Got this sent to me, I hope Davy does not mind

by Davy Fan Thu Apr 15, 2004 16:30

if Davy was born with an innate talent for long-winded, yet ultimately meaningless, verbal ramblings? Or did he have to develop his own uniquely foolish style alongside his uniquely foolish politics?

"I hope that Davy doesn't mind me posting this..."

Let me put your mind at ease, Davy. Unless you have developed a split personality, you will be just fine with your decision to post up more of your rantings.

by By Any Means Necessary Thu Apr 15, 2004 16:38

I am not a member of the SWP and I have my problems with small sect like trot organisations speaking for the Irish working class, however Carlin's record of the events in Belfast over this NIPSA strike is accurate and as a lot of labour history is lost , or left unwritten, it is a good account of yet another struggle against low pay and poverty.

Is fighting for workers rights and against poverty is foolish ?

by Davy Boy Thu Apr 15, 2004 17:02

"Is fighting for workers rights and against poverty is foolish ?"

Of course not, it is the SWP that are foolish.

by SP Member Thu Apr 15, 2004 21:42

building a socialist alternative (From Socialist View)
Across Western Europe there is a debate on the left as to the best way to create or recreate new mass parties of the working class. The sharp move to the right of the social democratic and labour parties over the last 10-15 years, has put this issue firmly on the agenda. Trade union and community activists opposed to the attacks on the working class and young people involved in the anti-war and anti-globalisation movements have no political party.

In recent years, left formations have had some electoral success in a number of European countries. The Scottish Socialist Party won six seats in the last elections. In France, the "Trotskyist" parties LO and LCR, and in Italy the RC split off from the Italian Communist Party, win millions of votes. Left activists in other countries now hope to emulate these successes.

There have been echoes of this debate in the North in recent months. During the brief periods that the Assembly Executive existed the sectarian parties exposed their true role to a minority of the working class. Also the anti-globalisation and anti-war movements have had an effect in Northern Ireland. Of key importance is the developing break between the trade unions in Britain and New Labour, which will undoubtedly impact on the consciousness of trade union activists locally.

Left Unity
The Socialist Party believes that new mass parties of the working class can be built but small left forces making an unprincipled agreement to unite are incapable of willing and wishing these parties into existence. New working class political formations will come into existence as a result of working class struggles.

A debate on the way forward is certainly needed. In particular, we need to weigh up the mood in working class areas, the consciousness of the best activists and where and when it is possible to break through the seemingly unremitting sectarian gloom.

For some on the left, however, the debate is already over. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), rabidly hostile to the idea of socialists standing in elections for years, is now an enthusiastic proponent of the electoral approach. Where once the SWP were proud of their glorious isolation, they now preach the benefits of left unity to all. To the SWP, the key to the future is the unity of the left, or whoever on the left it can convince of its perspective.

It is this thinking that recently led the Derry Socialist Environmental Alliance (SEA) to decide to stand Eamon McCann in the forthcoming European elections. This decision was taken at a so-called "Convention of the Left" in Derry on 14 February. This meeting involved very little of the left and attracted almost nothing in the way of new people - it was in truth some of the "same old faces".

Fewer than 80 attended, and two-thirds of these were from Derry. Perhaps a dozen members of the IRSP walked out before the meeting ended. The organisers themselves described the turnout as "disappointing". There was no proper agenda available before the meeting and of course the decision to stand McCann had already effectively been taken by the SWP, the main component of the SEA. It appears there was little real debate. The meeting had more of the character of a rally, designed to coalesce a support team for McCann, and increase the credibility of any campaign outside Derry.

The conduct of the Convention of the Left is illustrative of a number of points. The method and approach of the SWP alienates rather than attracts. Grand sounding conventions are called with little reference to anyone else. Declarations of the need for left unity go hand in hand with underhand manoeuvring for position. Politics are effectively buried under an avalanche of appeals for unity at all costs. This approach is not the way forward for greater unity on the left let alone a signpost towards a future mass socialist party.

Time for Change
Whilst the SWP have been publicly and loudly demanding left unity, they have also been busily splitting from arguably the most successful manifestation of left unity in the North, the Time for Change grouping in the largest trade union NIPSA. The question of leadership in NIPSA is of vital importance, not just industrially, but also politically, if the trade union movement is to be roused from its slumber. A left majority in the biggest union in the North would have the potential to raise in a real way the need for political representation for the working class.

Previously, the SWP were involved in Time for Change but it chose the middle of the civil service dispute to announce the formation of a "rank and file network" (in typical SWP fashion without any explanation whatsoever). Whilst it will undoubtedly argue that the split is to the left of Time for Change, in fact it is a split to the right. During the dispute, the rank and file group's material has been at best vague and at worst conservative.

They have offered no coherent alternative to the strategy of the right wing controlled Civil Service Executive, beyond occasionally repeating the old mantras about the need to "fight" and to "escalate". One result of this split was to cost the left a majority in the recent elections to the NIPSA executive council. Nine Time for Change candidates were elected, along with one independent left. Right wing candidates won 14 seats and an independent right candidate one. The SWP rank and file group stood four candidates but got none elected.

If the SWP had not split the left vote, then Time For Change would have won a majority. Two hundred more votes would have seen four more Time for Change candidates elected and, ironically, one of the SWP rank and file candidates would also have gained a seat. Such a victory would have been a genuine step forward for the working class at this crucial time.

Divisions on the left
A current, well rehearsed argument internationally is that the left agrees on 80% of most things, and only disagrees on 20%. The argument goes: "And if this is the case then there is little justification for division on the left. Can we not just agree to differ on the 20% and move forward united on the basis of the 80% all agree on? And once we all come together, our unity will propel the left forward and our base of support will expand and grow". Is this a credible argument?

This type of left unity does not mean open debate and honest disagreement. More often differences are buried and forgotten. Forgotten, that is, until events in the real world force these issues back on to the agenda. The Socialist Party is opposed to this political method which is dishonest and unprincipled.

In Northern Ireland the political differences between the various left organisations are of a fundamental character, and are usually associated with the national question in its various manifestations. In recent years differences on the national question have been most clearly expressed in attitudes to contentious Orange Order parades and conflict at sectarian interfaces and the so-called peace lines.

These issues cannot be buried and forgotten about - since the beginning of the so-called peace process issues like Drumcree have resulted in a major upsurge in sectarian conflict, even pointing in the direction of all out conflict.

What would happen to a left alliance that had no agreed position on contentious Orange Order parades during the course of a new Drumcree type crisis? Would it hold together or fall apart? Would it be capable of developing a credible, independent, class based position? Or would this be impossible because of the deep lines of division within the left? The reality is at such a time the differences would be unbridgeable and any such alliance which was based on hiding divisions hoping that they would just go away would be torn asunder.

The Socialist Party are in favour of the maximum unity of the left. However many of the differences between us are very real and cannot and should not be hidden. We cannot pass blithely over decades of division, pretending that fundamental political disagreements do not matter. The sectarian and left republican positions of the majority of the left (which tail-end Sinn Fein on these questions) on issues like Orange parades mean they are incapable of winning support amongst the working class. It would be impossible for the Socialist Party to form an alliance with the majority of the left in the North because of their current positions on these issues.

At times of increased sectarian tension the differences are stark. At other times there are also points of sharp disagreement that should not be glossed over. Our attitude to socialist democracy is a case in point. This is not simply an historical issue. The Workers Party for example have received support, and presumably funding, from the Stalinist dictatorship in North Korea until recent times (and perhaps still do).

There are also different views on the left as to the nature of the Cuban regime. In the view of the Socialist Party, Cuba is not a genuine workers' democracy and a political revolution is necessary to establish such a democracy. We support the people of Cuba in their struggle against imperialism, but point out that the only way to ultimately safeguard the gains of the revolution is through a political revolution to overthrow the Stalinist bureaucracy which controls the country.

Several parties which claim to be socialist, and even Marxist, have armed wings, engage in criminal activities and carry out brutal punishment beatings and knee cappings in working class areas. Some have even been linked in recent years to murders of their own members or ex-members.

The Socialist Party has historically rejected the tactic of individual terrorism (or "armed struggle" in the parlance of those who prosecuted such campaigns in the North over the last 30 years). Individual terrorism is an elitist form of struggle, which sidelines the working class, reducing it to the role of passive spectator of those "leading" the "struggle". It is a false method of struggle which cannot hope to prevail over a modern capitalist state.

In the context of Northern Ireland, individual terrorism was based on support in one community only and completely alienated the other, and thus deepened the division of the working class. Individual terrorist organisations, even those who claimed and still claim to be Marxists, carried out sectarian murders of Protestants. These methods, which are counter-productive, and widen and deepened sectarianism cannot just be glossed over, hidden and forgotten about. Could any socialist alliance type formation which included those who carried out "armed struggle" campaigns, and who haven't rejected this method of struggle seriously expect to win support or even get the "ear" of Protestant workers? No - they would literally be driven from the doorsteps.

The armed wings of these parties may be on ceasefire but they haven't abandoned the tactic of "armed struggle". They still engage in illegal fundraising and carry out armed, and brutal, policing of the working class areas. So called punishment attacks do not empower working class people and in effect lays the blame for social problems and anti-social behaviour on to young people.

A left alliance would have to be based on open democratic debate and decision making. Some of those on the "left" use gangster methods, not just in relation to funding and punishment beatings, but also when it comes to political debate. Political disagreements are "settled" through violence. These methods are alien to the workers movement and can have no place in a broad based working class party.

Left Republicanism or Workers' Unity?
There is a danger that, if the new alliance which the SWP are trying to create around Eamonn McCann did develop at all, it would do so as a left republican formation. This would not be a step towards the emergence of a genuine party of the working class. Rather, because it could hold no attraction for Protestant workers, it would reinforce the political division among the working class and make the task of building a political organisation capable of attracting support among both Catholic and Protestant workers more difficult.

The whole history of the left in Northern Ireland shows that any organisation which abandons, postpones, or relegates socialist ideas and a socialist programme invariably tends to bend into one or other sectarian camp. The SWP have turned to the right and have opportunistically abandoned socialism in order to achieve "broad" unity with non-socialist forces.

Instead of socialist ideas McCann's literature says he is standing as a "left" and defines this as "anti-capitalist" and "anti -imperialist", but not socialist. The notion that "broad" unity can be achieved behind these general terms is nothing new in Northern Ireland.

This was the argument used by the right wing in the civil rights movement who attacked those, ironically like Eamon McCann, who argued for socialist and class ideas and rejected the general "broad" banner of "anti-unionist". Since then, the terms "anti-unionist" and "anti-imperialist" have been used by left groups as a cover for a broad Catholic alliance that has alienated Protestant workers.

The SWP have been part of this sorry history, supporting and advocating a vote for Sinn Fein up until the quite recent period, despite its sectarian nature and it‚s economic programme which, while it has become clearer, was fundamentally the same then as now.

The term "anti-imperialism", like "anti-unionist", if it is not put forward as part of a socialist programme, has a clear sectarian connotation in Northern Ireland. The "broad" unity this will attract will be unity of Catholic workers with Catholic sectarians who are not prepared to embrace socialist ideas.

This will particularly be the case if Eamon McCann uses arguments such as he used in an interview on The Blanket website during the Assembly elections: "All my political life I have wanted to see the Brits out as part of anti-imperialism. We no longer have a Brits-out party - it is now all down to an equality agenda and maximising representation within the existing constitutional arrangement."

The SWP's motivation in dropping explicitly socialist demands is not necessarily to court the republican "left". It is to cosy up to non-socialists in the Moslem and immigrant communities, pandering to the ideas of Islam as they are doing in Britain. But the effect, in Northern Ireland, will most likely to drive them even more firmly into the camp of left republicanism. In so far as they create anything, it is unlikely to be a formation that the trade unions, genuine community organisations or community campaigns could have anything to do with.

The Northern Ireland Labour Party
There has been no mass independent working class political party in Northern Ireland since the demise of the NILP in the early 1970s. A generation has passed since then. There is thus little consciousness of the need for such a party.

The Socialist Party (and its predecessor Militant) have long campaigned for the creation of a new mass party to represent the independent interests of working people. In the early 1970s we worked to push the NILP to the left and in particular argued that it should take up issues of repression and discrimination in a resolute and class-based way. Furthermore we argued that the NILP could not deal with the national question by ignoring it but instead must pose a class based alternative to the sectarian parties on either side. Unfortunately the NILP moved to the right and collapsed within a few short years.

It is largely forgotten now just how successful the NILP was. In 1962, it gained 62,175 votes in Belfast compared to 67,350 for the Unionist candidates. This vote represented 26% of the votes cast. The total left vote was 32.8% if other small left parties are added. It won 105,759 votes in the 1970 general election, but by the 1973 Assembly elections this had all been squandered and the NILP gained only 18,675 votes.

Militant members and many others on the left at the time formed the Labour and Trade Union Coordinating Committee (later the Labour and Trade Union Group) to keep alive the idea of a mass party. In the late 1970's and into the 1980s we campaigning vigorously for a Conference of Labour, involving trade unions, trade union branches, community groups and left groups in order to discuss the way forward for the working class.

These campaigns were not successful. The question is whether a new period is now opening up which will provide an opportunity to create a new mass party.

A new workers' party in Britain
The question of a left alternative to New Labour in Britain is being hotly debated among wider and wider circles of activists. A number of years ago, the Socialist Party in England and Wales drew the conclusion that the Labour Party, by then re-christened New Labour, was no longer a party that represented working men and women, even in a distorted fashion. Moreover the opportunities to reclaim the Party were receding dramatically as the influence of the unions and the constituency parties was curtailed and the annual conference was neutered.

In the late 1990s the SP in England and Wales formed the Socialist Alliance (SA) with a number of other left groups, as a tentative first step in the direction of a new mass left party. Initially the SWP ignored the SA but they later steam-rolled their way into the Alliance, sought to dominate it by force of numbers and held that it was the alternative to New Labour. We argued that such an approach would ultimately destroy the Alliance and we have been proven correct. Political groupings and independents have peeled away one after the other and now the SWP is using its numbers to wind up the SA against the wishes of most of the non-SWP forces that are still there.

In England and Wales, the Socialist Party has had more electoral success than any other force on the left. It has five council seats, including three in Coventry, where the Socialist Party gained 15% of the vote across 40% of the city wards at the last council elections. A more favourable electoral system would deliver a parliamentary seat for the Socialist Party on a vote of this size. Despite the space that has opened up to the left of New Labour very few other left forces have shown any capability to make an electoral impact. The SA has won one council seat only, in Preston. This was partly through the intervention of a local mosque. This seat has not yet been successfully defended.

Scottish Socialist Party
Our sister organisation in Scotland currently works to build the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP). It is important to note that the success of the SSP (six MSPs) was not an overnight phenomenon, and is certainly not based on the coming together of existing left wing parties alone. First and foremost it is based on solid campaigning work carried out over 15 years by Scottish Militant Labour (who led the anti-poll tax campaign) and the Scottish Socialist Alliance and is aided by an exceptionally favourable electoral system.

Scottish Militant Labour had six councillors elected in Glasgow in the early 1990's under a first past the post system. Today the SSP has only two councillors. This is not to play down the very real success of the SSP but to underline the point that its victories did not fall from the sky.

The Respect Coalition
Recently, a coalition of George Galloway, the SWP and various others has come together with the expressed intention of contesting the European and Greater London Assembly elections in June. It includes a number of prominent members of the Muslim community.

The Respect coalition is not standing on an expressly socialist platform, but is clearly opposed to the occupation of Iraq, globalisation and privatisation.

The Socialist Party was not invited to take part in the discussions which established Respect and has not joined but has offered to support it in the European and London Assembly elections, and asked it to support the Socialist Party when it contests elections. It is not clear at this time how Respect intends to respond to this approach.

It is doubtful whether Respect represents a step towards a new mass workers' party. Its lack of internal democracy is worryingly reminiscent of both Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party and the SWP dominated Socialist Alliance. Prior to the founding conference of Respect there were no real attempts made to discusss with rank and file trade unionists, anti-war activists and community campaigns. Instead Respect held a series of rallies at which its founders declared its aims and policies, in some cases without debate from the floor. Respect is in reality an electoral alliance for the European elections. George Galloway MP and founder of Respect, has raised the prospect of Respect playing a part in the process of reclaiming the Labour Party and has called on the trade unions to play a central role in this process. This is a mistake. Instead people like Galloway should be campaigning for the trade unions to break from New Labour and to play a role in establishing a new mass workers party.

Respect have also rejected the idea that elected representatives would live on the average weekly income of a worker - a workers' MP on a worker's wage. Socialist Party TD Joe Higgins, and our members in Britain who were previously MPs all lived on a workers' wage which we see as crucial in keeping elected representatives in touch with the working class communities they represent. Bizarrely the SWP argued against a proposal that Respect should stand for the abolition of the monarchy, the proposal was rejected!

Respect's move away from explicit socialism, as compared to the Socialist Alliance, in an attempt to be all things to everyone, is not the way forward. The idea behind Respect comes from a belief amongst its founders that a very broad "left" political formation could win support of people involved in the anti-war movement. Respect involves non socialists and middle class "liberals" and is consciously trying to make a political appeal to the middle class as well as the working class. The founders of Respect will campaign in the European elections for a "Social Europe", not a socialist Europe.

Success in the elections is possible but is far from a foregone conclusion despite George Galloway's predictions of one million votes. The European field is crowded with two more established "anti-war" parties, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, contesting the elections. Nevertheless Galloway may win a seat in the European Parliament.

The main forces for a new mass party in Britain will come from those who become involved in anti-cuts, anti-privatisation, hospital and other campaigns, from trade unionists in struggle, from the anti-globalisation and anti-war movements and to a much lesser extent, from existing socialist groupings. The Respect coalition it is not the new party that is needed.

A new party in the North
The Socialist Party has always taken the issues of putting down roots and of elections seriously. In the South, we have demonstrated how committed, campaigning work over many years can pay dividends on the electoral front. We have one TD in the Dáil, two council positions, and nearly won a second Dail seat at the last election in Dublin North. Our base in the communities in the North is very small, although we have demonstrated a real ability to attract the best trade union activists to our ranks.

The key to developing a new mass party is the moving into political struggle of new layers of workers and young people. The best recent example of how such a scenario might unfold in the North is the FBU (firefighters) dispute. As the strike developed the absolute contradiction between taking on the New Labour government industrially on the one hand whilst funding New Labour on the other was blindingly obvious. FBU candidates stood against New Labour in Scotland during the course of the dispute and there were tentative suggestions that the FBU in Northern Ireland should stand in elections here.

The question of standing candidates in elections has come up spontaneously in several recent struggles including those of the term time workers in the education sector and the airport workers.

Events in the unions are of vital importance. The RMT (railworkers union) has been expelled by New Labour because of its support for the SSP, although its leader Bob Crow has not called for disaffiliation from Labour and stated that he had sent the union's affliation cheque and it was up to Labour to decide whether to cash it or not. It is not excluded that the RMT will now lend support to Respect and to left and independent campaigning candidates. The FBU may break its links with New Labour at its conference in May. Debates continue in a number of other unions over the Labour link though no others are likely to break in the short term. Indeed the 3:1 vote against disaffiliation in BECTU (the broadcasting union) demonstrates that this is a huge step for any union to take and will not be taken lightly.

However, a line has now clearly been crossed. The historic link between the unions and the Labour Party is frayed, if not yet broken. The idea of supporting candidates apart from Labour has been posed. This is of great significance for the North. If the unions can take these steps in Britain, then why not take similar steps here.

Of less significance but also important, is the decision of both New Labour and the southern Labour Party to accept members here. These parties are both union linked. Most of the unions that back them are organised in the North. New Labour and the southern Labour Party will make no impact in the North. However traditionally the right wing leadership of the unions in the North have hidden behind a façade that the unions must remain non-political in order to protect unity in the work place. This argument holds less and less water if union backed parties are already here, it is a dent in their argument that can be used against them.

The victory of Kieran Deeney in the Assembly elections, and of Raymond Blaney in the last council elections, both standing on local hospital issues, demonstrates conclusively that candidates outside the sectarian mainstream can make an impact.

It will become more and more an organic component of any industrial dispute or serious community campaign to consider standing candidates in future elections. At some point this will happen, maybe slowly, occasional candidates, here and there. Or perhaps it will be a more generalised movement, developing quickly.

It is an historical fact that when working class people engage in industrial and political struggles that they clearly see the need to have political representation. The former mass parties of the working class - the labour and social democratic parties - came into being at times of heightened class struggle. In the latter part of the nineteeth and early part of the twentieth centuries, during the birth of the trade union movement, and a period of major class battles workers drew the conclusion than none of the establish parties represented their interests. They also saw that the battles they were fighting in the workplaces and on the streets for trade union recognition, for better wages, for reforms on health, housing and education would have a better chance of success if they had their own political party. As the great socialist and trade union leader Jim Larkin said the working class were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

Society today is very different to that historical period. However the working class face a neo-liberal assault from the right wing establishment parties and the bosses. More and more working class people will be forced into struggle against attacks on wages and working conditions, into defending the health service, fighting aAgainst privatisation, the imposition of water charges and so on. It is precisely during such struggles that working class people will draw the conclusion again that they need to build a new political party to defend and fight for their interests.

In Ireland North and South, the best contribution that can be made to the development of new mass parties of the working class at this time is to join and build the Socialist Party. The Socialist Party is playing a leading role in defending working class communities against the right wing attacks from Blair's New Labour and Bertie Ahern's Fianna Fail led coalition. The Socialist Party is to the forefront of industrial struggles in the North, and led the bin tax battles in the South. We cannot predict exactly how a new mass party will come into being. But we can say that the Socialist Party will play a fundamental role in bringing about its formation. Our aim would be that such a new party would be a broad federation in which we would co-operate with trade union and community activists and young people to build a socialist alternative to the capitalist parties.

by Goodnight Thu Apr 15, 2004 22:13

If you condensed that to about 200 - 250 words at most, then I might read it. I'm on 'dial-up' and really can't be bothered reading it as it is.

by militio Fri Apr 16, 2004 02:07

Just a couple of things - firstly, the "Uncivil Servant" is one of the most badly written pieces of drivel I have ever read in my life - and that includes the "Worker's Hammer". It is condesending to workers, takes on at times a completely liberal if not right-wing position, and tells little about the actual essence of the NIPSA dispute itself, reverting to tabloid-esque tactics (such like the Socialist Worker, although in a more apparent way) and slogans in order to put across a point that frankly veers from one side of the road to another. I feel ashamed to be involved in trade union activism when I read this garbage - at least other left groups seem to take the issue seriously, whereas their literature is concerned.

The other thing - it always gladdens my heart to hear Davy come out with pseudo-Marxist statements like "we have a world to win" and the like. Sadly, I get the feeling that the man has only read one paragraph of Capital and perhaps a book of Marxy-Leniny quotations in his entire life. Regardless of the SEA being an SWP front or not (and I will accept that it is not entirely, although there certainly is a huge influence there) it is certainly frightening that people like Carlin see such a group as some sort of progressive force in the fight against capitalism. What was all that about not working with the progessive capitalists? Broad movements, i.e fighting fascism - fair enough. Collaborating in a left-liberal party which has no basis amongst workers - that sincerely scares me. Perhaps some of the liberals upon these boards will criticise me for this, and that is fair enough - you people are not socialists. But at least I know who you are and what you stand for - the SWP wear a coat of many colours. Just take a look at the RESPECT coalition in England. Approximately 70% of those attending the inaugral conference were members of the SWP - they voted AGAINST pledging to stand on the average workers wage or to dissolve the monarchy! Of course, when Galloway (the SWP's new bedfellow by the looks of things - I certainly haven't heard much criticism regarding how crap the man actually is) was challenged regarding the average workers wage issue, he stated that he needed £150,000 a year to operate politically! Joe Higgins must be living in a bloody hobbit-hole!

Please, please, if you are in any way minded to revolutionary politics, do not listen to Davy Carlin or the SWP. It can be extremely bad for your political health.

by Good morning Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:52

It is well known that Davey and his comrades in Belfast are a different kettle of fish than the rest of the SWP. That is why people work with them. The account of the NIPSA dispute and the SEA and ARN in Belfast is correct. While the issue of support for SF and the old position on elections is correct this happened before most of the main members of the SWP in Belfast had become involved. Again we have the case that when lack of politics then people revert to personal attacks. Please please 'do not listen to Davey Carlin' says it all. While no fan of the SWP and before I am accused of being him the left should wise fucking up and be happy when we have some success.

by James Bell Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:09

militio
Now there’s no need to be disingenuous. Galloway said that he needed that amount of money cos he pays his staff out of his own pocket and he has a larger staff than most other MP’s. Surely when you are ‘being the media’ on Indymedia you should report THE truth, not just your truth. RESPECT has set out to be as broad as poss, so in order not to alienate people that would join something like RESPECT but not a revolutionary workers’ party, some of the motions that would befit a revolutionary workers’ party were voted against. If all the rest of the left think that RESPECT is not socialist enough or revolutionary at all, then why don’t they go and build this mass workers party that the workers are banging down the doors to join instead of whingeing (ad nausea) about the efforts of the left that want to engage with the movement.

by By Any Means Necessary Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:13

Good morning...says it all there are too many petty egos dividing the left , mascarading in the name of ideological correctness...the petty comments and personal back stabbing are what turns people away..I am no SWP member, but at least their members will get stuck in and get some work done and its deeds not words that people are judged on.

by Commie Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:43

I agree yes deeds not words
The NIPSA leadership have pissed of many workers by their timid approach and will most likely lose the workers the dispute because of it. Also the dispute is still on and as for the drivel of uncivil servant they lead the unofficial actions of thousands of workers.

I attended the Belfast SEA meeting and I seen most of the active left who are not in parties there. Spokesmen and women of many campaigns and many trade unionists and well respected community workers. The SP plastered the whole of Belfast weeks before with their posters for their public meeting you could not turn without seeing one. I even received e-mails about the meeting, as they advertised it on all of the Belfast campaign e- mail addresses. Campaigns I did not even know they where involved in! A dozen people tuned up. So yes it is about deeds not words as to which people will work with.

by Respect Fri Apr 16, 2004 13:04

Who gives a fuck about the british SWP and RESPECT. The swp in Belfast do not remotely Organise! like them THAT is why people work with them. They are the only part of their INTERNATIONAL that has some RESPECT with a history over the last few years of mobilising in local communities and in Belfast centre and working with other activists properly. RESPECT

by b Fri Apr 16, 2004 18:58

Why did the SWP split the left in NIPSA in the middle of this current civil service dispute?

What were the issues which led to the split?

Are the SWP denying that Time For Change (the largest, most recognised and left-wing rank and file grouping in NIPSA) played a significant role in mobilising walk-outs from other buildings in Belfast? Two of the speakers who addressed the demo and led walk-outs were organisers of Time For Change.

Why did the SWP/'Uncivil Servant' call on workers not to criticise the NIPSA leadership during the strike and asked workers to wait and take out their anger only in the general council elections?

What were the programmatical differences to justify Uncivil Servant candidates standing against Time For Change candidates, and leading to a victory for the right-wing?

by SP Member Fri Apr 16, 2004 20:23

Article copied and pasted from CWI Website. I did this as a result of a long pasted article from the SWP.

I suggest that you copy text from indymedia and paste it to a Word file and read it offline at your leisure. It is worth reading.

by E - SWP Fri Apr 16, 2004 22:10

Usually (very usually) I don't read the Weekly Worker the paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain, but the latest issue has a good interview to be fair to the CP with Michael Lavallette, an SWP member, elected as Socialist Alliance councillor and now running as a Respect euro candidate. It deals openly with the basis of the Respect coalition and its future after the elections in Britain, along with the issue of Respect candidates accepting an average workers wage etc.

Hopefully (I think) it will go some way to allaying peoples concerns over these issues.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/524/08lavalette.html

by Goodnight again Sat Apr 17, 2004 00:27

I have better things to be doing when I'm offline that reading volumes of that stuff. My point was that people would communicate better if they were concise and did not waffle. Anything that needs to be said can be said in a couple of hundred words.

by Andy Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:13

However, what I do know

Did 'Time for change' play any role in initiating the initial walkouts when the deal was imposed. Which lead as said above the Northern Ireland minister to condemn branch eight. NO, none whatsoever, they were initiated by uncivil servant, which seen walkouts from Belfast to L/Derry

Did they speak on the circulating megaphone [s] at the second one - yes. Did they bring some workers out on the second one, yes they did at the time arranged by uncivil servant activists. They seen the first action lead by uncivil servant activists and had no alternative but to play a part in the second. Again shows how the rank and file can move the more conservative elements into action.

Although albeit a late participation, it nevertheless was to be welcomed. Yet it should be said that the strength of the various branches [rank and file or other] could be seen clearly that day on the participation and branch support from their members.


The difference is well explained by Davey. The uncivil servant wishes to build strong activist based branches while 'Time for change' main focus is on elections. The difference is the matter of top down or bottom up. Uncivil servant is for bottom up change. That was why management directed all its initial weaponry at Branch eight and uncivil servant activists. That was why they initially went in for the jugular of branch eight and uncivil servant. , to attempt to cut of the head of the strikes most militant activists. Of course they can deal with the selective action decided by the Civil Service executive on which the SP/Time for change sit. But leading unofficial walkouts, calls for all out strike action to win and a rising militant rank and file group winning growing support and action for its calls. Well that' s another thing altogether.

And you ask, what is the difference? Well I thought that would be plainly obvious.

by Trade Unionist Sat Apr 17, 2004 15:17

The left and right of NIPSA have been locked in a battle for control of the union for some time. The recent elections were an opportunity for the left to gain the upper hand.

The SWP (and a few close allies) proceeded to split from the established left organisation, TIme for Change, and to stand their own candidates against it. Time for Change is the biggest and best organised left group in any union in Ireland - something that left activists in pretty much every other union look towards with a degree of envy.

Time for Change (despite the antics of the SWP and co.) increased its representation to nine on the executive. Other TfC candidates were defeated by a tine number of votes. No candidate from the SWP and co. slate was elected. The split did however allow the right to maintain a small majority.

Now we get all this empty bluster from the SWP to cover their tracks in what was one of the most disgraceful acts of petty sectarianism seen for some time. Sadly such behaviour is all too typical as anyone who remembers Des Derwins recent experience could tell you.

by Trotwatch Sat Apr 17, 2004 16:00

but I am not surprised. The SWP is the SWP is the SWP.

by Andy Sat Apr 17, 2004 16:03

You still don't understand. It may be the largest but as you know size does not matter. You keep talking about elections. OK I will put it in simple terms. Time for change = in the main looking to elections to bring change = from the top down. Uncivil Servant = looking to build strong activist lead branches from below = bottom up.

This is not sectarian but a difference in the way we organise. I don't agree and do not believe 'Time for Change' can deliver from on top as do a growing number of other activists .Therefore why support that that we now know cannot deliver? A bit like trying to change the labour party from within or choosing to provide a radical alternative. The broad lefts focus on elections over many years as Davey says now sees the failure of that strategy at a most important time. This because nothing was built on the ground, we aim to do that.There were and are a growing layer of activists who will not sit back and see the conservative forces lose us this fight, from where ever the come. That is why uncivil servant lead the actions, that is why we are the strongest voice for all out action to win.That is why management put all their initial attention against us.

It is the most militant workers that are joining uncivil servant. Why, because we showed the way of how we can win and showed with thousands of others that we are prepared to fight. That was what frightened magagement thus their initial actions against us. The facts of the dispute speak for themselves. I am sorry though that you to have to revert to type by calling me a sectarian swine. I answered a query raised and maybe you may not have liked people knowing the facts of the dispute. Who Knows? So rather than revert to type deal with the situation at hand. We have differences on how we believe we can win. We believe that 'Time for changes' strategy will not deliver real change and a more especially the way in which we can win. Uncivil servants actions and the support for them speaks for itself.

by Trade Unionist Sat Apr 17, 2004 16:21

As was pointed out above, the Time for Change group came out of the experience of a real struggle - the victorious campaign of the term time workers. It isn't now and never has been in favour of a top down solution and its activists have a record in action second to none.

Time for Change stands in elections, but its members are well aware that such change alone won't be enough to fundamentally transform the union. The SWP group also stands in union elections - even they can see that you can't just leave the union structures in the hands of the bureaucracy. The difference is that Time for Change actually have some success in those elections.

For all the bluster this was a straightforward example of standard issue SWP sectarianism. No different at its core than what the SWP did at the same time in SIPTU when it stood its own weaker candidate against Des Derwin and no different to what it has done on a whole series of other occasions within the trade unions (see for example the election before last for Unison General Secretary in Britain).

Wait. I forgot. There is a difference. On those other occasions the SWP succeeded only in embarassing itself. This time it succeeded in consigning 40,000 trade unionists to another period of control by the entrenched bureaucracy.

Nice one "comrades".

by Jim P. Sat Apr 17, 2004 16:30

How typical of the SWP. Pull a stunt like that and when it backfires spread lies about the people you tried to screw. Remember all the bullshit Commander Wingnut was talking about Des Derwin here when Des had the cheek to complain about the SWP screwing him over? Now Time for Change get the same treatment.

by 3rd Sun Apr 18, 2004 13:20

I find it interesting that when SP supporters write of the facts of the situation in Northern Ireland, and when they talk about the SWP. That when SWP supporters attempt to respond to this they get the same old response. Davey gives an accurate account of the NIPSA dispute and the first response is personal attacks, not a political response. An SP supporter then posts up an account taken of their website and also questions are asked about Uncivil servant. Both points in part, to the best of a person’s ability have attempted to been addressed. The SP supporters may not like the actuality of the answer so rather than attempt to address the facts of the situation. They again turn to personal attacks of ‘Sectarian swine’. The Uncivil Servant supporter has stated that ‘why should they support something they no longer think can deliver’. It is very clear while following the ongoing dispute that Uncivil servant has a completely different strategy to that of ‘Time for change’ as to how to build within NIPSA and to win the dispute. Both set of actions as raised above have shown that.

Then we see the next tactic of looking at the Des Derwin issue. So we see the SWP are the SWP are the SWP posted. But to anyone looking on, ‘clutching at straws’ comes to mind. While they ‘the SP’, may, or may not have realised by now that personal attacks against such activists are counter productive. They now have attempted to use one situation as a comparison with another. So as has been debated before on Indymedia that the SWP tried to put up an unknown against a well known left candidate. If true, then I would say that was wrong to do, but to try and make comparisons with that and the uncivil servant is the differences between night and day. Uncivil servants have supporters in various NIPSA work places. They have key and leading activists within various NIPSA branches. Uncivil servant is also at the lead of the Northern Ireland Civil services largest, most militant, strongest and best-organised workplace. They initiated the unofficial walkouts and gained the support of thousands of civil servants. It has been the uncivil service activists in the main interviewed and pictured at crucial times in Northern Ireland TV, radio and newspapers, for their response during such actions. - As even the media knew who was to the lead of such actions. - It has been the uncivil service activists who the government and management went against as said, to attempt to cut of the head of the most militant part of the dispute. The uncivil servant is well known, well respected and well supported, as has been shown. It though, and the real difference is that it does not believe that their strategy will deliver.

The issue as had been raised is a difference in the way forward. It was raised above a comparison about working within labour or creating a new radical alternative. While Time for Change would not be like New labour, nevertheless in a real sense there is a growing layer of new activists emerging to the left of Time for Change. Time for Change sees this but some do not wish to acknowledge it, ‘as they are the left’. But realise they must, that these activists see time for change as a more conservative element of the left given the situation to date. The SP may not like this after their many years building in the main an electoral base in NIPSA. But times change and sometimes it is good when an old cage that has been happily hanging it its same routine position for eternity is rattled as has been shown with these new emerging activists. Time for change has in the past had a success but its direction now is not someting many want to be a part of. Again its a case of not wanting to be part of someting that you believe cannot deliver. The alternative is to work with the new layer of miltant activists, many non SWP who want to be part of a bottom up group. Simply, if people do not believe that an organisation they may have been part of cannot deliver or has moved elsewhere then there will be some that will leave. Some become dis - illusioned others look to build an alternative like uncivil servant that many are now looking to and becoming involved in. As an alternative that they believe has a chance of delivering

I am sure many persons can see personal attacks as the lack of politics it shows. I am sure that such persons who want the facts of the issue told will not revert to words of ‘sectarian swine’. Unlike that unfortunately of those who may not want anything other that their facts fed to their supporters. Davey gives an accurate account of the dispute to date and it shows the differences in strategy. He shows how the focus over the years in the main on elections has shown in the fullest of light the weakness in that strategy. As nothing was built on the ground. More importantly it showed even as that very senior left union official acknowledged, as did government and management who moved immediately against uncivil servant activists. That the uncivil servant strategy in its supported militant actions. As well as the ever growing numbers listening to its calls for all out action, was dangerous. Dangerous as unlike the continued Civil Service Executive/ SP - time for change, called selective action. That it would and did not only bring real militancy into the civil service. But more important for government and management the uncivil servants calls for all out strike actions with this growing militancy may very well if taken up would win NIPSA the dispute. So I say both may have differences in strategy and people would be able to read through the personal abuse and whatever. With that people can come to their own understanding of what they see as a strategy that may win.

Finally although on many issues both groups I hope could and should work together.

On elections though. One of the reasons that the SP would not form an electoral alliance with the SEA was that is was not a socialist enough platform. So I hope they can understand that Uncivil Servant ‘young militants’ may not wish to form and ‘electoral alliance’ with Time for Change. This though also does not always come down to solely programme differences, as activists are well aware. I hope that on many other issues that the left continue to work together. More importantly that we continue to work together to win this dispute. As seen there are differences on how each believe we can win, through workers actions lead from below or from the continued selective action called from above. While we can both work our positions lets at least though both work together on issues we can find agreement on.

by Idenitifier Sun Apr 18, 2004 15:36

For fuck sake Davy, when are you going to learn that your semi-literate rantings are instantly recongisable regardless of the psuedonym you use?

Just how many fictitious identities do you feel the need to use on this site? Do you really think that readers are going to be fooled by a parade of new names above the same old rubbish?

by SWP are sectarians Sun Apr 18, 2004 15:43

The fact is that the SWP by standing against 'time for change' in the NIPSA elections cost the left the majority. This is a prime example of pure sectarianism on the part of the SWP, they care more about building their own party than building a left in the trade unions. People may remember their antics at the SIPTU VP election when by standing against Des Derwin they came within a handful of votes of denying the left a candidate.

what really makes me pissed of is then the SWP have the bare faced cheek to lecture the SP and other gorups like the ISN and WCA about 'left unity'.

by voter Sun Apr 18, 2004 16:11

A headline on the SWp site reads
"EUROPEAN & LOCAL ELECTIONS 2004: VOTE SOCIALIST!"

Why don't the SWP use the slogan 'vote Socialist Worker' afterall they are the SOCIALIST WORKERS party NOT the Socialist Party??

Maybe they are opportunistically trying to cheat voters into thining they are connected to Joe Higgins and the SP?

i think the SWP legal advisors should note that it is actually illegal for election candidates to mislead voters into thinking you are in a party that you are not.

by Uncivil Servant - www.uncivilservant.tk Sun Apr 18, 2004 20:56 uncivil.servant at ntlworld dot com

You talk talk about the Uncivil Servant as a front for the SWP, when only one member of the Uncivil Servant is in the SWP...

4 stood in the general council elections, only one was a SWP member. Uncivil Servant is not lead by the SWP...

I will tell you why i am apart of the Uncivil Servant.

I believe that to truely take control of NIPSA is to build at grass roots

something that is not being led by a political party

in unity is strength

why i will not support Time for Change....

TfC made all these promises, however when in 2002 they had more candidates elected than the 'right wing'... no great changes where made.... nothing changed at all, the following year 'Reclaim Your Union' took control again becasue people realised TfC did nothing....

i was at a few TfC meetings, where all the talk about was elections, how bad they did, nothing about why they did bad... election machine was brought up.... oh no we are not an election machine...... wake up thats all TfC where able to do... when you have candidates they don't even bother to go out drumming for support then no wonder you don't get voted.

the Split in TfC was a long time coming....... it was badly organised...... no agenda's for meetings....... no struture........

well enough about them, lets get down to what its really about......

civil servants are low paid and deserve better pay......... deserve to be treated like humans..

TfC (SP) or SP (TfC) what to blame Uncivil Servant for their failings....... well they should look within.......

and one more thing... uncivil servant did send out around Branch 8 a slate for general council, which did include some TfC candidates.............

by Union Leftist Sun Apr 18, 2004 22:26

Why is anyone even bothering to argue with Davy and his hundred aliases?

I mean, ok, the SWP and their small number of allies did manage to hand the right wing control of the largest union in the north and I can understand why that will wind people up, but really they aren't worth the hassle. This shit is just their usual behaviour. Anyone who has ever been an activist in a union and who has ever been involved in trying to build a serious left in their union will know the score.

Des Derwin and the other people who have been really trying to build a left in SIPTU have probably lost count of the number of SWP controlled "rank and file initiatives" that have appeared and then disappeared just as suddenly in that union. Their only impact has been to complicate the building of a real rank and file body. You don't even have to get into their antics in standing against Des in the most recent officer elections to make the point. Can anyone even tell me what the name of the current SWP front in SIPTU is, or are we in one of the lulls between fronts?

The people who have been involved in the painstaking work that has gone into CPSU Activist - the strongest union left in the south - could probably bore us to tears with accounts of fly by night SWP backed "rival" left bodies that have briefly appeared there whenever the SWP think that they can make some gains for their party. And so what if that causes damage to the left? They have recruiting to do!

So the SWP were involved in a minor split from the strongest union left in the north. Does that come as a surprise to anyone? Is anyone really naive enough to be shocked? So this time they managed to do some real damage by allowing the right wing to keep control of the union executive. I can see why that would annoy people - but come on we are talking about the SWP here. This kind of shit is just what they do.

I have to say that for the most part I actually admire the restraint of the people involved in Time for Change about this. They led the biggest industrial dispute the north has seen for more than a decade to victory. They built a strong union left out of that experience, one which almost uniquely on this island is actually in a position to seriously challenge the bureaucracy. And then a few punters, pushed by the SWP, launch a little split the only impact of which is to hand control of the executive to the bureaucrats for another year. I would understand it if this site was filled with rants about that kind of stupidity yet in fact the first time anyone lost their cool enough to actually bring up these antics was when Davy Carlin had the cheek to come here and smear them. Still, what's the point? The likes of Davy and his hundred identities are beneath notice.

by TFC (personnal capacity) Sun Apr 18, 2004 23:39

This is a very important subject and worthy of quite a major discussion. I would like to make some small points that may help things along.

NIPSA is the biggest union in the north organising in both the Civil and Public sector, it has a membership of 40,000 roughly split 55% CS and 45% PS.

The union has low but increasing local activity levels (though probably not bad in comparsion to other unions).

There have been few major struggles by NIPSA members in the last 15 years a certain development of struggles has begun to appear but it is still not general.

TFC grew out of a development of struggles by Classroom Assistants around term time issues and the reaction to the efforts of the right wing to stop that struggle.

TFC development has been in fits and starts mainly due to it reflecting the real level of activity in the union.

TFC has consistantly argued for an approach of building on the ground at a branch level and has played a role in all the key disputes in NIPSA recent history.

TFC is clear that it is vital that elections are fought to take control away from the right wing at the tops of the union.

Throughout the Civil Service dispute TFC has argued for an escalation of the dispute beyond the level of partial selective action and for all member strike action.

TFC has fully supported the walkouts in DSD and happly accepts the very important role played by the CSA branchs in those walk outs.

TFC is a broad based organisation with activists from across the union.

In short TFC has played a role in the early stages of a redevelopment of struggles. TFC itself has reflected these developments it is an important but not perfect organisation that has the potential to become a major factor in NIPSA.

by NIPSA member Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:30

as pointed out by Uncivil Servant Time For Change, did have control in 2002, so what did they achieve, i will wait for your answer before i decide on who i should back, to regain control from the right.

by Badman Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:47

Or are there just an enormous number of Civil servants in the north who have the same opinions as he does and the same bizzare writing stlye?

by The real Dave. Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:50

So personal attacks, sectarian attacks, the comparison with Des and now , fronts and Davy 'smearing' activists with his hundred identities? {These are the same 'activists' Davy says above that he has respect for} So we get the usual re action but hey what’s new.

Jesus for every time Davy has been accused of having done this, or having written that he 'sorry I? would be a rich man. Just to note Davy as alleged did not post this on, as it was for the Blanket, and Davy as alleged has not got many alias’s. In fact it is well known the two pen names he writes under as he uses them on other sites. Although others have at times used those same names or his 'rambling' style.
.
Whether or not the SP like the situation or not has little effect on matters or to the bigger scale of things in the North. An accurate account of the Dispute to date has been given and Davy of course would expect such a backlash. Water of a ducks back to him, sorry me, as the man says. Non party, and those who think for them selves within them, now have an accurate account of the dispute. This is important as we constantly learn lessons while being part of the movement and such activists can make up their own minds on such important issues. They can only do this when armed with all the facts. So they now at least have both sides of the story to enable them to do that although they may have to wade past some of the abuse at times .Just a few points below.

Firstly It is good to see the more rational elements of time for Change putting their points as above and would agree that debate is needed.

It also should be noted that like the ARN who have three activists of the SWP involved, the Uncivil Servant has only one SWP activist actively involved but, the 'union leftist' above comes out not only with the smear allegation but its an SWP FRONT'. This does tend to get boring after a while. I suggest in future look for the facts and provide the evidence before coming out with the usual spiel. If you want to look at fronts then if only one SWP member is involved in Uncivil servant and if Time for Change is SP dominated and controlled is that not a front? No, not if your an SP member it isn't, 'union leftist'


I must say though that of course there is a difference between the Des issue and this. Not only has the uncivil servant activists shown that they can lead mass militant walkouts and that they have the combined support of thousands of workers within NIPSA, as stated. Some of their supporters in NIPSA have also recently been to the forefront of organising mass mobilisations in Belfast outside of the workplace on different issues, with also a history of mobilising communities. In fact some of their members and supporteres are not only recognised as leading activists within NIPSA but also within working class communities, and some are even regarded as some of the leading activists on the left around the North. Therefore going from personal attacks and sectarian attacks to attempting a comparison of uncivil servant ‘with the situation of Des and a relative unknown’ will be seen by most as it should be seen.

If such serious activists believe that Time for Change cannot bring change as it is. Then it is better that they provide an alternative. Let's not forget as was raised above that in 2002 Time for change where in the majority and little change came. So the next year they where voted out and the right came back in as members seen little of the change that was promised. Therefore in 2004 activists had a choice more of the same as in 2002 or provide a radical alternative. Some agreed that they no longer wanted more of the same but wanted something different that will fight for its members and actively build strong grassroots branches. Thus the Uncivil Servant. The SP can say what they like and call people what they want, but it was members who voted them out last year as they did not deliver on their promises. Time for Change concentration is on elections, so when they lose they have nothing else there. They have not built strong branches and they did not do the footwork by going out looking for support. So having lost they look around for blame. I suggest they start looking on the inside rather that pointing at the outside for such failure.



In a completely different situation I remember people condemning Nader for ‘losing’ the Democrats the election. Many understood that Nader did not lose them the election but the democrats lost it themselves as many looked for an alternative to reflect their aspirations, which they believed the democrats would not deliver. Again they also did little when in the majority, people and members remember that. The Democrats also looked outside for 'the problem' as to why they lost.

So I agree, why would such activist’s stay in something they believed would not deliver, and did not deliver when in the majority? Why should such activists ask their supporters to vote for and campaign for more of the same?These are activists who are developing a network of the most militant activists who see strong rank and file bottom up grassroots branches as the priority. With that they then actively set out to build them. These are activists who agitate and mobilise within both their workplaces and local communities. These are activists who are to the forefront of, and have lead in recent times mass militant actions and mobilisations of Catholic and Protestant workers, both in workplaces and in local working class communities. These are the activists who are involved in or support Uncivil Servant

I remember at the second walkouts when CSA marched many hundreds strong. Everyone was asking who they where due to their strength of numbers. . Again this is giving the facts and again some may not like to hear this. It is though raised as hopefully genuine activists including those within Time for Change can take lessons from this.

.Therefore CSA and other uncivil servant supporters showed that they had the rank and file respect from their workplaces and could deliver. So if these kind of leading activists who have lead by example believe that an alternative is needed then many will support them, as they have shown leadership through deed. This in the NIPSA workplace and also in working class communities. . This continued civil service executive on - off approach will erode support rather than garter it. I would agree though that when ever possible that the left should try to work together. So good luck to uncivil servant, as sometimes, as has been said, change is needed although not only in the organisational sense, especially given the new emerging activists and movements.

Fianlly the SP or their supporters can continue the attacks if they feel they must, as its water of a ducks back to the man, and genuine activist can look past that. What the important thing is, and what has been shown, is that a bottom up grassroots network of activists is needed. Not only in NIPSA, but in all workplaces and in all working class communities, to begin together to attempt to bring real changes.

By the way the uncivil servant have a website up and running, worth look.

by rd Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:58

Badman is probably the most political commentator I have ever read. I await his imput on such important Debates with Bated breath.

by Davy's biggest fan Mon Apr 19, 2004 13:45

The Incredible Davy and his Million Names return once again. I love it when the great man speaks of himself in the third person. Just like Julius Caesar but better!

Davy: You perfectly sum up the mixture of sectarianism and self-delusion that the SWP is so fond of. Never change, my friend, you are a guide and teacher to us all.

by RD Mon Apr 19, 2004 14:46

Although the last comment had nothing in it I did like the great man, a guide, and a teacher bit, but so ends the Debate.

PS just two pen names actually {there was a third but as it was regularly being used by others he no longer uses it} and most would be acutely aware as to why he has to use them at times.

Good debate in most part.

by Geoff Cowden - Uncivil Servant Mon Apr 19, 2004 14:51

I am just going to write a few words in reply to SP members comments. I have included my name as I don't like hiding behind pseudonyms or little tag names as so many of you do on this site. Anyway as one of the people included for election in the "uncivil servant" I resent the implication that I am a member of one of your little socialist cliques. I am not nor have I ever been a member of the SWP, SP or any other party. I AM A WORKER and as a member of NIPSA I must say that I am sick of all the little parties having a go at each other in forums like this. I got involved in the "Uncivil Servant" because it is time for a proper "rank and file" movement that will try to involve workers across the whole membership. I again reiterate that I am not a member of SWP, SP etc and am purely acting in the interests of NIPSA members like myself. The comments about the "Uncivil Servant" splitting the vote and allowing the right wing to get elected are also a little annoying to me. Yes some of us were 200 votes off being elected but Time for Change elected not to give any of their votes to us to end the right wing clique which is in charge so they have in a way perpetuated this right wing victory. Would they rather have us or the right wing elected, well they made their choice. I would also like to ask how many time for change leaflets have been issued since the industrial action started that have not included something about elections. I may stand to be corrected on this but I have seen none, if however there have been some however I will apologise in advance as I am not going to become embroiled in one of these tit for tat exchanges of views when I could be using my time better in other areas. Remember I am writing this as a working class person and not a party member so lets all get our acts together and remember that the only way to win this fight is to STRIKE. The views I have stated here are not necessarily those of the rest of my colleagues at the "Uncivil Servant".

by Another tagname Mon Apr 19, 2004 15:37

Geoff once more:

The SWP/Uncivil Servant quite deliberately split the left vote. You had no hope of making a serious impact in those elections, yet you stood anyway damaging the chances of the real union left body which was fighting to remove the right wing. Your actions resulted in the control of the union executive by the right wing bureaucracy for another year.

If I was you I would be taking a long hard look at myself rather than attacking other at this point.

by Geoff Cowden - Uncivil Servant Mon Apr 19, 2004 16:12

You seem to have problems understanding what I am saying. I am a working class person not affiliated to any parties and I have the strength of conviction to put my name on my correspondence instead of sniping from behind a pseudonym. I am stating that if you are from one of the "socialist parties" i.e. SWP, SP or others in which the "S" invariably stands for socialist, why then can you not agree on anything. A simplistic view, yes but I know and have talked to people in all of these parties and cannot for the life of me understand why there are these petty (in my opinion) squabbles when you should all be getting together to fight the real enemies. All these parties have (again in my opinion) already been divided and conquered. If however you are not writing from the perspective of one of these parties but as a member of time for change then what have you achieved since 2002? I can see no major difference. How many people from the AO/AA grade were on your slate. I am not saying that there is no place for people above this grade but there should certainly be a place for what is the majority grade of workers. These are the people and I include myself here, who are not being listened to by our right wing compadres on our various committees. Time for change is not an organisation that I belonged to so I did not split with it, I again state that I am not a member of the SWP and in fact there is only one member on the committee who is and I resent the allegation that I would be led by anybody on any subject. I am old enough now to make my own decisions. In my opinion anyone who is a member of one of these parties is just in another form of institution and an institution is the lengthened shadow of one person. So if tagname is a member of one of these parties remember that you are the one who is being told how to think and not me. Maybe you should think for yourself once in a while and not toe the party line. Again these opinions are my own and not influenced by anyone else. Cheers

by Brian Stewart - Uncivil Servant Mon Apr 19, 2004 16:21

Another Tagname....... you make a valid point stop attacking others, which you quoted to Geoff

I have a problem with that, why o' why are you then attacking Uncivil Servant. I was never a member of TFC i am not a member of SWP.

I want to be involed in a faction that can and will make a difference at grass roots, starting with the workers (which i am). I find it strange that because i don't believe in TFC (who i did vote in 2002 and 2003) that i split the vote of the 'Left'. Like many of us in the Uncivil Servant, we have no ties/links or influences from SWP.

We are active members looking for something different to TFC should we go to the 'Right'?.. nah thats out of the question, should we continue to vote for candidates that we do not believe could win our struggles?... nah, we decided the best thing to do was give people something to believe in. Ok we did not get a seat on general council... thats not what we are about.... we want to build a 'rank and file' group that can mobilise whenever we are attacked by management, like we did when the pay offer was imposed on 28 Nov 03 when flexi was suspended on 04 feb 04, we walked out the next day as it was too late in the afternoon to do it that day.

however you will not believe anything we say because you cannot believe a faction in NIPSA can not be brought about unless its the 'right' or being lead by the SWP... you believe that the SP's TFC is the only answer...

why don;t you learn what we are about before you start attacking us, because like all of you SPers its your way or the highway

by RD -Finally Mon Apr 19, 2004 17:19

One for the road

Geoff no point mate, you are banging your head against a brick wall when it comes to the Northern SP. Genuine activists though can see clearly the differences in the different strategies and make up their own mind. As did members who seen no change, when time for Change did not bring change, when in a majority. That’s why they booted them out the following year. I suppose as all their candidates including all the SP were executive level or above in the civil service it is a bit worrying. Nevertheless Geoff, for the SP it is not solely a matter of - if 'you' did not see any real change when they were in the majority in 2002 . Or even not solely a matter if the poorest of members did not see real change. It is about as the man says, they, 'the real union left body' and their right to be so. Saying that they do hold genuine and good left activists but their direction is usually dictated by a party {democratic centralism} and more importantly a leader that I hold serious problems with and who holds that old left leader 'mindset'.

Therefore such a mindset will not comprehend any challenge to that 'real left union body' no matter if they have delivered or not. Therefore as they did not, common sense for members would be to seek a new alternative or vote for some one else. Therefore common sense has prevailed. For them {Time for change -SP lead and donimated} it should have been to see where they had went wrong as so to improve. For the mindset though it will not be a case of 'well lets look at we have done wrong and try to improve and deliver'. But will be a situation of looking around for a scapegoat as to blame others as to why they did not deliver. A serious case of rather than dealing with the reality they in fact create and attempt to live in their own wee reality {Mindset}. I have found that many such people in such parties would be like that due to the nature of the party, but not all.

Therefore I tend to just let the facts speak for themselves as the activists who think for themselves know the crack.

PS it does not matter if there is just one SWP activist on the commitee {which is the case}, it would not matter if there were none and just one person on a whole committee instead bought Socialist Worker. To some it would be SWP front SWP front SWP front {probably not re - programmed yet}. As said the facts speak for themselves, and for me I am confident that genuine activists now provided with both sides can make up their own mind . Even if they come to a decision that I would disagree with at least I know that they came to that decision armed with all the facts, which is better than has been previous. I do hope though that all activists can begin to find common ground and work together on issues that matter while making the issue the priority . As Davy me?, says - Signing of.

Keep up the good work in uncivil servant.

by NIPSA member Mon Apr 19, 2004 19:57

Oh I quite agree that left inclined union members will indeed make their own judgement on both Time for Change and the SWP/Uncivil Servant. In fact they have already begun to do so.

We have already had a set of executive elections. Left inclined union members increased the representation of the Time for Change left body to nine. They neglected to put a single member of the SWP or the Uncivil Servant on the body.

by Another NIPSA member Mon Apr 19, 2004 20:14

yeah they increased from 7 to 9 about about the year before when they went down from 13 to 7.

SP/TFC seem to not acknowledge they lost seats in 2003 and they made no changes to NIPSA in their term in 2002

by Information Provider Mon Apr 19, 2004 20:24

Civil Service pay dispute - Escalate to win!


Civil servants are determined to continue their industrial action over pay. Three months into the action the Government are still sticking to their 0% increase which, in reality, represents a pay cut.
By Paul Dale, Civil Service Executive Committee NIPSA (personal capacity)

This has provoked widespread anger among civil servants, many of whom are on poverty wages. The action that has been called so far has been solid and has had an impact.

There have been selective strikes across most Departments, with benefits' offices, the office of industrial tribunals, the Child Support Agency and the MOT centres just some of the services that have been affected.

NIPSA members know that there is a great deal at stake in this dispute. It is not just a question of the 2003 rise but potentially of future rises. In the background is the threat announced in the budget to cut tens of thousands of UK civil service jobs which is a warning as to what may happen to the Northern Ireland Civil Service in the future.

This is why New Labour cannot be allowed to win this dispute. There can be no retreat. Instead the action must be maintained and intensified in order to bring about a victory.

The selective action, the overtime ban and the ban on the use of cars are biting. But on their own they are not likely to put enough pressure on the government to come up with a decent offer. Many members are concerned that the action has already dragged on too long. There is a danger that, if it is not escalated, it could lose momentum and members could become disillusioned.

This is why Socialist Party members on the Civil Service Executive Committee of NIPSA are arguing that the action should be stepped up immediately. There should be more selective action hitting more services and for longer periods. This should be linked to an escalating programme of strike action involving all civil service members. Dates should be set for one day and two day strikes building to an all out strike if the more limited action does not succeed.

It is difficult for any group of workers to take action and feel they can win on their own. The Fire Brigades Union, drawing on the lessons of their own dispute where, apart from financial backing from NIPSA, they were left largely to fight on their own, have given a lead by giving financial and moral support. Members of the PCS, the main civil service union in Britain are currently also involved in industrial action over pay.

PCS members in a number of Departments will be on strike on 13 and 14 April. NIPSA should attempt to co-ordinate future strike days with the PCS so that there is the maximum impact and maximum pressure on the government.

by RD Mon Apr 19, 2004 20:49

Return for clarification

NIPSA member I mean executive in the sense that all the SP candidates held executive managerial positions at work. No representatives of the majority of 'workers' were put forward, you know the Administration workers, the low paid. You know the workers whose immediate bosses are the TFC and SP candidates. Even a few token candidates from the majority of workers and the lowest paid I would have thought the 'rank and file' TFC would have put forward. As if!

So the TFC change increased its representation to nine. And what?. In 2002 they held the majority and delivered nothing that’s why they lost the majority. I think you need to actually read the debate.

Take of the aul blinkers! as the man says.

Information provider, a bit late for that. Deeds not words echos around NIPSA.

Good website uncivil servant and your deeds and organisation will help a rapid growth of more of the best militants of the left into your ranks in the short time ahead. Will be looking a few membership forms on return to work. A few E -mails

by TFC (personnal capacity) Mon Apr 19, 2004 20:57

Good to see the debate continuing. I would like to deal with a few more points.

A question has been raised over the level of activity of TFC and its production of material. TFC has produced 37 news letters since January, 5 or six leaflets distributing approx 19,000 copies and has produced a draft programme.

TFC has established a web site
http://uk.geocities.com/timeforchangeinnipsa/index.htm

TFC leaflets have consistantly called for an escalation of the current civil service disputeas the best way to win, as have TFC activists in all forums.
The following points are taken from the last TFC leaflet distributed at an activist meeting in Armagh.

1 Get regular information out to members.

2 Organise regular meetings of members and activists.

3 Link with PCS

4 Maintain the overtime ban

5 Clarify and strengthen the work to rule

6 Bring in the strike levy

7 Intensify widespread selective action.

8 Call effective, all member, escalating strike action

TFC has taken the traditional left position in NIPSA of supporting the right for all political opinions to be expressed, over the years the left has had to defend this right.

TFC is a broad based activists group no one organisation dominates either organisationaly or in numbers.

TFC did not make sufficient impact in the first year it achieved election sucess, this was for a number of reasons not least that TFC was a very loose group of activists who had recently emerged in responce to the attacks of the right but where operating in a situation where the level of struggle by members was not generalised.
Even in this situation TFC activists where involved in every dispute and struggle fought by union members in NIPSA and TFC represented a real chalange to the control of the right wing for the first time in years.

Everyone involved in TFC recognises its weaknesses but we think that it represents the best oppertunity to change NIPSA for the better. To do so it must learn from mistakes, broaden, develop and concentrate its fire on the employers.

by BK - independent socialist, former SWP Mon Apr 19, 2004 23:01

...is worth more than the entire northern operation of the Socialist Party, grammatical warts and all. Unlike the SP, which likes to claim ownership of every incident of working class resistance in the north (they claimed at the time to have led the walkouts over Danny McColgan's murder), Davy Carlin--like every other member of the SWP I've ever met or worked with--is consistently honest about their party's contribution, is willing to acknowledge the work of others (including the SP, even when it at its most sectarian--and it can be VERY sectarian); and is genuinely committed to building rank and file resistance in the unions regardless of whether they exert any kind of organizational control: they'll want to (and should) have their say, but won't panic when non-party rank-and-filers take the initative, as SP would definitely do. And one other thing: they do the work that needs doing to get things done, backing their words with action, as any honest activist will acknowledge.

The SP hacks out here, fearful that the sharp decline of their organization in the north in recent years is about to find its culmination in rank-and-file desertion from TfC, want to claim that Unciivil Servant is an SWP 'Front." That's fucking rich, coming from a party that refuses to work in any coalition/alliance that it does not itself control. (Anyone remember their antics at the Student Sit-Ins around the war last year, when their leadership, frustrated that no one bowed in silence when they wheeled up a sound system and tried to take control of the event, started fingering SWP activists--Davy among them--to the PSNI for organizing the sit-down?)

Its obvious from all the independent contributions out here that rank and file activists know the truth, and all the frothing at the mouth will get the SP nowhere. The SWP deserves credit for initatiing Uncivil Servant, and the fact that it has outgrown its humble beginnings, won the respect and active involvement of genuine activists, and managed to play a leading role in the most important public sector strikes in recent history will long outshine the disgusting personal attacks the SP seems so eager to indulge in. A sure sign of desperation. Fight alongside your fellow workers or get out of the way.

by TFC (pesonnal capacity) Tue Apr 20, 2004 00:16

Having re read the comments above it is very difficult to see what the real issues ( apart from misinformation) are that devide TFC and the Uncivil Servant.

A simple question, should TFC and Uncivil Servant reunite to fight the right wing that is leading the CS dispute and NIPSA to defeats?

by Uncivil Servant Tue Apr 20, 2004 00:49

Think why the Uncivil Servant members who were apart of TFC left TFC in the first place?

At the end of the road when people do not see hope in TFC what should they do.... sit back and take it? No they won't

maybe in times to come Uncivil Servant and TFC can work together.

as the name suggests TFC is needed all the time and that means you must start on the inside.

But i think we both will agree that we must tackle bread and butter issues and anything that will threaten our members.

by Watchman Tue Apr 20, 2004 03:19

The SWP and their small number of allies give the right wing control of the union for another year... and yet they feel the need to heap their bile on the most effective and strongest left grouping in any union in Ireland.

by ? Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:44

TFC were voted in in 2002 on a promise that they would bring change. Members then voted them out 2003 because they did not bring change. Little difference in fact from the previous majority. Most effective? Not what members thought, but I suppose they don't count.

by patrick mcginley - uncivil servant Wed Apr 21, 2004 01:35

The "Uncivil Servant" is edited by my good self. It has sweet F.A. to do with the Socialist Workers Party, One, yes, one of its members is a member of the SWP.

Now if you really believe that all workers are stupid, maybe you do believe that all the rest of us dance attendance to the SWP member, and he is leading us by the nose.

The reality is we are not stupid, which is why we refuse to be "unlead" by "Time for Change" although we do support many of their candidates, those who actually do something.

Now go and attack the enemy and give my head a rest.

by patrick mcginley - uncivil servant Wed Apr 21, 2004 23:45

I called on people not to criticise the leadership, to avoid backbiting like this. I also, unlike a lot of left wing groups, like to win, rather than complain for the next 30 years. As you can see from the election results a lot of people voted for this leadership, and to undermine them completely during industrial action, well you might as well change your name to Pearson.

By the way I am not in SWP, and don't actually know who Davy Carlin is.

Now a competition, and win an "uncivil servant" pen and pencil.

Explain how you split a vote when each member has 25 first preference votes, and Time for Change had 15 candidates. The more intectually challenged among us can quickly see that after voting for those 15, you could still vote for 10 other "lefties" or loonies and still not split the vote. Answers on this site please.

by Greavsie Thu Apr 22, 2004 13:37

Both time for change and uncivil servant have given the NIPSA leadership their support. That does not mean that they cannot raise concerns about the direction the leadership are taking this dispute especially if they do not believe it will win.

It's a funny old Game,

SP made up almost half the TFC candidates so they are ‘a broad based activists group no one organisation dominates either'

On the other hand there is only one SWP member on the uncivil servant and branch 8 committee so therefore it is 'an SWP front'

by patrick mcginley - nipsa Thu Apr 22, 2004 23:51

Is the SP member who wrote the alternative to Davy's piece on 15th April, you know the one advocating Left Unity, admitting that they did not vote for the Left "Uncivil Servant" candidates, in the interests of left unity? He does say if the four had stood for "Time for Change" some of them would have been elected. So unity means be in Time for Change or else, or am I missing something here? Maybe it means be in the Socialist Party or else?

by patrick mcginley - uncivil servant Thu Apr 22, 2004 23:56

Good old Greavsie, I always said he could read the game better than anyone else.