Report from Connolly Festival 2007

by Labour Youth Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:59

There was a great turnout from the general public as well as from organisations on the left including activists in the IAWM, Socialist Party, Sinn Fein, WSM, Dublin Spartacist Group......

Bob Doyle Spanish Civil War Veteran

by Topper Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:57

"A Trotskyite intervention on the question of coalition was welcomed by Labour Youth speakers who used it an opportunity to put forward their rejection of coalitionism and point towards an alternative approach. "

Leaving aside the use of the term "Trotskyite", an unfortunate lapse into Stalinese (maybe picked up from the Cuban ambassador?), I'd be interested to hear what Labour Youth's position on "coalitionism" actually is. Do LY say clearly that Labour should not enter coalition governments with FF or FG? Is this the official policy?

And if so, what position will they be taking for the imminent election? There are a number of candidates running on a left-wing platform who reject coalition with the conservative parties (for example, Seamus Healy, Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Richard Boyd Barrett, Joan Collins, John O'Neill). Will LY be calling for a vote for these candidates? A victory for any or all of them would be a blow against the subordination of the Irish Left to right-wing forces.

I ask this because the last edition of "Left Tribune", posted on Indymedia a while back, carried a feature previewing some of the seats for the general election. Discussing Tipperary, it didn't mention Seamus Healy, but celebrated the Labour candidate Phil Prendergast. She, of course, defected from Healy's group to the Labour party, and Labour's goal in the election for that constituency is to defeat the electoral challenge from a successful left-wing, anti-coalition group in Tipp. If LY are willing to support this goal, how can they talk about their "rejection of coalitionism"?

by Pushkin Thu Mar 29, 2007 13:34

I'm not a Labour supporter but I hardly find it suprising that Labour Youth would support the LP candidate in Tipp South. Phil Prendergast used to be in the WUAGand defected to the LP, as did 2 other councillors from the WUAG. So it wasnt just one person leaving. WAs it an ego thing? Was it Healys ego or hers? Anyway, do you think she has suddenly become an enemy of the people because she joined the LP?

This seems to be the LY position on the election:

"At its annual Youth Conference in UCD this weekend, delegates overwhelmingly endorsed a strategy which would see Labour stand independently of the Fine Gael transfer pact. While reaffirming the commitment to maximise Labour support, delegates also voted for a non-cooperation policy with the distribution of material which calls for a transfer to Fine Gael at the next election. "

It doesn't seem to rule out coalition. Maybe someone from LY could clarify.

Anyway, electoralism is the least of my concerns.

As for LY, they are an active organisation, involved in many progressive campaigns. Members of SF, SP, WSM, ISN and independents don't seem to have any problems working with them.

by Topper Thu Mar 29, 2007 13:40

You seem to have a big problem with me asking a very basic question, and I don't see why. I didn't suggest that Phil Prendergast was an "enemy of the people" - I pointed out that she is running as the official Labour candidate, against an anti-coalition left-wing TD, and as an official Labour candidate she has to be committed to the party's declared goal of forming a coalition as junior partners of Fine Gael.

I'm well aware that other left activists can work with LY on various campaigns. That's not relevant to the issue at all. People can work with the SP, SWP, WSM, ISN etc and still disagree with their positions, and criticise them. So why aren't we allowed ask LY what their "rejection of coalitionism" actually means in practice?

by Pushkin Thu Mar 29, 2007 13:53

"You seem to have a big problem with me asking a very basic question, and I don't see why."

You are the one who is getting tetchy because I responded to you.

"I didn't suggest that Phil Prendergast was an "enemy of the people" - I pointed out that she is running as the official Labour candidate, against an anti-coalition left-wing TD, and as an official Labour candidate she has to be committed to the party's declared goal of forming a coalition as junior partners of Fine Gael. "

I still dont see why you would expect LY to denounce her and support Healy instead. That would likely get them expelled from the LP and would hardly aid THEIR project of moving Labour to the Left. Just as a member of the SP or SWP would be expelled if they were to urge support for the LP against their party candidate. She was in the WUAG not so long ago. Presumably you thought she was spot on then. Do you think that she and the other 2 ex WUAG councillors have degenerated in the meantime?

"I'm well aware that other left activists can work with LY on various campaigns. That's not relevant to the issue at all. People can work with the SP, SWP, WSM, ISN etc and still disagree with their positions, and criticise them."

But you miss my point. I'm more interested in broad based progressive campaigns than I am in electoralism. I really don't think it matters whether its Healy or Prendergast which is the one elected in Tipp South.

"So why aren't we allowed ask LY what their "rejection of coalitionism" actually means in practice?""

You are. If you bother to read my comment you will see that I suggest just that.

But I'm happier to be working with LY members to advance Pro Choice campaigns than to drum up support for a TD like Healy who never mentions Pro Choice issues.

by What's Left? Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:08

You might not care about "electoralism", Pushkin, but Labour Youth most assuredly do. The vast majority of their activities for the next few months will consist of canvassing and working for Labour Party candidates. In fact the main reason why Labour Youth exists is to encourage young people into the Labour Party, an organisation which exists primarily to fight elections!

Like you I wouldn't expect Labour Youth to support left wing candidates, even those like Seamas Healy who are a great deal closer to the views Labour Youth allegedly espouse than the vast majority of Labour Party candidates. I fully expect Labour Youth, in so far as it exists in any given constituency, to be out canvassing for a Fine Gael led government despite Labour Youth's alleged opposition to the Mullingar deal. Unlike your good self, I don't think that these are good things however.

As far as Labour Youth's "project to push the Labour Party to the left" is concerned, I'd be interested in hearing some details of this. Strangely enough I've never heard of such a project. Can we take it that Labour Youth has established an organised left wing of the party in general? That this organised left wing is pushing for an end to all coalitions with Fianna Fail or Fine Gael? That this left is doing its best to create organised left groupings in every branch of the party? That it is putting forward a coherent socialist strategy for the Labour Party?

Well, no we can't can we? Because there is no left wing left in the Labour Party, at least none worth noticing. The closest thing Labour has left to a genuinely left wing councillor, Declan Bree, is being persecuted out of the party. After that, there's nothing. No organised left. No coherent project. No strategy.

by Pushkin Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:21

Most of your piece is directed at LY and I'll let them answer.

But I would have more admiration for members of LY than for Bree. Afaiaa Bree is an unreconstructed Stalinist (did he ever really leave the CP?) who was happy to toe the line 1992 - 97, voting for quiet a few reactionary policies in the Dail.

In his CP days Bree defended the oppression of hundreds of millions of workers in the USSR and Eastern Europe.

I dont think I'll ever be sent to a Gulag or shot if the LP are in power. If Brees idea of a Workers Paradise was ever achieved though, I'd be worried.

by DM - Labour Youth Thu Mar 29, 2007 16:58

As far as I know LY is opposed to any coalition where we are a junior partner. Most of us detest the blueshirts an disagree with our leaders election policy.

by Topper Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:04

Yup, I do get a bit tetchy when I post a perfectly reasonable comment and you respond as if I was some kind of shrill Maoist fanatic ranting about "enemies of the people". Sometimes the comments people post criticising Labour on Indymedia can be boring, repetitive and a bit hysterical. That doesn't mean you can paint every critic as a crank, and trying to do so will just prevent any kind of useful debate from happening.

Neither Seamus Healy nor Phil Prendergast has said that their parting of the ways was down to "egos". As I remember, as it was reported in the national media, the reason she gave for leaving Healy's group was that he didn't vote in favour of the motion blaming the Provos for the crisis in the peace process at the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005 (also as I remember, Healy, Tony Gregory, Finian McGrath and the SF reps were the only ones who voted against it, but I'm open to correction). Apparently there was a lot more to it than that, political differences had arisen before that and the Provo vote was just the final cue for her to leave.

I'm not talking about Phil Prendergast as an individual. I've never met her, for all I know she's a lovely person. But of course I have to judge her differently if she changes her political affiliation. A couple of years ago she was part of a group that has been trying to build a left-wing alternative to the Labour Party for the last couple of decades, and been fairly successful. Now she's running for a party that has actually managed to out-flank the PDs from the right over immigration. So naturally I'm going to change my opinion of her, especially when her new party's aim for the election in Tipp is to defeat an organisation and a candidate with a good record of principled activism.

Anyway, I posted because I was surprised to see a reference in the main article to LY's "rejection of coalitionism", when I had the impression that LY was not opposed to coalition with right-wing parties. I'm happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong, but I'd like to hear what kind of alternative strategy Labour Youth actually puts forward, if they don't agree with the current leadership. "Proud to be left, proud to be Labour" doesn't tell us all that much.

by Pushkin Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:21

"Yup, I do get a bit tetchy when I post a perfectly reasonable comment and you respond as if I was some kind of shrill Maoist fanatic ranting about "enemies of the people". "

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder, i'm sure that you sincerely believe that you are incapable of writing an unreasonable comment. Others might differ. But I doubt if you are a Maoist. In any case let a thouand flowers blossom in your keyboard.

"That doesn't mean you can paint every critic as a crank, and trying to do so will just prevent any kind of useful debate from happening."

I didn't call you a crank. No need to set up men of straw. But you continue in your latest comment to be a bit shrill about Prendergast. My perception is that you are carefully couching your questions so that you will be able to denounce LY no matter what the answer.

I still don't reckon it matters whether Healy or Prendergast is elected. Healy has been rather quiet on immigration, just as on abortion and I've never heard him say that theres more than a parliamentary road to Socialism.

You cheer Healy on if you wish. I believe that mass movements must be built outside of the Dail and that its more important to get people active in them rather than worrying about electoralism.

PS Not being a good Libertarian, I might be persuaded to vote for the SP or a genuine independent Socialist if there was such a candidate in my constituency.

by Blade Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:32

"I dont think I'll ever be sent to a Gulag or shot if the LP are in power."
But Labour are in power in Britain and plenty of people have been sent to Anglo-US gulags since the "war on terror".
You think Rabbitte could not be Blair? Think again.

by Pushkin Thu Mar 29, 2007 17:40

If you wish to be taken seriously then you will have to develop a sense of proportion. I oppose those extraditions but there are not mass Gulags in Britain. Workers are not being shot for going on strike. Things were a bit different in the USSR and the other State Capitalist Regimes. You might have read about millions of workers being killed in the name of socialism.

Anyway, I wouldn't be too worried about Rabbitte being in power anymore than Bertie. I would be worried if McDowell or Bree had a chance of becoming Taoseach.

by The Stone Guest Thu Mar 29, 2007 18:08

No chance of Bree or McDowell being Taoiseach. So there's one of the straw men you tilt against.
Why Bree and not Rabbitte?
I'm sure it's a CP thing. Rabbitte was in the USSR endorsed CP party. After the next election it is more likely that Rabbitte will be acting Taoiseach if he's in the country when the real one is abroad.
Methinks you do proteth do much.

by Pushkin Thu Mar 29, 2007 18:19

As someone who was a WP fellow traveller I must admit I never heard Rabbitte entusing over the glories of the USSR or justifying mass murder. Go to Garland, O'Hagan or MacGiolla or even Harris for that. Bree is a different kettle of fish, he wants the USSR back, unchanged.

I'm no fan of Rabbitte but you are just having a go at LY. You dont really want answers, you just want to denounce them.

Anyway, you can have your Dail or your USSR or whatever. Elect Healy or Prendergast, it makes no difference.

I'm off to a meeting now to discuss some ongoing direct action.

Toodle pip!

by Labour member Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:11

This is the motion that was adopted by Labour Youth members at their conference last November. I think it answers a lot of the questions above and is perfectly clear in its rejection of right wing government:

Conference calls for:
a vote for the Labour Party in the upcoming general election, and for voters to transfer against the government.

Conference believes:
all Labour Youth members should contribute as much of their time and effort as possible to ensuring the maximum number of votes for Labour candidates in all constituencies.

Conference reaffirms:
support for an independent electoral strategy for the Labour Party.

Conference mandates:
Labour Youth to include a call for a vote for the Labour Party alone in all its election literature, press releases and communication to members.

Conference asks:
all Labour Youth members not to co-operate with the distribution of any material, including leaflets and posters, which calls for a transfer to the Fine Gael party.

by Marlboro Man Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:24

For example

“Conference calls for:
a vote for the Labour Party in the upcoming general election, and for voters to transfer against the government.”

“Conference asks:
all Labour Youth members not to co-operate with the distribution of any material, including leaflets and posters, which calls for a transfer to the Fine Gael party.”

These two calls can be construed as contradictory.

Or is LY being sufficiently ambiguous to allow support for transfers to FG as they are “against the government”

LY are walking a tightrope here. They either support Labour Candidates and all that entails or they don’t. Cherry picking is a luxury they cannot afford if they want to appear credible or at least have anyone in Labour proper listen to them.

by Topper Fri Mar 30, 2007 14:58

Well, I'm glad someone from Labour Youth has posted a response. Pushkin's intolerant attitude to basic questions was getting a bit tiresome, as were his attempts to caricature me as some kind of shrill fanatic. It's fairly irritating when someone insists on telling you what you think, based on their miraculous mind-reading powers. Best to read what's on the screen and leave it at that, methinks.

Anyway: "I think it answers a lot of the questions above and is perfectly clear in its rejection of right wing government." I don't see the same clarity myself. If it said "Labour Youth believes that the Labour party should not form a coalition with any right-wing party, whether FF, FG or the PDs, after the next election", it would be "perfectly clear in its rejection of right wing government." The motion says that Labour should go into the next election without a formal alliance or transfer pact with FG. That's the same position that the Greens hold, but they've also made it clear that they are willing to join a FG-led government if the numbers add up.

To conclude - despite what Pushkin claims, I'm not interested in having a go for the sake of it or denouncing people as sell-outs, opportunists or whatever. But if left activists are going to have any kind of useful debate about strategies, a bit of clarity is needed. On the basis of the motion above, it's inaccurate to say that Labour Youth reject coalition governments with right-wing parties, not right now anyway. Maybe they would like to shift the Labour party to that position in the future, but are willing to go along with the current policy for the time being. If so, I'd be curious to hear how they think they can shift the LP further to the left. What's their strategy? What goals have they set themselves?

Raising these questions is not "sectarian" or "divisive". We need to know where people actually stand before we can judge whether to agree or disagree with them.

by Joe Strummer Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:09

You do come across as being a bit cranky. I will put it down to your illusions in electoral politics. I really do not think it matters whether WUAG or Labour or FG or FF take that seat.

Come on! I implore you to abandon the parliamentary Road To Socialism!

by Labour member Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:14

This is the motion passed in 2005 - it gives context to the more recent motion passed in 2006:

Electoral Strategy
Conference notes:
- the result of the vote at the Labour Party Conference in relation to the motion authorising the Party Leader to enter a pre-election pact with other parties;
- that some members have concerns about the effects of such pacts on the Labour movement;
- that the Party Leader has indicated his preference for a post-election coalition with Fine Gael and the Green Party;

Conference welcomes:
- the democratic and reasoned manner in which the issue was debated;
- the willingness of those who opposed the motion to support the democratic decision of the Party Conference;

Conference therefore affirms:
- Labour Youth's desire for the Labour Party to be the majority party in the next Government;
- that continuing work is needed to ensure that Labour becomes the largest political party in Ireland in the medium term;

Conference mandates the National Youth Executive to:
- engage in a campaign to maximise the Labour Party's vote;
- endeavour to maximise the participation of young people at all levels of the wider campaign, especially in key roles on the election teams of all candidates;
- support in particular the younger candidates in battleground constituencies;
- to, immediately after the forthcoming General Election, commence the campaign for the 2009 Local & European elections and the next General Election with the aim of making the Labour Party the second biggest party in the country in all three elections

by Topper Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:21

And you come across as being intolerant and ever-so-slightly hysterical, so I'll leave you to enjoy that buzz. If you want to argue for an anarchist view of electoral politics, fine. That's got nothing to do with the position of Labour Youth. It's not my view either - I think it can be very useful to have people like Healy, Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Joan Collins or John O'Neill elected and using the Dail as a platform. I don't think it's the most important thing and certainly not the be-all and end-all of politics, but I don't think it's irrelevant either.

Can't for the life of me see why you're so precious about people asking LY questions about their position. The LY members who have posted on this thread don't seem so upset, they've managed to respond without resorting to name-calling and caricature. May it continue...

by Joe Strummer Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:31

"Can't for the life of me see why you're so precious about people asking LY questions about their position."

You are far too touchy. In my first comment I quoted the LY position, said it was unclear and hoped that a LY member would clarify it. I came to a certain conclusion about your mentality and your subsequent posts have confirmed me in my suspicions.

You are far too intolerant of those who do not share your opinions.

I could be convinced that Joe Higgin, Joan Collins, John O'Neill and Joan Collins would make some difference. But not Healy, he sits there like a Buddha in the Dail. Most of the time maintaining an inscrutable silence on anything other than economic issues.

Gas & Waterworks Socilism: no thanks!

by Topper Fri Mar 30, 2007 15:44

You are welcome to your conclusions about my alleged "mentality". They appear to be based on the workings of your imagination, not anything that I have actually written on this thread, but far be it from me to deny you the right to hold that opinion. The only "intolerance" I see in evidence on this thread is your own, and I'm confident anyone who follows it can see that.

Anyway, onto relevant matters - as I understand it from what Labour Youth members have posted, the LY position is this - they would prefer Labour to be the second largest party, and hope this will happen at some point in the future, but for the time being they are willing to accept Labour entering government as the junior partner of FG or FF. Ok, so now people can argue on the basis of that position, agree or disagree with it, criticise it, whatever. But you have to know where people stand to begin with.

by Labour Member Fri Mar 30, 2007 16:14

This motion was passed overwelmingly in November 2006 at the Labour Youth conference:

Coalition Government

Conference Mandates:

The NYE in conjunction with the Education and policy development working group to develop, update and expand upon the Labour Youth policy document "Towards an Alternative Politics" by May 30th 2007 with the purpose of circulation at any special delegate conference of the Labour Party following a general election in 2007.

Conference further Mandates:
The NYE to campaign actively against any possible coalition proposal in which the Labour Party is not the largest party. This includes distribution of literature and active canvassing of party members outlining and seeking support for Labour Youth's stance.

.......

It may not be the most detailed strategy in the world - but there is clearly a strategy there - and it clearly is against coalition with the FF, FG or the PDs, unless Labour was the largest party.

by Marlboro man Fri Mar 30, 2007 16:36

So in essence you are saying that Labour Youth have adopted a stance that is at odds with the Labour Parties stated intention of forming a coalition government with FG numbers permitting after the next general election.

Tell me was position adopted as a matter of ideology or publicity

by Union member Sat Mar 31, 2007 08:52

Labour member, are you saying that there exists circumstances in which the Labour Party would enter government with the PD's?

by Ronnie Mon Apr 09, 2007 17:39

"they would prefer Labour to be the second largest party, and hope this will happen at some point in the future, but for the time being they are willing to accept Labour entering government as the junior partner of FG or FF. Ok"

Well now Topper this is not very honest is it. Please see the conference decision.