Dublin City Council Estimates - Groundhog Day

by matt Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:28

All of the four Sinn Féin Councillors voted to oppose the Estimates, just in case that is not clear from the above.

by Janus Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:36

No disrespect to the Greens.....actually a significant amount of disrespect for them on this. Every time the Greens have voted for the Estimates they have complained beforehand about the waste collection and recycling service and then on the basis of never revealed assurances voted for the Estimates.

The next year, they are annoyed that none of the assurances have been delivered and threaten to vote against the Estimates, only to change their minds at the last minute on the bases of never revealed assurances.

Personally, I think they're just gutless, but if the Greens would care to clarify this point and reveal what assurances the City Manager is going to ignore in 2004, we'd appreciate it.

by blockader Tue Dec 16, 2003 14:34

how come they didnt just all committ suicide after the vote. That's what I would have done, but then I'm a proletarian revolutionary and they all all just charlatans pulling the wool over the eyes of the workers and youth who are in a very bad mood over SF's betrayal.

by 2 missing Tue Dec 16, 2003 19:02

Matt,
It's a pity that all the Sinn Fein councillors didn't vote against the charges when they were first introduced. We would have won the vote.

by Hebe Tue Dec 16, 2003 19:13

is this the best that sp trolls can come up with? at present the sp have zero councillors in dublin city. after the next election you will still have zero councillors in the city. WCA & ISN will probably have 1 each, sf will hold their own or make gains.

the SPs sectarianism wins them nothing.

by matt Tue Dec 16, 2003 19:16

All of the SF Councillors who were present any time the charges came up for consideration ALL voted against. On the one occassion you refer to, two Councillors were unavoidably absent. Or do you really believe that Dessie Ellis was not there as part of some deal? But of course you do.

by Janus Tue Dec 16, 2003 19:50

I think it's also worth pointing out that according to the Council records if the two SF councillors had been there it would have passed anyway, the margin being bigger than two.

I know it sounds better if that was so, but it's not true. As far as I remember, if all the SF people had been there and the Labour people had all been there and had all voted NO it would have been defeated. But there were so many either missing from Labour, or voting in favour of the Charges, that two SF votes wouldn't have made a difference.

This is not to excuse them, they should have been there and whatever their reasons were, they'd want to be very good. On the other hand, if there was a deal of some sort or some crookedness we'd have seen it happen at some other time over the years.

by An Actual Blockader - SP (personal capacity) Tue Dec 16, 2003 20:21

The problem our Sinn Fein apologists face is simple: They can't explain away the facts of the case.

A: When the crucial vote to introduce the bin charges happened, most of the parties on Dublin City Council deliberately split on the issue. Labour councillors for instance were to be found on both sides of the vote. The whole point was to give the more nervous parties some element of deniability. This is accepted by everyone, the only thing that seems to be at issue is SF's denial that they were involved.

B: Before the vote happened, concerned opponents of the tax leaked details of the deal to the Socialist Party. The leaked details included the fact that (a) Labour members would vote both ways and (b) 2 SF councillors would fail to show up.

C: The Socialist Party went to print, detailing the deal before the vote actually happened. Exactly as predicted, two of the SF councillors failed to show.

D: The two who did show up both voted against publically recording the votes of all of the councillors on the issue. This gave assistance to Fianna Fail, Labour etc in their attempts to sow confusion and make it harder for people to work out exactly who was to blame.

E: This was in the same early period of the Bin Tax struggle that saw Sinn Fein openly support the introduction of bin charges in Sligo. That decision was defended in the SF paper. They then came back and voted for the charges to be increased, adding insult to injury.

Sinn Fein's participation in the same kind of shabby deal in Sligo shows that there was at least at that stage absolutely no principled opposition to the charges from them. It is laughable for SF members to get on their high horses and pretend that they wouldn't do such a thing - they openly admit that they pulled just such a stunt elsewhere. That they were a little more subtle in Dublin then in Sligo proves only that they weren't stupid, in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

Now I don't think that there is any need for all of this to be posted after every story on the bin tax. Sinn Fein's record has been explained often enough and this kind of continuous repetition isn't good for the newswire. Still, the sneering comments of SF supporters like "blockader" or attempts to whitewash their behaviour are just as provacative as the boring antics of people who insist on pointing out what SF have done to help introduce bin charges in every single thread .

This is not an issue that SF have any right to hold their heads high on - and that's true even if you are gullible enough to believe their laughable version of events in Dublin City Council because events in Sligo are a matter of public record.

by Janus Tue Dec 16, 2003 21:02

First of all, I'm not a Sinn Fein apologist but someone who is willing to give ANY party or organisation the benefit of the doubt. I've defended the SP when I thought they were getting a hard time and I don't recall Shinners calling me an SP apologist.

A. Yes parties split on it, no-one denies this and no-one denies it was because the party's were nervous about opposition on the ground. I think the idea that they were looking for deniability as parties is nonsense. What is an FFer going to say, 'Yes we voted for them and so did I but I know an FF guy who voted against it so there ye go'. It was Councillors who were nervous about their votes, not their parties.

B & C. The famous Voice article. Frankly, I think it was nothing more than a lucky guess. First of all, I instinctively distrust unnamed sources. Beyond that, the Voice has consistently and regularly made predictions, that it gets one right is hardly surprising, law of averages kicked in. How did these opponents of the tax know about the deal? There are a lot of questions I would like cleared up on this before I believe it.

D. I think the two SF councillors who did that were wrong to do so and I would welcome an explanation about why they did it. And I have stated this before.

E. As I have also said before, I disagree with the SF vote in Sligo. I understand why they did it, because they genuinely thought it would prevent privatisation (And I do believe it was a genuinely held belief), but I think their analysis was wrong and politically deeply shallow.

As for you saying there's no need for it to be posted after every story on the Bin Tax, you then go and do so. Your defence is that an SF supporter said something. First of all, there's no evidence that blockader is an SF supporters, all the openly SF members and supporters on Indymedia with the exception of Matt have given up on Indymedia precisely because of the repeitition you claim there is no need for while posting it.

This thread began with someone posting the result of the vote, Matt pointed out SF councillors had voted against it, nothing wrong with that, an important clarification. I asked questions about the Greens, someone whether an SF supporter or not made a smart comment which, with respect, is perfectly justified because as soon as I saw Matt's comment I knew something like yours was coming at some point today.

In conclusion, I believe the Shinners on Dublin City Council. There are some questions I'd want answered but knowing the individuals involved and looking at their record after that vote I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think if the first vote had been a shoddy deal then we would have seen more such deals as time went on. I also don't see a man of the calibre of Dessie Ellis doing a deal like this.

I think SF have every right to hold their heads up high. I don't think they have done as well as the SP, I don't think their record on this matter is as good as the SP's. I don't think they have been involved in the campaign to the extent of the SP. But I think the SP is the only party that has done more and full credit to it.

by matt Tue Dec 16, 2003 21:38

Fact of the case is that the two missing SF Councillors had perfectly legitimate and unavoidable reasons for being absent. But of course that will never get in the way of the SP's conspiracy theories. Admit it, you have fucked up the bin campaign and are seething with anger because SF have taken the right attitude and failed to perform like the corrupt "bourgeois nationalists" of your adolescent fantasies. What you really wanted out of this was to "expose" Sinn Féin and hope to get another Councillor or two elected on the strength of that. Well, apologies, but you are dealing with a seasoned revolutionary party not some bunch of middle class kids who you can take over the Students Union from. And by the way, next time you start on about corruption think Liverpool and Derek Hatton. Remember that, or dont they teach that at Sunday School any more?

by Snare Eire Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:28

Matt displays the typical arrogance of activists in a formerly revolutionary party moving rapidly to the right. The constant references to their 'revolutionary credentials' implying that because the PIRA engaged in armed struggle in the past this confers a sort of revolutionary superiority over anyone else even lifelong socialists who were organising in their workplaces and communities.

Of course their arrogance is partly based on the fact that they have made a major breakthrough, electorally, and will continue to grow until the inevitable coalition. But not to worry, we've seen it all before in the form of OSF...SFWP....WP....DL. Its just Stickies in slow motion. Its a bit uncanny hearing the same old crap 20 years later: the brash party lining of the young guard eager to prove their loyalty,the 'revolutionary ' justifications for each episode of oppurtunism etc etc. Hopefully, the likes of Matt will mature and when it all goes horribly wrong he will still be a 'revolutionary' but the odds are not good and so many of them will end up disillusioned or as party hacks dutifully parroting the reasons why its right to be in government with FF or why workers need to tighten their belts.

Naturally they have a go at the SP cos they identify them as the only threat on the left in Dublin, albeit a minor one. The leaderships room for coalition manouvre would be restricted if there was a danger of being outflanked on the left. However its unlikely that the SP alone can do this. A united radical left on the other hand would cause SF real headaches. Unfortunately there's not much hope of that happening in the near future.

So, Matt, for the moment you have the high ground, and next years local and Euro elections will see the continued rise of SF. In the luxury of victory perhaps you would take time out to ponder where SF is going. Isn't there just a little nagging doubt that it might about where its all going? Or is it a case of my party right or wrong, in which case you are already a lost cause.

by Millie me Wed Dec 17, 2003 13:43

Oh look its Steven. Still taking time out from applying your talents to what you are paid for by the party members: editing the Voice and organising in the Trade Unions.
Little done - A lot to do.

by Ryan Meade - Green Party Wed Dec 17, 2003 14:17

These points were read into the record of the Council meeting, and issued to the media present, so there was never any question of these being secret assurances. We were looking for action on improvements which have been long promised, and additional measures to make the system fairer. The City Manager publicly agreed to all of the below:

(1) Each household to have collection of source-segregated waste, using bags or community Eurobins where space is restricted. [including implementation of a pilot scheme to be in place in the SE Area in the first half of 2004]

(2) Tagging system to be introduced so that any waste charges are levied on a pay-by-amount basis.

(3) Collection of Tetra-Pak material in green bins to be rolled out citywide in first half of 2004, with appropriate contribution from producers. Plastic bottle collection service to be rolled out with appropriate contribution from producers.

(4) Rollout of collection service for household compostable waste, on a bag or bin basis as appropriate.

(5) So as not to penalise large families who have difficulty paying the waste charge, a ‘free’ amount of rubbish for every child in the household, say equal to one large bin or 240 liters per annum.

(6) REPAK’s proposal to decrease their contribution is unacceptable. At a minimum they should pay the same increase as the proposed household increase, i.e. 23%

(7) All recycling centres must be available to people who work, i.e. must be open a minimum of 6 hours at the weekend

(8) There must be an incentive for communities to reduce waste, i.e. introduce the environmental improvement scheme as per 2002 commitments.

(9) An additional incentive to be provided to schools to participate in the ‘Green Schools’ programme, by way of a discount on waste charges.

(10) Street cleaning costs to be excluded from any calculation of the ‘full economic cost’ of waste management service.

(11) Rollout of Green Bin service to schools.

(12) Dry recyclable collection to be made available to commercial customers.

Rather than following Labour and SF's lead and seeking to collapse the Council in protest at the Manager's insistence on raising the waste charge, we decided that improvements in the service would be a better outcome. I'm happy to stand over this approach, although I don't expect many here to back it.

by Janus Wed Dec 17, 2003 15:35

But since the City Manager has repeatedly failed to live up to the commitments he makes to your party every time you peddle your ass to him, what makes you think he will deliver this time?

And since local democracy has been made a farce by the passing of the so-called Protection of the Environment Act, why not stand up for local democracy by collapsing the Council and telling the State that the nonsense of it being local democracy cannot be allowed to pass unmarked?

Instead, far better to remain committed to taxing working class people for smog generated by big business.

by Concerned Green Wed Dec 17, 2003 21:27

....next year if these measures haven't been implemented. They're all reasonable and doable for the Council - but will they actually be done?

Will the Greens vote against the estimates next year if these measures are not implemented?

What is the bottom line for the two Green members of the Council? Will the city manager be able to rely on the votes of Greens in perpetuity so long as he gives the right assurances, without actually having to follow through on these assurances?

There seems to have been no tangible quid pro quo for the Greens in this and I think, with the local elections coming and waste charges a hot potato in many areas, a very bad political decision by the party.

by carrickmines - roadbuilder Thu Dec 18, 2003 02:14

within two days of the green party voting to increase bin charges, the city council announce a roll back in repak services. obviously a great deal given to them by fitzgerald. pathetic middle class no marks with massive investments and property.
bin your greens next summer