Labour HQ overrules Sligo party objections

by dirt Brigade Wed Nov 19, 2003 18:16

Its nice to be talking about votes taken at meetings of the Sligo Labour Prty constituency council. It begs the question ,how was that figure put together, who voted and who had a right to vote on the night. It would be interesting to know that and the affect it had on the outcome of the vote that was taken. Many people have heard romours about this and have asked that question. However this has remained clocked in secrecy, is there something to hide or what?

by JP - lp Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:14

One of the smaller branches in Sligo Town west ward voted by a majority of one to accept Cllr McGarry into the party. However the overwhelming majority of party members in the Constituency are not in favour of this. At last months constituency council 90% of members voted to deferre any decision on McGarry until after the local elections.

It has been local HQ employee who has been pushing his membership, not the local members. Cllr. McGarry was in negotiations with HQ in Dublin even before he spoke to any of the local members.

The reason why the minority of members in Sligo want him to join, is so that the party will have an extra Cllr. on the Corporation, as the LP dosn't have an elected representative in the west ward. For these members it is easier to adopt an ex-FG Cllr. than to try to campaign and elect a socilaist candiate of their own.

by Des - Socialist Party Sat Oct 25, 2003 19:41

I would not accept Comrade that I was at all being simplistic, on the contrary what any person who considers his/herself to be a socialist is still doing in the labour party is a mystery to me. While Joe and Clare were locked up in Mountjoy, what was the ‘labour’ party doing, one example would be Eamonn Gilmore’s performance on RTE radio, if there was a Nobel prize for sitting on the fence, his performance that Saturday would be worthy of at least a nomination. Rabbitte’s speech at the last labour conference (which I am sure you are aware of) was truly ‘blairite’. The acceptance into membership of an individual who supported privatisation and the brutal aggression against the Iraqi people speaks volumes re the degeneration of a party who have completely accepted the system and have embarked on the same path as Tony Blair. “Confused and bewildered”, they must be brain dead. In reply to the ‘labour’ party member/supporter, don’t you ever get tired of defending the indefensible?

by Magneto Sat Oct 25, 2003 18:06

Militant spent 15 years and 3 coalition Governments inside the Labour Party.Even hospital closures and Irish Shipping workers being thrown on the streets didnt make them leave. They were not so hasty about leaving. In fact they would still be there if they had not been thrown out.

by Mickey - SP (pers.cap.) Sat Oct 25, 2003 00:04

Des, I think that you are being a bit simplistic there. The arrival of McGarry and the support that the Labour NEC is giving to him does tell you everything you need to know about the Labour Party, but that doesn't mean that there isn't the odd socialist left in there.

The same is true in Britain. Blair's Labour Party is indistinguishable from the Tories or the Liberal Democrats, but there are still a few confused and bewildered socialists hanging about.

There isn't any kind of real left current left in Labour but it isn't impossible to find a marooned socialist or two who just can't bring himself to jump ship.

I don't know enough about what Bree stands for nowadays to say if this is true of him of if he has followed so many once Labour "leftwingers" to the right. I suppose we will see.

by Des - Socialist Party Fri Oct 24, 2003 23:46

If Declan Bree really had the most remote connection to socialism, he would not be a member of the 'labour' party. The arrival of McGarry and the support he received from the party high command speaks for itself.

by Ray Fri Oct 24, 2003 15:31

Since class is defined by relationship to the means of production, if factories and farms have been collectivised there is no longer any ruling class, any more than there are rich landowners. Leninists tend to equate 'defense of the revolution' with 'defense of party rule', so that anyone who criticises the state is automatically a counter-revolutionary, and thus practically volunteering to be shot.
Its one thing to take arms against others, to physically attack socialist society. But the leninist method appears to be to execute or arrest everyone who isn't sufficiently enthusiastic about party rule.
(Think I'm kidding? The SY discussion boards are full of people arguing that, after the revolution, any parties that don't support the revolution will be forcibly dissolved. Not just parties that take arms against the revolution - any parties that _argue_ against it will be banned too. I'll leave it to the reader to consider the distance between 'does not support the revolution' and 'does not support the party which controls the state and claims to embody the revolution')

by random input Fri Oct 24, 2003 15:21

and what's wrong with a little class war? 100 dead rich farmers - I'd be dancin in the street. I hope if the anarchists ever have their revolution they too will cut the throats of the oppressor classes?

No war but the class war, isn't that the motto?

As for Astrakhan, I don't know anything about it. and a google search reveals the above quote as the only source for it - and that amounts to the line copied above.

by Restless dead Fri Oct 24, 2003 14:50

"Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that
people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers.... Single out the hostages
per my telegram," said Lenin later in the same year-to the suppression of the Kronstadt workers' revolt
in 1921 and the slaughter of 5,000 strikers in Astrakhan. As Werth writes: "When the prisons were full,
the soldiers and strikers were loaded onto barges and then thrown by the hundreds into the Volga with
stones tied around their necks."

by Magneto Fri Oct 24, 2003 14:38

Dont forget that Trotsky while in power presided over the butchery of thousands of Left SRs, Anarchists and "Bourgeois Hostages". He also supported the banning of factions in the Party and even supported the Militarisation of Labour. He had the Death Penalty reintroduced to the Army for desertion and "cowardice".

It has been stated elsewhere (by AOC{who was unmasked by SY}) that Trotsky also had Political Commissars shot if ex-Tsarist officers in their units defected and that he had strikers shot. I cant find references for these two allegations. Can anyone provide more detail on this?

by magno Fri Oct 24, 2003 13:12

"I generally would support Declan Bree, he has proved himself as a Socialist many times over"

In my book he has proved himself not to be a socialist many times over. Stalinists and their apologists were not socialists they butchered many thousends of workers.

Furthermore his membership of the Labour PArty would indicate that he is not socialist. The LP are seen just the same as any other capitalist party. There are not a workers party. If Bree was a socialist he would leave the Labour Party

by Magneto Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:16

I am keeping a watching brief on this. I generally would support Declan Bree, he has proved himself as a Socialist many times over. If someone is accepted by a local branch I would have difficulties with the Sligo Corporation LP overruling it. Perhaps Declan brought too much Stalinist baggage with him when he left (?) the CP to join the Labour Party.

by Which side are you on? Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:04

Could you be Magneto in disguise?

by D Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:06

If ever evidence was required to illustrate how far the Labour Party has strayed from its roots, surely the recent admission of Councillor Jim McGarry into membership provides the proof.

In fairness to Councillor McGarry he was never shy in nailing his colours to the mast. He not only supported, he championed the right wing and conservative views of his colleagues in Fine Gael and Fianna Fail. Voting for service charges and voting for the privatisation of the refuse service came naturally to him. In fact the only real difficulty Councillor McGarry had with his Fine Gael colleagues was the fact that they would not support him for the position of Mayor and for appointment to various local authority committees.

Councillor McGarry is not to blame for the present upheaval in the local Labour Party. If anyone is to take the blame surely it lies with those labour members who have either abandoned their principles or who are unable to tell the difference between left and right.One has only to look at Tony Blair's new Labour in the UK to see what happens when principles are jettisoned for the sake of expediency.

by pat Fri Oct 24, 2003 09:54

In his first public comment on his controversial move to the Labour Party, former Fine Gael Alderman, Jimmy McGarry, today called for unity among his new colleagues.
Pledging to work side by side with Labour’s longest serving local public representative, Alderman Declan Bree, and all those who opposed his membership of the Party, Alderman McGarry said the main objective of everybody at this stage should be to build up the profile of Labour in advance of next year’s local elections.

Responding to claims that his switch to Labour could put the very future of the Party in Sligo at risk, Alderman McGarry appealed to those who had threatened to resign from the organisation to reconsider their position.

And he said he would be willing to meet those who opposed his membership to discuss any difficulties or concerns they had over his entry to the Party.

While he accepted that there were a number of Labour members who were strongly against his membership, he believed there was a vast number of people who welcomed him and saw it as a very positive development for the future progress of the Party in the Constituency.

In an interview with The Sligo Champion, Ald. McGarry said he was delighted that his acceptance to the Labour Party had been confirmed this week by the Party’s National Executive Committee.

He thanked the members who supported his application and assured those who were against his membership that he held no grudges and would be willing to work with them to build up the organisation in the Constituency.

Referring to concerns expressed by members of Labour over his membership, Ald. McGarry said it was true that he came to the Party with ‘a political past’.

“I believe that what I learned from that past will benefit the people of Sligo and the Labour Party. I hope that the members of the Labour Party and myself can learn from each other and that by working together we can build up the organisation”, said Ald McGarry.

Differences

Elaborating on perceived differences between his stance on local issues and those of the Labour Party, Ald. McGarry said he had been a member of Fine Gael for the last eighteen years and was obliged to toe the Party line.

When he supported service charges, he did so because he was following Fine Gael policy. He said he had strived from within Fine Gael to change their policies but had failed and that and other factors led to his resignation from the Party.

“I was uncomfortable with many Fine Gael policies and I feel much more at ease as a Labour Party member as their policies reflect my own political views and the political background from which I came”, he added.

Dealing with his relationship with Ald. Bree, Ald. McGarry pointed out that he had supported Ald. Bree on five occasions in Mayoral elections. He had also seconded a number of motions put forward by Ald. Bree when no other councillor was prepared to support them.

Common ideas

“I share a lot of common political ideas with Ald. Bree which are enshrined in Labour Party policy. I have worked with Ald. Bree for over eighteen years and I see no reason why we can’t continue to work together”, he said.

Expressing the hope that there would be unity in the Party in the run up to next year’s local elections, Ald. McGarry said:

“I appeal to Ald. Bree and the other Labour councillors to work with me to build up the profile of the Party over the coming months with a view to making Labour the biggest party on Sligo Corporation and a major party on the County Council”, he added.

Ald. McGarry said he would strive to broaden the appeal of the Labour Party locally. He specifically mentioned the business community, claiming that this sector might have felt they were overlooked by the Party in the past.

Too narrow

“I will work to ensure that the business community can feel confident that the Labour Party locally is willing to listen to their concerns and to help them. In the past, I think the Party was too narrow and we need to broaden our appeal. We need to expand our appeal to the electorate, from the business community to working class people”, he said.

He claimed that the winning of four seats on Sligo Corporation was a realistic target while the Party could also increase its representation on Sligo County Council at next year’s local elections.

He confirmed that he would be seeking a Labour Party nomination to run in the West Ward in the Borough Council elections and the Sligo/Strandhill area in the County Council elections next June.

General election

Asked if he would be interested in running for Labour in the next General Election, Ald. McGarry replied:

“I take politics one day at a time. As of now, I am not thinking any further ahead than the next local elections”

In a statement affirming his membership of the Party, the National Executive Committee welcomed the decision by the West Ward in Sligo/Leitrim to admit Ald McGarry.

The statement added: “The NEC calls on all members in Sligo/Leitrim to accept the democratically expressed views of the local branch, work within the growing organisation and to commit themselves within the enlarged organisation to maximise the number of seats for Labour in the next local election”.

Meanwhile, it would appear that Clr. McGarry’s membership of the Party has still not been endorsed by the Sligo/Leitrim Constituency Council.

In a statement this week, Constituency PRO, Mr. Tim Mulcahy pointed out that at a meeting on September 8th, the West Ward branch of the party agreed to accept Ald McGarry’s proposed membership subject to ratification by the Constituency Council.

However, the Constituency Council when it met decided to defer all such applications.

“At a meeting on Monday, October 6th, the West Ward branch voted to re-affirm its decision of September 8th and I understand that the matter will now come back before the next meeting of the Constituency Council for ratification. Other than that, I would prefer not to comment on the matter”, said Mr. Mulcahy.

--
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=61779

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=61747

by Sligo Labour Lover Thu Oct 23, 2003 20:32

Not the Sligo branch - a ward branch within Sligo. The whole point of the issue is that the Sligo party disagrees with the decision of the ward party and the national leadership to admit a Fine Gael councillor who has voted for privatisation, against neutrality, for bin charges and for the war in Iraq.

That doesn't present any difficulties for the national Labour Party - an organisation without the merest hint of a principle - but it does matter to some people in the Sligo party.

by Labour Lover Thu Oct 23, 2003 19:31

The guy in question did not pass a picket, Bree has effectively admitted this was made up or at least exagurated.

It was the members in the Sligo branch who voted to accept him the party executive just backed up their decision.

by pat c Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:49

a previous article on this topic suggested the exfg was in the same ward as a lp councillor.

by Allen Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:10

pat c that is not the case as the other labour councillors are in different wards. SF have the working class seat in the ward where the ex-FGer is a rep.

I think it is a simple case, that they don't want someone who have been voting against them for 15 years in their organisation. I suppose most of the LP in Sligo is the old independant socilaist party which joined in 1991.

by pat c Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:13

but in the sligo case i cant help but believe that the whole thing is based more on existing labour councillors fearing that they might lose THEIR seats rather than any socialist principle.

by UCD hackette Wed Oct 22, 2003 18:35

Ray, I can confirm that Donal Lyons has joined Labour. I don't think that this a secret or anything. He was even helping out behind the Labour stall in UCD freshers week.

I have no idea if Dan Finn has joined the Labour Party, but I would be surprised if he has.

by Ray's smear test Wed Oct 22, 2003 18:32

So there you go, Mr Cunningham. No info as yet on Danny Finn, so I just couldn't say.

by Ray Wed Oct 22, 2003 17:31

Can anyone confirm that the people in SA have actually joined Labour, or is this just the latest appearance of an ongoing smear?

by mr x Wed Oct 22, 2003 17:28

maybe the sligo split off group could join the swp, the same way that the ucd swss split off group has joined labour. then they would be evens.

by atc Wed Oct 22, 2003 14:13

If the Sligo members broke up then there could be a chance of a national left alliance covering all area. Other than Galway city, that is the only area west of the Shannon with a strong left organisation.

by red - star Wed Oct 22, 2003 13:53

SP, SWP, ISN, UWG, Left labourites?

by Dail rat Wed Oct 22, 2003 13:03

There are strong rumours circling the political sewers that Minister McDowell has his sights on Fine Gael!!!
Brlieve it or believe it not!

by tommo dcu Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:54

Ask paul dillo


Not good news in Sligo for LP! Benefit to SF, i'd say!

by UCD head Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:49

I read in one of the college papaers that Dan Finn and Donal Lyons joined Labour (both leaders of the UCDSWSS split off group Socialist Alternative). Is this true? If it is, why did they join up?

by former lp Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:48

at the time i read it had been the only motion of its kind. I think you are right about Dublin. I think a motion was proposed in Gálway by LP but it was rejected by FF/PDs.

with reference to tommy broughan, i was talking to some Dublin party members this week and most of them arn't happy about his treatment and most of them support the actions been taken by the SP. But they are reluctant to cause a split with an election so near. Overall much of the grass roots are not happy.

The action of the HQs in relation to Sligo, says to the members you don't matter. It also shows us what the top table of the party are thinking when they accept someone with the credentials of Cllr. McGarry, an ex PD it seems!

by Janus Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:37

Dublin and Derry also passed motions against the war, in both cases proposed by Sinn Fein. I THINK a motion was passed at Galway City Council also propsoed by Labour. Not mitigating the work of Labour councillors in Sligo, merely pointing out that you can outline the work they did without lieing about it.

by patc Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:35

The Fine Gaeler who the Labour Party HQs has forced on the local constituency, was a member for the PDs before the last general election and was on the ticket for them, untill he pulled out at the last minute.

So the LP is accepting ex-PDs, who have voted for the privatisation of refuse services in Sligo.

As we all know Sligo has the highest charges in Ireland over €550!

by former lp Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:28

There are many left members in the LP, Sligo in particular has been one of the most left in the country. The party there has never voted for service charges, when all others have incl SF, they've never signed a mayoral agreement with the conservative parties, Sligo town was the only council in Ireland to pass a motion against the war, this was proposed by the LP. It was the only LP consituency which openly refused to campaign in favour of Nice Treaty 1+2.

by Janus Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:26

Dislike the Labour party though I do, and agree that they are neither socialist nor left, the simple truth is that there are genuine left wing people in the Labour party and Labour movement.

You make the point that Tommy Broughan is not taking part in blockades. I was not aware that decades of socialist thinking comes down to the issue of whether one should be on a blockade or not. He may well have come to the conclusion that it was a battle that could not be won and thus fought it in his own way.

Maybe he couldn't quite see the point in risking prison in order to win the SP a council seat. (That could be his perception, it is NOT mine, but people should be aware that it is a perception held elsewhere)

Reports on Indymedia have indicated Labour people on blockades, Labour members both voted and campaigned against Nice. The leadership, and bulk of the Oireachtas party of Labour might be lost to the left, but not everyone in the Labour party is.

by the way Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:18

Their concerns over this FGer is very little to do with principles. It's all about the upcoming elections. The SLigo LPers don't want to be seen for what they are- pro establishment, pro partnership, pro tax amnesties etc. Accepting a FGer into their ranks shows them up big time- hence the dont like it.

Tommy Broughan is voicing concerns about bin tax as he has to be re-elected!! Have you seen him on the blockades? Have you seen him at the public meetings argueing for blockades and other militant action?

by Allen Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:12

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=61747

it is obvious that there are some rank socialist left in the party. but it seems the party dosn't care. They will reject the views of sligo members, one of the more left wing sectors of the LP and force them to accept a blueshirt who voted for refuse charges, privatisation, in favour of the war in Iraq and who crossed a union picket this year.

On the other hand we have Tommy broughan being forced out of the national executive for speaking against bin charges.

by Labour Hater Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:04

These people in 'Labour' are the samw people that expelled Militant and other socialists for their principled stand in fighting for an alternative to coalition governments and tax amnesties favoured by Labour.

Now the same people are warmly welcoming a Fine Gael member into their ranks!

How can anyone have illusions in these people? Labour are not a workers' party- they are a party in the interests of capitalism. They are an establishment party and should be treated as such.