Richard Boyd Barrett suggets a way forward.

by e - swp (pc) Fri Jun 08, 2007 01:02

To follow up, Richard is interviewed in the latest (June 2007) issue of Socialist Worker about his result in the election and the campaign work being done in Dun Laoghaire

http://swp.ie/socialistworker/2007/sw275/sw-275-9.htm

by Observer Fri Jun 08, 2007 09:04

An analysis of transfer patterns would suggest that the PBP vote was not that different to the type of vote that newly elected FG candidates received. A kind of middle class youth vote for the latest new thing.

by IT reader Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:13

I read the article in the Times yesterday and what I got from the article was that the left had to turn themselves into RBB. There was no mention of PBPA results in any other constituency. As an exercise in ego massaging it got ten out of ten.

by Squirrel Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:53

That article is quite good until he goes into left wing division and sectarianism.
Richard Boyd Barrett and his Party the SWP are responsible for far more left wing division and sectarianism than any other grouping. What they want is us all to unite under the SWP. Its no coincidence that all PBP candidates were also SWP members. If its such a broad alliance why didn't any non-swp person run for PBP? If the SWP accepted real democracy in campaign groups, drop the scheming, the plotting, the fronts, the vanguardism and the support for right wing clerics then we might be able to work with them. Right now i wouldn't touch anything swp were involved in with a barge pole. However i would work with SP, WSM, Sinn Fein, Greens and labour and have done with minimal problems. Whats red wedges opinion?

by SP supporter Fri Jun 08, 2007 13:03

RBB is wrong to describe the SP as "Joe Higgins' Socialist Party". That is highly insulting to SP supporters. He did not call Labour "Pat Rabbitte's Labour" or he did not refer to "Sargent's Greens". It's all a part of his underhand attack on parties and activists that are openly socialist in their politics. Last thing SWP need are socialists mentioning the 'S' word while they are dropping socialism and looking for former Greens.

by pat c Fri Jun 08, 2007 14:09

Ignore RBBs nonsense. I have differences with the SP but their candidates openly ran as Socialists and on a Socialist Platform. The PBPA ran on a wooly/progressive/catch all programme. The S word was avoided.

As was the A word. The PBPA avoided any mention of Abortion in their election manifesto.* They only supported Miss Ds right to have an abortion but did not go further and only did this in press releases. It was not in their election literature.

The SP candidates in their election manifestos clearly stated that women should have the right to have Abortions in Ireland.

*At Marxism 2007 it was made clear that the PBPA did not have a position on A Womans Right To Choose. This position does not appear to have changed.

RBB is creating a mythology: he did not almost win a seat in Dun Laoire. On the final count, Ciaran Cuffe was over 2,000 votes ahead of RBB.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Jun 08, 2007 14:15

You are correct - RBB got a very good vote but was never actually in with a chance of winning a seat. The claim he was is just media and SWP hype. It will suit the media to use RBB because of the confused nature of his political arguments.

by sp member Fri Jun 08, 2007 21:56

In this article and in the Socialist Worker the SWP/PBPA/IAWM or whatever they are calling themselves today say that the left in Ireland are Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens. Just one more reason why the SP won't be getting involved in an alliance with the SWP. Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens are capitalist parties, that was really shown in the elections as they all ditched policies to make themselves acceptable to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to be partners in their right wing big business governments.
I am not surprised the SWP think this way because we you get down to it the SWP are just a variation of these three parties, they too have ditched their politics to get votes and many more will fall by the wayside before the next election.

by o-l Sat Jun 09, 2007 15:58

"RBB is creating a mythology: he did not almost win a seat in Dun Laoire. On the final count, Ciaran Cuffe was over 2,000 votes ahead of RBB"
actually pat it hink your wrong.
If you look at the count had RBB taken 200 odd votes from the greens it would have been the greens who were eliminated not FG in the 8th count. The greens would have been much more likely to transfer to RBB, which would have given him a very good chance of winning.
So there you go pat c, no mythology, just facts

by Dub Sat Jun 09, 2007 18:30

"The greens would have been much more likely to transfer to RBB, which would have given him a very good chance of winning."

That is wrong. Greens are more likely to transfer to FG. In case you have forgotten the Greens are not necessarily a left-wing vote. And as you say yourself it would have given him a "chance". Reality was that RBB did very well in election. But he was never going to get elected with so many right-wingers behind him. SWP candidate (or "independent" as he called himself) Richard Boyd Barrett did well, and was aided in the count by the over-representation of the Dún Laoghaire constituency. They should have 4 TDs not 5. In the next election there is a very good chance that Dún Laoghaire/Dublin South/ Dub S-E will be butchered into 2 or three constituencies of 3 seaters and RBB will have no hope then.

by pat c Sat Jun 09, 2007 18:49

"So there you go pat c, no mythology, just facts"

The facts are that RBB did not take a few hundred votes from the Greens. The facts are that RBB was not elected. The facts are that Ciaran Cuffe was over 2,000 votes ahead of RBB on the final count.

You are the one who is dealing in supposition and mythology.

RBB was not elected. He didnt narrowly missout. He was 2,000 votes behind. Live with it.

by o-l Sat Jun 09, 2007 20:44

yes we know that he was 2000 behind on the final count,l but it still stands that all he needed was to take 200 votes of cuffe and he have had the seat. Thats the maths of the count. Therefore it seems that its a reasonbable assesment to say that he cam very close
deal with it

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jun 09, 2007 21:58

Was a tally done on where Cuffe's transfer would go if he were eliminated?

I doubt there was.

Looking at other constituencies for some comparison:

Cork North Central -
Both FG candidates received more votes from Chris O'Leary, GP, than either O'Brien of SF or Barry of SP (and O'Leary is considered to have a bigger working class base than most Greens)

Cork South Central -
The two FG candidates received more votes than the LP candidate when Dan Boyle was eliminated.

Dublin Central -
Donoghue (FG) received more votes than McDonald (SF) when McKenna (GP) was eliminated.

Dublin North East -
FG received more votes than SF when Healy (GP-2349) and PD candidate (749) eliminated

Dublin South Central -
Byrne (FG) received more votes than O'Snodaigh (SF) when McDermott (GP) eliminated.

Dublin West -
Varadker (FG) received more votes than Higgins (SP) when O'Gorman (GP) eliminated.

Limerick East -
O'Malley (PD) received more votes than Quinlivan (SF) when GP eliminated.

Louth -
McGuinness (FG) received more votes than Morgan (SF) when Deary (GP) eliminated

Waterford -
FG received more votes than Culhane (SF) when GP eliminated

In fact the only constituency where an alternative candidate received more votes than FG was Kildare North where Murphy (IND) got 853 votes compared to FG's 592 when the GP was eliminated. The LP candidate also received 752 votes - so the comparison is not really accurate.

by pat c Sun Jun 10, 2007 20:43

"yes we know that he was 2000 behind on the final count,l but it still stands that all he needed was to take 200 votes of cuffe and he have had the seat. Thats the maths of the count. Therefore it seems that its a reasonbable assesment to say that he cam very close deal with it"

Its not the facts. RBB was not eliminated until the final count when Cuffe was elected by getting a bigger transfer from Sean Barrets (no relation) surplus than RBB got. If RBB had taken 200 votes from Cuffe then Cuffe would have won by 1,800 votes.

You obviously haven't even bothered to check out how the counts went.

RBB came nowhere close to being elected.

Why are you unable to deal with it?

by o-l Sun Jun 10, 2007 21:59

"You obviously haven't even bothered to check out how the counts went"
looking very closely pat

"RBB came nowhere close to being elected"
if you say so pat

"Why are you unable to deal with it"
just cant pat, its very hard you know

"if RBB had taken 200 votes from Cuffe then Cuffe would have won by 1,800 votes"
i wonder if you "bothered to check" the count
if boyd barrett had have takenan extra 200 off cuffe in the election, ie in first preferences, it would have been cuff eliminated on the 8th count with the FG candiate and rbb goin through to the next count with cuffs 2nd preferences up for grabs. thats why its is perfectly acceptable to say rbb came very close.

heres the exact figures for the 8th count

rbb 6732
ciaran cuffe 6399
eugean reagan FG 6289

thus not even 200 but 110!!!!!

so another 110 and cuffe was out, and as commentators said on the day, this would leave rbb with a very close chance of getting in as the greens may have been more likely to tranfer to rbb, thouse this is deffinately not a certainty, and barretts surplus would have made it an even more difficult task
but as i said before, and no one says that rrb got in, and everyone accpets that pat, and dont want to you worrying about the falsification of history, BUT CLEAR;LY it is perfectly acceptable to sat rbb came very close in the election
there settled

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sun Jun 10, 2007 23:25

Anyway -

As I pointed out above, every other constituency in the country where applicable demonstrated that the GP transferred in greater numbers to FG than any 'alternative' or 'left' candidate.

Dun Laoghaire may have been the exception rather than the rule - but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. You say 'commentators' - who are they.

RBB got a very good vote and fair play to him. Personally I would be critical of the dumping of the socialist content in his manifesto and as a result question the value of this vote. And finally I believe the SWP are not being objective about the result but hyping things a little for their own political purposes.

by pat c Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:14

"so another 110 and cuffe was out,"

But RBB did not take any extra votes from Cuffe. So why do you persist in dwelling in Neverland? The facts remains the same: Cuffe beat RBB by over 2,000 votes.

RBB dropped his socialist politics so that he would attract a liberal vote. It still didn't get him elected.

In a Parallel Universe RBB may have taken an extra 200 votes from Cuffe. But not in reality and not on this Planet Earth.

by Dub Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:57

Ok, if Cuffe lost 110 votes to Fg he would have been knocked out. that is true. But there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Cuffe's transfers going to RBB/SWP in a higher rate then to FG. In fact, evidence everywhere else in the State shows that Green voters tend to transfer to FG more than to left-wing candidates. Of course there may have been an exception in Dún Laoghaire. But you offer NO EVIDENCE of tallies of Cuffe's transfers. This information is available from tallymen (but it seems the SWP spent more time jeering others at the count then actually analysing the result)

by Dub Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:16

I would be interested in hearing about tallies in Dún Laoghaire. If RBB votes were concentrated in certain area then he is in a strong position when it comes to Council elections. But if they came from all over the place with no concentration of the vote in any area then this may well be RBB's highpoint in electoral politics. Dún Laoghaire is likely to be changed in the next election to a 4 seater or indeed may be part of a generalised carve-up of the Dublin constituencies in that part of Dublin (Dublin South-East, DL, Dublin South) due to over-representation. Joe Higgins and Clare Daly who did genuinely come close this time are well positioned given the geographical spread of their votes and the fact that part of Dublin will gain a few seats rather than loose them. I'd say Catherine Murphy would be ina good position too when it comes to boundary revision, but who knows if she'll stick around?

by Realist Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:40

Lets face reality, Clare's vote was disappointing. It was down about 700/800 on the last election. And this time the electorate was about 12,000 more. Clare's treading water. There's no doubt that Joe will be elected in Dublin West next time but I think the SP certainty on Clare being elected is misplaced.
What will happen to Ruth Coppinger? Will she run with Joe in the same ward, which wll effectively mean her being dumped?

by Dub Mon Jun 11, 2007 13:15

If Dublin North was 5 seats (as it should have been) it is based on FACT that Clare Daly would take last seat. The quota would have been lower, ie Michael Kennedy (FF) would have a surplus. That surplus on 1st count would go to Daly over others. The tallies in Dublin North had her getting large numbers of 2s from Kennedy (both are Councillors in Swords). Daly would have been ahead of Sean Ryan's brother which would have resulted in his elimination. Sean Ryan's brother's transfers would have placed Clare Daly ahead of last FFer (O'Leary) for the last seat. This is all based on the tally returns and examination of transfers. My source is actually a FFer not the SP. I'm not sure if the SP are "talking up" Clare Daly at all.

I'd say SP will continue their 2-candidate strategy in Mulhuddart again as they have since 1999 local elections. They may be successful if they've a former TD and a sitting Councillor running. Higgins may even run in another ward in Fingal as he does have record throughout Dublin West. I think local elections will be interesting for the left. SWP may get their first elected representatives in 2009 if Bríd Smith's vote does not go back to Jackson and if RBB can concentrate his vote. The SP are likely to retain their seats and maybe make a few gains.

by Realist Mon Jun 11, 2007 13:53

Ifs, buts and scenarios Dub. The reality being that Clares vote was down about 4% and that's what did for her. To lose 700/800 votes when the electorate is up about 12,000 doesn't augur well for the future.

by Dub Mon Jun 11, 2007 16:22

All of what I have outlined is based on FACT. On the votes cast on 24 May if there were 5 seats in Dublin North Clare Daly would be a TD now. That is all based on tally returns and solid fact. Yes, her vote was down largely due to national swing behind FF and FG. All small parties and independent candidates were down with a few exceptions here and there. In different circumstances she would have won one of the 4 seats. To say Clare Daly is no longer a serious challenger for the Dail has no connection with reality. Remember my sources on Dublin North tallies are not SP members spinning, it's from FFers.

by Realist Mon Jun 11, 2007 16:32

"On the votes cast on 24 May if there were 5 seats in Dublin North Clare Daly would be a TD now."

Ah go on now Dub. I'll grant you there's no 'but' in that sentence. I can get a pointer to help you with that other little word.

by Dub Mon Jun 11, 2007 16:47

The point is that the two SP candidates in Fingal (Higgins and Daly) did enough to get elected. Problem was the undemocratic constituency boundaries. The "squeeze" effected them in that they did not win the 3rd or 4th seats. But there should have been 4 and 5 seats respectively. "Realist" is most likely a troll or a sectarian from SWP that is trying to down play the SP's very good vote in Fingal.

by Realist Mon Jun 11, 2007 17:00

"But there should have been 4 and 5 seats respectively. "

First we had the if now we've got the but. House.
You soldier on with your ifs and buts and pretending not to be a member of the SP. Meanwhile you'll find Joe and Clare won't be in the Dáil chamber on Thursday. It's a shame but that's the reality.

by Asian Dub Mon Jun 11, 2007 17:08

Best to just ignore the troll I'd say Dub. It's pretty obvious what you're dealing with here, you've made the point that Higgins and Daly should have won seats if the constitution had been respected drafting the electoral boundaries, but he just keeps bleating "no ifs! no buts!" as if that was a substitute for real arguments. Leave him be...

by Realist Tue Jun 12, 2007 00:05

The SP commentators keep harping on about how 'if and but' would mean that the SP would have two TD's on Thursday. It's the constitution silly. Fair enough but it's not that simple. Boundaries would have had to be withdrawn. It's possible that Dublin West and Dublin North wouldn't have the constituencies as they were in this election. The constitution requires 166 seats. How that would have transferred into the nature of the reformed constituencies is really a job for the 'if and but' merchants.

by Constitution reader Tue Jun 12, 2007 00:24

1° Dáil Éireann shall be composed of members who represent constituencies determined by law.

2° The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

3° The ratio between the number of members to be elected at any time for each constituency and the population of each constituency, as ascertained at the last preceding census, shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.

4° The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every twelve years, with due regard to changes in distribution of the population, but any alterations in the constituencies shall not take effect during the life of Dáil Éireann sitting when such revision is made.

5° The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.

6° No law shall be enacted whereby the number of members to be returned for any constituency shall be less than three.

There doesn't seem to be anything there about the number 166.

by I'm an SP troll ;-) - SP - presonal cap Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:33

The constiitution doesnt mention 166 seats, it used to be 140 or 144 and was changed, without any refurendum. In fact the minister for the environment was given the power to award DW and DN an extra seat if he wanted.

I think the main thing, though, is we knew in advance of the election both were under represented, we knew Palmerstown was taken out of DW, we knew we'd be fighting an election with no strong issue and that the Alliance for change would take some votes from us as people wanted to change the government. Still, one week before the election we were confident we had over come all those hurdles and would win two seats. If the election had been a week earlier that is what probably would have happened. That would have been a tremendous succes.

However in the last week fear about the economy fed into FF. Some more people switched to voting for the political status quo to try maintain the economic status quo. That took the last few votes that broke the camals back. (RBBs vote didn't suffer this faith, possibly due to the fact he ad courted radical, middle class liberals who were less fearful of the economy, still though, he only got a vote equal to Clare Daly's not even Joes. And in terms of what it represents, it is much less significant than either).

We can take comfort in the fact that FF will be unable to save the economy. Capitalism means busts. It means pitting irih wags against polish or chinese or whatever. FF can't change that (sure they've only got 1 socialist!). Similarly FG can't deliver on there promise to be a genuine alternative.

As FF say, we are heading for rough waters.

by Dub Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:38

"The constitution requires 166 seats. How that would have transferred into the nature of the reformed constituencies "

So called "Realist" wrote this drivel. There is no requirement to have a certain number other than a number of TDs within ratio. In the past the number of TDs has varied. It was 148 before it moved to 166. The ratios have to be the same throughout the state (as far as practicable). The "as far as practicable" is where the nub of the issue is. Constituencies with smaller populations than Dublin North & West had more TDs. This is breaking the "as far as practicable" clause. It was "practicable" to add a TD to these under-represented constituencies and had number of TDs at 168. Furthermore, the Constitency Commission has certain criteria. As outlined in the constitution but also outlined in guidelines. County Boundaries should be kept as much as possible and there should be continuity as much as possible. ie "Dublin North" and "Dublin West" would still exist but with added areas or added seat.

by Dub Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:07

Rough Waters in the economy will mean it will be more likely for an election to take place before the 5 year term ends. The FF/PD/Ind have a majority of 1 TD. Within weeks that could go if Flynn is bankrupt, Healy-Rae gets more ill, or even if Jim McDaid goes further off the rails and leaves FF!! Even with the Greens the government will not be a whole lot more "stable". I think the Greens will be nervous of the next election and may well leave early by "breaking" on a matter that will favour them in the election. Unlike the 1997-2002 government of FF/PD/Ind the economy will be the factor limiting the lenght of the 30th Dáil.

In the next election there is a very real prospect of electing Joe Higgins, Clare Daly and a range of lefts. The constituency revision may work against Richard Boyd Barrett/SWP.

by I'm an SP troll ;-) - SP - presonal cap Wed Jun 13, 2007 00:21

My point about the rough waters wasn't just about prospects for the next election. Its much more important than that, in fact. Its about the prospects of building a socialist alternative and opposition, on the ground. For instance if water charges are implented, with a seat or (unfortunately now) without a seat for Joe the SP would be in the lead in what would be a mass campaign against them. Thats why people shouldnt take the negative conculsions that are being drawn by some. It represents an over statement of the importance of elections.

Joe's seat was only ever an assistance to struggles: Bin tax, GAMA workers, rossport, anti-war etc. Whilst that assistance is now lost, it doesnt represent any fundamental change in the situation. 250 transfers going differently hardly represents a fundamental difference in the potential to build socialism! Similarly 1 week is the difference between 0 and 2 seats. Its dumb to argue that the los of Joe's seat shows a shift right wards, as some have, given that one week earlier there would have been 2 seats. Maybe in the space of one week workers went from being anti-privatisation to being pro! I doubt it though.

I must say I am disappointed with the generally quite poor election analysis from left groups llike swp, SD, ISN and wsm.

by Leftie Wed Jun 13, 2007 01:20

"I must say I am disappointed with the generally quite poor election analysis from left groups llike swp, SD, ISN and wsm."

Could you just spare us the bother and say "we are always right, everyone else is always wrong!" The election analysis of the four groups you mentioned differed radically, so managing to disagree with all of them requires the sort of mental agility only a trained sectarian could manage.

by Disappointed Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:00

"I must say I am disappointed with the generally quite poor election analysis from left groups llike swp, SD, ISN and wsm."

They didn't mention the constitutional conspiracy to rob the CWI of seats. They didn't mention the qualitative difference between the 8.9% Clare got and the 8.9% that RBB got. They didn't recognise that when CWI candidates get around 3% that there are different objective conditions at play that make that vote qualitatively superior to similar votes. They don't realise that we are the only socialist group in Ireland that takes part in campaigns for working class people. They also didn't finish their analyses with a call to the working class to join the only organistation in Ireland that leads the working class in the day to day struggles namely the CWI.

by Dub Wed Jun 13, 2007 13:15

I'm not overstaing elections. As this thread is about elections I'm discussing them and responding to posts. I think that parliament does not represent working class people. In fact, history has shown that working class representation in parliaments only really happen AFTER big struggles. Also history has shown that parliamentary reps of workers parties tend to be more conservative and lage behind working class people. In a way Joe Higgins election bucks the trend as the 1990s and early 2000s has seen low levels of working class militancy. I don't think the next 10 years will be like this - therefore on the electoral fron their will be openings for SP, Inds, even SWP/PBP or a new party.

by I'm an SP troll ;-) - SP - presonal cap Wed Jun 13, 2007 18:34

Hey,
Dub, i wasn't criticising you as overstating elections or anything like that, I was directing those comments to others and to more general becuase it is the case that now leftists in general overstate the importance of elections in setting or even in refletcing the political mood.

On the point that i am a sectarian gymnist... Well, i disagree with all 4 of their analysis. ISNs is not as bad as others, but i think it is one sided, just discussing the negatives and the difficulties, something the ISN seem to do often enough. I remember at the Socialist 2006 debate over Israel-Palestine Colm's contributions on the perspectives of socialism were purely the negative side and the challenges we face etc. I agree with all the difficulties he mentions but there is another side, inface the side that it is most important to argue for: that struggle will develop and socialism is possible.

by Dr. No Wed Jun 13, 2007 22:30

His article is so negative particularly in the way that it ends:

"Engaging with working people in campaigning work, learning from that engagement and developing our politics on that basis: this is key to healthy renewal. Revolutionary politics grows in the mass struggles of working people or dies. It’s as simple as that."

by CWI fan Thu Jun 14, 2007 06:56

"I agree with all the difficulties he mentions but there is another side, inface the side that it is most important to argue for: that struggle will develop and socialism is possible."

Indeed, he fails to mention the obvious fact that the struggle for socialism will be led by the CWI, which alone has the correct Marxist analysis and understanding of the working class. Since it is impossible for the struggle for socialism to be led by anyone other than the glorious CWI, therefore the ISN article is negative. Simple as that!

by left observer Fri Jun 22, 2007 17:42

Lets get this straight once and for all (someone's got to)

1. This petty and snide sectarianism, a lot of it coming from the SP has to stop. You're making the rest of the left look bad.

2. The SWP has a pretty reasonable analyisis of the election and the rise of PBP is testament to the success of reaching out to people who wouldn't necessarily call themselves socialist.

3. Joe Higgins lost his seat which was very sad. But don't blame it on boundaries you cretins! The boundary was the same last time and he won. now his vote's went down and he lost... simple. This raises the question of whether the SP is capable of expanding out and reaching new people in it's current dogmatic and obnoxious platform of insisting people come to them rather than trying to reach out to people who have never considered socialism or are scared of what they have been conditioned to think of as socialism ie (USSR).

4. PBP, has tried to reach out to a wide range of activists. One accusation is that all the candidates were from the SWP. This can be easily countered by the fact that the alliance is quite young and still finding its feet. Also, the SWP members are going to be the most politically experienced in the group and therefore be better placed to run in an election over other community members who would shy away from such a difficult, high pressure role. Maybe if SP and other left members had have joined there would have been a much more representative slate.

5. Cut the crap about the vote for PBP being trendy liberal or watever. The SP tried the same line in the northern elections, saying that the vote for SEA and PBP were "trendy green liberal". The constituencies of Foyle and west belfast especially have the highest level of deprivation and poverty anywhere in the north and are the greatest centres of political working class struggle. So the idea that the vote in these constituencies was trendy liberal are a poor excuse to cover up the humiliating combined SP result of 400!

6. the SP try the same line with dunleary but it also doesn't hold water. Most votes came from the deprived areas but this doesn't matter as the vote came form working class people who were less affluent and more affluent but still working class. Marx defines working class as someone who sells their labour and middle class as small business owners who also work in that business themselves. The SP has fallen into the rightwing trap of defining white collar workers as middle class. If they only define working class as people living in council estates, on benefits or in heavy manual labour then its no wonder their vote has failed to grow.

7. The SWP unashamedly championed all sorts of progressive socialist issues both north and south in their manifesto's, opposing the war, rejecting the police as a solution to anti social behavior, rejecting privatisation, supporting non payment of water charges, proposing more social housing, better benefits, more jobs and championing women's rights. The best the SP could muster up north was the "free bus pass" manifesto and the assertion by jim barbour that "the police need more weapons to deal with anti-social behavior" but hey as long as they have socialist in their name its ok... right?

I'm sorry that i had to bring sp members' world crashing down around them there but it had to be done. Your rabid snide sectarianism to compensate for your own failure is harmful to the interests of the working class.

by left observer Fri Jun 22, 2007 20:25

LOL yeah, sorry to have to let it all out there, i really like the SP and other left groups i just really hate sectarian division.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Jun 22, 2007 21:09

Our friend from the SWP above encapsulates that organisation's approach to politics.

By that I don't just mean that he (or she) has produced a barely coherent rant filled with bile, that it is wrong about straightforward issues of fact or that its argument consists entirely of unsubstantiated assertions. All of that is undoubtedly true, but the part which is so amusing is the petty dishonesty. Here we have a thread where the SWP's propensity for hiding its own views, its own name and its own ideas is under discussion. So what does our friend do? He posts a lengthy screed, defending the SWP and attacking its rivals in a spittle-flecked sectarian rant, but does so while omitting to mention his SWP membership and while using a pseudonym, "left observer", which is clearly intended to leave the impression that these aren't the views of an SWP hack, but are the honest opinions of an independent, neutral observer.

What's so astonishing isn't the dishonesty. That I'm afraid is par for the course for the SWP. The astonishing thing is that he feels so comfortable displaying an unalloyed contempt for the intelligence of anyone who might read his post. This isn't a public meeting, or an election campaign, where most of the people the SWP intends to deceive will not know who they are. This is a site where a large percentage of the regular posters are left wing activists who well know the score when it comes to this kind of nonsense. The arrogance is breathtaking.

Now moving on to the meat of his post, in so far as it can be said to have any meat. Let's take the points raised in turn:

1) There is nothing inherently "petty", "snide" or "sectarian" about trying to make a serious analysis of this election, which is what the Socialist Party has attempted to do. The fact that others may reach conclusion about the SWP/PBPA which you do not like, again does not make them petty, snide or sectarian, no matter how forcefully left observer asserts it (or how vigorously he throws his dummy from his pram)

2) I quite agree that the vote of the SWP/PBPA in Dun Laoghaire demonstrates an ability to reach out to people who are not socialists. The question is on what basis did the SWP/PBPA reach out to those people. Reaching out to non-socialists by convincing them of socialist ideas is a central task of socialist organisations. Reaching out to non-socialists by burying our own socialism is not quite the same thing. I don't however expect an SWP member to appreciate the distinction.

3) Left observer rather embarrasses himself by calling people who referred to the changes in the Dublin West constituency "cretins". The Dublin West boundaries were in fact moved and Palmerstown, one of Joe Higgins core areas, was moved out of the constituency. Further, and more significantly, the population of the constituency as a whole had drastically increased, meaning that the constituency actually broke constitutional limits on representation.

Had the boundaries remained the same it is likely that Joe Higgins would have kept his seat. Had the constituency had the extra TD it was entitled to he would certainly have kept his seat. That's not to say that the Socialist Party thinks that these are the only reasons why we lost our seat. There are wider factors to take into account. A last minute national swing to Fianna Fail and a lack of ongoing working class struggles are just two examples we have discussed for instance. But nevertheless it is important to register that Higgins was for all intents and purposes gerrymandered out of a seat. I would advise left observer to check his facts before making crassly incorrect assertions, but as I am aware of the low status which mere facts enjoy in the SWP I won't bother.

4) In fact only four of the five PBPA candidates were in the SWP. Carmel McKenna, who stood in Wicklow, was a former Labour Party member. Despite the fact that it was clear from a long way out that she would poll very poorly the SWP needed her to stand to avoid a situation where every single candidate was an SWP member. The SWP, let us be clear, did want the PBPA to involve some wider forces. It tried to push people into standing in Mayo. It tried to hook up with Labour councillors in Galway and Sligo. It tried to bounce Cllr Joan Collins into standing for them in Dublin. According to leaked documents it even made overtures towards Finian "now in government with Fianna Fail" McGrath. What all these disparate people had in common is that they all told the SWP to go take a running jump.

It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that the SWP didn't want to get others involved in the PBPA. They certainly did. It is equally wrong to suggest that they did in fact get others involved. Their failure to do so was nearly complete. They failed to do so not only at the level of these attempted hook-ups with established groups and individuals, they also failed to do so on the ground. Nobody emerged that they could stand as even a figurehead ally, with the solitary exception of McKenna. At the national public events of the PBPA they managed attendances ranging from less than 40 to less than 60, almost entirely composed of SWP members and curious activists from other parts of the left. The only significant exception to this failure was that they did manage to rope in some extra people on the ground to leaflet and canvass during the campaign, although no more than other left candidates did.

In so far as this election was concerned, the PBPA was not an alliance of the SWP with substantial forces to its right. Instead it was a rebadged SWP, dropping the scary talk of socialism, the working class or the SWP itself. That does not mean, by the way, that the PBPA will always be that. The SWP have an ability to make most things they touch turn to shit, but it can't be ruled out that in their long march rightwards, away from class politics, that they will eventually bump into a more substantial layer of people looking for what they are selling. The early Green Party, of Garland and McKenna, hit into substantial support in those parts after all.

5) The PBPA stood in only one constituency and its vote was different to that of the SEA. The latter is based largely on Eamon McCann's personal record and, while I have many disagreements with it, to its credit it does openly and clearly describe itself as socialist. Of course nobody suggested that the PBPA vote of 744 in West Belfast means that West Belfast is a "trendy liberal" place. We are talking about a mere 2% of the constituency vote after all. What Socialist Party members did argue was that the PBPA candidate in that constituency got a few hundred more than other left candidates because he was peddling a softer message, moving away from a clear focus on socialism and class politics. The fact that this approach garnered 2% support in West Belfast as opposed to 8% in Dun Laoghaire tells us something about the nature of the two constituencies. Here's a hint: It isn't that Dun Laoghaire is a more radical or working class place.

As an aside I find it difficult to avoid laughing out loud at the lack of self awareness of an organisation which so proudly trumpets the fact that it got just over 2% of the vote in West Belfast as opposed to just under 1% in South or East Belfast as some kind of triumph. You, my friend, badly need to get a sense of perspective.

6 and 7) Here left observer throws in a red herring by claiming that those who disagree with him think that only the unemployed or manual labourers are working class. Many if not most working class people in Dublin, anywhere in Dublin, are white collar workers. Nobody has argued otherwise, certainly not the Socialist Party or any of the SWP/PBPA's other critics. But that doesn't mean that everyone in Dublin is working class, or that every place is the same as every other. Dun Laoghaire contains some people who are working class, even in the narrow sense left observer attributes to everyone else. Many, many more are working class in Marxist terms. However, Dun Laoghaire is one of the three richest constituencies in Ireland. It contains not only a sizeable concentration of actual capitalists but also a very large number of people who are middle class, no matter what definition you use, small business people, professionals, managers and the like. Most (but by no means all) of its working class inhabitants tend towards the upper reaches of working class pay and lifestyle. Despite this, it is possible to build support there on a socialist and working class basis. The question is, is this what the SWP/PBPA did?

Well lets look at the evidence. Standing as socialists on an SWP platform, the same candidate received 900 votes in 2002. That vote increase in the local elections of 2004, chiefly off the back of the then ongoing anti-bin tax struggle, to 1,800. These are not fantastic results by any means, but they are not dismal either and while the latter was pushed up by the proximity of the anti-bin tax campaign it still represented a vote for a candidate standing as a socialist and talking prominently about socialism, the SWP and class politics. Does anyone really think that the SWP would have got heading for three times their previous vote in this constituency while running the same kind of campaign? To ask the question is to answer it.

So what kind of campaign did they run? I'll analyse that in another post in a few minutes.

by left observer Fri Jun 22, 2007 21:59

I'm not a member of SWP but it suits some (not all) deluded minds in the SP to think that the only people to defend swp actions and speak out against sectarianism are swp members themselves. I was at one point thinking of joining the socialist party though. Lucky escape it seems

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Jun 22, 2007 22:39

So what kind of campaign did the SWP/PBPA run? Well, let's start by looking at some cold hard facts before we get on to analysing the campaign.

"socialist", "socialism", "SWP", "Socialist Workers Party" and "working class"

In response to similar bluster from another SWP member on this site, I actually undertook the deeply tedious task of searching through the election material of two randomly chose SWP/PBPA candidates. These were Rory Hearne, who stood in Dublin South East, and Richard Boyd Barrett, who of course stood in Dun Laoghaire. I went through their material (and there was a lot of it) looking for any uses of the words "socialist", "socialism", "SWP" and "Socialist Workers Party". I started by taking a look at Rory Hearne's material.

Rory is a long standing SWP activist and socialist. He appeared on the ballot paper as non-party. His election posters described him only as a member of the People Before Profit Alliance. In other words there was no mention of any of the above words on the ballot or on his posters. I've just gone through the array of press releases on his website. Again none of them mention any of the above words. There is a biography of the candidate on the website, which lists a whole range of political campaigns he has been involved in, but strangely omits his involvement in the SWP and doesn't mention his socialist beliefs.

I then moved on to the rest of his extensive website and to his main election leaflets. The first of the leaflets again omits all of the above words and phrases. So does all of his website bar the fifth page, which is a description of the People Before Profit Alliance. There in a sidebar, "socialists" are included in last place in a list of types of people who are involved in the PBPA. There is no reference to Rory being a Socialist or to his SWP membership. His two other leaflets include a similar section in the small print, listing the "Socialist Workers Party" as one of a wide range of components of the PBPA. Again no reference is made to Rory being a socialist or an SWP member.

In conclusion, some of Rory's material made reference in the small print to the SWP or socialists as one component part of the PBPA amongst many. Most of it did not even do that. None of it described him as a socialist or as an SWP member.

Then I took a look at Richard Boyd Barrett's material.

Richard again is a long standing SWP member and socialist and is, like Rory a member of the central leadership of the SWP. Like Rory, he appeared on the ballot paper as non-party. Again, like Rory his posters described him only as a member of the People Before Profit Alliance and made no reference to his SWP membership or to his socialist beliefs. There are no less than 27 press releases on his website. I've just bored myself almost to tears by going through all of them. Unsurprisingly not one of them mentions any of the words "socialist", "socialism", "SWP", or "Socialist Workers Party". This includes the assorted press releases which explain who Richard is, what he stands for and what his views are. I think some of us may have started to discern a pattern at this stage.

Similarly the biography on his website and the section on what he stands for make no mention of his long and ongoing involvement with the SWP, nor do they mention his socialist views. The first of his main election leaflets again makes no reference to any of the above terms.

One of his leaflets and the corresponding page on his website to the one I mentioned above include ,on a sidebar, "socialists" as the last group amongst a series of types of people involved in the PBPA. They do not mention the SWP, nor do they mention that Richard is himself a socialist. A second leaflet is a minor exception to this pattern - buried in the small print on page 2, it refers to "socialists like Richard" as one of the groups involved in the PBPA. This is the only place in his huge quantity of material where he is described as a socialist. Nowhere at all is reference made to his membership of the SWP. I then decided to start looking for the phrase "working class" in the People Before Profit Alliance election material. I didn't currently have time to do as thorough a search as I carried out above, but I did look through Richard Boyd Barrett's website and his three main election leaflets. The number of times the phrase "working class" was used was... zero, although there was a brief bit about "workers rights" to join a union in one of his leaflets.

So in 44 pieces of election material examined, covering two different SWP leaders standing as PBPA candidates we find: One reference in the small print of a leaflet to Richard Boyd Barrett as a socialist. No references to Rory Hearne as such. No references to Richard as an SWP member. No references to Rory as such. A more limited search showed no references to the the working class or to class politics at all.

Transfer patterns

The SWP/PBPA have not yet seen fit to given any details of the tallies in Dun Laoghaire, which would let us all know precisely what areas their vote came from. Whether this is because they think it would only give fuel to their critics or whether it is simply because they don't have accurate tallies I don't pretend to know. Indications from members of other parties in Dun Laoghaire have been that Boyd Barrett votes came from all across the constituency, but that's not hard evidence so I won't go into that for the moment.

One thing which is notable about left candidates of whatever stripe, is that they have universally been quite transfer repellant. Whether they get a high first preference vote or a low one, they find transfers hard to come by, primarily because we are offering something very different to the other candidates. Joe Higgins is a partial exception to that because of his personal stature, but even he is only a partial exception - the fact that only SF transferred heavily to him was one of the factors which cost him his seat. Sinn Fein suffers from the same problem, for slightly different but overlapping reasons to those of the left. By contrast, the Green Party, as befits their soft image, have traditionally been the most transfer attractive party. Nobody really hates them after all and they hoover up transfers from all over the political spectrum.

But something strange happened in Dun Laoghaire this time out. Boyd Barett was standing in a crowded field with a lot of candidates from the larger parties. And yet, while he lost to Cuffe of the Greens in the end, he was by no means rolled over on transfers. He was competitive on transfers not just from the allegedly "left" mainstream parties but also on Progressive Democrat and Fine Gael transfers.

In Count 2, Mary Hanafin (FF) had her surplus distributed. Boyd Barrett got slightly more of it than Bailey (FG), Regan (FG), Barrett (FG), Quinn (Lab) or O'Broin (SF). In Count 3, O'Broin was eliminated and, this time as we would expect, Boyd Barrett got the biggest transfer. In Count 4, Andrews (FF) had his surplus distributed and again Boyd Barrett got more of it than Bailey, Regan, Barrett or Quinn. On Count 5, Quinn was eliminated and Boyd Barrett got 2 transfers more than O'Malley (PD) and two less than Bailey (FG). On Count 6, O'Malley (PD) was eliminated and Boyd Barrett got a bigger transfer than Bailey (FG). On Count 7, Bailey (FG) was eliminated and Boyd Barrett actually got more transfers than Cuffe (Greens).

The point I'm making above is not that Boyd Barrett was the most transfer attractive candidate. He was not. But he was competitive with the right wing candidates on transfers from other right wing candidates which is not something the long history of left (or SF) candidates would lead us to expect. What's more it seems that many voters for one of the main right wing coalition alternatives often preferred him to the other right wing coalition option. Fiona O'Malley, the former TD for the Progressive Democrats in the constituency was on television on the night of the count and expressed the view that Boyd Barrett would win because he would get large transfers from her vote and from that of Fine Gael. The startling thing about that is that while she was wrong about him winning, she was right that he would get those transfers.

Putting it together

So what does all of this tell us? We know that the SWP ran a campaign where they for all intents and purposes abolished the words socialism, SWP and working class. It is a cold, hard fact that those words and concepts were ruthless excised from the image they presented to the voters. It is also clear that their vote almost trebled in one of the wealthiest parts of the country and that voters for the most right wing parties in the state viewed their candidate as an attractive second preference. It would I think be extraordinarily naive to take the view that these processes were unconnected.

Significant numbers of people in a wealthy patch of the country do not typically decide that Thatcherism is their first preference, revolutionary socialism their second, some more Thatcherism their third, and so on. They might on the other hand think that Fine Gael or Fianna Fail or the PDs are their first choice and that that nice, well groomed, well spoken young man from the area who they saw campaigning about the sea front and giving out about that awful George Bush deserves a second preference. Or indeed a first preference. That's the basis on which the SWP have made an electoral advance there, not the class politics or socialism which they so vigorously hid.

None of the above is to say that there was nothing positive about the SWP/PBPA platform. It contained many reforms which I support and it covered many important issues. These include the bin tax and the war in Iraq amongst other issues. There is nothing wrong with gathering support as a result of the bin tax campaign. Nor for that matter should they have been expected to hide the campaigning work they did around the seafront issue. They did not stand on a platform which could have been put out by, say, Fine Gael and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. At the same time, they did stand in a manner which prioritised not scaring the horses above all else. They have proven conclusively that a local campaigner who doesn't have anything to say about socialism or class politics can gather a very significant vote. I'm just not sure why anybody would think that needed to be proven.

By the way "left observer", posters here who contribute anonymously and without openly revealing their affiliations but who post mostly or entirely in defence of one particular organisation and its political views almost universally turn out to be members or close supporters of that political organisation. Judging from your anonymity, your vehement defences of the SWP and its views along with your interest in Trotsky and hostility towards the SWP's rivals... well I think we can all draw our own conclusions.

by left observer Fri Jun 22, 2007 22:45

damn sp member you sure used a lot of words to say absolutely nothin but i shall break your argument thus.

1 i'm not an swp member and this thread is not analysis it is snide point scoring, i see no swp attacks on this site against joe higgins/clare daly etc

2 Reaching out to non-socialists by convincing them of socialist ideas is a central task of socialist organisations. Thats wat PBP seems to be trying to do. I've had a look at what they have to say and it seems very socialist in tone. Your only problem is that they don't run under the word socialist as you do and either force your views down people's throats or reject people who don't understand socialism and arn't interested. The key is to get people interested in whats important to them ie public health, bin tax, sosf, privatisation and THEN reach out to those people by explaining how only socialism can solve those problems. PBP seems to be trying to do this.

3 The boundary didn't change that much and to suggest that everyone who moved out was socialist and everyone who moved in was right wing is make believe, for all your "we must reach out to the people on a "pure socialist" platform it seems it has failed miserably, it seems even higgin's excellent performance over the years could not save him from the abstract dogmatists in his party.

4 glad you agree that swp is TRYING to reach out and create a wider left movement something it seems is quite beneath the SP

5. "PBPA candidate in that constituency got a few hundred more than other left candidates because he was peddling a softer message, moving away from a clear focus on socialism and class politics"

774 and 994 on transfers! aalmost 4- 5 times higher than the SP (212)!!! oh but of course i forgot about all the trendy wealthy liberals on the falls road who agree with non payment, higher taxes, anti privatisation and rejection of police! its lower than dunleary btw because of sectarian (the other kind) voting and the belife that sinn fein was gonna see the working class right.

once again you come up with trash. The campaign was quite clearly socialist and included everything from rejection of police as answer, to women's lib, calling for non payment of WC, social housing, jobs,anti-privatisation. Everything short of calling for workers councils it seems. on the other hand we have the "socialist" party's free bus pass and "more weapons for the police to deal with them young ones!" yes very socialist indeed but hey as long as you use the word right?

6. pretty much covered by the fact you believe that pbp's more socialist platform than sp brought in all those rich liberals who live in west belfast and the way you squeal about a working class area being moved out of Joe's constituency. newsflash, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE WORKING CLASS! if you were too sectarian and dogmatic to reach them its YOUR problem not theirs... IDIOT!

7. Thank you for proving pbp right. When SWP went out on pure dogmatic obnoxious platform they didn't do well. PBP has increased their vote hugely by trying to reach out to people on a local level on issues that affect them first. and brought a lot of people into socialism who would never have thought about it before.

I have crushed your mean spirited arguments and so i await your apology. and also any apology to the working class for sectarianism

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sat Jun 23, 2007 02:41

"I HAVE CRUSHED YOUR MEAN SPIRITED ARGUMENTS!!!" I think I'll have to borrow that one for future discussion on this site. Whenever a discussion is going badly wrong for me, I'll pull it out because nobody can come back from a devestating one liner like that. It's a match winner if ever there was one. I have to admit that I actually prefer this new SWP/PBPA style of debate. It might be utterly incoherent. It might involve not engaging with anything the other person said. But at least it's more entertaining than the usual greatest time ever to be a socialist gibberish.

I'm not really sure that it's worth my while, even in my current advanced state of boredom, responding to stuff at this level, but anway, once more into the gaping abyss:

1) Of course you aren't an SWP member. You are an independent observer, who likes to quote Lenin and Trotsky, who agrees with the SWP on each thread you contribute to, who rabidly denounces their critics, who boasts about their rather meagre achievements and who seems to have nothing else to say. I understand the difference now, and in retrospect I'm horrified that I could ever have confused the two concepts. There is clearly no evidence at all which could possible lead the rest of us to assume that you are an SWP supporter.

However, even an undoubtedly neutral observer like yourself must have noticed that the SWP are currently arguing that their People Before Profit Alliance is the way forward for the left in Ireland. That is they are not simply going about their business, but are trying to convince the rest of us of their views. It isn't "petty" or "sectarian" or "snide pointscoring" to seek to evaluate their claims. The SWP are putting a model forward, based largely on the evidence of Richard Boyd Barrett's vote, yet you seem to think that it is unreasonable to actually try to assess that evidence. If I was putting forward a case based on evidence as flimsy as the SWP's case for People Before Profit, I might not want people to look at it too closely, but why would a neutral, unbiased observer like yourself, with no connection at all to the SWP, get so riled?

2) Perhaps you could point me to some of the material of the PBPA which "explains how only socialism can solve" various social problems? I've looked through their material in detail, as outlined above, and it seems to me that not only do they not do that, they don't like to even mention the existence of socialism, the SWP or the working class.

You see, I'm not in favour of ramming anything down anyone's throat. Nor am I afraid of campaigning alongside people who aren't socialists on any number of issues - in fact the Socialist Party has an unrivaled record of doing just that kind of campaigning. What I don't accept is that it is impossible to build support by openly arguing for socialist ideas or openly pushing class politics. I don't accept that the only way to convince people is to pretend to be nice, soft, liberals and then somehow, without openly arguing for socialist ideas, they will be won over by a kind of osmosis. Socialist ideas have to be fought for and if that means that in difficult circumstances we lose some votes, than so be it - better a few votes than our principles.

It's not easy to make gigantic steps forward for socialist ideas in Irish society at the moment, but I don't think that there are any shortcuts. The SWP, ironically enough, professes to be convinced that Irish society is just crying out for socialist ideas and that we are facing a once in a lifetime opportunity for the left to make a breakthrough. But as is often the case its actions contradict its words. We can see that it doesn't really believe that this is the best time ever to be a socialist because it regards the concept of socialism, the very word socialism, the idea of class politics as dreadful burdens which stand between it and an imagined bigtime. And it can't jettison all that baggage fast enough so that it can get down to the real business of getting someone elected to the Dail on the basis that they are a nice well spoken young man who doesn't like George Bush and does like Dun Laoghaire seafront.

3) This is the problem with arguing with someone who doesn't actually know the first thing about what they are talking about. A few posts ago we were "cretins" for mentioning the fact that the boundaries of Dublin West had changed because you didn't think they had changed at all. Now without so much as blinking you skip past that and claim that it didn't make any difference. In fact, tallies and canvass returns from previous elections indicate that the Socialist Party had more than 900 votes in the area removed from the constituency, which would have seen Joe home by a substantial margin.

As for the failure of our supposed "dogmatism", by which you apparently mean "socialism", we won a seat in the Dail twice on such a basis, came close on a couple of other occasions and have had a handful of councillors elected, all without compromising our principles, our socialist beliefs or our class politics even once. This is all very small scale stuff when compared to the mainstream parties, but it is nothing short of laughable for a member of a party which has never managed to get anyone elected to anything, anywhere in the country, to sneer at our electoral failings. And that's despite the SWP's apparent willingness to pawn any principle it has to advance its electoral ambitions.

4) Yes I am quite aware that the SWP is trying to entice other forces into the People Before Profit Alliance. So far it has entirely failed to do so, but as I've already said that could change. As the SWP continue their long march to the right, away from working class politics towards a kind of outraged liberalism it is entirely possible that they will find some wider layer of society looking for what they are offering. So far however that has not happened and the PBPA remains a rebadged, depoliticised, SWP.

5) I believe I've already laughed at you for your eagerness to claim 2% of the vote in one constituency as a triumph and 1% in a neigbouring constituency as a humiliation. It appears that you haven't managed to get a sense of either proportion or the ridiculous in the meantime. I know I shouldn't bother, but I can't resist so I have another question for you: If the People Before Profit Alliance was so "clearly socialist", why the reluctance to make it clear by, you know, actually saying it?

6) This semi-coherent ranting seems to bear no relationship to anything I said in the corresponding section of my post. Were you distracted when you wrote it perhaps?

7) I am amused to see the SWP's entire history as a political organisation, before it had its People Before Profit epiphany written off as the peddling of a "pure dogmatic obnoxious platform". So amused that I'm tempted to just leave it at that in fact, but the problem is that you don't seem to be referring to the SWP's undoubted record of actually obnoxious behaviour. Instead you are criticising the only things which used to be good about the SWP - it's willingness to argue for socialism and for working class emancipation.

Anyway, that's quite enough time wasted responding to drooling idiocy for one day, so I'll leave you with one final "I HAVE CRUSHED YOUR MEAN SPIRITED ARGUMENTS!!!"

by left observer Sat Jun 23, 2007 11:52

haha Yeah feel free to use that line in future if you wish.

1. the main point seems to be that pbp aren't putting across socialist ideas. thats quite clearly wrong if you read the material or any of the stuff ive put up about anti-privatisation etc. on the other hand we have the "FREE BUS PASS AND MORE WEAPONS FOR THE POLICE TO SORT OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR" of the sp..... FACT

2. the pbp candidates do tell people their swp membership, i was at a pbp public meeting and the first thing that was mentioned about rbb was that he was a member of SWP...FACT

3. i'm not a member of swp or pbp i'm just defending their reasonable arguments against your sectarian bile. Your comments are far from constructive criticism. It would be alright for example for you to say "i don't agree with swp's pbp thing as it does not use the words socialism anywhere but well done for increasing the vote five fold" or "they should have included women's abortion rights more clearly" those are constructive criticisms which i could understand. but you are just a snide pathetic little person using any excuse to get a dig in on fellow marxists.

4. I do not take pleasure in deriding the SP vote but i feel i have to if you keep spreading lies about swp poor performances.

i'll end with "i have crushed your mean spirited arguments" if i may

by left observer Sat Jun 23, 2007 13:54

have no idea about planning permission for cattle sheds... sorry

by Left Activist - None Sat Jun 23, 2007 14:05

Just a couple of questions -

1) Evidence of the fact that you claim about the SP?

2) were there any people at these PBP meetings that didn't actually know RBB affiliations before the meeting?

3) From reading Mark P's stuff before - He is certainly not an individual who uses 'snide pathetic' comments about anyone - Indeed you have used more 'snide' comments about him and the SP than he has about you and the SWP (I counted). Do you think this is appropriate?

4) I don't think that the SP ever claimed the SWP/PBP performance was poor - merely questioned the character of it. And if you feel slighted by these comments is it necessary for you to 'deride' the SP performance in an act of revenge (hardly the mentality of a socialist). Do you think this is appropriate?

by left observer Sat Jun 23, 2007 14:22

1. its in the frankly campaign material in the northern election and the point about arming the police was made on a lets talk interview

2. dunno, didn't ask but i'm assuming there were people there not in swp

3. "The SWP have an ability to make most things they touch turn to shit, but it can't be ruled out that in their long march rightwards, away from class politics"

Are You suggesting a comment like this is not snide, petty and completely unsubstantiated? there are many more instances like this across this thread and i haven't even seen others yet!!!!!
4. Its quite abvious that you are trying to deride the PBP vote as firsly poor and nowhere near winning a seat (even though its over 5 times better than last). You then diride the votes for PBP as not coming from working class people and being this confusing idea of "trendy green liberal" which was used at the vote in the north in an area u could never describe as trendy green liberal.

Argument successfully dealt with you idiot,

p.s stop the sectarianism, you are making the left look bad

by Cilla Sat Jun 23, 2007 14:42

"Argument successfully dealt with you idiot,
p.s stop the sectarianism, you are making the left look bad"

And you get ten out of ten for civility and not making the left look bad? Who's the idiot?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jun 23, 2007 15:23

You have now claimed twice that the SP has called for

'more weapons for the police to sort out anti-social behaviour'

You claim it was in the Northern election material and on a radio interview.

Now:

1) Which election leaflet and what exactly was stated?

2) Who was the interview conducted with, when and what exactly was said?

by left observer Sat Jun 23, 2007 15:36

The stuff about police was not in the manifesto,

Quote from the SP in South Belfast news:
"the police must also be able
and equipped to deal with the
problem of anti-social behaviour
that blights so much of South
Belfast. Vulnerable people such
as pensioners must be able to
feel safe in their own homes.We
need a police service that is accepted
by and accountable to all
communities"

west belfast manifesto:
The police are not a solution to the real problems arising out of anti-social behaviour.

from earlier blog "Iraq & Bush & Blair come second after the water charges in PBP manifesto. The SP don't mention it. it also defend migrants & young people, take up poverty & housing and global warming. The manifesto ends on the impact of such issues on women."

Therefore pbp is more socialist than the sp, end of story

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Jun 23, 2007 21:46

Okay let's get this straight -

So the stuff about the it being in the SP election material was - A LIE

You now take a selective quote from an undated copy of the South Belfast News - that doesn't mention anything about 'arming' the police and suggest it implies that the SP wants more police powers and more police guns to combat anti-social behaviour. The quote you selective use doesn't even say this.

Post the entire article please!

You subsequently post half a sentence from the PBP manifesto to suggest that PBP have a more progressive attitude than the SP. Post the entire section from the PBP manifesto.

You then go on to quote from a 'blog' (how wonderfully reliable resources they are) to demonstrate this further. Not much in the way of evidence.

You entire contribution would have been a little more convincing if you hadn't copied and pasted it in it's entirely from another indymedia comment from yourself or another SWP troll.

If you intend to throw mud around about the SP make the effort to come up with it yourself or at least try and have it some bit accurate.

by Neither Cliff nor Grant but international socialism Mon Jun 25, 2007 16:55

Fuckin' hell! You've been getting more and more excited with every post, but honestly - "pathetic excuse for a human being"? What planet did you just arrive from kid?

A word of advice - you are perfectly entitled to come on here and defend the SWP. If you are a member of the party, as I suspect anyone reading your comments will assume, it's best to be straight about it. But take it easy. Stop throwing around words like "cretin" and "idiot" to describe anyone who disagrees with you. If you have strong arguments, rhetoric like that just takes attention away from them. If you don't have strong arguments, people won't be fooled by bluster without substance.

by sp member Mon Jun 25, 2007 16:55

Left observer, you really can't be serious. The Socialist party are a revolutionary organisation who believe in using the transitional method of using demands relative to the everyday grievances of working class people and advocating solutions which move beyond the boundaries of capitalism.

Thos who understand what capitalism is and are aware of the state's role within it know that " a police service that is accepted
by and accountable to all communities" is impossible under capitalism because of the ruling class' need for an armed force to maintain its rule. Thus the socialist character of the above demand.

Your organisation on the other hand puts forward the non-sensical 'two stagist position on national liberation (supporting politically those with an interest in capitalist exploitation) on imperialism, doesn't mention socialism in it's election materials, and supported Yelstin's bloody pro-capitalist coup in Russia, saying it was a victory for working class people!!

Now who is 'more socialist'?

by left observer Mon Jun 25, 2007 17:36

Is it really any wonder i get frustrated when i'm constantly accused of being and SWP member? How many times must I say it? I'm not a mamber of any particular party, i just support marxism in general and if anyone from swp was sad enuf to make snide comments about the sp on this site then i would round on them too, but i don't seem to see any swp attacking sp so far on this site so thats possibly why my arguments may appear 1 sided. Once again, NOT A MEMBER OF SWP!!!

now

1. "the police must also be able
and equipped to deal with the
problem of anti-social behaviour
that blights so much of South
Belfast. Vulnerable people such
as pensioners must be able to
feel safe in their own homes.We
need a police service that is accepted
by and accountable to all
communities"

then you say: "Thos who understand what capitalism is and are aware of the state's role within it know that " a police service that is accepted by and accountable to all communities" is impossible under capitalism because of the ruling class' need for an armed force to maintain its rule. Thus the socialist character of the above demand."

now if the sp is saying that it is impossible then WHY IS IT CALLING FOR IT? i mean you pride yourselves on your uncompromising socialist ideals so why not say to the people that policing is impossible??????
the asbo quote
"the police must also be able
and equipped to deal with the
problem of anti-social behaviour
that blights so much of South
Belfast. Vulnerable people such
as pensioners must be able to
feel safe in their own homes
(which sounds like something straight from the pages of the daily mail?) is NOT socialist in character in any way and don't DARE try to portray it as such.

Secondly, as far as i know, the swp dont call for stageism, they call (like many socialists before them) to unconditionally support nat lib movements but dont join them. A defeat for imperialism is a defeat for world capitalism and was most prominently shown by hezbollah last summer being responsible for the early resignation of Blair. They also call for a separate workers movement to be built ALONGSIDE the nat lib movement.

In conclusion, we would all love for there to be a strong socialist movement leading the cause for nat lib in palestine but there aint so calling for it is like writing a christmas list to santa. HAMAS is leadig the fight with the backing of the people therefore they must be supported.

by . - ; Mon Jun 25, 2007 20:28

"shown by hezbollah last summer being responsible for the early resignation of Blair""

you think?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Jun 25, 2007 21:33

Left Observer...

If you insist on this kind of selective quoting I will insist on you providing the full quote, who said it and specify which copy of the South Belfast News the quote was in.

Now the following -

'now if the sp is saying that it is impossible then WHY IS IT CALLING FOR IT? '

Let's be absolutely precise about this -

'impossible under CAPITALISM'

A decent health service is impossible under capitalism
A decent education system is impossible under capitalism
The elimination of poverty is impossible under capitalism
Equality for women is impossible under capitalism

etc. etc. etc.

Just because something is impossible under capitalism does not mean that you do not raise the call for change and outline that the change can only occur under a socialist planned economy. To do what you are suggesting in to act in nothing more than a liberal fashion with platitudes about how bad society is without any solution on how change can be achieved (something PBP did during the election)

Now - let's deal with anti-social behaviour -

Do you believe that working class people are entitled to live without the effects and impact of anti-social behaviour on their daily lives?

It is absolutely vital that this is acknowledged and accepted. To ignore the fact that anti-social behaviour causes serious problems for working class people is abjectly abandoning people to the consequences of such behaviour. It is also vital that a strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour is outlined. This strategy must include proper funding to alleviate the alienation felt by youth in working class estates and the provision of policing, democratically controlled by the local community, adequately trained and equipped (with knowledge, not weapons) to deal with incidents of anti-social behaviour.

As regards the SWP support for 'national liberation movements' - well to give unconditional support to 'national liberation movements' is dubious at best. However, in relation to Hamas there is a very serious question mark over whether Hamas could actually be described as a 'national liberation movements'. They are at their core a fundementalist religious organisation intent on driving Palestinian society backwards in a feudal direction. Hamas is a leading force in the conflict because of the failure of the left (partly brought about by unconditional support for 'national liberation movements'). Socialists should not and could not support such a movement. Support for socialist ideas is not about 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' - it's about analysing what can take society forward and what forces can play a role in such a development. There is a distinct difference, for example, between Hamas and the Viet Cong. One is reactionary - one was progressive. Both fought US imperialism - only one deserved support (and conditional support at that). Socialists can support the Palestinian working class without supporting and giving credibility to a reactionary force who's victory would drive society backwards.

by left observer Fri Jun 29, 2007 15:58

CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ISSUE IT WAS, POINT WAS IT WAS SAID

well why didn't you say in the interview ITS IMPOSSIBLE UNDER CAPITALISM? Instead the sp reverted to right wing populism of stamping down hard on those young one. FOR SHAME

"Do you believe that working class people are entitled to live without the effects and impact of anti-social behaviour on their daily lives?"

So you believe the solution to their problems is cracking down on adolecants? Are you sure you're even a socialist?

"It is absolutely vital that this is acknowledged and accepted. To ignore the fact that anti-social behaviour causes serious problems for working class people is abjectly abandoning people to the consequences of such behaviour. It is also vital that a strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour is outlined. This strategy must include proper funding to alleviate the alienation felt by youth in working class estates and the provision of policing, democratically controlled by the local community, adequately trained and equipped (with knowledge, not weapons) to deal with incidents of anti-social behaviour."

Funny how the "provide funding to stop alienation felt by working class youths" was not mentioned in the interview or the manifesto for the SP. yet the "we must feel safe in our homes by equiping the police to deal with young hoods was given centre stage.

In conclusion, don't DARE ever try to deride or attack the SWP for being right-wing ever again!!!!!

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Jun 29, 2007 16:19

Post the article (not a conveniently selected section) and we will see what was said. Secondly - in an interview situation - you know as well as I do, that newspaper editors EDIT stuff out.

'So you believe the solution to their problems is cracking down on adolecants?'

No, I believe that it is necessary to acknowledge that anti-social behaviour is a serious problem that can impact on the lives of working class people (clearly you do not!) - and that the only solution is to tackle the problem with a comprehensive approach that protects the rights of people being affected by anti-social behaviour and protects the rights of the youth engaged in anti-social behaviour. Anything else is merely pandering to the problem (for the SWP this, like every issue, is black and white - a seriously unMarxist approach).

'Funny how the "provide funding to stop alienation felt by working class youths" was not mentioned in the interview or the manifesto for the SP.'

It always is - read the bloody stuff properly - I know some of the nuanices of Marxist understanding are beyond the SWP - but please try.

'yet the "we must feel safe in our homes by equiping the police to deal with young hoods was given centre stage.'

Bullsh*t and you know it - If you really want me to selectively take stuff the SWP has written and make accusations like the above, I can assure you I would absolutely have no problem.

'In conclusion, don't DARE ever try to deride or attack the SWP for being right-wing ever again!!!!!'

The SWP aren't right-wing - never claimed they were - but the political programme of the SWP is shifting to the right.

by sp member Fri Jun 29, 2007 16:57

Left observer wrote:

"Funny how the "provide funding to stop alienation felt by working class youths" was not mentioned in the interview or the manifesto for the SP. yet the "we must feel safe in our homes by equiping the police to deal with young hoods was given centre stage."

Yeah, it's funny the way you'd actually print what the person being interviewed said and not edit it into a rounded out expression of revolutionary Marxism. The SP should really interview themselves and not try and relate the everyday struggles of ordinary people to socialist demands

by LEFT OBSERVER Fri Jun 29, 2007 19:56

Contrary to what you are saying, dealing with asbo's can never be achieved by the police. The ONLY solution is to deal with poverty and social alienation that causes these youths to act out. If we go by wat you say, then how do we judge which teens get the training programmes and youth centres and which get sent to the magistrate?

IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE THE SP WERE PANDERING TO RIGHT WING POPULISM IN SEARCH OF SOME VOTES THEY WEREN'T PREPARED TO TAKE THE DIFFICULT BUT RIGHTEOUS STANCE OF PBP IN WEST BELFAST (for all their supposed middle class green liberalism) BY SAYING THAT THE POLICE ARE NOT THE SOLUTION TO ANTI SOC BEHAVIOR!!! WE NEED TO DEAL WITH POVERTY ETC

"and that the only solution is to tackle the problem with a comprehensive approach that protects the rights of people being affected by anti-social behaviour and protects the rights of the youth engaged in anti-social behaviour. Anything else is merely pandering to the problem"

So your policy is: tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?....

Hmmmmm.... now where have i heard that one before????

Now, stop savaging swp please, constuctive criticism is what is needed, for example

like i said before i take the point that womens right to abortion, especially in the light of that recent D case, should have been more clearly on the agenda for pbp, i felt it was pushed to the back during the election (see CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM). What do the rest of the people on the thread think?

by Neither cliff nor grant... Fri Jun 29, 2007 20:24

I think I can safely say, the rest of the people on this thread wish you would calm down a bit, stop using so many capital letters and lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you, and who knows, we might even have a decent discussion.

by left ob Fri Jun 29, 2007 21:01

point taken i'll try to use less capitals in future.

See constructive criticism at work! you could learn a lot from this people

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Jun 29, 2007 23:08

Left Observer - if I am going to go to the trouble of writing a reply I would appreciate it if you would go to the trouble of reading it. It can get very frustrating watching you criticise points that I never made.

'Contrary to what you are saying, dealing with asbo's can never be achieved by the police. The ONLY solution is to deal with poverty and social alienation that causes these youths to act out. If we go by wat you say, then how do we judge which teens get the training programmes and youth centres and which get sent to the magistrate?'

When did I ever say anything about sending youths engaged in anti-social behaviour before a magistrate?

For that matter when did I ever say anything about sending youths involved in anti-social behaviour onto training programmes? Is this whay YOU mean by dealing with poverty and social alienation? If so it is a very petty-bourgeois attitude.

Ignoring the shouting:

'IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE THE SP WERE PANDERING TO RIGHT WING POPULISM IN SEARCH OF SOME VOTES THEY WEREN'T PREPARED TO TAKE THE DIFFICULT BUT RIGHTEOUS STANCE OF PBP IN WEST BELFAST (for all their supposed middle class green liberalism) BY SAYING THAT THE POLICE ARE NOT THE SOLUTION TO ANTI SOC BEHAVIOR!!! WE NEED TO DEAL WITH POVERTY ETC'

The SP were saying that there is a need to deal with poverty etc. The SP never claimed that the police were the solution -that was merely your interpretation of a small segment of an interview in a local paper that you have still failed to copy in full. Indeed, unlike the SWP/PBP, we actually outline the fact that only socialism can deal with the problems presened by anti-social behaviour.

I will again pose this very simple question that you have continuously avoided answering (yes or no will do - and please don't answer it with a question again)

Do you believe that working class people are entitled to live without the effects and impact of anti-social behaviour on their daily lives?

'So your policy is: tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime?....'

I am sorry if you are incapable of understanding the political points that I have continuously attempted to make here. I will try again for one last time.

Working class people are entitled to live their lives without the impact and effects of anti-social behaviour. Alienated youth are entitled not to be demonised for a system that leads them to engage in anti-social behaviour.

Unlike the SWP/PBP, working class people live in the real world. They need solutions in the here and now. The level of political consciousness is very low amongst working class people at this time and the job of Marxists is to try and explain how this problem could be solved. It needs to be tangable. The SP calls for education, jobs and services to be provided to disadvantaged youth in an effort to present an alternative for these youth. At the same time working class people need to know that when youth engaged in anti-social behaviour a community based and democratically controlled and well-trained (in psycological not in military terms) police force can protect communities from such behaviour. At all times the SP point out that capitalism is incapable of solving these problems and there is a need for to change society through socialism.

Socialism will not eliminate crime (we are not trying to create an earthly utopia), it will eliminate the societal causes that lead individuals to commit crime against their fellow workers.

'Now, stop savaging swp please, constuctive criticism is what is needed, for example'

Well, the vast majority of the savaging on this thread has been done by you.

Left observer - you have been the one who has consistantly made sloganising statements about the SP position on this issue without the slightest connection with the responses you were getting.

Throughout the entire discussion I have attempted to defend the SP position from the downright blatant distortion that you have attempted to engage in. I have made relatively few comments about the actual attitude of the SWP on this issue - which I could have.

If you want constructive criticism I suggest you actually read and try to understand (politically) the responses and consider the analysis behind the comments rather than seeing every issue as black and white.

As with the discussion on another thread on the Falklands War - if someone doesn't agree with the SWP position on anti-social behaviour then they must be gung-ho law and order reactionaries. Life is not black and white - its made up of a myriad of shades of grey, and shades that are constantly changing. The job of the Marxist is to be able to see the different shades and distinguish between them. If you only see the world through black and white the your politics will jump from pillar to post as the shades of grey darken or lighten.

by Curious Wed Aug 01, 2007 22:47

What's happened to the website folks? Gone already?