Hundreds march against Bin Tax in Dublin

by Davy Carlin Fri Mar 18, 2005 13:21

Sound as a pound mate

by Dermot Lacey Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:00

Davy,

I have always said that I favour debate on the issue and will email you today to set ball rolling.

Dermot Lacey

by Davy Carlin - Street Seen Wed Mar 16, 2005 17:20

Dermot we welcome such public debate -and in Dublin - we can organise it in the time ahead.

Indeed Street Seen is presently opening up and engaging in debates across the spectrum of movements -while at the same time working and mobilsing with those fraternally across the movements.

Indeed even today several other key acvisits has stated they are to become involved in our project.

You can contact us at

[email protected]

by Dermot Lacey Wed Mar 16, 2005 16:41

Mark,

I will be more than happy to participate in such a debate. Given the nature of the next two weeks. Patricks day and Easternot a good time. But if you contact me in relation to the weeks after that is fine by me.

UCD Student. First of all I am glad that you are able to attend UCD. Growing up I could not afford to. Secondly I turned up at the protest because I wanted to speak with the Students Union President about a planning application that UCD has submitted and which will seriously impact on the lives of ordinary working class people. I telephoned the Students Union on a few subsequent occasions and failed to get a reply. However I am still battling UCD on the issue. The College presumably belongs to all of us not just those lucky enough to attend so I have intention of "fecking off from UCD".

Thirdly at no stage during my membership of the Governing body was the issue of fees being raised mentioned. If it was on the agenda I would have presumed that some of the more knowledgeable and progresive members would have sought support from me.

I am at a loss at the supposed hypocrisy of my position I have been upfront on this matter. I am not opposed to local charges. I believe that an independent source of funding of Local Government is in the best interests of ordinary people.

Lastly not representing the areas of the Library closures I do not know the answer to this. As a user of the Library service for many years I have always supported them since becoming a Councillor. I think that the Library service would testify to that.

Hope that deals with all the pertinent issues.

by S. Thornton Wed Mar 16, 2005 16:09

You are evasively answering my questions , but then again you're a professional politican and thats the nature of the beast ,especially of the centre-right.

On my other point , Maybe you are not aware but let me take the opportunity to inform you that both Cabra and Phibsboro Libraries have been recently subject to unscheduled closures contrary to their stated opening hours. The official reason given is "understaffing" but no doubt the real problem is due to disgraceful cutbacks in funding.

Is it so hard to ensure adequate funding for public libraries and to protect them from neo-liberal imcompetence/rip-off economics? We havn't had a left wing Labour party in this country since the 1980's and your repeated defense of the bin-tax, and by association, the jailing and demonisation of peaceful protestors is a new low in this sad and disgusting betrayal.

by Jimmy McGarry Wed Mar 16, 2005 16:01

Regardless of what Cllr Lacey says, we should all remember thathe is a member of the Labour party - the party of service charges.

It was Labour that introduced Service charges back in the1980's when Dick Spring was the minister. Back then in 1997 when Labour Minister brendan Howlin decided, because of the rise of Joe Higgins, to abolish water and sewage charges, he insisted on retaining Refuse charges.

So when Dermot and some of his other labour hacks pretend to oppose these charges, they are being pure hypocrites. If Labour is genuinely opposed to refuse charges, why dont they make it a condition of entry into any Government after the next general election, that Refuse charges have to be abolished - not reformed or tweaked or anything else. Abolished. And an apology to the Irish people wouldn't go amiss either for putting them through the last twenty years of Service charges.

by UCD student Wed Mar 16, 2005 15:00

Lacey you're an opportunist. I remember when you turned up to the protest against Brady's house. You're a chancer. You voted for bin tax. You're in favour of dodgy coalition government with FG, FF, PD, etc. When you were a member of the UCD Governing Authority you did nothing to oppose hikes in postgrad fees. You did nothing for the average student. So feck off out of our college!

by Mark Grehan Wed Mar 16, 2005 13:00

Dermot, Street Seen magazine would like to organise this debate. We would like you to partake in this debate. If you are looking for info on Street Seen it is available on other threads on this site. I would post links but i haven't a clue how to.

by Dermot Lacey Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:46

Coming in this morning I saw a "Thorntons Waste" van. Any relation Sean.


To my "Not a Lacey fan". Come in to City Hall anytime and see me debate. I trust you have confidence in your suporters on the Council.

by Not a Lacey fan Tue Mar 15, 2005 18:29

I'll tell you what, you give us a date when your free and we'll organise the debate around your schedule. Or continue running away from it.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Mar 14, 2005 22:37

I have and will debate this issue anywhere and anytime that I am available. However be aware I try to use my time productively and if I have a prior committment to my ward, my work or anything useful that will get my priority.

Public Libraries are public services and like all education should be universally available. Contrary to the nonsense that is often written about me on Indymedia, despite the fact that I represent Pembroke I do not support privliged education.

I do take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the wonderful City Council Library staff who do so much good work for all in our society.

Sean I am disappointed that you feel I am not answering your questions - I try to.

by confused Mon Mar 14, 2005 22:30

What exactly does that last comment mean

by Larry Kelly Mon Mar 14, 2005 19:30 larrykelly91 at gmail dot com

I went to Ringsend tech in the heart of working class Dublin 4 and I love Rugby, perhaps Il Bondo should invest in a Proper education. He sounds like a right twit.

by Sean Thornton Mon Mar 14, 2005 17:44

Looks like I'll have to get answers from a more approachable councillor,

PS Whats your justification for the continuing stealth closures of our public libraries due to "understaffing", people refusing to pay a tax on each book they borrow?

by Not a Lacey fan Mon Mar 14, 2005 14:56

Thats it Dermot just show more ignorance and arrogance. I have challenged you to take part in a public debate on the issue, you have refused. Paul Mac D i hide my name because i am a civil servant and i am using a work computer. Why are you hiding your name, and besides if i said my name was john o'dwyer would my arguments not still have the same validity and how would you know it was my real name. If this is the carry on from the Labour party two things become clear. The first is that there is no difference between Labour and Fine Gael. Both will sell their own souls for "office". Secondly that there is no hope of FF/PD being replaced by an alternative coalition, quite simply because FG/Lab stand for nothing. Quite simply Dermot the Labour party have been so useless you have handed Fianna Fail another term, and if needs be, i have no doubt, Labour will go into office with them.

by Paul McD Mon Mar 14, 2005 14:40

You accuse Cllr Dermot Lacey of not being a man of integrity. Well at least he has the integrity to criticise people using his own name instead of doing so under a pseudonym...

by Dermot Lacey Mon Mar 14, 2005 14:40

Given the abuse I have received on this issue I hardly think anything I have said could be considered in the same league.

For the record 1) few people have debated this issue in Public as I have. 2) I have honestly set out my position 3) I participated in numerous radio programmes, phone ins etc around the time of my casting vote on this issue and 4) I did engage in a very public debate called the local Elections. I accept that verdict. Do You?

by Not a Lacey fan Mon Mar 14, 2005 14:33

Dermot, your arrogance and ignorance know no boundaries. I'm very surprised that a grown man like you could behave in such a childish manner. People here have no doubt that you are just another careerist opportunist. The manner in which you behave on this site does not encourage people to believe that you are a man of conviction. You haven't answered some questions that have been put to you, instead you have prefered to personally insult people. Perhaps you would be willing to have a public debate on this issue? Or would you just prefer to insult people?

by Dermot Lacey Mon Mar 14, 2005 14:24

Sean,

If you cannot understand simple replies to even more simplictic questions I cannot help you anymore. Perhaps you should read the thread on the Sinn Fein motion on the issue at their Ard Fheis - Fascinating it was.

by Sean Thornton Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:31

My question , dear short tempered Councillor, was a simple would you support the bin tax if tags go to €9.

Cue; "....there are many aspects that need amendment and in some cases outright rejection. There are possibly some areas in which it can be endorsed. Decision of course follows discussion in my world not the other way round."

How you can confuse the evasive waffle above with a "fact" ?

I also asked if you knew how much taxpayers money was paid on private consultancies by taxpayers; cue "...the only Consultancy report that I am aware of and was sought by Councillors not management."

Are you saying that it was paid for out of Councillors own pockets then? If not ,could you answer the question please or perhaps advise of a councillor who would be willing to, thanks.

Another "fact" of yours is that " failure to have an appropriate charges as being of benefit to those who wish to privatize and efectively wash their hands of the service."

Now what facts are you basing this belief on?
You are sacraficing all credibility if you truly believe this, as the pattern of imposition in the rest of the country proves otherwise. Or are you saying you believe that the Council should fleece people through exoribtant stealth taxes instead of private contractors?

by Dermot Lacey Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:36

Interesting that none of the loud mouthed posters have nothing to say when the facts are out before them.

by Davy Carlin Thu Mar 10, 2005 16:18

Signing of this thread,

The silence was deafening

Enough said. Signing off D

by Dermot Lacey Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:48

First of all thanks Davy. I have no problem with honest debate indeed would welcome a lot more of it.

Joe,

You are of course correct I am an Ex Mayor. I never claimed to be anything else anywhere. What I do claim however is that unlike my successor I sought re-election to the Council following my term of office and am glad that the electorate of my own home area of Pembroke returned me at the top of the poll.

ABTA,

It is no secret that I lost the Labour whip because of my support for the Estimates that included charges. I have never made any secret of my support for the principle of local charges either. As Mayor I believed that I had a wider responsibility to the City and believed then and now that it was better for me to use my vote to a) keep a lower charge than the one proposed by the Manager and which would have been imposed by a Commissioner, b) retain the waiver scheme which quite possibly would have been abolished c)protect the elected City Council. I accept that I broke the whip and have never complained about the whip being withdrawn and my removal from the Group. I was however equally deligted to accept the invitation from the Group about a year later to rejoin.

Sean Thornton.

The report referred to on Newstalk has not been accepted by the Council. It has been referred to the Finance Committee for discussion. There are many aspects that need amendment and in some cases outright rejection. There are possibly some areas in which it can be endorsed. Decision of course follows discussion in my world not the other way round.

I will always seek the imposition of the lowest possible charges and the maximum waiver however final decisions await full discussion.

This is the only Consultancy report that I am aware of and was sought by Councillors not management.

I do not support privatizing the service and I do not see this as the purpose of charges. I do see failure to have an appropriate charges as being of benefit to those who wish to privatize and efectively wash their hands of the service.

Seedot - You don't warrant a reply your contribution is the sort of historical rant wrapped up in spurious idealogy that continues to give the left a bad name.

by seedot Wed Mar 09, 2005 20:30

"The structure which thus emerged from the 1875 Act presaged the future pattern of local government, embodying the twin principles of central control of local authorities through a government department and of local responsibility for the administration of services through elected representatives."

Local Government: Jackson, 3rd Edition pp 11.

The act which was most responsible for giving us local government was the 1875 Public Health Act that set up bodies which would have a responsibility to collect all rubbish presented weekly in a bin. It only applied in England and Wales and it was a further three years before it was replicated by the 1878 Public Health (Ireland) Act and a similar system of administering the required services in urban and rural areas was introduced here. Those three years are marked by campaigning by doctors about the danger of cholera in statements eerily remniscient of those currently coming from Cork, although Weill's Disease is todays risk. Collection of bins was the point of local government - and those who support or facilitate or acquiesce to local government returning public health to the market are betraying not only their mandate but the institution where they exercise it. Beware of Labour Councillors who no longer want to "administer the required services" but who will defend the council and it's move closer to being a planning plutocracy with little relevance to the residents of the city they, supposedly, serve.

For 125 years the residents of cities and towns and villages in Ireland had a system for dealing with the refuse that urban living generates. People had been living in towns for much longer than this and they had been areas of varying cleanliness and hygiene during history. Many castle towns in the middle ages had methods for dealing with refuse - firmly based on a cleanliness radiating out from the castle and declining sharply once beyond the walls. The waves of epidemics which were natural functions of poorly maintained, confined habitation had become more frequent and of greater length by the late 18th, early 19th century. The industrial revolution increased the size of the towns and had the market firmly entrenched in dealing with refuse as more and more of the feudal administrative system withered away. There were still pockets of cleanliness in cities - but now it was house prices and service charges which formed the boundaries and large areas of many cities had open sewers which were as disgusting as the technology of the time could make them.

On an ad hoc basis the 19th Century saw the introduction of public refuse systems, of removal of key services from the market. Throughout Europe this saw different services being, not nationalised, but at least being taken from the market into the common weal, the public realm. Water was a key service, as was refuse. In 1842 a "Report on the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Poor" was published but it was the 1845 cholera epidemic, which claimed 55,000 lives that saw the first real move. Over the next thirty years the local corporations were reformed and reestablished to prevent a re-occurence of this and firmly remove the market from the collection of refuse. Since the 1878 act there has been a legal responsibility on corporations to collect bins and it has worked, as life expectancy increased and sanity of collective responsibility for public health ruled over the market. Until 2003, when the Waste Management Act removed the whole point of local government and re-introduced the market and the piles of refuse and the disease.

I have heard Labour Councillors defend the city council and attack those who say it should have fallen over the estimates as being against democracy. It's hard to say the moment when the falling of the council would have had the most impact or would have helped the anti bin tax campaign the most. And the government department has been the core of the rot in local government, has been the source of this political infection. The locally elected representatives who now claim expenses and make planning decision in city councils that do not provide the required services to their cities should think, not only of the state of their cities but of the bodies they sit on. The cities are now returning to the pre-victorian market imposed inequality of hygiene and health. In describing the local corporations of the pre-public health days it has been written:

"They were snug oases of privilege whose religious discrimination against dissenters,manipulation of markets, tolls and harbours for their more comfortable provision, and indifference to the provision of such urban necessities as competent police, firemen or clean water and lighted streets, exasperated their under-privileged middle-class neighboURS."

This well describes the body which currently has a labour lord mayor, and past labour mayor arguing here for the market.

by Sean Thornton Wed Mar 09, 2005 17:27

I heard that on RTE/Newstalk yesterday there was a news item that some private consultant hired by DCC, but paid by the taxpayer, to look into bin "charges" , recommended that bin tags should go to €9 (Nine!) each.

Would you change your stance if the above is true?

Do you know how much of our money has been spent on consultancies since bin "charges" were inflicted upon the good people of Dublin?

Do you agree that the intention all along was to privatize refuse collection?

by ABTA Wed Mar 09, 2005 14:43

"When Tommy Broughan stepped down as leader of the Labour Group I was not a member of the Group on the Council."

And why was that - Dermo?

by Rashers T Wed Mar 09, 2005 13:57

1. You don't pay a deposit to run for council elections.

2. I doubt that there is anybody seething with jealousy in regard to anything to do with Demot Lacey. Not all of us hanker to be an opportunist self serving inflated egomaniac.

3. It says more about the high calibre of indymedia.ie that Dermot Lacey posting here doesn't cause a ripple.

4. Dermot Lacey is well and truely an EX lord mayor pretty similar to Royston Brady that other EX chain wearing dandy for the people.

by Joe Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:14

Isn't he the ex mayor?

Anyway this is indymedia.ie, everyone comes here. Over on this thread ( http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68615 ) you can read two characters trying to settle exactly what was said in a bar in Manuaga (capital of Nicargua) just before Christmas.

by Dave Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:47

Not a fan of Dermot or the LP by any stretch. However, the vitriol which he has been subjected to above just demonstrates how elitist the 'left' is. It has been suggested above that because his mandate is from people of above average wealth, it is somehow less valid! He paid his deposit and came up with the votes (mostly from people with jobs i.e. working people). Clearly a lot of people are seething with jelousy. I also find it Ironic that when the mayor of a european capital enters a debate that this barely creates a ripple in IMC.

by Davy Carlin Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:30

Although my politics as a Revolutionary Socialist, {and many others on this site} would completely differ from Dermot Lacey's -I say though fair play to the man for coming on and arguing his point.

by Dermot Lacey Tue Mar 08, 2005 20:40

Quite simply because I will not enable anyone who is making misleading comments to have the last word if I have anything to do with it.

by Garrett Mullan - SP Tue Mar 08, 2005 20:23

Reluctant as I am to give credence....
This my last post.....Well Dermot just like so many politicians you did notliveupto your promise. On your third comment yousaidthat was your last but then therewere ...how many more???

by Dermot Lacey Tue Mar 08, 2005 18:19

When Tommy Broughan stepped down as leader of the Labour Group I was not a member of the Group on the Council. I was however very encouraged by the election of my friend and Constituency colleague Kevin Humphreys as Group Leader. Following the local elections I supported Kevins re-election as leader and have been happy and proud to support him in that role. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply mischievous nonsense. For the record I am happy to say that the Group did elect me to the positions I sought last June such as the VEC and relevant sub bodies, the Dublin Regional Authority and Chairperson of the Protocol Committee with a particular responsibility for reforming the Council procedures.

Your poster - in fact many of your posters -should grow up.

by Unsocial Democrat Tue Mar 08, 2005 17:27

So Kevin Humphreys was elected after you and he gets to lead the Labour Party.
Says a lot. They must love you in head office!

by Winstanley Tue Mar 08, 2005 17:12

Have'nt heard of that one Dublin Exile but here's a few you might be familiar with:

'Bowling for Blair', 'Spring Directorships' and 'Asassinating Rosa and Karl'. Not forgeting the ever popular 'Witchhunting Mini-Lefties for beginners'.

by Dublin Exile Tue Mar 08, 2005 16:29

Thanks 'socialist republican' you've given me a good laugh. The idea of me being Dermots Darkside will cause great hillarity in certain quarters whenever i get down to Dublin for a few pints.

BTW have you ever heard of a boardgame called 'The Quest for Trotskys Bollix?'

by Davy Carlin - Ind Revolutionary Socialist Tue Mar 08, 2005 15:44 carlindavid at hotmail dot com 07774053223

'They {SWP} organised meetings where their speakers, as official reps of the campaign explicitly argued against the strategy that had been decided upon by the campaign'.

This is a very very serious statement and the SWP now for several days have not come back to deny it by providing facts for viewers to make up their own minds.

Although I am not in agreement with every thing Chekov says I and others have found over time that he would not state such a thing without confidence that he could back it up.

I hope that the SWP do come back to this - as if they don't I believe many many genuine activists {not sectarians] will be increasingly more wary of working with the SWP.


In saying that the problem is not with individual members of the organisation which have many good and dedicated activists but with the dogmatic mindset and the unchanging organisational methods directed by some within its leadership.


It is with a sense of irony that I read Chekov's statement as I remember the line of - 'we firstly democratically debate the issue then we go as one, solid like a fist, all signing from the same hymn sheet - that's Democratic Centralism - and real democracy at work Davy', - which had been raised to me on various occasions.

Those occasions where when I had serious problems on serious issues such as the ISO -whose expulsion - and the lack of debate meant that they where , I believe' expelled undemocratically with very very little information provided - even to certain leadership members at the time.

So each time on those specific occasions that I had raised my voice it was a case of - 'the Democratic decision has been made and 'everyone' must follow and argue that line {what the majority had democratically decided} -. having been raised.

So it is with that sense or irony { although not surprised as I had raised similar in my correspondence with the SWP leadership}that having followed the line I decided I could follow it no more. This for various specific reasons and issues -but underlinning that was that I had already begun to see individuals having the 'power' to overturn democratically decided NC decisions.

Again this is all recorded in my correspondence, with the PC..

Therefore for me this again is cemented with Chekov's statement that shows DC and democratic decision are only followed if a leadership needs them followed - but will not be followed when such individuals believe that the majority have simply got it wrong and they, in the minority, have the right therefore not only to ignore it - but to argue against the democratically agreed decision.

I am dumbfounded though that they thought they could do it as actual official reps of that said campaign!



Such a situation therefore as stated will make many many genuine activist wary of the SWP and it tactics as it seems still they are not willing to learn from such concerns raised

I must say though it is not the SWP organisation as a whole that I am cocerned about but for the good activists within it who are smeared by such undemocratic workings.


I had risen time and again, on this site and others {and will detail extensively in a later publication} of the exact same way of working by the Belfast SP which had made them irrelevant.

I therefore hope the good and genuine activists within the SWP try and face such mindsets down - if not -then like many many others before them they will see no alternative but to move on.


I am fully aware of the pull and comradeship within such small tight organisations, - and all that brings with it -more especially having been on all the various leadership bodies over time.

I will say though that such ways of working will not only be detrimental to an organisation but more importantly it contradicts everything Democracy and democratic Centralism stand for.

I have found through experience that there is the theory of such and then there is the practice - and on occasions they could not have been further apart.

I will no doubt get the usual responses from some but if SWP activists or anyone else from similar organisations want to debate this issue then put your names and organisation and I will do so.


Finally - we all make mistakes but we need to first acknowledge such if we are to learn and move forward.

There is a difference between those who genuinely do not realise that a mistake has been made and those who ignore - revise and continue to repeat - all for selfish interest.

by Dermot Lacey Tue Mar 08, 2005 13:45

For the record I never worked for the NYCI in any paid capacity. and despite the begrudgers I am glad that the electorate of Pembroke - my nieghbours, friends and people i grew up with and have lived with over the years have continued to support me and trust me to do what i believe to be right. tough and hard luck on the far left wasters who don't like that. fair play to you Dublin exile and while it is not me under a false name i do know who it is because he told me one day.

by socialist republican Tue Mar 08, 2005 13:16

jasus, Ive obviously toched on a raw nerve! Dermott moved from one ward to the other because he had more chance of getting elected. Fair enough. Why had he a better chance? could it be because the Dublin 4 set are more likely to elect a middle class, outspoken self publicist, careerist like dermott than the working class in Markowitz House.

Dermott has been around a while I remember him working in the NYCI he hasn't changed. As for Dublin Exile, Dermotts 'dark side' chill the fuck out.

by Dublin Exile Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:08

We don't want the bare facts!
What about a bit of conspiracy to keep us going this morning? Surely there had to be M15 or bourgeoise dilletante involvement somewhere?
A pragmatic decision based on electoral possibilities? C'mon who do you think we are?
Everyone knows that Labour do nothing without one eye on selling out 'real' socialist revolutionaries. I bet you don't even sell a newspaper, call yourself a socialist? I've never seen you wear a Che Guevarra badge in my whole life!

by Dermot Lacey Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:57

Socialist Republican - probably call myself a Social Democrat Republican.

Anyway I digress the simple reason I changed wards was that in late 1998 the boundaries of the various wards were significantly changed and my home area of Donnybrook/Sandymount was seperated from the traditional Labour heartland of Ringsend. in that context it was generally felt that as a sitting Councillor I would have a better chance of holding a Labour seat in the new Pembroke ward and Kevin Humphreys as the new candidate, who is from South Lotts would have a good chance of winning the South East inner City - which of course he did. So the aim was to try and win two seats from the previous one. Mission accomplished. Of course since then i have never forgotten Ringsend and remain involved in supporting various initiativs and activities there.

by socialist republican Mon Mar 07, 2005 15:50

Sorry for the mistake dermott. Can you tell me why you changed wards?

by Dermot Lacey Mon Mar 07, 2005 14:44

I had thought that I had made one point clear over many comments on this site, other sites and the media generally. However for the purpose of informing your ill informed posters let me repeat again. I am not opposed to Local Charges. In fact I support them as part of the process of reforming Local Government which in my view is in the interests of ordinary working people. So why supporting them - and occasionally opposing aspects of them - should somehow be construed as unprincipled etc etc is beyond me.

And no Sherlock I have no intention of criticising anyone for working in a poorly paid job - I have been there - or living in an inadequate flat. I do however actively work against a system that allows that. Unfortuntately too many of the far left simply rant against this and wallow in their own puity rather than engage in the real "on the ground" work that can change things.

by crusader Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:37

"i don't use my real name as i use my work computer and my work wouldn't appreciate my involvement in politics"

I admire your principled stand.

by hs - sp Thu Mar 03, 2005 20:36

...but indymedia could you find the mayor of a capital city arguing with anarchists!
For my own point of view I stopped voting for labour after they hopped in bed with FF that time after spending the whole election denouncing them. (spring tide) Opportunist and dishonest, truth is I trust them less than the SWP (which is saying alot dermot!) If labour ever goes independent to the FF, FG's and PD's please let us know.

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Mar 03, 2005 19:02

First of all Dermot i don't use my real name as i use my work computer and my work wouldn't appreciate my involvement in politics. You see i can neither afford a computer or internet charges for my flat, but please feel free to attack me for not earning enough money. As for naming names, ask around Labour party HQ. You said that you stand up for Local government yet managed to "bow down" to pressure form the central government and the city manager. Hardly something that somebody would do if they were such strong defenders of local government. Of course if they were going to become lord mayor......................

by Dermot Lacey Thu Mar 03, 2005 17:18

Yes Socialist Republican you are mistaken. Andy Smith represented the neighbouring ward of South Inner City - the same ward as I did during my first six years on the Council.

Andy was a superb and honest politician dedicated to the people he represented. He would have had little time for some of the mumbo jumbo on this site.

by socialist republican Thu Mar 03, 2005 17:12

Fourthly there are four Labour Party Branches in Pembroke. I have never come across any meaningful activity from any other "Left wing" Party there.

Well dermo methinks you are lying. i recall that the workers party had a councillor in that ward - Andy Smith if I m not mistaken.

by Dermot lacey Thu Mar 03, 2005 16:23

Reluctant as I am to give credence to some of the rubbish posted I do want to answer some points.

In the first place let me say that no matter how much you might dislike what I write I do not hide behind any false name. So I am not any of the other posters.

Secondly contrary to Sherlock Holmes who clearly doesn't have the guts to use his real name I have never sought a nomination to run at a General Election and have never indicated any intention of doing so. I have consistently stated my committment to Local Government and my belief that it needs to be fundamentally reformed in the interests of ordinary working people.

Thirdly it might be a bit more honest of Sherlock Holmes if he would name names. I doubt if he will.

Fourthly there are four Labour Party Branches in Pembroke. I have never come across any meaningful activity from any other "Left wing" Party there.

Fifthly Waste Charges were introduced in Dublin three years before I was elected Lord Mayor. As a matter of public record I did not vote for them. When I was Lord mayor I was faced with the choice of the council being abolished, higher charges being introduced and a the waiver scheme threatened. I cannot for the life of me see how that would have been good for ordinary working people. You may not agree with my decision but you need not bother questioning my integrity. Of course if your politics is about theory and not reality you might have a different position.

Sixthly in relation to my political activity I am involved in most community campaigns in my electoral area and many outside. The 20% Social housing provision being implemented in Docklands was adopted on my proposal about five years before the Governments much weaker version.

The Community Development fund which has distributed millions in the North and South Inner City was another proposal of mine. The only new houses built by Dublin City Council in Dublin South East in recent years followed my proposal. I am presently working with a group of women in establishing a Housing Co Op. I could go on.

Seventhly, Yes Pembroke is a wealthy area. However it is the area that I am from and live in still. I grew up in a Corporation house. I still live in a Corporation built house and I represent my community as best as I can within the limited constraints of a poor Local Government system. Thankfully the electorate support me with their votes which I suppose is some sort of endorsement - even if it is one not appreciated by some indymedia posters.

by CCC Thu Mar 03, 2005 14:17

"Dermot's represented his community & constituents well for the last few years. "

Smells like LP hack manifesto-speak to me

"There's too many champagne Citizen Smith's spending too much time on the internet who've never done any good for anyone."

Yourself and Roysto#2 are very fond of your opinion that anybody unimpressed by Lacey has never done anything. It must be a great comfort to you and I'm sure you have all the research to prove this or are you just physic?

"Hiding behind anonymous names as well!"
Hiding??? Now who exactly are you "cheque-ov" ? -Just in case you don't know IMI is open publishing so anybody is entitled to add comments without registering or providing identity. Adopting a holier-than-thou attitude if you want to put your real identity online is trying to change the rules mid-game.

PS Be sure and pass on my regards to the "good decent working class people of Dublin" which yourself and/or Cllr Lacey have such a special hotline to.

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Mar 03, 2005 14:01

Surely Dermot after so many years of "working hard" you should have the ability to answer the questions that have been put to you here. Or is it that you know your position is indefensible?

by IT reader Thu Mar 03, 2005 13:45

Dermo, as the self confessed champion of social democracy I suppose you will be fully supporting taking unelected officials to account over their attitude to a democratic vote as outlined in the IT articles below (I won't hold my breath):
*************************************************
Tue, Mar 01, 05
Dublin councillors vote for reversal of waste policy
Olivia Kelly

Dublin city management has been asked by councillors to reverse its policy on not collecting refuse from householders who do not pay waste charges.

Councillors voted by nine to eight last night to support a motion from Joan Collins (Ind), stating that the council would operate a policy of collecting all domestic refuse "in order to protect public health in the city".

Only 19 of the 52 councillors were present for the vote. Deputy Lord Mayor Andrew Montague (Lab), who as chair held the casting vote, abstained.

The motion clashes with city management's "zero tolerance" policy on householders who will not pay for waste collections. Since the start of the year, the council has refused to collect rubbish where householders have not attached a pre-paid tag.

However a number of councillors claim the policy is causing a public health hazard. Eric Byrne (Lab) said: "There is an obligation on the city under public health legislation to protect the health of the city." However he did not want to encourage illegal dumping.

Paschal Donohoe (FG) opposed the motion, saying it was political rather than in the interest of public health.

© The Irish Times

Wed, Mar 02, 05
City ruling on refuse dismisseed
Olivia Kelly

A direction from Dublin city councillors that all refuse will be collected, regardless of whether householders have paid waste charges, "means nothing", according to a senior city official.

Councillors voted by nine to eight on Monday night that the council would collect all domestic rubbish "in order to protect public health in the city".

The councillors' decision would, if implemented, overturn the manager's policy that only householders who pay the waste charges will have their refuse collected.

However, the assistant city manager responsible for waste management, Matt Twomey, said the councillors' decision would not impact on the way waste was collected in the city.

"As the councillors are aware, waste management is an executive function; their vote has no effect, and that was pointed out to them."

He said refuse left uncollected on the day of a normal bin round would not create a health hazard, and the council was removing waste before it could become a public health issue.

"We start by placing red tags on the bags so the resident and their neighbours know the refuse needs to be paid for. We follow that with an examination of the contents so that we can issue a fine. We are not allowing refuse to become a health hazard; about a week is the longest we would leave bags uncollected."

Since January, the council has refused to collect rubbish where people have not attached a prepaid tag. However, Mr Twomey said 90 per cent of Dubliners were compliant with the charges.

"We have sold 159,300 tags and have issued around 150,000 tags to people entitled to waivers. That represents about 90 per cent of people who are tagging their bags. The public is co-operating extremely well."

In the case of "black bins", more than 90 per cent of householders have registered their bin with the council, allowing it to reduce their annual charge by putting out bins less frequently.

The council has issued 1,170 fines to householders who were not paying the charge. Only a small number of these have been paid, but Mr Twomey said in most of these cases the 21-day limit had yet to expire.

Where offenders refused to pay the fine, the council would resort to legal action.

The council was satisfied with the waste-management system it was operating, he said. "The vote means nothing. We're going to continue on as we have been."

© The Irish Times

by cheque-ov Thu Mar 03, 2005 13:45

Dermot's represented his community & constituents well for the last few years. There's too many champagne Citizen Smith's spending too much time on the internet who've never done any good for anyone. Hiding behind anonymous names as well!

by ex labour Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:58

Maybe you should look up the dictionary dermot, as far as I was aware social democrats were people who make reforms to help people and to try and alter the balance a little more towards the people. The modern labour party is hardly social democrat, you privatise anything that isn't nailed down, go into government with anybody and do everything to support business rather than people. Where's our national health service dermot, wheres are public housing, where's labours support for striking workers, and where's labours support for communities. You have no right to call yourself a social democrat, until you make some social democratic policies. And I'll let you in on a little secret dermo, half the people in the so called hard left parties, are actually social democrats, i'd be curious to know how many real "revolutionaries" are in the sp or swp. But because the likes of you have destroyed the labour party, social democrats have nowhere to go but the trotskyist parties, thats your legacy dermot. The destruction of social democracy. You must be very proud.

by CCC Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:46

He has given "practical delivery of policies to ordinary working people" and I'm sure the "ordinary working people" of Dublin will remember him each time they get fleeced for rubbish collection or when they have to navigate the mountains of rubbish bags left uncollected.

As befitting such a wondorous champion of the "working people" and scourge of middle-class "far" left revolutionaries he received his earthly reward already with the Lord Mayors chain. A run for Europe next time out would be the least Dermo would deserve.

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:35

You are a careerist Dermot. What exactly have you delivered for working class people? What is your job within the labour party? Why is it that you are convinced of your own self importance when others in your party think you are an embarrasment? Since you like to parade yourself here as some sort of idealist, why did you sell out to become Mayor of Dublin? If you have delivered so much for people how come you will never be nominated to run in the general elections? Is this heartbreaking for you, as you view being elected as the most important thing? There is no branch of any left wing party in Pembroke so why come on here and pretend it's such a working class area when it is one of the richest areas in Dublin?

by Dermot Lacey Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:08

readingf this crap just confirms my belief in Social Democracy and my utter contempt for the far left. I have more principles and have achieved more practical delivery of policies to ordinary working people in my little finger than many of the jumped up far leftists will achieve in a life.

by Chekov Thu Mar 03, 2005 01:41

Dave, when Dermot expressed agreement with me, I assume that he was referring to my attitude towards the SWP. If this is so, you should remember that it is an attitude that is shared by a large majority of people who have had any significant dealings with your august organisation. However, your insinuation that we share a broader political agreement is not very convincing.

For example, I am reasonably sure that Dermot does not share my opinion of his political stance towards the bin tax. To be honest, even considering my normally low opinion of politicians and their motives, I can't think of anybody who has played a less principled and more invidious role than Dermot has. However, this is not a controversial position, either within the campaign or among our supportive readership and it would hardly be worth the time to respond to him since you would be preaching largely to the converted. Furthermore, Dermot does not, in my opinion, come onto this site to engage in debate. His combative tone and liberal use of derogatory stereotyping - a la ireland on sunday - lead me to believe that he is 'trolling' here. Meaning that he attempts to elicit stereotypical responses in order to confirm his own prejudices about 'lefties'. Why he does this, I don't know. Perhaps he was once left-wing and still has something of a conscience within, which requires him to justify his descent into naked self-interest dressed up as 'pragmatism'. But let's not go too far into the psycho-analysis, the point is clear and I suspect that you know this well, Dave.

QUOTE: "Also what's the betting 'Mary' is invented by either of them to give them an excuse to slander and abuse their political opponents....the contributions fron Chekov and some other far leftists, and the long list of allegations made against the SWP which as usual are tiresomely repetitive, unprovable and false.which as usual are tiresomely repetitive, unprovable and false."

Since the implausibility of Dermot posting a comment attacking me personally in order to piggyback on my resulting response to have a go at the SWP is probably clear even to you, I take this as a pretty clear accusation against me. I post under my own name wherever possible and even when circumstances (eg work) make it impossible for me to do so, I always make sure that I am honest about the political position that I am coming from. I help edit the site and have put a lot of work into it. I consider behaviour of the type that you are accusing me of to be extremely abusive and particularly damaging to the entire project. I have always advocated stricter measures for dealing with this type of behaviour within the editorial collective. I assure you that I would not consider it for a moment. I also assure you that I find the experience of reading personal smears about me on public internet sites to be quite unpleasant. I can't think of any reason why I'd publish them myself.

In fact, if you really do think that I am the author of the piece by Mary, I invite you to petition the editorial collective to investigate the matter. If you feel that there has been a serious abuse of the site, you may be able to persuade the collective to examine the logs - I for one will support you.

But, Dave, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This is not the first time that you have used this site to throw accusations at named individuals. In fact I recall you accusing me of lying before [1 http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65767], on which occasion you refused to back up your slur when challenged. Once again I invite you to point out which of my points are 'unprovable and false' and I will defend them or apologise if I can't. Or, even easier, I invite you to find a single person outside the SWP who has been politically active in the bin tax campaign over the last 4 years who will disupte the substantial truth of my claims.

More seriously, your 'repetitive' complaint about 'witchunting' and 'mccarthyism' against the SWP reminds me of a thread where I recall you accused Ciaron O Reilly of assault. When Ciaron and several other witnesses completely denied the accusation, you refused to substantiate it or withdraw it [2 http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65858]. Comments from indymedia have - outrageously - recently been used in court as evidence against activists. The danger of this happening in the pending cases was pointed out to you on that thread, yet you chose to allow your accusation to stand. Dave, you're in a very poor position to be questioning people's integrity.

It is this type of behaviour and the casual use of dishonest smears, slurs and accusations, so characteristic of the way that the SWP works, that makes it so easy to identify personal slurs that eminate from members of that party, even when they are written anonymously. With the added evidence of these comments using well-known SWP phrases, arguments and slogans, I'm 99% sure that Mary above is an SWP member. I can't imagine a remotely plausible scenario where somebody else might want to attack me, from the unusual political point of view of the SWP and using their, again unusual, style and their language. Agent Provocateurs are not a plausible theory as it would be plainly impossible to split the anarchist and leninist movements further apart.

Finally, Dave, I've told you before that I object to you casually throwing accusations about me. I advise you to take greater care in your language in future. If you believe that I am being dishonest, please point out where. You might find this hard to imagine, but I care about my good name.

by Dave - swp Thu Mar 03, 2005 00:05

So Chekov and the Lord mayor Lacey are in complete agreement. Why am not surprised? Also what's the betting 'Mary' is invented by either of them to give them an excuse to slander and abuse their political opponents. As for 'seeing off' Militant Mr Lacey, I don't know you can be so proud of being a witch-hunter, and they haven't gone away you know.
I really am taken aback at the tone of the contributions fron Chekov and some other far leftists, and the long list of allegations made against the SWP which as usual are tiresomely repetitive, unprovable and false.
Hundreds of our members around Ireland are proudly involved in this campaign and will continue to be despite the witchunters, whether they dress themselves up as raggedy radicals or hang those silly goldie lookin chains around their red-necks.

by Terry - none Wed Mar 02, 2005 21:23

John, I must correct you on 2 points where you say:
Point 1:
'In most of the areas where the SWP claimed to have a campaign, there was _some_ activity. This consisted of public meetings maybe once a year....'

In the Dundrum/Ballinteer/Churchtown and outlying areas, where both the SWP and SP were involved in the campaign there were many meetings throughout 2003 in particular. To say once a year would be simply not true.

And Point 2:
'In the entire city there were altogether probably about 50 seperate blockades of trucks and depots in the autumn of 2003. In areas where the SWP had campaigns there were none. That's 0.'

That's not quite true either. In the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown area, which had both SWP and SP involvement and maybe others in other parts where I am not familiar with, there were at least 2 days of blockades of the Sandyford Bin Depot of the lorries back in 2003. This was attended by both SWP and SP activists and many other non-affliated activists. And if I remember correctly, there may have been even a 3rd blockade at a slightly earlier date. As I recall these blockades occurred within a few days or maybe a week of the Gormanstown blockade on the North side, where the City commerical collection was disrupted one evening. I think the Gormanstown blockade was called by the Stoneybatter campaign.

As for any other the other points you raised, I can't make any comment because I do not know any of the particulars.

On a general point, direct action was and is clearly the way to go, but my own experience is that the jailing of people and the High Court injunctions was chewing up the main activist base and there simply were not enough people out on the streets to backup these people -at least in the areas where I was. The fact that the media was largely cut off from the campaign in the months and years prior meant that this ground work of building up a pool of people was much harder. State and or Corporate control of the media, combined with bans on postering to my mind are the most effective tools of the councils and government and unfortunately work extremely well. To me these are the biggest factors that prevent campaigns of any sort being built up and as a consequence it therefore only permits very limited forms of direct action. And the unions of course were co-opted a long time ago.

by John S. - CABT Wed Mar 02, 2005 17:23

* 'Lower' Phibsboro and Dorset St.
* All the campaigns that they ever claimed on the north side
* Everywhere on the Southside in the city area with the exception of Ballyfermot.

When I say virtual campaigns, I am referring to the fact that at campaign conferences, over a number of years, the SWP showed up and claimed to have campaigns in many areas with hundreds of members. Most of these names were never handed over the the campaign secretary ("I forgot the list", "X has it", "we're still compiling it", etc). The few names that were handed over in many cases turned out to be people who had signed a petition or who had no previous contact with the campaign - this later caused some embarrassment to local activists in areas where a real campaign was eventually set up.

In most of the areas where the SWP claimed to have a campaign, there was _some_ activity. This consisted of public meetings maybe once a year whenever the bin tax was in the media from which they attempted to recruit members and unpaid leafleters. In the entire city there were altogether probably about 50 seperate blockades of trucks and depots in the autumn of 2003. In areas where the SWP had campaigns there were none. That's 0.

It seems that they are now arguing that the blockades were adventurist and an elitist tactic. Can they really believe that 500 people walking down O Connell street will really put more pressure on the government than shutting down the city's refuse collection and 5000 marching on Mountjoy? Have they stopped to ask themselves why the media is suddenly much more sympathetic towards the campaign and the issue? Could it be because it is now safely back in safe (ie ineffective) ground in the council chambers and in SWP marches?

Finally, I urge them to visit Santry and Mulhuddart to explain the error of their elitist adventurist ways to the residents.

by ABTA Wed Mar 02, 2005 16:47

The SWP claimed to be running the East Wall and Cabra campaigns at one of the general meetings.

by bin tax activist Wed Mar 02, 2005 16:38

Ballymun and Coolock / Raheny are two that immediately come to mind. There may have been a Dorset Street one too, it was difficult to keep track.

by Emma Wed Mar 02, 2005 16:19

I do not think it was Andrew doing the attacking in fairness.
"It would come as some surprise to the bin tax campaigns in Ballyfermot Clondalkin Dun Laoghaire Ringsend"
What bintax campaign in Clondalkin? none exists, apart from the swp turning up at a protest of the closure of Bawnogue community centre in Clondalkin that residents were protesting about.
swp showed up in the name of the bin tax campaign and apparently jumped on Mary Harney's car who on the same day was opening an enterprise centre next door. I would hardly call sticking up a few posters and something that happened nearly two years ago a campaign especially when none of the residents were involved.

by peader Tue Mar 01, 2005 18:48

"The deal with the "service charges"
by R. Isible Sunday, Feb 27 2005, 3:45am
Are that they are already paid in the form of existing taxes"

Now don't start up a debate on who's paying taxes and who's protesting!

by jim Tue Mar 01, 2005 18:32

don't think you've quite seen off militant yet, ask Joan Burton!

www.socialistparty.net

by Davy Carlin Tue Mar 01, 2005 14:23

Jesus!!!


'They organised meetings where their speakers, as official reps of the campaign explicitly argued against the strategy that had been decided upon by the campaign'

Ckekov - Just to clarify -was these decisions democratically debated then agreed upon - and if so - did the SWP argue against this democratically agreed stratagey as actual 'official Reps' of that campaign as you say !!!

If so, when was this?

Finally

'They also helped the campaign immesurably by pretending to have large active campaigns in areas of the city where there were none'.

Where did they state they had such campaigns as I was informed at the time that the areas that they operated in, that 'their' campaigns where indeed large and active.


Cheers

by Dermot Lacey Tue Mar 01, 2005 13:59

Wow Chekov, I could not have said it better myself - though that sort of abuse is usually reserved for myself. Excellent article in an Phoblacht this week on the entire sorry saga also.

Hi Dublin Exile I thought you had gone away. Good to see you back on line also. Your real Left Wing agenda is the way forward. None of this ould infighting so beloved of the Middle Class Trots and would be Marxists as they play their little games on the backs of ordinary people before they go off and get their nice middle class jobs and leave behind the mess they helped create. We saw off Militant and we'll see off this lot also.

Say hello to P and the kids

by Chekov Tue Mar 01, 2005 13:00

"Chekov failed to show up to represent his constituents of Stoneybatter"

"Mary", or whichever poisonous, sectarian trot wrote this, it's hard to respond to such a heap of bile in any way that doesn't mostly consist of expletives. Nevertheless I'll try.

I do not represent anybody, nor have I ever claimed to do so. Not being a politician, I have never considered myself to have constituents and find the idea that I have some sort of duty to show up on protests like this to be bizzare. Back when there was a bin tax campaign with a strategy for fighting it, I made great efforts to get stuck in. Currently, as far as I can see, there is neither a campaign nor a strategy. There is still strong feeling on the ground. There are a few functioning local groups and a few politicians who want to be seen to be "doing something" about it. Then there is the SWP which is quite happy to use any popular feeling to attempt to recruit and raise their profile and which doesn't give a damn about winning the campaign and who are perfectly happy to march people up and down hills as long as they can pick up a few recruits.

What's particularly galling about this ludicrous personal attack is that, at a time when the campaign had a real existance in the city and a real fighting strategy, the SWP went out of their way to undermine us. They organised meetings where their speakers, as official reps of the campaign explicitly argued against the strategy that had been decided upon by the campaign. A strategy that was not chosen by your fabled elitist anarchists, but by broad agreement well in advance of the blockades starting. They also helped the campaign immesurably by pretending to have large active campaigns in areas of the city where there were none.

Now perhaps, due to the persistent strength of feeling on the issue a strategy and a new campaign will emerge. If it does I will certainly get stuck in again, but I'd say that this will happen despite the SWP and their cynical opportunistic, lying, smearing gutter politics.

by Dave O Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:21

Most of the working class in my area at the weekend were watching Ireland beat England or Chelsea beat Liverpool, and not the trots beating themselves up over yesterdays issues.

You are some langer. The games you refer to were both on SUNDAY, a day after the anti bin tax march

by remember Tue Mar 01, 2005 00:40

the councils split the campaign with a salami tactics, picking off one part of the city at a time. When fingal was attacked and people were being jailed it was time for the whole city to strike, all campaigns should have gone out together. Fingal ended up isolated and defeated and the city could wait a good year before moving in, and again with salami tactics. Some parties and groups spotted this and argued for united action, unity. Other groups argued against this. The wsm as far as I remember were one of those who argued for united action.

by Mary's horse - my head Tue Mar 01, 2005 00:26

Ah so hundreds of working class activists walking from A to B is a bit of a dissapointment. Much better a couple of dozen real heros flinging themselves in front of lorries I suppose? Especially if they're ideologically puritan and hate the rest of the left.

by Mary's little lamb - Independent Socialist Tue Mar 01, 2005 00:23

Andrew you are bit of a chancer in fairness. It would come as some surprise to the bintax campaigns in Ballyfermot, Clondalkin,Dun Laoghaire , Ringsend, etc that the SWP were 'sitting on their hands'. Brid smith might have been sitting on her hands in Mountjoy alright I guess. The swp simply argued that the concentation on blockades, while carrying useful stunt value, did not offer a long term strategy for the campaign. Because they disagreed with you you slander them. They did and do mobilise their membership and are still doing so for the campaign, and they did take part in the blockades etc.
But what's the point in pointing out the facts to someone who ignores them so blithely. I don't know why I am wasting my time. In fact I think I'll stop right now.

by Andrew Mon Feb 28, 2005 23:14

Sorry Mary but when an anonymous troll like yourself manages to get 3 facts wrong in 2 paragraphs I'm somewhat cynical as to whatever other 'facts' you might claim.

The SWP sat on its hands when it mattered some 16 months back, anonymously bleating about 'running' way from what was after all only an A to B stroll through the city doesn't have the ring to it you think it has.

by Mary Mon Feb 28, 2005 22:54

Good one andy..its not me..boo hoo..avoid the points raised! why was it if Chekov moved out of Stoneybatter a good year or more ago, that an old man was asking for Checkov on the demo saying he should be there for stoneybatter anti bin tax campaign? Another thing dropped like a hot spud by wsm- battles over- run.

by Andrew Mon Feb 28, 2005 22:48

But the Andy above isn't me. While I'm at it there were 8 of us on the march. Also for what its worth Chekov moved out of Stoneybatter a good year or more ago.

But don't let the facts distract you from a good old sectarian rant. It probably makes you feel warm inside.

by Mary Mon Feb 28, 2005 22:41

Andy's report of march neglected to mention that Andy was the sole rep of WSM on the march, seeing as Chekov failed to show up to represent his constituents of Stoneybatter, who were looking for him- oh yeah thats right WSM have dropped the bin tax- its not an issue anymore. No mention of it in latest wsm rag or any work on the ground by them. so what do we get a rant against a report on the demo. Boring, get off the computer andy and get out and organise.

Now thats what gets a little irritating....

by IL Bondo Mon Feb 28, 2005 19:46

If anything the working class who wern`t on the march were watching Chelsea vs Liverpool football is a sport of the working people. Rugby is a snobbish bourgeoisie sport, exclusive to people who went to Prep schools.

by Dublin Exile Mon Feb 28, 2005 18:56

Great to see you back again on Indymedia, telling the far leftists the truth about real people and real politics. Most of the working class in my area at the weekend were watching Ireland beat England or Chelsea beat Liverpool, and not the trots beating themselves up over yesterdays issues.

How convenient for them to forget that if the charges weren't adopted all of the democratically elected representatives of the people would have been suspended and the council would have been replaced by a bureaucrat administrator. - maybe thats what they'd prefer?

C'mon Ireland!!

by Historian Mon Feb 28, 2005 18:01

I think your own 'comrades' have the measure of you cllr.

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Feb 28, 2005 15:07

Come on. You have not answered my questions and have attempted vainly to divert attention by talking about people not understanding the working class. You seem to be on this website a lot for someone who thinks everyone who posts on this website is middle class. You are a careerist opportunist, one who will vote against his parties wishes if he can personally gain out if it. On your point of running for election since you are so keen to mention it, it must be heartbreaking for you to know that you will never be nominated as a general election candidate since you view electoralism as the only way to achieve your aims, hardly revolutionary now dermot. And as for knowing the working class you are a councillor for the Pembroke ward hardly a bastion for the working class. Also no left wing party has branches in Pembroke as far as i am aware so don't attempt to portray yourself as a working class hero. Your just an old labour party hack

by Dermot Lacey Mon Feb 28, 2005 14:53

Despite my previous comment I am taking it that the question re the Waiver is genuine.


As a Social Democrat I support the introduction of a National Waiver Scheme. In the absence of a national Scheme I still support Dublin City Council retaining - and hopefully improving on - the existing waiver scheme. The present scheme does cost the City Council approximately E7million and i believe that should be reimbursed to the Council by the Department of family and Social Affairs. My vote on the Council - unlike others - has always involved supporting a Waiver Scheme. If you support the principle of local taxation/charges as I clearly do you must also support waivers or some ability to pay provisio being built in.

by C na G fan Mon Feb 28, 2005 13:56

That you want to see the waiver cut back on, as it is costing DCC too much?

by Dermot lacey Mon Feb 28, 2005 13:27

This is my last response to this idiotic thread But qute simply Sherlock you are wrong on your stated "facts". You are wrong about my own personal future and clearly you are wrong in your understanding of working class people. The great thing about real working class people in Dublin and elsewhere is their decency and the fact that they do not spend their life moaning. Totally unlike the middle class posers on this site. I'll leave my fate in the hands of the electorate. You should all try it sometime. You to ccc

by CCC Mon Feb 28, 2005 13:11

The self-preening, FF voting, bin tax loving Cllr Lacey reminds me of a certain fellow ex-Lord Mayor currently in parts unknown.

"I am delighted to have received a Labour nomination and delighted that the people of Pembroke elected me at the top of the poll. "

Great working class street cred there Dermo, but thanks for the reminder of your superness anyway. And great job with your latest glossy brochure, just what the working people of Pembroke were waiting for.

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:48

Since you are so keen to down play the numbers at the protest what was the last protest you organised? and how many were at it?

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:44

They are all true Dermot. And as for not using campaigns to buid yourself how farcical a statement in the light that you voted for the bin tax against Labour party wishes so that you could get Fianna Fail support to become Lord Mayor. Lord Mayor is an excellent position from which to run for another office, however that will never happen for as i have previously stated Labour party members who i have talked to believe that you are "too dim". I must point out that i have never met you and would be unable and unwilling to comment on your intelligence.

by Archivist Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:29

Well done. Please publicise your actions through a press release. Its proving difficult to get publicity about whats happening at the Archives.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17

Archivist,

Thanks to information from a strong supporter and Labour member I have already tabled questions about this issue to the next meeting of the City Council.

Sherlock Holmes,

Come out from behind your monicler but let me simply say that not one of the "facts" contained in your posting are correct.

I am delighted to have received a Labour nomination and delighted that the people of Pembroke elected me at the top of the poll. You should try contesting some day. What you won't ever find me doing is using any group of people to build my own campaign. I leave that to the SWP, SP, SF, etc etc etc etc

by Badman Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:14

"Here you are coming on to this website when you should be working "

To be honest, although I think that Dermot is a typically disreputable, opportunistic and self-serving politician, the one good thing that I can say about him is that he does come onto this website and occasionally responds to queries and criticism. It probably makes him more accountable and connected with feeling on the ground than almost all other councillers*. It'd be much more smart to ask why others won't use an independent 'direct access' communication channel like indymedia to try to communicate with the people that they are supposed to be representing.

*The superficial nature of this communication only goes to show just how low the bar is.

by Badman Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:09

"There were also a glut of paper sellers. Now i understand everyone is entitled to sell their wares but when 10 per cent of the marchers are all selling the same paper for the SWP it gets a little irritating."

You misunderstand the whole thing. The purpose of the march was to recruit to the SWP*. Any effects on the prospects for the campaign are incidental whether negative or positive.

* Consider how much more energy the SWP put into building this march compared to _anything_ else that the campaign has done in the last 3-4 years. If they did really care about the campaign then, surely, they would have built real local groups rather than pretend ones. Either they have an analysis that says that this march was _the_ most important event in the history of the campaign or else they have an ulterior motive. They're not stupid enough to believe the former, so my old friend Occam points me towards the later.

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:08

Let me see Dermot. You voted in favour of the bin tax, thus starting this whole mess. This was against the labour line and you lost the whip. You did not do this as a principled stand, you did this in a deal with Fianna Fail so that you could become Lord Mayor. Here you are coming on to this website when you should be working (what is it you do again, your Rabbitte's car driver aren't you?) and attempt to insult an entire campaign. If anti bin taxi campaigners were as petty as you were they would be coming on this website posting about how you are never going to get the nomination to stand as an election candidate for the General elections because as Labour party members have put it to me "Your not clever enough". But who knows maybe the anti bin tax campaigners wont be as petty as you are, i mean they haven't betrayed anybody now have they?

by Archivist Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:03

Did you hear of whats happening at the National Archives? Will you protest about it? Please read the piece at the link. I know this is off topic but I needed to get Dermots attention.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:53

An attendance of 500/800 is probabaly about half of the vote received by the lowest polling Councillor elected to the City Council. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the campaign. And surely that Dessie Ellis speaker was not the same Dessie Ellis who represents SF on the Council - nah that would be too hypocritical surely!!!!!

by Andy - Anti Bin Tax Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35

Dave

If you are going to do a report then do it properly.

The speakers you didnt mention were Dessie Ellis - SF, Des Derwin - DCTU, and bizarrely Dick Boyd Barrett.

A significant group of marchers behind a Finglas Against the Bin Tax banner and the actual banner have also been conveniently overlooked in preference to a breakdown of everyones address that marched behind the Dunlaoghaire banner.

Other lefties on the march-
WCA, ISN,WSM but they opted to march behind local area banners in preference to political groups banners.

There were also a glut of paper sellers. Now i understand everyone is entitled to sell their wares but when 10 per cent of the marchers are all selling the same paper for the SWP it gets a little irritating.

by R. Isible Sun Feb 27, 2005 04:45

Are that they are already paid in the form of existing taxes. We and our parents paid those taxes so that binmen would be employed to take away the waste and dispose of it in state-controlled disposal sites.

Instead we get charged _more_ money so that the state can increase its revenues.

Meanwhile we're fed a load of rubbish about how this is something to with recycling and meanwhile the state is busy exporting our plastic and glass, has recently shut down the only glass recycling facility in Dublin etc.

That's what the big deal is.

Use the "search" function and enter the terms "bin tax" on this site and you'll find much better analyses.

by Bemused Sun Feb 27, 2005 01:36

Can someone explain what's the big deal with the Bin Tax? I mean, something's gotta pay the binmens, sorry, Waste Disposal Officers, Wages.

by John - Anti Bin tax Wexford Sat Feb 26, 2005 22:35

Good report and fair play to all involved. Saw the demo on the six o Clock news and thought it looked quite big and lively. We're trying to get a campaign off the ground down here in Wexford and it will help that people will have seen that on the TV. Sorry I couldn't make it today but like a lot of people I was there in spirit.

by John McDermott - www.soldiersofdestiny.org Sat Feb 26, 2005 22:04 Spain

"Fianna Fail only seem great ..because we who fight against injustice are on our knees"

by Mick Sat Feb 26, 2005 20:39

Around 500 or so there I thought.