the USFI etc. Most of the rest would not have read more than a few pamphlets and are onl y capable of parrotting slogans.
The Labour Party's membership is a paper membership brought in to the local TD or councillor. They do a bit of canvassing at election time or they turn up when their local chief is under threat by another careerist. At most 2% of the membership is regularly active in politics. It is a collectionof little fifedoms controlled bythe local chiefs.
Some year's ago one of the up and coming stars of the Labour Party, Ann Gallagher (wonder where she is now) made a speech at a Labour conference "We have transformed the Labour Party in my constituency. We used to have workers but now wehave doctors, solicitors and other professionals."
Why dont the SP/SY concentrate on building their own organistions. Seeing as they gave up on Labour 12 years ago, its bemusing that they still have such a fascination with and claim so much knowledge of the internal workings of the Labour Party and Labour Youth.
""Labour recruited 1,000 new members over the last 6 months."
Incorrect. The fact is that you've increased membership by 200. I would question the political quality of these people. On what basis are they joining LP? to fight for socialism, i think not."
1,000, actually, no point in lying to your self. I think they are of quite a high quality. They dont believe in imposing a dictatorship. They have jopined a party where the membership are allowed to openly disagree with the leadership. You wont find that in the SP.
"SP have increased membership by a substantial amount. not far off the increase in LP membership, and of a far higher political quality."
The SP had 303 members on paper according to a report delivered to your last conference. You have not significantly grown since then. You know this, your membership knows it. You are fooling no one.
""So, thats your idea of political argument"
I do think you are a careerist. Now answer my point that the LP have not got any active members (only 20 in LY nationally) and have no respect from left activists."
Thats a pipedream, 20 active members in LY! Your members who interact with LY in the colleges and constituencies know this is rubbish. So its ok for you to call me a scumbag becvause you think I am a careerist. Says something about the level of debate in SY.
"I oppose Social Partnership at present because workers enter it fronm a position of weakness. Unless a Government composed of workers parties are in power that will always be the case."
"This is proof that you are not fighting for socialism. You only oppose Social Partnership beacuse "at present" it's not a good deal. You do not want to overthrow the rule of the bosses. You do not want to see the working class take power over the means of production- you are a reformist."
Your argument above is nonsensical,Have you read none of your own transitional demands? Are you suggesting that a government of workers parties is not desirable? Why do you call for the building of a mass workers party? Why do you support the election of a SSP government? Would there not then be a position where ICTU should reconsider Social Partnership?
""If there is no Troika , why do you get so upset when its mentioned?"
There is no 'Troika'. I would hardly having a good old laugh getting "upset"."
Its still hitting home then, you have to keep mentioning it. I didnt coin this phrase nor am I the only one to use it. SA, WSM, SF and pthers use the phrase frequently.
""You dont know who I am yet you slander me. "
I do know who you are. It's quite obvious from the various postings you've put up over the past while. I dont think it would be fair to give your name, but what I will say is that you're making a fool of yourself and you're not doing yourself any favours."
You are not doing the SP any favours by resorting to personal abuse. Your intolerance of divergent opinions at this stage doesnt auger well for what you would do if you ever acheived real power.
"Labour recruited 1,000 new members over the last 6 months."
Incorrect. The fact is that you've increased membership by 200. I would question the political quality of these people. On what basis are they joining LP? to fight for socialism, i think not.
SP have increased membership by a substantial amount. not far off the increase in LP membership, and of a far higher political quality.
"So, thats your idea of political argument"
I do think you are a careerist. Now answer my point that the LP have not got any active members (only 20 in LY nationally) and have no respect from left activists.
"I oppose Social Partnership at present because workers enter it fronm a position of weakness. Unless a Government composed of workers parties are in power that will always be the case."
This is proof that you are not fighting for socialism. You only oppose Social Partnership beacuse "at present" it's not a good deal. You do not want to overthrow the rule of the bosses. You do not want to see the working class take power over the means of production- you are a reformist.
"If there is no Troika , why do you get so upset when its mentioned?"
There is no 'Troika'. I would hardly having a good old laugh getting "upset".
"You dont know who I am yet you slander me. "
I do know who you are. It's quite obvious from the various postings you've put up over the past while. I dont think it would be fair to give your name, but what I will say is that you're making a fool of yourself and you're not doing yourself any favours.
""Why is it different? because you say so?"
Because they have emptied out of membership, they have no respect from activists, they have absolutly no prospect of becoming a workers party."
Labour recruited 1,000 new members over the last 6 months.
""LP has thousands of members. Opposition is allowed. How come the SY has never publicly disagreed with the SP? Because the SP is never wrong!"
And the last time you where at an SY meeting was?"
When was the last time you were at a LY meeting? SY claim they have independence yet they have never publicly disagreed with the SP.
""They stayed there a long time, despite the VAt on kids shoes, Irish Shipping, Hospital closures."
Yes, because there was a good chance of reclaiming the LP from careerist scum like yourself. And there were activists in the LP then- unlike now."
So, thats your idea of political argument. Call me scum. That really wins debates.
""Lies. I was opposed to Nice and campaigned against it. I also think Soc Partnershp is a sellout."
No you didn't- I've a good idea who you are. You do not ideologically opposed to social partnership- you say say you opposed the last deal (even though you didn't). Could say why you oppose it?"
You dont know who I am yet you slander me. Didnt you read your leaders (M O Brien)instructions to quit the personal insults?
I opposed Nice, worked in both LAN and CP campaign.
I oppose Social Partnership at present because workers enter it fronm a position of weakness. Unless a Government composed of workers parties are in power that will always be the case.
""Yes I am [fighting for socialism], thats why I'm in LY and GNAW."
Neither LY or GNAW are socialist. Although there probably are socialists in GNAW."
The same could be said about SY. An organisation that slavishly backs the SP line inopposing DA at Shannon, opposing an anti war lobby of the ICTU ADC. SY members suuported the SP when it opposed naming a QUB bursary after Pat Finucane.
"And finally, there is no Troika. I had a good laugh after my branch meeting with the comrades discussing this 'troika' of yours! "
If there is no Troika , why do you get so upset when its mentioned?
"Why is it different? because you say so?"
Because they have emptied out of membership, they have no respect from activists, they have absolutly no prospect of becoming a workers party.
"LP has thousands of members. Opposition is allowed. How come the SY has never publicly disagreed with the SP? Because the SP is never wrong!"
And the last time you where at an SY meeting was?
"They stayed there a long time, despite the VAt on kids shoes, Irish Shipping, Hospital closures."
Yes, because there was a good chance of reclaiming the LP from careerist scum like yourself. And there were activists in the LP then- unlike now.
"Lies. I was opposed to Nice and campaigned against it. I also think Soc Partnershp is a sellout."
No you didn't- I've a good idea who you are. You do not ideologically opposed to social partnership- you say say you opposed the last deal (even though you didn't). Could say why you oppose it?
"Yes I am [fighting for socialism], thats why I'm in LY and GNAW."
Neither LY or GNAW are socialist. Although there probably are socialists in GNAW.
And finally, there is no Troika. I had a good laugh after my branch meeting with the comrades discussing this 'troika' of yours!
"Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (Unless his name is John Throne)
John 6: 37
"Magneto get this into your thick skull: Labour are not the same party as in the 70s and 80s."
Why is it different? because you say so?
"If anyone tried to organise an opposition to the Labour leadership in the party firstly they'd not get anywhere as there are no grassroots members and then they would be expelled."
LP has thousands of members. Opposition is allowed. How come the SY has never publicly disagreed with the SP? Because the SP is never wrong!
"Militant stayed in LP because there was a membership and there was a chance of transforming the LP into a party that would fight in the interests of ordinary people."
They stayed there a long time, despite the VAt on kids shoes, Irish Shipping, Hospital closures.
"there's not a chance of that happening now."
It is happening, you seem to think your opinion is a law of nature.
"Magneto supported the Nice Treaty, the Social Partnership deals etc. "
Lies. I was opposed to Nice and campaigned against it. I also think Soc Partnershp is a sellout.
"You're not interested in fighting for socialism."
Yes I am, thats why I'm in LY and GNAW.
"Youre only interested in stirring up shite on the net."
My dear you are the one who is throwing insults around and lying about my attitude to Nic Soc Partnershp.
Magneto get this into your thick skull: Labour are not the same party as in the 70s and 80s.
If anyone tried to organise an opposition to the Labour leadership in the party firstly they'd not get anywhere as there are no grassroots members and then they would be expelled.
Militant stayed in LP because there was a membership and there was a chance of transforming the LP into a party that would fight in the interests of ordinary people. there's not a chance of that happening now.
Magneto supported the Nice Treaty, the Social Partnership deals etc. You're not interested in fighting for socialism. Youre only interested in stirring up shite on the net.
You said ABOVE and on countless other threads that Labour had never moved to the right and was left wing so where is it?
I want Labour to move to the Left. Same as Militant/SP did when they were in Labour.
Do I have to (yet again) bring up VAT on kids shoes, Desmonds Hospital closures, Closing down Irish Shipping, which took place during Joe Higgins watch? Yes he opposed this, but he stayed in Labour.
Labour opposes local charges, I think they should support non-payment. Labours Conference voted against Privatisation, I will oppose any attempts to change that. Labour opposed Direct Action Against The War, so did SF, Greens, SP and SWP. I think they were wrong.
"I am opposed to Labour going into Govt with FG/PD/FF, I oppose privatisation, I oppose local charges, I support Direct Action against the war."
Magneto, if this is the case why are you in Labour?
Everything you say could be and was said about Labour in the 80s.
"Magneto makes the point above that he is in the same postition as Joe Higgins was claiming that by calling him rabbittes man than joe was springs man. This is utter rubbish. "
Look, the same rules and logic apply to SP/Militant as the rest of the Human Race.
Joe Higgins was in Labour during 3 Coalition Govts which brought in cutbacks. Joe and the rest of Militant opposed those cutbacks. Joe clearly was not Corishs, Cluskeys, O'Learys or Springs man.
I am opposed to Labour going into Govt with FG/PD/FF, I oppose privatisation, I oppose local charges, I support Direct Action against the war.
I am obviously not Rabbitts man.
Just because you say that YOU WERE THE MARXIST WING OF LABOUR, it doesnt bestow any special powers on you. That was your opinion. You dont have a monopoly on the claim to be Marxist.
The Labour Party doesn't seem to be learning any lessons from it's past, and definitely not from the previous election. As the Labour Party keeps moving to the right they're entering a very crowded area. Why are middle to upper middle class people going to vote for Labour when they all ready have Fianna Fail, Fine Gael the PDs etc. there to represent their interests?
A friend of mine who joined the Labour Party last year is already disillusioned with the party. It seems under Pat Rabbitte it's going to be business as usual, with little deviation from the Spring and Quinn regimes.
Why is Labour so afraid of the dreaded "S" word. Labour should be attracting thousands of people who are angry and disgusted at the cutbacks, sleaze and corruption in Irish society but are losing out to more radical parties who are saying what people are thinking.
Why would anyone vote Labour if they are only going to coalese with Fianna Fail or give the horrific Blueshirts the kiss of life at the next general election.
Why don't the Labour activists push for a more left wing alternative?
You've nothing to lose.
The bureacracy are in general not directly elected by the membership and are not easily recallable. These career bureacrats recieve massive wages well in excess of those recieved by the membership. There politics is also in general quite right wing. They do not represent the interests of workers, all they care about is themselves and protesting their own privilages.
Why do the LP not launch a campaign to reclaim the unions against this parasitic bureacratic layer? Why are they not mobilising the workers against these people?
As i said Red Dawn, the leaders of those congresses and unions are appointed by the workers. So dont blame the labour party.
We have and always will stand for social justice and a welfare state.
And an everyone is wrong except us attitude will get the working people, and yourselves nowhere.
O.K. its a bit ridiculous that I feel the need to go on indymedia to state that I am not some virtual character. This is all part of the problem of people not posting using their real names - which is something I always do.
Two reasons why I am not Magnetto:
1) I have a little bit of a life so I just don't have the time that Magnetto does to spend on indymedia all the time. Nor do I have the time to read the amount of lefty history that Magnetto seems to have read.
2) I am not obsessed with the Socialist Party. I know a little about their history, but nothing like what Magnetto claims to know particularly about the 1980s. For what its worth, I respect most of the members of the SP who are hihgly committed in their politics.
And sure while I'm at it, why don't we all just get a life, and spend a bit more time been active in the real world and a little less time in the cyber world accussing each other of all sorts?
Danny writes: Now that the ICTU and SIPTU have fully re-affiliated with the party
So David Begg and Des Gerathy are going to lead the workers to victiry allied with Ho Chi Quinn and Pat Rabbitte? By the way the ICTU is noted for its conservatism and willingnes to jump into bed with IBEC.
Magneto makes the point above that he is in the same postition as Joe Higgins was claiming that by calling him rabbittes man than joe was springs man. This is utter rubbish.
Joe was part of the Marxist wing of the Labour Party aka Militant. He actively campaigned for Labour to take a socialist platform. We his branch nominated him for election the LPP stepped in and pushed that democratic decision aside.
Magneto is not a member of a marxist wing of the labour party as no such wing exists. Magneto is just a frustrated pain in that ass who has a problem with everything SP.
Wrong yet again my fuckwitted friend.
Cian is a far better Socialist than any of the anonymous half-wits who are sent out by the Troika to attack Labour.
Magneto Exposed!
Magneto is Cian O'Callaghan. Cian is one of the careerists that abandoned any idea of a left wing party when they jumped ship with arch sell out De Rossa.
to "mobilise workers
We do....do you, i dont see the revolution coming anytime soon.
Now that the ICTU and SIPTU have fully re-affiliated with the party, we will stand in solidarity with workers against privatisation, as will our comrades in other parties im sure.
But remember, we are not a union,and nieher are you. It is the workers responsibility to protest. And the workers responsibility to vote for a strike.
The harsh reality we all have to face, and sometimes i feel that SP take so much moral high ground, that they forget they can preach as much as they like, but the working class dont vote socialist be it democratic solialist, marxist, etc. THey mostly all vote Fianna fucking fail.
Instead of bickering, we must focus on what we have in common, if we dont, the right will continue to dominate.
Have you missed so many threads? Had I been around I would have opposed the expulsion of Joe and other millies. But they didnt make things easy for themselves. Their sectarianism and the undemocratic way in which Militant ran Labour Youth for years had won them a lot of enemies even on the left of Labour. (Despite this, many members of Labour Left and New Direction opposed the expulsions.)
Militant also treated people with contempt by pretending that Militant did not exist as an organisation. (It obviously did, how else could it have been a section of the CWI?)
Instead of openly fighting for their right to exist insude Labour as a distinct faction, Militant pretended that they were just a support group for the paper Militant Irish Monthly. This made it easier for the bureaucracy to portray Militant as a secret organisation intent on taking over Labour by covert means.
Joe Higgins was allowed to appeal his expulsion to the Labour Party ADC.
John Throne was not afforded the same opportunity by the SP, the US section or the CWI.
If the LP are opposed to privitisation why are they not using their positions in the Trade unions to mobilse workers against attempts to privitise the public services?
The reason you will not mobilise workers is because you are a bourgeois party. You are acting in the interests of the bosses by tying workers into social partnership deals
May i also point out that motion 15, though poorly worded is not in favour of privatisation, but against it, as it points out that the "guiding principals" of a public service "should be in the public benifit, not private enrichment"
Either way, confrence DID vote against privatisation.
If labour is such a democratic party whay was Joe Higgins thrown out.
Maybe the reason that you won't be chucked out is that you are no threat to the leadership
Red Dawn, I wrote motion 16. when it was called, a comrade from my brach spoke on it and mentioned PPPs.
I seconded the motion, and Deputy Emmet Stagg spoke against it specificly against PPPs. He TOTALLY misread motion 15 and called on confrence to REJECT motion 16 bececause he thought it was in favour of private ownership.
Confrence.....very confused did what he said...and i gave out stick to him and told him to read the motion before spouting off.
It was a huge mixup, and i'm so pissed off.
I will say this once and for all
Labour is totally against private ownership!!!!
As is Pat Rabbitte.
Larry, we are both talking about public ownership, and you are talking about workers control. Which i am also totally in favour of too. AS long as it doesn't turn into Britain 1960's workers control, where the Unions strangled the economy and gave thatcher and the fucking tories the best election they ever had....
But as Lenin said, when we are successfull on a world scale, we shall use gold for public lavatories.
The motion against privatisation was rejected
______________________________________________
Conference calls on the Labour Party to resist the creeping process of privatisation in the semi state and public utilities and reaffirms the Party's total opposition to the privatisation of essential public utilities such as water, public transport and the prison system.
Conference, mindful of the experience of our nearest neighbour under a Labour Government, believes that public/private partnership projects often lead to private enrichment and poor value for the public purse, and consequently requests that the appropriate Labour Party spokesperson demand that the Government establish an independent review body to assess the economic and social benefits to the state, the consumer and other affected communities of each such proposed project.
Conference calls on the Party to undertake a major review of Party Policy on Public Transport in the major urban areas with consideration to be given to the transfer of the management of urban transport services to the appropriate Municipal Authority. Provision of an efficient, low fare comprehensive public transport with first class conditions of employment for the workforce to be a priority.
_________________________________________________
So Magneto if Labour hasnt moved to the right why did they reject a motion condemning privatisation and accept motion 15 which calls on Labour to accept the privatisation of public services for public benefit?
I believe it was the SP who posted this because of the recent Militant in Labour debates. The SP seem determined to 'prove' that Labour has moved to the right. They have failed to do so.
Militant were in Labour durin 3 Coalitions which introduced cutbacks. Militant opposed the cutbacks but:
VAT on childrens shoes
The closure of Irish Shipping
Workers dying due to Desmonds cutbacks
was not enough to get Militant to leave Labour.
I do not accept that labour is more right now than in the 1980s. I fight against any of Labours policies which are reactionary.
If I am Rabbits man, then by the same 'logic' Joe Higgins was Springs man.
Magneto: "If you look back along the threads you will see that it is the SP who are obsessive. They even had to attack the announcement of a Labour Connolly commemoration."
As I was the one who "attacked" Labour on this issue I feel I must comment. Magneto once more is not giving the full story twisting it for his own boring frustration. For anyone interested, and Im sure not many people are myself included, the debate is below:
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=44163&start=40
In my "attack" on Labour Youth I argued that Connolly was a Marxist and Anti Capitalist. That he stood against everything the Labour Party today represents. The reply I got was that I was talking bullshit and all us on the far left are "long haired hippies." Labour Youth also talked about "Civilised" Capitalism as oppossed to any form of Socialism. Read through the comments made by LY there is only one mention of socialism and believe ot or not its to describe Connolly but again it fails to go that bit further and describe connolly as what he really was - a Marxist and revolutionary socialist.
The SP did not lead the attack on Labour indeed there were two other groups there one being Sinn Fein and some anarchists.
Magneto reading your posts you claim that we put this orginal posting up. Jaysus "Magneto" You must be studying mindreading in UCD because there is no definate way to claim that it was the SP who put it up. Labour has many enemies from Sinn Fein the Greens the SP some within the SWP and the majority of the working class.
I think "Manus" says it all for the Labour party. You've long ditched any veneer or talk of nationalisation or economic planning. You guys just want to "regulate" the market not abolish it. "Magneto", this is a clear admission of Labour being a capitalist party.
As for "Daniel", you say that you're committed to public ownership. What about public control? Why dont you put forward demands for democratic control of the public services?
Why would any worker join a party that is committed to keeping economic power in private hands?
What language. Come join Fine Gael, the party which has a party without resort to such language. The only good thing about Rabbitt is that his Mayo-ness will serve him at the mercy of our Enda.
If anyone bothered to read Pats speach, they would see clerly that NOWHERE does he advise private ownership of public services.
He did mention that the PUBLIC dont seem to care who runs them, as long as it is a quality service.
The delegates in the Labour confrence this year voted against privatisation in many different motions, and Labour remains commited to public ownership of all public services.
Can i encourage those who those who damn us to check thier facts, before getting worked up after believing everything they read.
I think if it was put to most LP members about nationalisation of the banks or insurance companies, many would agree, many would mention the word regulation!
If a sector is fully and strongly regulated by the state it could be sufficient to carry out the same aim as nationalisation. Market failures can be fixed by state intervention or regulation if the governing party has an interest in doing so, as we know this is not the case with FF or PDs.
The original posting was taken from the front page of the Irish Times, so I would say that it is truthful.
One thing that struck me about the LP conference and the interviews etc on the TV and in the papers about it was the fact that at no point did any Labour member call for the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy. At no point did anyone come out clearly agaisnt privitisation.
If the LP are meant to be the party of the working class how do you think a worker will support a party that is not clearly and activley against privitisation?
Another thing that struck me was the fact that no-one came out and opposed the politics of coalition.
Free trade is at the hearth of a Customs Union, removal of barriers to trade, the theory of comparitive advantage!
Much of this has been in the EU treaties since 1957 and when we joined in the 1970's, obviously the SEA and 1992 stepped it up a gear.
The majority of member of the LP have opposed membership since the beginning, one reason being the free market basis of the project. In recent years the party has been pushing for an increasing social aspect to the EU t balance out the ill effects of /failures of the market, which is reflected in the convention on Europe.
I would estimate that 50% of members voted no to Nice the second time round, if not more and i could probably count with fingers the
number of people who canvassed for yes vote!
I'm in Labour, thats why I do battle with the SP. If they hadnt posted this piece they wouldnt have got my response.
I dont believe that Labour by some processs was de-transubstatiated when Militant departed.
When people voted for Maastricht, they were told that
Ireland would recieve a huge subsidy from Brussels as their
reward. The small print of the Treaty, which imposed a Thatcherite
economic framework on the EC/EU, was barely mentioned. Most people didnt
start thinking/talking about the Euro and the ECB until the late ninties, and
even now few enough people are aware that Maastruch/Nice/Amsterdam effectively
outlaw social democratic policies. So its nonsense to say that the people of
Ireland or anywhere else have voted for these restrictions. Labour campaigned for the
Nice treaty under the slogan "For a workers' Europe, for a green Europe"; unfortunately
the hard left wasnt well-organised enough to challenge this rubbish. The neoliberal
dogma guiding the EU elite is not well known, and Labour and its European counterparts must
accept a huge share of the blame.
Paddys remarks about Magnetos post are spot-on. When we are talking about direct action at
Shannon, its fine to criticise the SP. But I dont see the relevance when
the issue is whether or not Pat Rabbitte favous privatisation of public services.
Its hardly the SP alone who criticise Labour for moving the right.
"Magneto Watcher Tue, May 13 2003, 10:09am
Magneto,
I think you know that Labour have been transformed in the past 10-15 years. "
No it hasnt. You havent countered any of my arguments. Labour was fine for you until you got thrown out. Actually Labour has recruited 1,000 new members over the last 6 months.
Thats mor than 3 times the membership of the SP.
"Look right!
by Paddy Tue, May 13 2003, 12:26pm
Yet again Magneto, your obbsession with the SP has blinded you with regards to the bigger picture."
Paddy
I take your criticisms seiously. You know that I oppose a lot of Labour policies. I fight for what I believe in. I can do so within Labour.
I wont be thrown out for disagreeing with the leadership. Ley any member of the SP publicly disagree with the Troika and they will get the John Throne treatment.
Maybe, in the end, you'll be proven right & I'll havr to leave. But I'll give it another while.
If you look back along the threads you will see that it is the SP who are obsessive. They even had to attack the announcement of a Labour Connolly commemoration.
Pat merely mentions that the party will look at each situation case by case. The party has not mention any case where privatisation should occur. maybe i've missed something?
It is clear that the party dosn't adopt the soviet mantra of a centrally planned economy, but neither does it call for an out right free market.
One thing many people seem to forget is that the Irish people have signed up to the idea of the free market/reduction of state aids through its support for the SEA and Maastricht ! A large majority
Nationalisation of a competitive market is now essentially illegal.
For any party who aims to be part of government, it is obvious that they have to work within these parameters and thus this will be reflected within their policies.
The opening up of some markets has benefited many, while other example haven’t, but the bottom line is strong state regulation. All we have to do is look at the disaster of the telecom sector/ privatisation here and the railways in the UK.
The opening up of the aviation sector in Europe has greatly benefited the lives of many and hugely enhanced tourism in Ireland.
I presume this is what Pat means case by case!
Yet again Magneto, your obbsession with the SP has blinded you with regards to the bigger picture.
Now dont go mental Magno, I happen to agree with lots of your critique of the SP and the Leninist left in general. Problem is however that sometimes when leftists get obbsessed with the antics of the sects they move almost unconsciously to the right themselves.
Lets say we agree on your analysis of the SP, now apply the same powers of analysis to the Labour Party. Present strategy of the Labour leadership is plain to see....move to the right policy wise a la Blair, but apopt a ostensibly left position viz party activity. Hence the former CP member Mike 'the unemployed can kiss my ass, Ive got the Gen. Sec's job at last' Allen, running round like a blue arsed fly trying to recruit the movers and shakers in the community sector in an effort to compete with the Provo's.
Come on Magneto, you're a genuine socialist, you dont belong in a party that has no prob. with privatisation, is against increasing capital taxation, supports a Euro Army, see's elections and parliamentary work as the sole means to change society, and is led by a group of people who've made a career out of using people like you as they shift to the right. Believe me I saw these boy's and girl's in action in the Sticks and they have'nt a ounce of principle between them. Dont wait for the inevitable disillusion of coalition with FF or FG.
You have lots of choices Magneto, you can be an independent or join one of the non-cult left groups. You're criticisms of the sect-left would be far more credible if you did. Go on Magneto, make the break.
Magneto,
I think you know that Labour have been transformed in the past 10-15 years. Militant would have always argued that Labour had a capitalist leadership but had a working class base. The point was not to support the leadership but to support the activists to 'reclaim' the party.
However Labour no longer have any activists. They have not got any respect from any active people. They are now like anyother capitalist party, ie a capitalist leadership with no base among the working class.
Magneto, you are attempting to justify your 'radical' image with your membership of a party that have no respect from left activists.
Well Cian I suggest that you start by telling that to your party leader.
At the Labour conference delegates voted overwhelmingly against Public Private Partnerships and privatisation of public services.
Any suggestion that Labour is for privatisation - by anyone - is complete rubbish!
>"Labour cannot make transport policy only for >transport workers, although their input is >vital. We cannot make education policy only for >teachers, though their input is essential.
>"We cannot make health policy for doctors, >although to exclude their contribution would be >unthinkable
I agree with the above, consumers, students, parents, patients passengers must all come into the equation when these policies are being worked out.
This should not be used as a wedge to bring in privatisation though. There is a need for expansion of bus/train routes and later services. Bus Atha Cliath & Bus Eireann & Iaranoid Eirean should be given the funds to develop these services.
But at least he is not implementing cutbacks in Health which leads to workers dying. Thats what happened when Desmond was Minister for Health. Militant/SP were in Labour at the time, of course they opposed the cutbacks. BUT they still stayed in Labour.
If workers dying for want of Hospital care, if workers being thrown on the streets with no redundancy when Irish Shipping was closed down, if this wasnt enough to get Militant to quit Labour then surely its a matter for debate as to when you should quit a party like Labour.
I really cant see how Rabbitt supporting privatisation is worse than closing down Irish Shipping in 1985 (a state company).