Fight Fees

by Paul Dillon Wed May 14, 2003 17:17

Now thats a bit smart Justin. The CFE is about a hell of a lot more than arguments which have taken place on Indymedia. Large numbers of Students have become activists in a college which has a reputation for apathy and the CFE has laid the basis for further grassroots resistance to fees. The trick is to spread that resistance throughout all colleges in Ireland. We need to make sure that student unions around the country are ready for the fight to. This government is vunerable, it can be beaten. So lets do it!

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Wed May 14, 2003 17:19 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Wasn't trying to be smart as such Paul, just trying to get across the point that the various people from a variety of different groups active in the CFE now seem to spend a lot of time arguing about who did what. I have nothing but respect for CFE and the work they did and I believe we need that kind of militant action now. Judging by the report in the Irish Times this morning and Ahern's statement in the Dáil it looks like they're going to move fees in after the college is broken up for the summer.

by Oisin Kelly - SP Wed May 14, 2003 17:33

I think that this government will do something on the fees issue this summer. Probably through registarion fee increases. Though we can't rule out the introduction of fees for higher earners- which should be resisted as it will be lower earners that will have to pay as they lower what they define as "high earners"

On the CFE. The fac is there are some differences in the CFE on strategy etc. This is healthy in any broad organisation. And there is unity on fighting fees.

I think that this government can be defeated. They are very vulnerable. And their vulnerability and unpopularity will be increased as they cut back further in health, education, transport etc.

The task for the SUs is not just to adopt the failed tactics of the annual demo and not much else. We need to link up with workers in the struggle against this government. The USI should also seriously consider a mass non-payment campaign.

by Gaz - cfe - personal capacity Wed May 14, 2003 18:32

"USI should also seriously consider a mass non-payment campaign."

From my understaing of the policies incoming USI pres Will Priestly this is highly unlikely, the campaign we are more likly to see is one of letters to TDs. We cannot rely on USI to move from a bunch of mates sitting in an office thinking of how to get their photos in the papers, to an organistaion capable of builing a student movement. The successes of unions are based on their membership, and their active membership. With a membership of allegdedly 240, 000 USI have failed to engage its membrship on a grass roots level.

by james SA Wed May 14, 2003 18:34

Time for another meeting, sort out these tactical differences, have the arguments and move forward with what we're trying to acheive?

by Gaz - cfe - personal capacity Wed May 14, 2003 18:46

as usual the governments gonna wait till the summer to do this, under the belief that students will be unable to mobilise. i think we should organise a meeting asap.

by Anonymous Wed May 14, 2003 19:13

"As enjoyable as the SP/SA/CFE/SWP row has been, maybe it's time to put things behind us and bury the hatchet, preferably in Dempsey's back?"

Right on Justin. Tis good for a crack sometimes, but in general, it is so self defeating, it takes the crack away.

Dempsey / Ahern / Fianna Fail - should be by far and away the primary targets. Lets go get em'. Don't let them win AGAIN.

by Finghin Wed May 14, 2003 20:10

The opposition to fees obviously have political differences, this is to be expected and it is very healthy that they be discussed in a comradely and constructive manner. Unfortuanatly this has not been the case and it was far from what I would describe being "good for a crack sometimes".

I don't really want to get into this but on another post the SP have been described as having a 'poor record on fees', supporting the killing of childern, supporting the Omagh bomb etc. these remarks were utterly disgracefull and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves. I look forward to recieving apologies from those concerned and being able to fight the real enemy- this right wing government.

by conor mc gowan Wed May 14, 2003 21:22 conor at ziplip dot com

time for a non-virtual meeting i think.

anyone orgenise a time/place?

by pat c Thu May 15, 2003 10:04

be a bit less thin skinned and a bit less abusive themselves. While I agree that the suggestion that Paul supported the Omagh bomb was rubbish the SP are quick to throw abuse.

Nationalist, Catholic Nationalist, Anti Protestant (this was used against SWP & WSM also) are likely to be thrown at you if you disagree withe SP on the National Question.

Even yesterday Shane (SY TCD) called Magneto, "Rabbitts Man".

Look at the beam in your own eye.

by David Thu May 15, 2003 13:28

There has to be a mass non payment campaign but there is no point in targetting current students because there is the possibility that they might be exhempt from having to pay fees anyway. Those who will be most affected are those starting their leaving cert in a few weeks but more especially younger students because it is inevitable that the government will introduce fees for the very wealthy and this will be almost impossible to argue against in the national media because it seems like a good idea. But we all know that once the fees are re-introduced the government will have no difficulty in increasing them and reducing the means test in subsequent years. This is their strategy. Force through a compromise and then take what they want when nobody's looking. There has to be mass demonstrations in secondary schools wiht solidarity demonstrations in universities and and IT's

by working class voter Thu May 15, 2003 13:58

A vast majority of the working class don't vote at all. Why is this the case? I would argue that it is because of the complete sellout of parties like the Labour Party, why vote if there is no-one worth voting for.

The fact is that the SP are a very small party, where they do stand and have done work they have recieved very respectable votes in working class areas. Nearly always outpolling the Labour Party in these areas.

by Janus Thu May 15, 2003 14:09

The SP have only ever done it in Dublin West.

More power to them, I always give them a number one or two depending on circumstances but still....

by The Insider Thu May 15, 2003 14:13

Any ideas how exactly it would be done? Just wondering.

by Anonymous Thu May 15, 2003 14:40

To working class voter:-

Why the working class don't vote - The sell out of Labour I would think is only one of the reasons.

Other prominent reasons, I would think, to be, education (appropriate to this subject thread), income levels, opportunities and social environment and circumstances.

Properly mobilizing the huge working class in Ireland is a massive task, but also a huge opportunity for the Irish left.

FF will be left quaking in their boots should this class ever become mobilized.

by Tom Luby Thu May 15, 2003 14:41

You voted for a party which refused to support naming a QUB bursary after Human Rights Lawyer Pat Finucane. They said to do so would be sectarian. They then went on to support naming a QUB Bursary after a Unionist Politician. Somehow this WASNT sectarian.

by Andrew Thu May 15, 2003 15:29

The assumption seems to be that working class people are too dumb to realise that they can change the system by voting for better leaders. I'd suggest the opposite is the case most of us are smart enough to realise that our vote will make very little difference because the Dail settles debates within the ruling class. It's not a mechanism for ordinary people to gain greater control of their lives.

Thats also why the working class that bothers to vote is more likely to vote for protest parties (like SF or the SP) that have no chance of being in the government in the short term. Such parties of course also tend to be the ones doing meaningful work on the local level, even if it is often on quite a paternalistic basis. FFers that top the polls in working class 'areas' also tend to do so on the basis of their ability to sort out local problems via the 'clinic'.

The 'political class' in this country tends to throw up its hand in dispair precisly because the working class tends not to vote and to place clinic work over political program when we do. In their opinion this shows the working class needs to be educated about politics. Again I'd suggest it shows the opposite - that the working class knowledge about politics is often way ahead of those who would educate us.

So the question that arises is should we
1. be going to working class non-voters telling them they are wrong and that they should vote for our brand of better leader.
2. be saying your right, here are some alternative ways of exercising power that don't require politicans and giving a hand organising these.

by Janus Thu May 15, 2003 15:57

I know nothing about the SP in the North on a day to day basis. I did read their Northern policy document by Peter Hadden and I wouldn't clean up dogshit with it. But I have a lot of respect for their organisation and people in the South.

I'd fall between the SP and SF, veering from one to another depending on whats going on and the issue. I have problems with both organisations though I'm a former Sinn Fein member and probably know more about the people there than in the SP.

I have voted number one for the SP a couple of times and I don't let the actions of one branch of the party affect how I view it overall. Other people should do the same.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu May 15, 2003 16:10 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Andrew, while I have difficulties with the clientist nature of politics as well, the simple fact is that it does get results. We can't start a mass campaign everytime some-one has a problem getting a social welfare payment, or some-one else gets scalped on their disability benefit, or some-one feels they're not getting treated right in terms of access to housing.

There is of course a broader issue of proper social services, decent support for people on welfare, housing for all etc. But that does not deal with the immediate problem confronting a constituent who just had a car burnt out on her front lawn because she reported kids for anti-social behaviour.

And most people don't know their rights. The book on social welfare entitlements runs to just under 300 pages. For people with poor education, who might be intimidated by Council officials or Civil Servants, some might be functionally illiterate, one of the key problems is that they don't know what they're entitled to.

Now when I discussed this with an Anarchist before, he said it would be far more empowering to energise local people to deal with it themselves. I agree, but how can we mobilise a community to campaign so that Mrs Smith gets the Carers Allowance?

I seem to remember (And I am very open to correction here as it's not something I know a lot about) that Anarchist groups in Spain and other places ran/run drop in centres or advice centres. You can't tell me these groups wouldn't have provided advice on entitlements or something like that?

Elected politicians serve as a conduit between the civil service bureaucracy and the people. Some-one has to do it. It might not be the revolution we are all working for, but I have to say, there is a certain satisfaction in actually obtaining disability benefit for some-one in too much pain to walk or a chairlift for some-one who has to piss into a bottle because the jacks is on the first floor.

It might not be 'radical' or 'revolutionary' and it might not herald the downfall of the capitalist system, but it makes a hell of a difference in those peoples lives.

Sorry, lost control of the rant there for a second. I accept and support the idea for campaigning socialist political organisations, but there is a need to work for the people as well, and that's not going to go away.

by The Insider Thu May 15, 2003 16:26

Does anyone have ideas how we'd pull this off?

by Andrew Thu May 15, 2003 16:29

Justin to be clear I accept that the work done at such clinics is useful - that's why it gets votes after all. And yes I think an anarchist movement of any size would also hope to have local advice centres, indeed in other countries even very small groups of anarchists have tried to do this.

But there are problems with the clinic system (which is also what Connolly referred to as gasworks and water politics) that go beyond the fact that it is not 'revolutionary'. IE the observation that Bertie Ahearn can win votes on this basis alongside SF or the SP.

These problems chiefly come from the obvious relationship between sorting someones problems out at a clinic and the expectation that they will then vote (or at least give their 2nd preference) to your party at the next elections.

This pretty much means it is in the parties interest to encourage dependency on their clinics. If you want Mrs Murphys vote on an ongoing basis then you don't want to give Mrs Murphy the tools for sorting out the problem herself. You want her to come back to you next time.

You also don't want her showing her friends or neighboors how to sort out the probem. You want her to tell them to go to you as you sorted out the problem for her and can probably do the same for them.

This is the dynamic of tying clinics to an individual party rather then seeking to create non-party community advice and organisation centres. There is an electoral logic that follows from this. Dare I suggest that SF's attitude to the Bin Charges campaigns is a reflection of it?

So yeah an individual party activist can rightly feel proud about the people they have helped out, all the more so because they often will have had no other place to go. But this doesn't remove the implications of how the clinic system impacts on working class self organisation.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu May 15, 2003 16:51 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

First off a quick query as to whether Anarchists in Ireland have thought of running a clinic / advice centre. Most of our advice centres are run out of pubs or community centres so there's no cost to it other than time. Has this ever been considered, or would this be seen as giving in to a certain extent to the clientist nature of politics?

Certainly, when I help some-one there is an implication that I'm counting on their vote. And everyone who contacts us, like any poltical party, and whom we help can confidently expect a letter around about the election time.

That said, I have no idea how they will ACTUALLY vote and I had the most refreshing experience of a man telling me after he'd explained his problem to me that because of the IRA he wouldn't vote for us and he felt he should be honest and tell me that from the get-go.

We should also consider that simply because some-one rings up and says I voted for you is no indication they did. I'm not known as a SF member back home and so I contact each TD, tell them i voted for them and ask for their support for something, like elections on the 29th for example. In reference to what you said earlier, people are smart, why restrict yourself to going to one TD when you can go to three or four, have more people working on your case and still pick and choose come election time.

I'm not sure I accept the approach to clinics and so on is as Machiavellian (sic?) as you suggest. A good bit of the time we simply refer people to an organisation. For example I referred a guy yesterday who is having trouble with moneylenders to the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, an independent body set up to help people like him. All I did was inform him about it. For reasons of sheer workload, if people sorted out their own problems I for one would be a lot happier.

Lastly, I'm not defending the clientist system, and in fairness you haven't accused me of such, but I do agree with what you say, merely that I don't see any other way of doing business.

To go back to the discussion I had with an Anarhist on email before about clinics, I was explaining to him about working on a case where a man wanted the Council to get a burnt out car out of his driveway and my work with the Council to get this done.

The Anarchist suggested I should simply have given the guy the numbers to contact and let him do it himself as it woould be more empowering for the man and for his local community when they found out.

Well firstly, if I did that he would have been on the phone to another party before I'd hung up, and secondly, if he tried, he wouldn't get as far because TDs/Councillors, like it or not, and I don't, have more influence with officials and more experience in dealing with them.

The clientist system is deeply, deeply flawed and I would prefer it didn't exist. But it does and I believe any party that genuinely wants to better the working class has to be both a radical socialist campaigning party, and the kind of people who can get your windows fixed.

Otherwise the might of FF will crush us all and sow the fields of our land with salt or something.

by FK Thu May 15, 2003 18:11

Non payment of fees is only really being hinted at here and there, but if we are to really defeat the government we do need to give it serious consideration. Mass non payment has worked in the past in water tax and the poll tax in Britain. however it could be a blow to the activist layer in the colleges and could be used to victimise isolated individuals if we were to call for non payment and it were only to be followed by a few. So firstly we have to see whether the mood is there for mass non payment. We also have to look at exactly how fees are introduced, there will be different legal complications. We also have try and win support from the SUs, the Trade Unions and maybe even the college authorities. At least we should give it serious consideration.

by Yossarian Thu May 15, 2003 18:35

There's no reason why anarchists couldn't or wouldn't run advice centres, or at the very least set them up; we wouldn't want people getting too dependent on any group or individual and the knowledge accrued from working in an advice centre should be expanded by rotating the people hosting the centre.

Ultimately, anarchists have no particular desire to provide services for everybody else. What they should be prepared to do is to assist where requested to set up self sustaining centres for whatever service is required. Thus more people in the community benefit from the skills learnt whilst providing the service as the job is rotated and there is no monopoly on the knowledge required.

The difference between a politician and an anarchist providing such a service is that the politician needs to remain in that role to maintain his support in the community and so the community becomes reliant on them to provide the service whilst the anarchist would rather be out of there as soon as someone else could take over, so that the skills they learnt could be passed on and people would gain further confidence in their ability to organise themselves.

by Gaz - cfe - personal capacity Thu May 15, 2003 18:45

from fees..... to anarchists running advice centres. U gotta love indymedia.

'So firstly we have to see whether the mood is there for mass non payment'

If, as Bertie says, fees are gonna be introduced for those on 6 figure incomes, i think its unlikely that the people affected would engage in a policy of 'mass' non payment.

by Gaz - cfe personal capacity Thu May 15, 2003 19:13

theres a discussion on fees on ogra ffs discussion board at

http://www.ogra.ie/discuss/topic.asp?whichpage=1&Forum_Title=Current+Issues&Topic_Title=Third+Level+Fees&CAT_ID=5&FORUM_ID=20&TOPIC_ID=120

if the link doesn't work just go to ogra.ie ad let them know how you feel (im not in FF btw)

by Anonymous Thu May 15, 2003 20:28

re: Andrew - interesting and expected analysis (you, coming from an anarchist perspective), though I don't agree with all of it.

Without going into detail on what you said, I will stick to your summation, namely you ask at the end:-

"So the question that arises is should we
1. be going to working class non-voters telling them they are wrong and that they should vote for our brand of better leader.
2. be saying your right, here are some alternative ways of exercising power that don't require politicans and giving a hand organising these."

I ask you - why not both??

Why not urge them to do both - and we ourselves also actively engage in both.

The casting of a vote takes one minute (that's one minute every 5 years) - so yes the public should try and exercise power using "additional" (rather than alternative) ways as well which involve daily/weekly/monthly/yearly work and activity.

So constant exercise of power is important but I think one's power to change things through the ballot box should never be negated and just thrown away either (especially since it takes so little time and effort)

So why not both?

re: Gaz

"from fees..... to anarchists running advice centres. U gotta love indymedia"

:)

by Andrew Fri May 16, 2003 11:41

There are quite a few of the smaller parties that do indeed try and do both. There are even some post-anarchists (the libertarian municapilists) who do both on a local level. And there are other libertarain groups who do this as well.

I see two levels of problems with doing both

1. The electoral system is quite a well designed conveyor belt for coverting radicals into respectables. When Charlie Windsor visited back in the 90's for instance some of those at his dinner had 20 years previously been part of the movement that blew up his regiments officers mess at Aldershot.

Leaving aside the 'national question' for a moment there is a rather obvious declawing that turned Sinn Fein The Workers Party into the current Labour Party leadership. The WP was built on the basis of working class militancy and mass protest in the 70's electoralism is part of the reason this vanished by the time of DL.

And of course Sinn Fein which 20 years ago was hoping to take power with the ballot box in one hand and the armelite in the other has, whatever Trimble reckons pretty much ditched one for the other now. Electoral success was central to this.

In general those parties that have succeeded in keeping the focus on street politics have been those that have either done very badly in elections (SWP) or have had limited success so far (SP).

So why does this happen, well the most obvious reasons is that TD's are very well paid for not doing a lot of work ( http://www.munster-express.ie/020802/news9.htm ) . If your coming from earning anywhere near earning the average wage then getting elected is gonna be a bit like winning the lotto. Plus you get to smooze with the ruling class and if you behave yourself get your ego stroked nicely. So its hardly surprizing that most independants rapidly care about nothing more then getting elected next time around.

Of course the parties can be smarter and for instance try and make the elected candidate live off the average wage while putting the rest of the cash into the party. This deals with the lotto effect at the individual level but pass some of these problems onto the party.

Dependency on the TD's wages and expenses. How much is keeping Joe Higgins seat worth to the Socialist Party? Maybe 30,000 goes to the Party from his wages. Then he gets an office in the Dail and a paid secretary (effectively a paid full time for the SP plus I guess they are expected to pass over a chunk of their wages). Should be worth another 30,000. Then there are free phone calls and free postage, maybe another 5,000. Then there are other expenses which can be worth 50,000 or more (no idea of what his actually are).

So the cash and obvious benefits that the party can allocate are around 100k, probably a very large chunk of SP income. Getting Joe elected is probably pretty vital for the financial plans of the party.

Whether or not you think the SP are resisting the pressures that arise from this is not important. I'm just using them as an example. The important point is to note the pressures that arise from even a quite limited success and to recognise that parties that win multiple seats quite quickly become parties ran by the TD's rather then their members. I'm not aware of any exceptions to this anywhere - feel free to point out any you are aware of.

2. To do well in elections you have to either believe that you can make a difference if elected. Otherwise how will you convince people to vote for you. What's more for radical parties you have to convince people who say 'what the point, there all the same, the system doesn't work' that in fact the system can work for them, if they elect the right people.

I'd sooner tell people what I consider the truth rather then tell em what I would consider to be a lot of lies. Add that in to the stuff I've already posted in this thread and it should start to be clear why I don't think you should do both, even though of course you can do both.

Incidentally there is a very detailed anarchist analysis under the title of 'Parliament or Democracy, online at http://struggle.ws/once/pd_intro.html

---

And now back to the subject of the thread!

There was an attempt to organise a fee boycott in TCD back in 1986 which was pretty much a failure despite the fact that almost everyone was facing a major hike in fees. The major problem was that as feews were paid at the start of the term most people were unaware of the proposed boycott until they turned up for registration. Probably if a permanently large demonstration could have been kept going at registration more people would have not paid but as it was springing the idea of individuals on their war in just left them feeling isolated.

If the governement is smart they'll start off by introducing the fees for actual high earners (100k households). This will mean the number who could boycott will be small and coming from families who won't be that put out in finding the fees.

I suspect in order to have a hope in the Autumn you'd have to already have a large movement of students informed and agreed on a planned boycott. With exams already underway in most colleges its probably too late even where the start of such a movement exists.

So without writing off the idea altogether I think its clear that a boycott this year could only be part of a strategy.

by OK - SP Fri May 16, 2003 14:16

I've once again felt the need to lurk into the murky world of Indymedia to put a few things straight.

Andrew said: "The electoral system is quite a well designed conveyor belt for coverting radicals into respectables"

I have not seen Joe Higgins or Clare Daly turn into 'respectables'. I think that the examples you give of certain people ditching their past positions once in the Dáil is more to do with their politics, rather than simply due to getting elected.

On finances of the SP. First of all it's none of your business what the internal finances of the Party are! I'm not asking about the ins and outs of the WSM finances- and why should I? All I will say is that Dáil secretaries are not on massive salaries and cant afford to 'give up' E30,000! And most of our money is not from JH, it's from members and supporters.

But what I will say is that we do not see getting elected as a financial question. Can you not just accept that SP members are genuinely committed to fighting for socialism. You always have to have a go and insult us- to such an extent you end up backing up Labour in SU elections.

by Andrew Fri May 16, 2003 14:39

OK you should read what I wrote before you have a knee jerk reaction. I was simply using the case of the SP as an illustration, I even said "Whether or not you think the SP are resisting the pressures that arises from this is not important".

And as for the 30,000 that not the figure I guess for the Dail sec. but a reasonable amount if you subtract the average wage from Higgins salary (58,000). I don't care what the exact figures are as (again!) I'm simply using the SP as a handy illustration of the problem.

by Andrew Fri May 16, 2003 14:57

Well the silliness about figures aside how about OK more substantive points

"I have not seen Joe Higgins or Clare Daly turn into 'respectables'."

Well I did say a certain level of success was necessary before such forces come into play in a serious way. And also its not an overnight process. Again in terms of the Workers Party it took 20 odd years and 7TD's being elected before DL could make a public appearance. If you get the other 6 TD's we can have a look back in 2020, bookmark this thread until then.

"I think that the examples you give of certain people ditching their past positions once in the Dáil is more to do with their politics, rather than simply due to getting elected."

This is a good example of wishful thinking that is going to cause you problems rather then solve them. If you recognise the forces at work then you have some chance to try and counteract them, if you deny them then you will succombe all the easier. In the case of the example under discussion the WP politics may have been stalinist but there was no more 'proof' that the WP of 1976 was going to end up in Labour then there is that the SP of 2003 will.

I don't know how much you know about the WP of the late 70's and early 80's but it looked a hell of a lot like a more succesful version of the SP. Your following a strategy that is very similar to it both in terms of community and union work. Hey even your line on the north is similar :-).

It's also worth pointing out that when the actual split came and DL was formed many of not most of the old WP activists stayed loyal to the old politics. The WP still exists in that respect. So too did one TD. So in 2020 maybe you and Joe will also stay loyal to the old ideal. In short its not about you (or Joe) its about how the system works.

"Can you not just accept that SP members are genuinely committed to fighting for socialism."

Did I ever say I didn't accept that. Again this is not about you but about the system. (Mind you I don't think much of your vision of socialism)

"to such an extent you end up backing up Labour in SU elections."

Now you are being very silly indeed. Especially considering that I'm not a student and so didn't even have a vote in your elections!! And I didn't comment on it until a couple of months after it happened.

by hs - sp Fri May 16, 2003 16:38

Joe Higgins books are open to anyone who wants to read them. Every penny used and spent by joe and anyone who wants can look at them.

by Ray Fri May 16, 2003 17:13

So if I send you an SAE you'll send me a copy of the Socialist Party's accounts?

by pat c Fri May 16, 2003 17:23

Surely they can just email them to you.

by Gaz - cfe iapc Fri May 16, 2003 22:24

on USIs website it states

'The Union of Students in Ireland have warned the Government that any attempts to put fees or an Australian-style loans system before the Cabinet without prior student consultation could result in an unprecedented series of protests.'

does this mean that they're ok with the governments proposals as long as they're consulted?

by conor - them themselves - the inclusive party Sat May 17, 2003 15:59 conor at ziplip dot com

a)trots disagree with anarchists
b)anarchists disagree with trots
c)usi are a worthless bunch'o twats
d)mass non payment is an option

so - we must MEET UP.

will someone (why not me though) call a time/place.im free anytime.

trinity is central
people work less at the weekend.

some sabbath evening soon (tomorrow) in the pavilion pub/bar?

by Gaz - cfe Sat May 17, 2003 18:34

ive posted a message about a meeting on the yahoo site, just waiting on people to reply to see when would be the best time.

by james redmond - socialist alternative (personal capacity) Sat May 17, 2003 20:52

Here are the minutes...

Dear all

below the agreed courses of action for the next 2-3 weeks:

Email questionnaire to FF, PD and Independent T'D's re fees/loans/reg. charge with deadline .Press release results. (Enid)

Everyone to ring (and motivate as many people as possible to ring) TD's on the issue (All)

Trinity Students Union officials are meeting Mary Harney on Thursday May 22nd - to look for commitment on fees/loans/and no increase in reg fee (Will Priestley)

Questions and Answers doing third level fees on Monday May 19th. Audience tickets to be sought (Will Priestley)

Agreed to concentrate on Cabinet members (FF and PD) re lobbying and try to make existing split on issue worse.

Use phone in programmes as much as possible (All)

Agreed to set up email group with relevant groups for co-ordination purposes.

Agreed to get as much media coverage in short time to Cabinet meeting on issue as possible (Enid, Tom Kirby in Kerry etc)

Research on legal position of means testing adult students on parents. Solicitor has offered to advise on where to start. Mary Daly (Meath) agreed to take this on.

John Bruton to be contacted as he is very supportive (Enid)

Agreed higher taxes on higher company profits, capital gains and higher incomes should be the funding source of education and other services not arbitrary income limits for fees. High limit of income before fees payable unacceptable.

--------------------------------------------------

The meeting was organised by conserned parents and advertised through word of mouth, i stumbled upon it in the UCD Academic newsletter....

by Trotskyist and proud Sat May 17, 2003 21:29

I'm sick of the word 'trot' being used. It's like something out of the right-wing Tory press during the Militant witch-hunts.

Last time I checked I am not a 'trot', I am a Marxist that thinks that the ideas of Leon Trotsky are valuable in today's struggle against capitalism.

I thought that SA where also Trotskyists- so I find it hard to believe they are using words from the British Tabloids of the 1980s!

by cfe member Sat May 17, 2003 21:38

conor lists out reasons for a cfe meeting

"a)trots disagree with anarchists
b)anarchists disagree with trots
c)usi are a worthless bunch'o twats
d)mass non payment is an option"

a and b: what's new? go to any of the cfe meetings you will see two distinct tendencies- militant and moderate.

c: what's new there?

d: mass non payment is not necessarily an option. there needs to be a determined leadership, a sufficent level of willingness to support non-payment, and there need for a leadership on a national level

non-payment should be looked into by the cfe, usi, and the various students' unions.

why have a meeting? what's the point in the usual heads meeting up in trinners or the terrace to have a nice get together, a chat & drink, and then not do much more?

by james redmond Sat May 17, 2003 21:48

'why have a meeting? what's the point in the usual heads meeting up in trinners or the terrace to have a nice get together, a chat & drink, and then not do much more?'

Yeah, fair enough, i see your point. Where CFE did get it right was looking outside the usual heads and mobilising beyond the left. But we do need to have a meeting so we can continue to do that. Even in a worst case scenario, if we do continue to hold meetings and have no activity-at least we are mainting the group, even if its in an ebb of activity.

What we need now, is to meet and discuss an immediate response to what the government are up to.

As well as forming links with other groups (see minutes above) and building a movement against fees and for free education.

by Gaz - cfe Sat May 17, 2003 22:16

there was consensus at the last agm that we should have another meeting but i understand ur point

direct action if they moods there,how do we decide/who decides etc etc

by very angry man - thinking like derrida Sat Jul 19, 2003 21:18 derrida at rage dot net

fight fees
no smartness meant
fees
USI
so let's get moving then...
definitely
Right on Justin don't let FF win again
debate has not been comradely or constructive
www.freeeducation.cjb.net
the SP could
not just students
voting
Outpolling Labour
Mass non payment
Why the working class don't vote.
Janus!!! support the worknig class!!
re: why the working class don't vote
Tom Luby!
clientist nature of politics
Proposals for mass non payment campaign
Re: Justin
Interesting thoughts
on mass non payment
re: interesting thoughts
http://www.educationet.org/z0281.htm/
FF
re: Why the working class don't vote
we have the same problems in West Vlaanderen.
re: why not both
a reply to andrew
re read it OK
On OKs substantive points
SP finances are anyones business
SP accounts
Ray
i thought this was entitled fight fees
what weve learnt
meeting
Meeting held today on fees..
'trots'
pointless meeting?
Meeting
more of the same....


46 people moved to open publishing.
Cut&Paste poetry meets contemporary politics.
and damn the Mammy Harney.

O as If.