Assembly Elections death knell for dissidents and socialists?

by Terry Mac Fri Mar 16, 2007 14:03

There has been some discussion of this elsewhere, most notably on the Splintered Sunrise and Cedar Lounge blog sites.

The reality is that politically, there is a space in the North to the left of Sinn Féin, espousing an anti-imperialist position on the British presence, rejecting policing and so on.

The problem is the lack of consensus between those people trying to provide that alternative. We have everything from the Legion of Mary politics of Gerry McGeough to two different Trotskyist factions, to RSF, failed Sinn Féin selection convention candidates and the occasional stick. Some would abstain from Stormont, some would not. Some would abstain from Policing Boards, others would not.

One of the things they have in common is poor electioneering abilities. Anecdotally, there is evidence that a lot of Independent Republican canvassers weren't even registered to vote themselves. The other element is a poor quality of candidate. Looking through the list above and you can see a fair share of balloons and eccentrics.

The space is there, but whether people are ready to come together to exploit it is another thing. Éirigí, for all the good stuff they've been doing, is almost entirely Dublin based. The IRSM have potential, but what would be the attitude of the Trots to the INLA? And while it is easy to dismiss the SWP, they polled almost 3,000 votes which can't be ignored.

Until those people start to come together though, Sinn Féin will continue to kick the stuffing out of alternative left or republican candidates and not break sweat doing so.

by sapiens Fri Mar 16, 2007 14:10

Looking at some of the results I wonder what the story can be with some candidates. I have more people than some of their votes in my extended family, and with transferable votes you'd imagine people would be prepared to throw in a number one knowing it would do no harm.

Definitely time for the SP and the WP to pack up. Does the WP keep going simply because they own buildings and provide an income for some of their guys?

Slight issue witht writing off the dissidents is that they might have suffered from not having their support registered in time. They only made their minds up about these elections quite late in the day, and a lot of their people would not be on the register.

Can't agree with the quote that Republicanismn died. For all its faults Sinn Féin is still a Republican party. Don't judge them on the coverage they get in the papers. Look at the difference they make on the ground, with reference to things like natural resources, workers rights, discrimination, drugs etc

People vote for Sinn Féin because they deliver. This election showed what the electorate think of the pie-in-the-sky dissidents when comparwed to a real party with real politics.

by Paul Fri Mar 16, 2007 14:41

Sapiens thinks Sinn Féin is a republican party. Any look at their record over the last 38 years since their foundation shows that to be arrant nonsense.

As for those who tell other parties they should pack up because of their derisory vote, we'll take note of what you say when we see your own credentials in the class struggle.

by Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink Fri Mar 16, 2007 16:44

Between them, all candidates above polled 12,490 first perference votes. That's 1.889% across the north.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Mar 16, 2007 17:46

Far from the packing it up (as suggested by 'sapiens') the SP will continue its work. Socialist do not, and never have, committed solely to electoral politics. Given the political environment it was not surprising the vote received by the SP. However, outside the electoral plane, the impact of the 'We Won't Pay' Campaign against Water Charges force all the political parties to address the issue and the Labour government to suggest they would drop the charges if a power sharing administration was formed.

The work of the SP includes activity within the Trade Unions, within communities and occasionally on the electoral plane. Achieving minor electoral success at the end of the day, will do little to change society.

by Ex-Shinner Fri Mar 16, 2007 18:36

Perhaps from the IRSM and Eirigi we will see the birth of a new revolutionary republican socialist alternative, perhaps not, but for now as Paul McGlinchey said to the Tribune after the election "Republicanism died in this election."

I hope you are right in the first statement. Certainly Eirigí have a lot of potential. as for the second statement, it is mere sensationalism. The so called 'dissidents' were never going to have a good election, so to say it died at this election is silly. It either was dead before hand or is still alive. I venture to suggest the latter. As an ex-shinner I have to say there were only two 'anti-policing' candidates who I would have given number 1s to. Peggy o' Hara and Davy Hyland.

As a Socialist republican, RSF do nothing for me and Gerry McGeough certainly doesn't. Also this tiring thing of SF not being republicans has to stop. The dynamics of policing decisions and other tactical decisions are a little more complicated than just stopping being republican. It is about the culture of militaristic loyalty that goes with a past of armed struggle. A lot of senior republicans would have serious problems with the strategy, but there are bonds there that they feel they can't break. i respect that, as much as I disagree. What I don't like are the elements that manipulate that loyalty.

Have people ever stopped to think that the reason non-SF republicanism is in disarray is because many seem content to just waste their time whinging about SF. If you do that, instead of trying to build a coherent Socialist Republican alternative (as I feel Eirigi are trying to do) you will be left behind. You only reap what you sow.

by congress man Fri Mar 16, 2007 19:19

The SP spokespersons continue to make fools of themselves. They laughably claim that their dreary campaign of non payment forced the political parties to engage and the British Government to consider scrapping charges, at least in year one. It was' nt until ICTU got seriously involved in non payment that a mass campaign became a possibility and this is borne out by the fact that Water Service NI have only recently become worried by negative publicity.
The next laugh relates to the environment not being right to take forward a serious electoral campaign. These are the people who claim to have signed up 70,000 people to 'their' non payment campaign,surely no better time to cash in electorally in the NI Assembly elections. Problem is they seem to have lost 69.500 of these devotees when the votes were cast.

by SP supporter Fri Mar 16, 2007 19:29

Who put forward and argued for the non-payment ammenment? The SP. It was the support the We Won;t Pay campaign built for non-payment that forcedx the union leaders to support non-payment.

by Gale Gore - MOPE Fri Mar 16, 2007 19:37

Hes just out to provoke you. The SP did a lot of good work in the campaign but it didnt translate into votes. You should do a proper post mortem though, look at how your policies were applied in the election, did any of them contribute to your lack of success.

Have to be honest and say that I would disagree with your analysis on the national question but if I had been voting in South Belfast I would have given my number one to Jim barbour.

by SP member Fri Mar 16, 2007 20:17

Your are wrong we now have over 100,000 people who have signed a pledge not to pay the water charges. The We Won't Pay Campaign public meetings are being attended by thousands of people. In Ballymena so many people turned up that two meetings had to be run simultaneously and 100 people signed up to work to build the campaign. Like anything the trade union leaders rarely take action unless they are forced to do so. SP members in NIPSA got that union to support non-payment and then through NIPSA and other SP delegates to the Northern Ireland Committee of ICTU we got them to back non-payment.
In the Assembly elections health and the water charges were the two biggest issues. But people didn't decide how they would vote on class issues, they continued to vote along sectarian lines. The main parties have prioritised the water charges because of the response they got from people on the doorsteps. The water charges has been made a major issue in society because of the work of the We Won't Pay Campaign and this has given people confidence that they can collectively with hundreds of thousands of others defeat the charges by refusing to pay them.
The SP will continue to fight the water charges until they are abolished. We will also continue to raise the idea of the need to build a new working class party in the North to unite working class people and to build a real alternative to the failed sectarian parties. Campaigns like the We Won’t Pay Campaign and the mass support for non-payment that exists amongst all working class communities in the North shows that this type of party is needed and it also proves that it can be built. Support for this idea will grow as the sectarian parties expose their true nature when they introduce their anti-working class economic agenda in the new Assembly.
The SP is far from finished. When we hopefully when two seats in the Southern general election, Joe Higgins in Dublin West and Clare Daly in Dublin North it will only be the beginning of a new period of growth for our party and the ideas of socialism.

by image file Fri Mar 16, 2007 20:38

elections and aftermath

who got number one?

who did she vote for?

Vincie McAnespie

Gerry McGeough

by Fearg Fri Mar 16, 2007 21:13

Because according to the theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin et al to the create the socialist/communist utopia requires violent revolution followed by a period of dictatorship which will be responsible for the redistribution of wealth in order to eliminate classes and replace capitalist society with absolute equality. However this dictatorship will have to have colossal power over each and every individual in order to firstly take their private property out of their control and to control their thoughts, words and actions in order that they can no longer reacquire private property.
Socialists claim that this dictatorship will fade away as the new communist utopia is realised.
But being human, the dictatorship is unlikely to relinquish its power is it?
Without exception every society that has experimented with communism has been transformed into a single party bureaucratic centrally controlled police state led by a psychotic dictator. The communist party elite live in luxury while the broad mass of people live in dire poverty and hunger. All dissent is crushed by savage repression while enormous resources are spent on weapons and military organisation to enforce the will of the state.

by WWPC Fri Mar 16, 2007 21:43

You can read more about what is happening about the water charges by going to http://www.wewontpaycampaign.com/

by Barry - 32 csm Fri Mar 16, 2007 21:44

"The 32 County Sov. Movement backed McGeough etc. They should consequently accept the result and call for the RIRA to ceasefire and then engage in a serious what are we really for exercise, I think disbandment is their logical option."

The 32 csm called on people to vote for all of the candidates . I canvassed for both Hyland and Cunningham , an abstentionist and a non abstenionist ( i wasnt registered to vote) . 32 CSM members including Gary Donnelly etc canvassed for Peggy OHara . 32 CSM are for the defence of the sovereign rights of the Irish people , not their rights to meaningless aspirations to have rights some time in the undefinable never never .
What Im quite happy about is that in my local area over 2000 republicans expressed their contempt for the constitutional nationalists of PSF and and the British police and voted for a candidate with neither funds nor party machine of the richest party in Ireland behind him. Now republican separatists in South Armagh and Newry have an identifiable constituency to engage with in the effort to implement a democratic grass roots forum and strategy .
So you can carry on ringing the death knell , that bells been rung quite enthusiastically for the best part of a decade and theres less republicans listening to it in south armagh than ever before . Our options have been well thought out and discussed and disbandment isnt one of them .

by congressman Fri Mar 16, 2007 21:46

Steady on Fearg with 500 votes in NI the SP are unlikely to seize power anytime soon. Clare Daly is also unlikely to join Joe Higgins in the Dail. The SP stormtroopers who have rushed to defend the vital role of SPin telling everyone about non payment failed to explain how 100,000 followers only translated into 500 votes. The people have spoken -the bastards- they just don't deserve the SP.

by Les lee Fri Mar 16, 2007 22:13

Barry I wouldnt get carried away with the motives of those that voted for Hyland. Most of those that voted for him had no problem transferring their votes back to pro PSNiparties and dont share your contempt for Sinn Fein.

800 of his votes transferred back to arch enemies Sinn Fein while another 700 transferred back to the SDLP. Quite likely the majority of the Hyland vote was personal more than political.

by Frank Fri Mar 16, 2007 22:17

But it was a vote that was nonetheless given. That's what needs to be built on.

by Les lee Fri Mar 16, 2007 22:23

But Barry seemed to think that over 2000 people "showed their contempt" for SF by voting Hyland. But that wasnt the case. At least 800 of them felt strong enough in support of SF to trabsfer while over 700 felt strong enough to vote for the Stoops.

by Mystic Les - none Sat Mar 17, 2007 02:12

Mystic Les assumes the vote for Hyland was personal while the transfers were political rather than the voters voting for Hylands platform . Micky Brady works in an advice centre and virtually anyone who has ever had to seek help in Newry and south armagh applying for dole and grants etc has had dealings with him over the last 20 years . But of course nobody would give a personal transfer to him for that reason or to prevent a unionist getting elected . Dominic Bradley is very well known locally too . Les discounts the possibility of him getting a personal as opposed to political transfer or the transfers going to him to dent sinn fein transfers .
Quite the mindreader Les . Apparently next to nobody in newry and south armagh has a negative opinion of the PSNI now .

by Les Lee Sat Mar 17, 2007 02:59

No I dont believe that that is the case. I also dont believe that everyone that voted for Hyland was showing their "contempt for PSF" as Barry said. I oppose the PSNI just as much as I opposed the RUC.

I didnt vote for Sinn Fein and wouldnt as a result of this decision on policing but lets not fool ourselves as to why Hyland got 2000 votes plus. Davy was a Councillor and an assembly member for quite some time and I am quite certain, without using any mystic powers, that he would have built upa certain amount of a personal vote in the area. Most elected reps that do the work on the ground would build up a certain amount of personal votes.

If people were voting for Davy out of contempt for SF because of their stance on policing then they would hardly transfer back to him or worse transer to the stoops who alsways supported the peelers.

On a final note remember that Dav's campaign didnt affect the shinners campaign or vote inany way. In fact the Shinners increased their vote by over 2% despite Davys campaign. In south Down, even with Martin running against them, they increased their vote by over 4% almost overtaking the stoops.

by Mystic Les - none Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:01

the transferable votes are no more than an indicator of who do you hate less compared to the DUP .

by Les Lee Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:22

Thats not true.

If the people voting for Davy had the contempt for SF that Barry said they had then they would just have voted Davy and let it at that.

by Patrick Henry Sat Mar 17, 2007 15:35

The fact is that the election was as always a sectarian headcount. Those who voted for $inn Fein voted as they've always done in the past, they voted for the Partitionist Republicans just as they voted for Partitionist Nationalists in the past solely to insure that they registered their contempt for Paisley and the DUP.
$inn Fein will prove that in the coming months that they are just as weak as were the SDLP when it comes to facing up to Paisley. Sure he demanded Decommissioning and got it, he demanded the disbandment of the IRA and got it, then he demanded that the $hinners support the PSNI/ RUC and the British courts and he got that too. By no means are the DUP finished chastising the $hinners and we'll see them continuing in that vein.
Meanwhile the $hinners are dancing and singing about their increased vote but they had that before the election started and the leadership merely used that mandate to dismantle the Republican movement in order to make themselves more acceptable to those who have trodden on our Civil rights for decades.
Nothing will change because this election was merely about them and us and thats the way it will continue.

by south down 32csm - 32csm Sat Mar 17, 2007 15:42

This is Martin Cunninghams take on the whole thing as reported in 3 of our local papers.Another point, who in the 32CSM supported McGeough? A general statement was put out asking for support for all anti policing candidates in general, we could hardly have put the caveat 'except McGeough' As 99% of 32CSM members or supporters are not registered i think the statement was aimed at shinners who did come out to vote for MC and did come out to vote for Hyland, making it a vote against PSF and their policing policy.

Martin Cunningham Thanks Voters.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who voted for me on March 7th and also those who helped in anyway with my election campaign. I believe the vote I received is a small step in rebuilding republicanism in the South Down area and believe the coming weeks and months will vindicate the stance that I have taken on the issues I have highlighted. What the vote does show is exactly how much work remains to be done to re-orientate republicans in this area but I also believe that the continuation of political policing by the British security services in Ireland will cause many in this constituency to come to the realisation that they have been mislead by the constitutional nationalist parties. It is also my firm belief that if an assembly is ever agreed to by Unionism then its inability to advance the cause of Irish unity will become obvious, constrained as it is by the undemocratic Unionist veto. There is no doubt in my mind that the republican separatist constituency in South Down is of a much greater magnitude than my election result would suggest as is the number of people opposed to British policing in Ireland. The challenge now for Republicans in South Down and across the country is to harness this in a more meaningful way and this must be our immediate aim. There is much work to do and we must get started without delay.
I remain a humble servant of the Republican cause.
Martin Cunningham.

by Dub Sat Mar 17, 2007 19:02

If elections changed anything they'd make them illegal! The Northern election was merely a sectarian headcount. The main parties continuously beat the sectarian drum. for example DUP got many votes because they put fears of a SF First Minister out there. Similarly Sf got many votes whipping up fears of a strong DUP. It was a very polarised situation. It is not going to be an athmosphere where a socialist voice which advocates class politics will get loads of supporty. In saying this, it is interesting that Independent Deeney and a Green were elected. While strongly disagreeing with many of their stances it has to be said that a vote outside of the sectarian blocks is refreshing. Unlike many so-called socialists I do not write off the Northern working class. The WP have been suffering for a long time and their Southern votes are similar to their Northern votes! The SWP (although hiding their name) did reasonable well in Derry and Belfast. The SP seem to be doing excellent work in Unions and in the "We Won't Pay Campaign". It's no accident that Water Charges non-payment was a central issue. Even the SWP are not fully backing non-payment. I expect that they will have 2 TDs in the South in a couple of months which has gotta have some impact up North. The Republicans/RSF are a desperate bunch. They have no real base of support except among a small group of ideological nationalists. To describe RSF/Ind. Republicans as progressive or socialist is one hell of a stretch of the imagination!

by BK Sat Mar 17, 2007 19:15

'Even the SWP are not fully backing non-payment.'

Obviously written by someone with no clue as to what's going on. Put up or shut up. Evidence please?

by Not shutting up Sun Mar 18, 2007 14:06

The SWP have been distributing a leaflet that begins by saying if you can't afford to pay the charges these are some of the things you can do etc. It lists a number of ways to delay paying the charges but finishes by telling people that they can still pay the charges on the day they are taken to court. It doesn't call on people to simply refuse to pay the charges and by mass non-payment defeat them.

by Dub Sun Mar 18, 2007 15:08

Not being from anywhere in the North I am abviously at a disadvantage. However I do know that the SWP are not calling for non-payment. I read a leaflet a friend of mine got in the door from their campaign. It says that people should delay paying. What they are calling for, if implemented, would lead to a collapse of non-payment once the Authorities sent a few threatening letters. I lived in UK during late 1980s. The SWP did not call for non-payment of Poll Tax. They are a bit soft when it comes to non-payment (and mentioning they are socialists). In this election they ran as two seperate "alliances" (SEA & PBPA)!

by Curious Sun Mar 18, 2007 15:20

Its odd that the SEA didn't demand that that its members join the new Mass Movement, the PBPA. I really cant understand this. Or if the SEA was the bigger Mass Movement then surely the PBPA should have joined the SEA.

by sn Sun Mar 18, 2007 16:53

just take one look at the socialist worker over the last few months and you will see how blatantly obvious its is that the swp backs non payment. This debate is getting embarrasing

by BK Sun Mar 18, 2007 17:19

Dub:

Funny how you only recognize your 'disadvantage' when you've been called on your lies.

I don't care if you're from halfway around the world. Either put up or shut up. Give your friend a ring and tell him/her to quote that leaflet they supposedly got 'through the door' to you, and then tell us what it said.

If you can't, or won't, do that, retract the statement. Very simple.

by congress man Sun Mar 18, 2007 17:37

Dub is trying the age old trick of pretending not to be a member of the SP and then going on to suggest they are doing great work in the unions and on non payment. The SP have taken money from unions for their own purposes and have refused to join in a union led campaign because everyone has to know it was them who beat watercharges and no one else. The party seem to have gone silent on why if they have 100,000 pledges of support for 'their' campaign they only managed 500 votes in the NI Assembly elections. The answer might lie in the fact that the majority of voters know that SP will hijack any cause that has a chance of winning,refusing to acknowledge others role, but walk away blaming the others if the campaign is a failure. While they comfort themselves about the mass campaign built on their 100,000 pledges people on the doorsteps are asking how can they actually get involved in non payment and how would non payment affect them. The ICTU website www.waterchargesnonpayment.com provides advice on a range of non payment and poverty issues. The SP stole the legal advice from that site but could'nt help telling lies about minimal charges which a cursory glance at the website for the NI Enforcement Agency will demonstrate.

by BK Sun Mar 18, 2007 18:24

Yup: pretty pathetic when an organization that never stops reminding people of its awesome influence among working people has to spend so much of its time stirring the sectarian pot, as Dub and his comrade above do. But it is classic SP style--bureaucratic and sectarian maneuvering as a substitute for grassroots work on the ground. This has been their approach to antiwar work all along.

I pointed this out on another thread--the sentiment against the water charges is there to be built on, but the SP's approach is an obstacle to building a campaign rooted in workplaces and communities. It is a fact that the biggest meetings in West Belfast and in Derry have happened without any involvement whatsoever from WWPC, and these are among the biggest meetings thus far anywhere in the north. . That is the reality. A single member of theirs showed up to a well-attended (70+) meeting in St James this past week and had almost nothing relevant to say in what was one of the best, most political meetings held anywhere on the issue. They missed the biggest meeting on the Shankill, were uninvolved in the biggest meeting in the Village.

To the extent that the grassroots campaign against water charges is being built around the north, in other words, it has had little to do with whether WWPC is involved or not. And yet if you look at the bureaucratic organization for the march the SP has planned, none of the breadth of the movement (as it is) is reflected in the list of speakers, in the organization of the event, etc. It is a chance for SP to assert its ownership, despite being so weak on the ground. Of course, I will support the march despite these serious reservations, and will do what I can to get people out, but people need to know the truth about why things are not further along than they are, and a lot of it has to do with SP sectarianism. Many activists know this anyway, and don't need to be told.

On the assertions from Dub, this is from the campaign literature, the only literature going 'through the door' from SWP during the elections:

McCann on SEA:
We have put the issue of water charges at the top of our agenda. There are many thousands of people across the North in favour of non-payment. But there hasn’t been a single MLA supporting them. That’s a travesty. We need a loud voice in the Assembly speaking up for non-payment. I am the only candidate in Foyle who will do this.

Sean Mitchell on PBP:
‘The People Before Profit Alliance is the only party in [West Belfast in] this election that is taking a principled stand against water charges. We are the only party to advocate non-payment; the rest, whatever their views on water charges, are undermining the campaign against them by arguing with people to pay the charge.

‘We are standing in the election in order to encourage people not to pay, the charges are completely unfair and they can be beaten by a non-payment campaign. Not only that, but we see the water charges as part of a wider agenda by Peter Hain to introduce a neo-liberal agenda to Northern Ireland."

Where is the ambiguity in any of that, Dub? Or have you been taken in by fairy tales?

Someone pointed out on another thread that the PBP literature also took a stand against the war in Iraq, came out against the police, against the whole of the Hain privatization plans. And still managed to get about 8x the vote that the SP managed--with a 'law and order' platform that would have gone down well in any ex-RUC man's household. Get a grip.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Sun Mar 18, 2007 20:27

The most notable thing about the intervention of the anonymous SWP hack "BK" on recent indymedia threads hasn't been the constant outpourings of sectarian bile. That I'm afraid is only to be expected. Neither is the dishonesty. That too is only to be expected, a mixture of dishonesty and self-delusion is a defining feature of the SWP's political approach.

No, what's actually interesting about his posts is that they don't deal with the meat of the issues he claims to be addressing at all. Endless sneers at the Socialist Party may or may not be amusing, but they don't address the basic issue of why exactly it is that the SWP are trying to revive a second community water tax non-payment campaign rather than getting involved in the one which has been working continuously on the ground for a period of years now. What justification can there be for this behaviour?

It is a fact that the We Won't Pay Campaign is the main non-payment campaign on the ground. It has just had its conference, with almost 150 delegates in attendance. It has collected in the region of 100,000 non-payment pledges on the doorsteps. It has patiently established a significant number of local campaign groups. In the unions, it's members organised and moved the motion which committed NIPSA to non-payment,and its supporters were important in winning ICTU to a non-payment position. Whether you like the Socialist Party or Organise! or any of the other organisations involved in the WWPC is neither here nor there.

It has repeatedly argued that there should be one, democratically organised, community based, non-payment campaign. It passed a motion reaffirming that position at its recent conference. There is no serious argument against this position. Yet the SWP persist in trying to revive a seperate campaign of their own... calling for the same basic non-payment tactic. It is bizarre. It is indefensible. And unfortunately it is also all to predictable for anyone with experience of the SWP's dismal and sectarian record in non-payment campaigns.

People with long memories will recall that the British SWP were very dismissive of the non-payment campaign in the poll tax, infamously declaring that non-payment would simply prove impossible. Eventually, the strength of that movement forced them to abandon their earlier position and belatedly get involved. That was a fairly spectacular screw up, but it was at least based on honestly mistaken politics rather than outright manouvering for sectarian advantage. The same cannot be said of their approach to the anti-water tax movement in Dublin in the 1990s.

There too the SWP were relatively late to get involved. When they did get involved they ran through their whole catalogue of sectarian stunts, while simply failing to put in the necessary consistent work on the ground. Of most interest to people following their current antics in the North, this included setting up rival, but politically identical, anti-water charges campaigns in various efforts. Over time these campaigns invariably ran out of steam as the SWP disappeared off to chase some other issue and as whatever people they had managed to get involved got involved in the real campaign. In the end there was only one, democratically organised, community based, non-payment campaign, exactly what the We Won't Pay Campaign is creating in the North. No thanks to the SWP, of course.

Their record in the anti-bin tax campaign has been dealt with in some depth on this site before. The phantom local campaigns, the full timers claiming to represent different areas at different delegate meetings, the inability to contribute to building the campaign on the ground outside of a couple of areas where they had electoral ambitions and, of course, their trenchant opposition to spreading the necessary direct action.

This is not a record which would give any observer the impression of an organisation equipped to declare what is or is not the necessary approach to building a non payment campaign. There have been three major campaigns of this sort in the recent past. On each of those occasions the Socialist Party, community activists and some other left groups built hugely significant campaigns. On each of those occasions the SWP disgraced itself. It is however a record which points squarely to the real reasoning behind the SWP's current antics in the North. It doesn't have the membership on the ground to get its way in a democratic campaign, nor does it have the ability to seriously build one. Instead it is using a rival campaign to intrigue for sectarian advantage. This is damaging to the movement but such considerations come a long way down the SWP's list of priorities.

I don't expect much of use to come from him, but I would still welcome BK or any of his other anonymous friends explaining why exactly they think it is necessary to build their own campaign, rather than getting involved in the We Won't Pay Campaign. And when I say explaining, I do actually mean explaining and not the more likely burst of boasting and smears.

by Observer Sun Mar 18, 2007 22:47

Mark,
at the recent WWP conference could you tell us how many platform speakers & chairpersons were from the SP and how many weren't?

by BK Sun Mar 18, 2007 23:18

tell you what, mark: if you think the 'meat of the issue' is to explain why lots of the best activists, people well beyond the ranks of the swp are working outside of the wwpc, then you need to start to think outside the box. and fast.

the meat of the issue is how to mobilize the potentially large-scale opposition to water charges on a scale we haven't yet seen. it does not matter if wwpc has been at it for four years, or fifty. pulling rank won't work. and your retelling of the nipsa vote doesn't stand up. you can keep on insisting that wwpc is the 'main non-payment campaign on the ground,' but the problem is that very few people aside from yourselves seems to have noticed. as i said most of the big grassroots meetings in belfast and derry have happened without your involvement, or consent. deal with it.

look: i didn't claim that all the big meetings held on water charges are ones built by the swp. the three meetings in the west that i mentioned were for the most part organized by people outside swp, and i see that as a strength, a sign that the thing potentially has real traction beyond the organized left--swp., sp, wsm whatever. that said, there is no doubt that sean mitchell's campaign had an important effect in pushing the issue out there. i hope, sincerely, that the sp's had the same effect in east and south belfast, but i am doubtful. no one that i know is interested in a competition between cawc and wwpc for 'ownership' of the campaign. the sp seem to be the only ones obsessed with this. my advice would be for people to get involved in whatever organization is doing the work on the ground in their area.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Mar 19, 2007 07:04

Your dismal response once more avoids addressing the question you were specifically asked. Why exactly is the SWP trying to revive a second non-payment campaign rather than simply joining the existing campaign? I am not, I must admit, even remotely surprised to see you avoid the question. It is after all unanswerable.

I find your comments do at least raise a wry smile however. Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of exposure to the SWP in any ongoing campaign will be all too familiar with the poisonous method behind your argument.

Step 1: Pull some sectarian antic in the pursuit of some factional advantage or other. The exact stunt is almost unimportant. It could be sending delegates from non-existent local groups to national meetings of a campaign. It could be trying to establish a rival campaign to an existing one on a issue, despite no significant political disagreements existing. Any of us who have been around the left for any length of time will have seen a frankly awe inspiring range of such behaviour from the SWP, so I won't attempt a complete list.

Step 2: Accuse anyone who complains about your latest stunt of being obsessed with minor issues. The problem, we are told, isn't the SWP's sectarian stunts. No, instead the problem consists of other people who notice the SWP's behaviour and are ill mannered enough to raise the issue. We shouldn't be talking about sectarianism or democratic decision making or any other such trivia when water bills are on the way / thousands are dying in Iraq / insert example of the week here! It's a political method which relies on new activists not having experience of the SWP in action, on the natural dislike which most activists have of anything which can be seen as bickering and on other groups not wanting to put people off by raising such behaviour. It's also utterly corrosive.

On this issue the point of disagreement between us is very simple. There is in existence a community based non-payment campaign which has been solidly working on the ground for some time, which has just held a hugely succesful conference, which has assembled around 100,000 non-payment pledges and which has had notable success in encouraging the trade union movement to adopt a non-payment policy. Instead of getting involved in that campaign, the SWP are trying to revive a long moribund rival campaign and they are doing so for reasons which can only be described as sectarian.

This is not the most important aspect of the anti-water charges struggle by any means. The SWP tried exactly the same thing in the struggle against water charges in Dublin and as in that case they are highly unlikely to meet with much success because of their inability to build real campaigns on the ground. However it does have a damaging effect, causing confusion and duplicated effort. For that reason it is worth discussing and for that reason I again ask you to address the question you have repeatedly avoided. For your convenience I repeat it again at the end of this comment, not that I expect an honest answer this time around either.

Why exactly is the SWP trying to revive a second non-payment campaign rather than simply joining the existing campaign?

by BK Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:24

maybe you missed this mark, when i wrote above:

'you can keep on insisting that wwpc is the 'main non-payment campaign on the ground,' but the problem is that very few people aside from yourselves seems to have noticed.'

i don't accept the premise of your question, in other words. there is not a single, vibrant, united campaign that has been successful at mobilizing people around water charges. of the public meetings that have been held, the majority of the large meetings have been built and run outside wwp's auspices. you know that. everyone knows that. your two candidates standing on opposition to the charges in the elections had a dismal showing. dismal.

now put these two together. the sp has maneuvered from the beginning for bureaucratic control of the campaign. fine: you will 'run' the march later this month. the leaflets being posted around town show only your speakers listed. typical, classic sp. but have you actually built anything on the ground? the jury is out, but my guess is no. the majority of those who attend on the day will have been brought there either by the unions or by grassroots organizers like the ones that the swp has been working hard to develop relationships with. which, you can tell your comrades, is not the same as parachuting into an area on the night of a meeting and expecting the masses to bow down before your commandments.

now here's a question for you: can you respond to observer's query above, where s/he asks:

'Mark,
at the recent WWP conference could you tell us how many platform speakers & chairpersons were from the SP and how many weren't?'

by Daf Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:14

Is it really relevant how many speakers were from the SP? If the Sp organised a meeting and brought forward all of their own speakers it would be an SP meeting not a wwp meeting. The fact they are involved but not hijacking it as the SWP would should be a plus point surely.

by BK Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:47

daft:

there is a great deal of doubt about the 'fact,' as you call it, of whether '[the SP] are involved but not hijacking it [wwp].' but i'm guessing you already know that. its a simple question. how about a simple answer?

again:
'at the recent WWP conference could you tell us how many platform speakers & chairpersons were from the SP and how many weren't?'

when someone responds with a truthful answer we can move on to whether the non-wwp meetings are begin run in the same sectarian manner. you'll be disappointed.

by As a brush! Mon Mar 19, 2007 19:28

Ok Daft - on the WWP website it shows there were 5 people on the platform - 4 are clearly from the SP. They are joined by (and I quote from the website) Steve Score, ex-Secretary of the Leicestershire Anti-Poll Tax Federation. I'm only guessing, but I think Steve maybe a member of.....maybe not.
So was it a WWP conference?

by Roy Race - Melchester Rovers Mon Mar 19, 2007 19:40

A link to the man himself.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Tue Mar 20, 2007 06:48

I see that the number of anonymous posts by SWP members on these threads continue to multiply. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are so embarrassed by their political affiliations that they feel it necessary to hide them. Of course it doesn't amaze me all that much in the case of the SWP. Not only would most people find such an affiliation embarrassing, the SWP makes something of an artform of hiding the affiliations of its members in the real world too.

Anyway, someone wanted to know how many of the people chairing parts of the We Won't Pay Campaign were members of the Socialist Party. One, is the answer to that. A member of the Belfast based anarchist organisation Organise! chaired most of the meeting.

As far as platform speakers are concerned, I wasn't there and so didn't count but the two invited speakers were Clare Daly, who was a leading figure in the battle against the water tax in Dublin and Steve Score, who was the chair of the Leicester Anti Poll Tax Union. Both are members of the Socialist Party. The march on the 31st is to feature Joe Higgins and Tommy Sheridan as speakers. Joe was chair of the Dublin anti-water tax federation and Tommy was head of the Scottish federation of anti-poll tax unions (and, incidentally is not a member of the Socialist Party). It is extremely important that people with significant experience of these campaigns speak at major anti-water tax meetings, to explain how non-payment has worked in the past and allow people following in their footsteps to learn from their experiences. It would, of course, be quite hard to find prominent political activists, who were in the leadership of those campaigns, are still active today, who are not in the Socialist Party today and who were not in the Socialist Party then. That's a measure of the important role the SP played in those victories. In fact I think most of the other people who fit all of the above criteria are anarchists, Gregor Kerr for example. Hopefully such people will speak at WWPC meetings in the future. Of course to the SWP, bringing people with experience of leading non-payment movements to speak is indicative of Socialist Party sectarianism, presumably for the simple reason that no SWP members were of any particular prominence in those struggles.

If there were other platform speakers, aside from the two guests and the chairs, it is quite probable that they were Socialist Party members. Such people could perhaps have included the leader of the Northern Ireland Fire Brigades Union or the President of NIPSA, the two unions which were first to take a non-payment position in significant part due to the role played by WWPC and Socialist Party activists in those unions. A number of the leading figures in the WWPC are Socialist Party members, which is hardly surprising given that the Socialist Party initiated the campaign and did most of the early work to build it. Of course the question being asked isn't really a question at all. The anonymous SWP member asking it is well aware of these facts and is simply trying to insinuate that there is something wrong with socialists openly playing such a role. The leadership positions in the WWPC are democratically elected (most recently at the conference this question was about) and the officers are subordinate to a council of delegates from local groups, established at conference. Of course to the SWP, democratic democratic structures and democratic decision making hold no meaning. Much better to demonstrate a false "broadness" by including any number of unorganised and politically inexperienced independents on a steering committee to mask the nature of one of their endless fronts.

B.K. complains bitterly that the We Wont Pay Campaign has too much influence over the forthcoming anti-water tax march. They are out to "control" it. This kind of gibberish says nothing about the WWPC and everything about BK's dismal sectarianism.

The We Won't Pay Campaign actually called the 31st March demonstration. It was called specifically as a demonstration to build non-payment. At that time, there was only one non-payment campaign. Communities Against the Water Tax was moribund. The broader trade union based coalition was not at that point committed to non-payment (and incidentally hadn't met in some time either). The We Won't Pay Campaign, because it wants to build as broad a movement as possible, approached the trade union group and asked it to provide a speaker. By this stage, incidentally, many posters were already up and leaflets were already circulating advertising the march as called by the WWPC.

The wider coalition responded by saying that it wanted to organise the march. As far as the WWPC was concerned the problem with that idea was that the march was specifically to be a non-payment event rather than simply an anti-water tax event. The coalition then adopted a non-payment stance and agreed that the march should also have that stance and so, the WWPC allowed them to take control of the march. Only in the topsy turvy world of SWP thought could handing a march the WWPC initially called over to the coalition be considered sectarian!

We are you will notice rather getting off the point here. Our anonymous SWPers will no doubt continue to throw vague accusations and further red herrings into the discussion, all covered in a sickly coat of their best sectarian bile. What they will not do is address the simple issue at stake here. Why are they opposed to joining in a single democratically organised, community based, non-payment campaign? It's a stark, simple question and one which has received no answer.

The WWPC, as I've already pointed out, has been active on the ground for some time now. It has been able to establish a range of local groups. It has just had an enormously succesful conference with almost 150 people present. It played a central role in pushing the trade union movement into adopting non-payment. It has collected in the region of 100,000 non-payment pledges. It has an entirely democratic structure, which anyone can join. In the last couple of weeks alone it has organised, apart from its conference and apart from initiating the 31st March demonstration, heading for a dozen public meetings with a similar number planned for the weeks ahead.

Yet the SWP is, for its own sectarian reasons, just as it did in the anti-water tax struggle in the South, seeking to establish its own rival campaign. This isn't a pretty sight. It risks duplicated effort and creates confusion. But it might provide the much diminished SWP with a bargaining chip, which is really all that matters to them.

Now after that rather long winded contribution I've had quite enough of dealing with anonymous SWP members for one thread. I fully expect a further torrent of vitriol and whining. I certainly don't expect a serious answer. So unless someone adds something new to the discussion or actually addresses why the SWP need their own campaign, I'll move along to more productive discussions.

by congres man Tue Mar 20, 2007 08:29

Leaving aside the ridiculous comments about anonmity f rom MarkP the cat has been let out of the bag.
The demonstration on 31st March was called specifically by SP to 'build'a non-payment campaign. ICTU have recognised the importance of educating the masses about non payment in advance hence the relevant information ontheir website www.waterchargesnonpayment.com. The need to 'build a campaign' on the day before bills drop through letter boxes demonstrates that even SP know their 100,000 pledges are a farce.
The old leaflets were already printed to justify the 'this is the SP and SP only 'show is also ridiculous.If they were already printed this was done in the knowledge that a broader demonstration on the day was being negotiated. The last time the SP held a 'mass rally' ,funded by unions, about 100 turned up. I t would have been cheaper and more effective to use the funding to pay the attendees court costs. The SP will be glad that they have deigned to allow others to attend the rally given the 500 votes garnered from the 100,000 pledges.

by anomonous Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:41

"It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are so embarrassed by their political affiliations that they feel it necessary to hide them"

in fact Mark P the only thing to be embarrassed about is forever posting arguements to the far left on this website. There is a much larger layer of people to win out there. They are known as the working class.

by K Dog Tue Mar 20, 2007 13:06

It is interesting that at the recent WWP conference there was an overwhelming majority of Socialist Party speakers on the platform. Without doubt this is reflective of the membership of the WWPC.

"We Wont Pay has just had an enormously succesful conference with almost 150 people present."
Good Lord, under 150 people from the whole of N.Ireland, weeks before the introduction of the water charges. Im sorry mate but this is a feeble turnout. In fact it is absolutly abismal. And Im guessing a large chunk of them were SP members.

I am truely dissapointed that after years of hard work, after your 100 000 pledges signed you could muster just 150 people for a conference weeks before the water charges are in place. But to be fair it says a lot about the debth of your campaign.

Congratulations on the "good vote" revieved by your comrades in Belfast though.

Of course, People Before Profit did well because we didnt have the greens to compete against. Apparantly the left is now at the mercy of the greens.

by k-dog watch Tue Mar 20, 2007 13:18

K-dog you were steamin on st paddys day

by Joe Public Tue Mar 20, 2007 13:31

Its silly fro anyone to write off any organisations of the left based on the last election. The conditions were never going to show any significant shift to the left. I agree that some of the pointas made above have some truth to them. The traditional SF (anti PSNI) vote did overall transfer to New SF outside of Belfast check The cedar lounge for a fiuller picture. There is a presumption that all who voted for the traditionalists are leftish - I'm not so sure.

NewSF did capitalise on the concern that "splitting" the nationalist vote would assist the DUP. NewSF now are the main nationalist party. To presume that all that voted SF are doing so beacuse they support their policy on policing or anything else may not be true either. The working class in the Republic voted for many decades for FF because of their loyality to them, family tradition, civil war politics, and a somewhat misguided belief that FF was more sympathetic to the working man (compared to FG the rich peoples party). NewSF also use the socialist card regularly so young people from nationalist communities could have voted NewSF believing they were voting socialist. That is not to say that there aren't socialists within NewSF, there are.

The left vote had all the above to contend with. The vote was low and disheartening for the left activists. The SP vote deserved to be better because of their level of activism but it wasn't to be. What is needed now is to knuckle down to more activism on the streets and, hopefully, by the next election the left will be in a stronger place. It will be interesting to see if the SP consider trying their sister group in England's strategy to build a campaign for a marxist party.

This is an interesting development and worth keeping an eye on. An alternative strategy to the SWP's People before profit, on paper it looks more promising. It will boil down to if the SP can live with marxists who do not share their very rigid understanding of marxism.

Either way, we owe a debt of gratitude to anyone that put their name to a ballot and declared themselves socialist. They flew the red flag. The vote shows how difficult our task for the future is. I firmly believe that most of the socialist candidates got votes from socialists, I find it hard to swallow that, say the SP, would have suffered because of their position on the North or whatever. The vote is a realistic gauge of the weakness of the left.