SP win council by-election

by SP member Fri Dec 05, 2003 13:09

I think this is a good result. The SP winning the seat, and the schools camapign getting a very good vote also. This is a sign that people are moving away from Labour.

Congratualtions to the SP in London!

by psepologist Fri Dec 05, 2003 13:30

Sounds like the kind of turnout you would get for a UDC election. Hardly signs of a mass uprising and yet the SP were talking last week about the 30% who DID NOT vote in the Six Counties!

by Not News Fri Dec 05, 2003 13:34

This is not deserving of an article. It should be a comment on another thread. The SP get a few hundred votes, big deal.

by roxy Fri Dec 05, 2003 13:56

Its a low turnout but I would think that it is reflective of the mood in the ward. The SP have 2 of the 3 seats the other is held by the schools campaign.

I think it is worthy of a posting. The fact that people are voting for parties and campaigns that are to the left of Labour in Britain is very much an interesting issue. It raises questions about whether or not a similar trend will emerge in Ireland with anti bin tax and anti cuts candidates winning seats at the expence of the traditional parties

by psepologist Fri Dec 05, 2003 14:05

And what "mood" would that be?? Apathy perhaps. Sounds like the SP are well on the way to spreading the kind of despair and demoralisation in Lewisham that they trademarked in Liverpool and Coventry.

by roxy Fri Dec 05, 2003 14:17

The point I was making is that the SP are the largest party in that area. The SP have 2 of the 3 seats in that ward. the other is held by LEAP (Local Education Action by Parents ) a campaign in which the SP is active.

The turnout is very low. But compared to other by elections in the UK it is quite high. The low turnout in council elections is because of the lack of real power held by the councils and because there is no real alternative on a national basis for workers to vote for.

by Wallace Fri Dec 05, 2003 17:23

Yes it is a good thing when any radical left alternative makes a breakthrough against the Labour Party in Britain,even a local level. The fact that one disagrees with the internal political structure of the SP should not blind us to positive nature of such an advance.

What undermines the credibility of the SP is that any small advance by any CWI affiliate is routinely trumpeted as a more significant advance than it actually is. When the opposite happens, its explained away glibly as with Jim Barbour's recent paltry vote in the Northern Assembly elections.

The most serious problem is that the SP identify the advance of socialism and the building of a working class alternative so closesly with the fate of the CWI that they downplay or ignore major advances which are made by parties not affiliated to the CWI.

The best recent example was their response to the stunning breakthrough of the SSP in the Scottish parliament elections. Barely acknowledging the significance of this victory, they emphasise the modest votes obtained by 2 SSP candidates who belong to the CWI platform and proceeded to launch an attack on Tommy Sheridan, the SSP leader, for remarks he made in an interview which indicated a worrying move to the right. Blinded to the significance of the progress being made they could only think of exagerating their own sucess and attacking their former comrades in the ISM platform who have played such a significant role in building the SSP as a mass campaigning party of the working class.

Now its not that it was wrong to challenge Sheridans views or to emphasis the contribution of their own comrades but its the exagerated importance given to these matters that causes concern. Many SP members seem to have a particularly bad dose of a disease that to one degree or another effects almost all organised leftists: they identify the interests of the working class and progress towards socialism almost totally with the progress of their own party. The fact is that no matter what the objective conditions they will not make a real breakthrough in Ireland or anywhere else until they break from this narrow outlook.

by Sp member (personal capacity) Fri Dec 05, 2003 17:39

"What undermines the credibility of the SP is that any small advance by any CWI affiliate is routinely trumpeted as a more significant advance than it actually is. "

I don't think that anyone is saying that this victory is going to lead onto the revolution! It is simply a report from a positive election result for those to the left of the Labour Party. Nobody is saying that the SP or the left will now overtake Labour at the next eelction or that there is a massive national support for the SP.

"The most serious problem is that the SP identify the advance of socialism and the building of a working class alternative so closesly with the fate of the CWI that they downplay or ignore major advances which are made by parties not affiliated to the CWI."

I really don't think this is a fair critisism. If you read the publications of the SP and the CWI you would find this is not the case. The developments in the left accross the continent and globally, in many cases where the CWI is non existant or where the CWI is quite small, is covered in quite some depth.

"The best recent example was their response to the stunning breakthrough of the SSP in the Scottish parliament elections. Barely acknowledging the significance of this victory..."

I think this critisism of the CWI is a bit unjustified. The SP and the CWI in Scotland welcomed the results of the election for all SSP candidates and campaigned on the ground for all SSP candidates not just the CWI ones. The results are a significant breakthrough for socialism in Scotland. Please have a read of the Voice from the time as well as the CWI website to see our positions. On critisising Sheridan etc I think that it is only right to raise critisisms of the SSP leadership for any nationalist or reformist tendencies that they might have. Surely you'd agree that it is the duty of the membership of any party to keep an eye on the leadership and critisise them if needs be.

by Janus Mon Dec 08, 2003 13:11

A good result, a positive development. No-one, including the people involved, reckon it means revolution is round the corner, but if this can be built on, it might mean breakthroughs in council seats elsewhere in the country. Look at the impact the BNP have made in terms of the debate in Britain with a mere handful of councillors.

by Trotwatch Mon Dec 08, 2003 14:05

Remember when Militant had a pro-omperialist position during the Malvinas War? When English Jingoism, contributed to by Militant CWI helped Thatcher to win the 1983 Election.

Well, those Squaddies had Workers Bombs with them!

Falklands ships had nuclear arms


The MoD has not said if HMS Sheffield was carrying nuclear arms
Some British naval vessels were sent to fight the 1982 Falklands War carrying nuclear weapons, it has been confirmed.
The Ministry of Defence said a decision not to use the weapons was made before the ships left port.

However, they were kept on board so the battle group could set sail from the UK as quickly as possible.

Rumours the weapons were on board Royal Navy ships first surfaced after the war with Argentina ended, but until now they have never been verified.

In fact the weapons never reached the combat zone as they were removed on the journey and transferred to ships returning to the UK.

Seven containers carrying the weapons were lightly damaged when transferred from ship to ship, the ministry said.

Warships sent

Argentina invaded the British territory of the Falkland Islands in the south Atlantic on 2 April 1982.

In response, Britain sent a number of warships, many of which routinely carried nuclear weapons at the time.

CONFLICT TIMELINE
2 April: Argentina invades
5 April: Task force leaves UK
19 April: US diplomatic efforts fail
22 April: Royal Navy ships arrive in waters off Falklands
25 April: UK forces re-take island of South Georgia
3 May: Argentine cruiser General Belgrano sunk
4 May: HMS Sheffield sunk
21 May: British forces land on Falklands
28 May: Battle of Goose Green
13 June: British forces take Mount Tumbledown outside the capital, Stanley
14 June: Argentine garrison surrenders

The MoD spokesman said removing the weapons was a 36-hour operation, a delay that would have held up the task force for too long.

Reuters news agency quoted a Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesman as saying the weapons never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands or any South American country.

The Argentinean Defence Minister, José Pampuro, has expressed concern over the admission and said his country was seeking further information from the British Government.

An MoD spokesman told BBC News Online the admission was made "at the request of a journalist under an 'open government' code of practice".

by tintin Mon Dec 08, 2003 15:13

Militant took a clear anti imperialist position. Unfortunately some of those on the left took the position of oppurtunistically uncritically backing a brutal anti worker undemocratic Argentinian regime. Militiant took the position of opposing British and Argentinian Imperialism. Have a read of the material published before you come on this site throwing mud.

by hopeful Mon Dec 08, 2003 15:23

I would congratulate the SP on winning about 500 votes.this is a clear endorsement of the socialist agenda in the UK, how many days left until the other 60 million realise the errors of their ways and join the revolution?

by Magneto Tue Dec 09, 2003 13:00

Lenin and Trotsky both wrote that it is the duty of Socialists and Workers of an Imperialist Country to take a defeatist position. Militant did not do this. The rest of the Trot left were Anti Imperialist. In particular the SWP shone, they had a front page calling for the sinking of the British Fleet.

The CWI are still pro imperialist and they are still indifferent to homo-phobia as their attack on the Gays who organised a quiz for Ivana showed.

by Oscar Tue Dec 09, 2003 13:15

"The CWI are still pro imperialist and they are still indifferent to homo-phobia as their attack on the Gays who organised a quiz for Ivana showed."

I suppose we should be thankful that they seem to have more time for Ivana and her Pimms set than Pym!!
Vote for Socialists not Socialites.

by Magneto Tue Dec 09, 2003 13:52

Gays should follow orders and vote for the SP. Otherwise, when the SP are in power, the Gays will end up in prison and in concentration camps as happened in USSR, China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam.

by Oscar Tue Dec 09, 2003 13:57

Gays should follow orders and not vote for Brendan Howlin.

by Magneto Tue Dec 09, 2003 14:15

Obviously I hate anyone who would spread viscious rumours about Howlin. Its highly unlikely that Quinn had anything to do with it.
Labour has proved through its actions and involvement in issues where it stands. There is an active LGBT group in Labour.

That doesnt address the fact that the SP, a group who have no base in the LGBT Community, should demand that the community vote for the SP. It shows no understanding of the nature of such oppression.

by Oscar Tue Dec 09, 2003 14:29

"That doesnt address the fact that the SP, a group who have no base in the LGBT Community, should demand that the community vote for the SP. It shows no understanding of the nature of such oppression."

And if they were in Holland you could have advocated a vote for Pim.
Vote for Socialists not Socialites.

by pat c Tue Dec 09, 2003 14:40

1. The piece from the Denis Tourish book on the other thread was about the CWI in the 70s/80s. In that period I dont think Militant fully comphrehended Gay/Womens oppression, they seemed to see them as a sideshow from the main fight, to be dealt with after the revolution.

2. I thought the SP/CWI had moved beyond this, hence I was put out when I saw the SP comments on the quiz thread. To suggest that gays should vote for the SP because you are revolutionaries is not a compelling argument. Esprcially when the SP has no record of activism in the LGBT area. Turning up on a march once a year, is not involvement. Labour has a good record, thats why they are getting the support.

3. It is crude and mechanistic to suggest that Capitalism alone is responsible for sexism/gayoppression. These are deep rooted bigotries which must be fought on an ongoing basis and will not disappear automatically under socialism.

4. Finally, do you really think you are advancing the interests of the SP by attacking a bunch of people (not all in the LP) whose crime is to organise an event for someone who has proven through her actions that she is a friend of the LGBT community?

by pat c Tue Dec 09, 2003 14:42

To compare Ivana Bacik to the Fascist Pim is something only a fool would do. Keep it up. You are really dragging the SP down.

by pat c Tue Dec 09, 2003 15:00

The piece below is a timely reminder of the need to fight bigotry. My posting of it is in no way a criticism of the SP. I am 100 % certain that they oppose such attacks. There is a lot more responsibility on SF and the PUP to combat such attitudes and assaults.

Rainbow Network
8 December 2003

Belfast's Hom-ophobic Violence

The gay community in Belfast has been warned that hom-ophobic violence were reaching epidemic levels after a young man was attacked by a gang in the university area at the weekend.

A few weeks ago new research by the Belfast-based Institute for Conflict Research has found that the gays in Northern Ireland were more at risk of violence than gaypeople living in the rest of the "UK" and Ireland.

It said that 82% of the gay people interviewed had experienced
harassment and 52% had experienced violence. Over half the incidents
were recorded in Belfast.

Jonathan McCambridge, from the Belfast Telegraph, reports that a
friend of the victim has come forward to reveal the constant
harassment that homo-sexuals living in Belfast are forced to endure.

He said: "Every time I go out onto the street I get called names. I
have been spat on and beaten up - it is just constant.

"It can happen anytime at all - in the middle of a street in broad
daylight. It is mostly verbal abuse but it can become deadly and
dangerous. Gaypeople have been maimed and disfigured. On one
occasion I was kicked up and down the Dublin Road."

The man went on to say that the police were very effective at
reacting to attacks but said more needed to be done to prevent them.

"Everyone knows where these attacks are taking place and the police
should be patrolling these areas. It is worse in Belfast than any
other city. There are hoods, thugs, who cannot riot anymore because
of the peace so they take it out on us.

"Paramilitary activity goes down and crime goes up. It has got to
the point now that any gay person who goes out at night alone is
vulnerable.

"It is not improving in Northern Ireland at all, there is more
violence now than ever before - the attitudes of the public have not
changed."

Inspector Robin Dempsey, from the PSNI Community Involvement Branch,
said the number of reported incidents of homophobic crime has
continued to drop since reports began in 2000.

He said: "There has been a drop in reporting these crimes but we
have no reason to believe that there are less attacks; we have to
make sure the gay community feel comfortable in coming forward.

"There is clearly more violence than is being reported but we cannot
take action if we do not know about it. It can also take the form of
verbal abuse and attacks on property.

"There is a perception among some in the gay community that the
police are not interested and we have to look at that. We have
regular meetings with gay and lesbian groups and we are happy to
continue with that."

The Belfast Telegraph also states that within the last year two men
have been murdered in Belfast in gaycruising areas - districts
where men meet up for sexualencounters.

by hs - sp Tue Dec 09, 2003 18:00

On point one I think you are right.

On point two we have I would never expect someone who is gay to be socialist because he she is gay, its ridiculas.

Point three I agree completely.

Point four, its a ridiculas attack and no one i know would support it.

On the point of the sp not doing enough in the gay and lesbian community is because we've never had enough gay lesbian members, obviously the party will take up abnd support the fight but we cannot replace the role of gay activists.

by pat c Tue Dec 09, 2003 18:19

its not just the SP, i think all of the far left pay lip service to gay liberation but carry out little enough actual work. when you then have the lp/ly carrying out work on the ground and building a profile, its natural that Ivana would be supported by the lgbt community.

your members who carried out the attacks, on this and the other thread:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62514
did the sp no service. the sp seem to be able to work with labour in Alliance for Choice, IAWM and even CFE. its bizarre the way every lp/ly comment posting gets attacked.

but magneto of the lp is no angel either. he could rein in a lot his unnecessary attacks of and provocations towards the sp.

there are some appalling exchanges between sf & sp at:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=62590

i despair. maybe you could inject some sanity.

by Joanna - none Tue Dec 09, 2003 18:28

Pat C you are the one that made the inference that the SP in collusion with loyalists are responsible for the attacking of homosexuals. You are just as bad as magneto and the other gobshites. Everyone should just grom up

by pat c Tue Dec 09, 2003 18:33

I made no such accusations. Its worth noting that hs has disowned the attacks carried out by the other SP members on this and the other thread.

by Puzzled Tue Dec 09, 2003 18:39

Joanna, tintin, Oscar or hs?

by Joanna - none Tue Dec 09, 2003 18:42

Please don't call me a moron and a liar. I thought I read on some thread posted today that you reported the instance of a Loyalist group attacking homosexuals. This was in the middle of a debate in which the SP were accused of being homophobic. In my opinion that is a definite attempt to link the SP with gey bashing. If it was not you then I apologise.

by pat c Tue Dec 09, 2003 18:52

All you have to do is scroll up and read:

"The piece below is a timely reminder of the need to fight bigotry. My posting of it is in no way a criticism of the SP. I am 100 % certain that they oppose such attacks. There is a lot more responsibility on SF and the PUP to combat such attitudes and assaults."

Thats what I wrote. Its on this thread.

How could you have missed it? You were too busy throwing unfounded abuse.

by X Tap Tue Dec 09, 2003 20:22

Pat you might recall one of your pet groups, the INLA, shot an off duty RUC man in a gay nightclub/bar in Belfast causing much distress to the gay community in NI who have enough to suffer, and if you think the grassroots of the INLA/IPLO RIRA/CIRA or PIRA or indeed their Loyalist counterparts have any sympathy for the Gay community your further up your own hole than I thought...

XXX

by pat c Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:28

"Pat you might recall one of your pet groups, the INLA, shot an off duty RUC man in a gaynightclub/bar in Belfast causing much distress to the gaycommunity in NI who have enough to suffer, "

so the inla shot 1 ruc man in a gaybar! so what? that was not an attack on gays. republicans shot plenty of rucmen in straight bars. does this make them anti straight???


"and if you think the grassroots of the INLA/IPLO RIRA/CIRA or PIRA or indeed their Loyalist counterparts have any sympathy for the Gaycommunity your further up your own hole than I thought..."

republicans have not been involved in attacks on ga ys, loyalist paramilitaries have. but the pup have certainly condemned this.

sf have never been antigay. its worth noting that in the HBLOCK CAMPAIGN THERE WAS A GAYS/LESBIANS AGAINST HBLOCK ACTION GROUP. This had the same status as anyother action group.

as usual you anti republican trolls dont know what you are talking about.