Labour opposed to Sligo-Leitrim constituency division

by Magma Fri Jan 16, 2004 13:44

I don't think the taking away of a bit of Leitrim is the real problem for the SLigo LP. Look at their election results, in 1992 they got over 17% and in 2002 they got 4%. Every wonder why? It is not because of boundary changes, it is because Alderman Bree went before the people of SLigo in 1992 promising not to go into coalition with FF under any circumstances and then a few months later voted in and proped up the Reynolds lead FF government. This government implemented attack after attack on the working class, Labour's Howlin was even the minister responsible for implementing disconnection of water from non payers of the hated water tax. Maybe if Bree did not lie to the people of Sligo or sell-out and stood up for them instead he would be rewarded with a similar election result that he got in 1992.

by Magneto Fri Jan 16, 2004 13:49

[trolling comment about SP removed - R Isible 1 of IMC Editorial].

Votes fall for different reasons. The decline in Brees votehas been partially due to the rise of SF. But there is also the Marion Harkin factor. I dont see how Magma would think it progessive for voters to support candidates to the right of Bree. I am not saying that SF are a right wing party just that Bree is to the left of McManus.

by Magma Fri Jan 16, 2004 14:22

Why has the SF and Harkin vote increased then? Maybe it is because people have become disillusioned with the Labour Party and Bree after the sell out and lies of 1992. Magneto, you always claim to be on the left of the Labour Party, you have claimed to be against coalition with FF. How can you defend the actions of Bree who proped up a FF government for 3 years which implemented attack after attack on working people? Will you at least acknowledge that the plumet in Labour's support is due to the coalition of 1992?

by Magma Fri Jan 16, 2004 14:24

I would have though Bree was on the right. He supported a FF government that had Howlin going around disconnecting water from working class families. Why did he not support this, why did he not vote against the government?

by Magneto Fri Jan 16, 2004 14:29

Just as Militant stayed in the Labour Party during 3 Coal;ition Governments who shut hospitals, sacked workers, brought in yellow pack workers. That doesnt mean Miltant were right wing. Irish Militant didnt have TDs but in "Britain" Militant had MPs. These MPs had to obey the party whip, otherwise they would have been expelled. That doesnt mean that Dave Nelist (ex MP) was on the right.

by rayo Fri Jan 16, 2004 14:50

The decline in the LP in Sligo was clearly due the Harkin factor.

In 1997 Bree was very unlucky to miss out on being elected. He lost 3% of his vote and most of this was in Leitrim where he lost nearly 900 votes.

In 2002 the party lost votes in mainly in middle class areas and suburban towns where they went to Harkin. In fact the part y held its ground in the working class areas and local authority housing estates.

Although SF had taken many votes from the party it didn't have that impact in 2002. As many urban working class voters were angered with SF for entering into a mayoral pact with FF and voting to increase service charges. Having already said before the election they wouldn't do this. They also voted in favour of dubious last rezoning in the town, just to hold on to the majorality.

by magma Fri Jan 16, 2004 14:51

Nellist and the other Militant MPs would not have proped up a right wing government like Bree did. The militant MPs were MPs in the 1980's Labour were not in government so generally did not have to disobey the party leadership. Magneto you are forgetting that the militant MP's were expelled in any case! Not for disobeying the whip but for organising a left opposition to the pro capitalist labour party leadership.

In any case Militant MP's are not really the issue, the issue is the electoral fortunes of the Labour Party in Sligo, that is what the initial post was about and I don't think it is fair on the readers of this site that we stray too far from the original post. The fact is that in Sligo the Labour party's vote plummeted. Now why is this the case?
Is it because of boundary changes? - No, there was no change in the constituency

Is it because of the rise of SF and Harkin? - partly, but one must ask why these parties increased their vote. Why did ex Labour voters shift to SF and Harkin?

Is it because Bree went to the people of sligo and promised not to back up a FF governemnt and then did so which in turn lead to a massive disillusionment with Labour and decline in their vote? - YES!!

Magneto, you claim to be on the left of the Labour Party. Please answer this question, are you opposed to coalition with FF? If you are will you condemn the actions of Bree and the Labour TD's who supported the Reynolds government?

by Magma Fri Jan 16, 2004 14:54

Magneto you say Bree voted in Water Tax and disconnected water from working class families because he wanted to stay in Labour. Who is he more loyal to the working class of Sligo that elected him or the leadership of the Lbaour Party?

by rayo Fri Jan 16, 2004 15:04

LP lost support in 2002 not 1997, which was the election following the coalition period. In all the opinion polls subsequent to 1997 election, he was tipped to top the poll. Bree claimed after his defeat that due to the fact that he was seen as a poll topper/safe seat, people gave their number ones eleswhere. To the guy down the road who might be in need of a number one.

It is also the case that in some working class areas turn-out was down which obviously affected his vote.

finally lossing 900 votes in Leitrim was a huge set back. Leirtim people were anoyed having lost a TD to Sligo and stuck to give No. 1s to Leitrim candidates.

If we look at the 1999 locals the party did quiet well. Electing two new local reps and the first time they had a second councillor on the County council. They narrowly missed out on a seat in North Leitrim, which would have been the first LP councillor in the County.

Indeed Brees vote was the highest on the Town Council, i think it was his highest vote ever in the locals!

You contrast this to the fortunes of the LP elsewhere, Sligo LP probablly performed the best.

by Magma Fri Jan 16, 2004 15:27

Bree has been a disaster for the Sligo Labour Party. The people of Sligo see him as a sell out that abandoned his election promises. Why will Magneto not come out and condemn his coalition politics?? He is always very quick at saying he is opposed to coalitions and is in the left wing of the Labour Party, if you are Magneto why not condemn Bree?

Maybe because you fancy a nice co-opted seat in the future and don't want to rock the boat?

by Magneto Fri Jan 16, 2004 15:33

And the other Militant MPs who took the whip of the Capitalist "British" Labour Party? How was Brees situation any different to theirs? I am opposed to coalition jst as Bree is, just as Militant/SP were when they were in Labour. Militant still stayed in the LP during 3 Coalition govts, if they had TDs I am sure they would have acted in the same way as the "British" Militant MPs did.

by pat - lp Fri Jan 16, 2004 15:43

I don't think he is seen as a sell out by the Sligo people.

He work on Sligo Co.Co. and Bourough Council has been the most consistent of any local rep. . It has always been principled and the people of Sligo town have always been put first.

The party in Sligo has never voted for service charges or formed a coalition with FF or FG.

Bree has been principled on many unpopular decision suchs as halting sites and refugee centres.

Many people said, that sligo people didn't like when he was in Dublin because he wasn't at home sorting out there needs. He wasn't in his office every day. It was seen as a loss of a good resource.

But as a TD he did quiet a lot of the town, in terms of investment and putting Sligo on teh map. Contrast that with the way the county is now being neglected, with 5 FF senators and TDs.

by Magma Fri Jan 16, 2004 15:49

Magneto, Bree was NOT against coalition! He voted for Reynolds as Taoiseach and backed up a Labour/FF government that launched massive attacks on working people. Are you denying his voting record?Bree voted to disconnect the water supply from working class families. How can he and you justify this?

Magneto you always claim to be against coalition government. Will you now stop dodging the question and answer it straight, Will you condemn the LP TD's that put the LP into governemtn with FF?

Why do you refuse to condemn these TD's? Will it harm your chances of a nice co-opted council seat?

Militant would not have supported such a government and always opposed coalition, and the right wing policies of the Labour pro capitalist leadership in Britain and Ireland and as a result were expelled. At least Militant had the backbone to stand up to Kinnock and Spring unlike Bree who seems to care more about his career than the people he was elected by and his principles.
.

by Magma Fri Jan 16, 2004 15:55

"I don't think he is seen as a sell out by the Sligo people. "

Why has his vote gone from 17% to 4% in 10 years then?

"He work on Sligo Co.Co. and Bourough Council has been the most consistent of any local rep. . It has always been principled and the people of Sligo town have always been put first. "

Where were his principles when he was in the Dáil chamber? He abandoned his principles and voted for a right wing FF lead governemnt. He put his career first not the people of Sligo.

"The party in Sligo has never voted for service charges or formed a coalition with FF or FG."

Yes they did! The Sligo LP TD Declan Bree voted for coalition with Fianna Fail AND Fine Gael. The Sligo LP TD also voted to disconnect water from working class families

"Bree has been principled on many unpopular decision suchs as halting sites and refugee centres. "

But not on coalition deals

by Magneto Fri Jan 16, 2004 15:59

The same rules of logic apply to Militant as anyone else. Bree opposed Coalition, he lost the argument, he stayed in Labour. Militant opposed Coalition, they lost the argument, for 3 Coalitions they stayed in Labour.

I n "Britain" Militant MPs obeyed the Labour whips and voted for poilicies they opposed. They did this not because they were right wing but because they wanted to remain in Labour. How is this any different then what Bree did?

You are simply repeating the same arguments that you have made on 20 other threads. If it was ok for Militant MPS to vote the way they did then its ok for Bree as well. Unless you think a different set of rules apply to the CWI.

by rayo Fri Jan 16, 2004 16:11

Media reports from 1992 claimed tha a number of Labour TDS were not happy with coalition with FF. Bree was one of them.

But i think he took the view that it was that or go back to the people the next month and loss his seat. It was a no win situation.

The fact that FF in negotiations agreed to nearly all the partys manifesto was vary persuaive for LP TDs. They basically said we want to be in government (at all costs), we are a populist agree to everything party, what ever you want we sign up to it.

It was a dream for LP negotators as they could achieve a huge part of their manifesto even being a minority partner.

But the defeat in 1997 was more to do with changing horses mid-stream, going into coalition with FG without going to the electorate. It clearly looked like the party was selling itself.


The best option would have going to the polls after falling out with FF.

But as was said before the LP in Sligo lost support in 2002 not 1997 (straight after the coalition governments). Also the party performed very well in 1999 locals.

In 2002, middle class voters didn't vote for LP and instead for Harkin as they did in the European elections in 1999. Bree's vote held steady in working class areas.

by m. bree - lp Fri Jan 16, 2004 16:36

It is clearly justified. There clearly is a move to a reduction in 5 seaters to 3 seaters over the last number of years. There were even says when we had seven seater constituencies.

The whole point of PR is to have proportional representation, it is obvious that this can't occur when we have three seaters.

It totally defeats the purpose of the electoral system and is undemocratic in this context. The views of small parties and independents will be marginalised in the Dail, which is not good for Irish politics.

There needs to be a review of the system to rectify this and study to see how proportional the Dail is now with a larger number of seats than it was before this trend occurred. Maybe an introduction of an electoral list to balance out Dail representation.


Reading some the above comments it is obvious some commentators are not from

by Magneto Fri Jan 16, 2004 18:16

I am prepared to criticise Bree, I think he should be clearer about his Stalinist past and should admit he was wrong. But I wont criticise him for doing what he had to do to remain in the Labour Party. Just as I wouldnt criticise Dave Nelist for doing what he had to do to remain in the "British" Labour Party.

by lol Fri Jan 16, 2004 20:01

Especially the bit about Militant's proud past. As Magneto says they stayed in the LP for decades and had to be thrown out! How sad is that. And all the while helping to elect scum like O'Brien and Desmond so that they could prop up the most vile governments seen in this state since the 1920s. Often think that was the reason for it in fact. I reckon Hadden's paymasters designed the whole ridiculous notion of entering the Free State LP becasue they knew it was their best bet in the 70s and 80s. Hadden and his ilk deluded hundreds of genuine socialists into the LP.

PS. Please change the Orwellian language comrades. You all sound the fucking same. "Great events .... workers and youth .... the mood of the working class .... launched attack after attack ..." and of course every criticism of the Moonies is "disgusting". Well, you are all just boring.

by Magma Sat Jan 17, 2004 03:30

Militant have a proud record in opposing the pro capitalist leadership in the Labour Party. The Militant MPs in Britain never voted in a Labour/lib dem or a Labour/Conservative government. You will not be able to provide one example of where the Militant MPs voted for attacks on the working class, because it did not happen.

Militant in Ireland and the CWI internationally always had and continue to have a prncipled opposition to coalitions between workers parties and capitalist parties. Of course the Labour Party in Britain and in Ireland no longer are a workers party, they have abandoned the workign class and the working class have abandoned them. They have emptied out of activists and are completely undemocratic in their structures. The reason the Militant were in the Labour Party was because at a certain time the Labour Party was a party of the working class, like trade unions today however it had a pro capitalist leadership. But militant were not sectarians and stayed within what was a workers party and attempted to reclaim the party.

On the question of Bree. He may have been discontented with the coalition deal but he did very little to oppose the deal except huff an puff from the backbenches. If he really stuck by his principles he would have at least helped organise an opposition within the Labour Party and among the TDs and Councillors that opposed coalitions. But he chose not to. Why? Because he feared a witchhunt and expulsion. That says alot about the so-called democratic Labour Party. But I would argue that this should not have discouraged Bree if the leadership wanted to expel him then he should have challenged them head on. If he was expelled he would not have lost his seat and he would still have huge support from the people that elected him. But of course he took the easier road and sold out and was punished for it at the polls as his previous supporters went to Harkin and SF.

by pat c Sat Jan 17, 2004 19:14

there is no real difference between labour at present and labour when militant were in it. as has been pointed out (perhaps a 1000 times) militant stayed inlabour during 3 viciously anti working class coalition governments. at the time militant were preaching that there was no salvation outside of labour.

your mps in britain obeyed the party whip. of course they did. how else do you think they managed to remain in the party.

magma, you, tintin and other SP members keep repeating the same mantra but its getting you nowhere. why do you think that theres one set of rules for the cwi and another for everyone else?

how many more times are you going to repeat the same sermon?
magma, give it a rest, the only person you might be fooling is yourself and if so you are sadly self deluded.

and after all that, i think bree was wrong, but i can understand why he decided to stay,he thought he could have aleft influence on labour.it did result in his downfall tho.

magneto, you are also doing a lot of repeating and your john reed stunt hasnt been forgotten. your very appearance on a thread drives the sp nuts.

by KaM - LSP (pc) Sun Jan 18, 2004 15:31

No difference between Labour in 80's and in now?

The neo-liberal offensive after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Sovjetunion didn't have an effect on social-democrat parties in Europe and on its membership (or lack of it)?

I can see that in Germany the social-democrats are pushing through 'reforms'
that even the right wing parties in Germany never dreamt possible. In Belgium the social-democrats are doing the same thing (but stealthier). In Holland the social-democratis are like paralyzed rabbits sitting in front of a light in de middle of the night waiting to be shot.

It is not because you moved to the right the same speed as the social-democrats in the 90's that nothing has changed. You may not have noticed, we have. ;)

by Benny Benassi Sun Jan 18, 2004 21:33

Pat to say that the Labour party now in 2004 is the same as the Labour Party of the 1970s and 1980s is completely inaccurate.

Look at the evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s the Labour party was seen as a workers party. their complete abandoning of any idea of socialism together with sell outs like in 1992 has reversed that situation. Workers no longer identify the Labour Party as their party and are far more likely to vote for independents like Healy, Gregory, McGrath, Sinn Féin and the Socialist Party rather than the Labour Party. Among workers the Labour Party is seen as part of the establishment.

Also look at the people that are joinign Labour. Labour in the past attracted many young workers who were quite radical in many cases. Now who do they attract? On the whole they attract middle class liberal types as well as careerists. Workers are not joining the Labour Party.

Also the democratic structures that existed in the Labour Party no longer exist. All power is now centred on the parliamentary party and the leader. The conference and the branches have little influence in dictating policy and are in effect rubber stamping and advisory bodies. Because of this it is nearly impossible to 'reclaim' the Labour Party. Any attempt would be met with expulsion or HQ sidelinging that person or group. This thread is an indication of this, Bree is said to have been against the coalition but feared expulsion should he have voted against it.

Now look at their programmes. In the past going into an election the Labour Party exclaimed that the 70s would be Socialist. Now they mince their works and don't even mention socialism or EVEN come out clearly against privitisation and the EU etc.

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:26

just because you say so...
doesnt mean the lp is now different.

the only real difference i see is that sp/militant are no longer in labour. the 3 coalition govts the lp were in from 73 - 87, brought in emergency powers, let the heavy gang loose, introduced wage curbs, brought in the criminal law act, shut hospitals, shut irish shipping. this is only a small sample of what labour supported.

none of this caused militant to rethink their membership of labour. of course they opposed the above litany of attacks on the working class but they continued to preach that there was no salvation outside of the labour party.

i see no difference in the composition of labour. there is nothing to suggest that less workers join (other than the frenzied sp statements). labour youth appears to be growing, in the UCDSU election for president labour soundly trounced the sp candidate.

the sp are in no position to criticise those who choose to remain in labour and (however misguidedly) try to move the party to the left. militant were in labour for 20 years, when those presently in labour youth exceed the militant record you will be in a position to criticise them.

a bit of humility would not go astray. the sp have a scant few hundred members in ireland. the vast majority of those who vote for joe and clare do so on a personal basis. if you think the situation is otherwise, then you should stand stephen boyd and kevin mcloughlin . your voters do not vote for a federation of the british isles or a dictatorship of the proletariat.

if i vote in the euros and locals i can see sp candidates who are worth supporting, actually i could support of all of those so far named (including the much maligned helen redwood). but i also see some people inside labour as being socialist. i think they are just as genuine as militant were when they were in labour.

by Harry Hill Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:56

Pat C, is that really you writting that or is it some shit stirrer!

To say that Labour Party are radical now in 2004 is a complete joke. They are a party that support Partnership, they support 'the European project' of privatisation in Eastern Europe. And these are just the so-called radical UCD Labour heads. Paul Dillon supports Nice Treaty, Partnership deals and coalition governments. And he is as radical as they get.

Labour Youth are full of careerists. Law student types that are looking for a good career at the bar. They are not radical at all.

Pat C, you say you're a radical. If so why are you saying that the party of the Trade Union bureaucrats are a radical alternative for working class people.

by Benny Benassi Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:03

"just because you say so...
doesnt mean the lp is now different."

I am not saying my opinion is the gospel truth. I am basing my arguments on facts that I outlined.

"the only real difference i see is that sp/militant are no longer in labour. the 3 coalition govts the lp were in from 73 - 87, brought in emergency powers, let the heavy gang loose, introduced wage curbs, brought in the criminal law act, shut hospitals, shut irish shipping. this is only a small sample of what labour supported."

The Labour leadership were always a pro capitalist leadership. Previous Labour governments have implemented attacks on workers that is not disputed. The difference lies in the fact that the Labour Party in the past 15 or so years has gone from being a working class party with a pro capitalist leadership to a capitalist party that workers do not see as their party.

"none of this caused militant to rethink their membership of labour. of course they opposed the above litany of attacks on the working class but they continued to preach that there was no salvation outside of the labour party."

The reason Militant were inside Labour was because they were still a workers party. Workers saw Labour as their party and Labour was getting some of the best young workers into their ranks. This was despite their leaderships betrayals.

"i see no difference in the composition of labour. there is nothing to suggest that less workers join (other than the frenzied sp statements). labour youth appears to be growing, in the UCDSU election for president labour soundly trounced the sp candidate."

There is quite definite evidence the composition of Labour recruits being very different now to the 70s and 80s. I am not a UCD student so don't know the detail of the membership of UCD Labour but from what I heard the composition is very different to that of the past. Labour is made up primarily of middle class liberals who usually are loyal to the leaderships views on partnership, Nice Treaty and coalitions. One of the SP members in UCD even told me that a member of Labour in UCD said that David Murphy deserves his prison sentence! (David Murphy was a SP member in UCD sent to prison for bin tax protests for 3 weeks and given a huge fine.) . Pat if you can provide me with some evidence of LY containing more than a handful of socialists could you please do so, where are these young radical workers that you claim exist? Labour Youth is growing but is is growing with middle class liberals and careerists not workers

"the sp are in no position to criticise those who choose to remain in labour and (however misguidedly) try to move the party to the left. militant were in labour for 20 years, "

If someone is still within Labour or joins Labour with a view to changing them in a socialist direction I would say that that persons sentiments are good. However I would say to them that it would seem that the Labour Party is beyond reform at this stage. Workers have abandoned them, they are seen to be part of the establishment and the democratic structures in the party have disappeared. It is my belief that such a person would be better leaving the Labour Party behind and that they involve themselves in community and trade union campaigns instead.

"when those presently in labour youth exceed the militant record you will be in a position to criticise them."

You make this statement like it is a foregone conclusion. Again Pat, where is this evidence of a left wing revolutionary section of LY? LY is only on the whole recruiting loyalists to the leadership. There is NO organised opposition to the leadership of the LP in LY.

"the vast majority of those who vote for joe and clare do so on a personal basis. if you think the situation is otherwise, then you should stand stephen boyd and kevin mcloughlin . "

Quite alot of voters vote for Joe and Clare because of they know their personal record of fighting on the issues. This is obvious and is the case for most candidates in elections. But Joe and Clare are members of the SP. Do you think that their records are seperated from their politics?



"your voters do not vote for a federation of the british isles"

Of course they don't because that is NOT the position of the SP. The SP's position is a SOCIALIST CONFEDERATION of England Scotland, Wales, ireland and Europe. This position is put forward in the SP paper and election manifestoes.


"but i also see some people inside labour as being socialist. i think they are just as genuine as militant were when they were in labour."

There may be some isolated examples of genuine socialists in the LP but they are seriously isolated. You fail to provide evidence of an organised tendency of socialists in the LP that are organising against the leadership and partnership etc.

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:15

you are just repeating yourself, i think nothing will be gained by me doing the same.
(too much repetition on this thread already.)

i think its best if we agree to disagree.

btw that was a rather long quick reply. have you been taking lessons from john throne? ;)

by Benny Benassi Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:21

I haven't been taking lessons of JT!! When I started writing i thought it would be short.

I may be repeating myself in parts because i have dealt with some of the points before. Where I think you are wrong is on you analysis of the membership of LY/LP. They are not recruiting workers opposed to partnership etc but middle class liberals that are relatively loyal to the leadership. If you can provide evidence to the contrary (apart from the isolated handful) please do so.

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:22

i dont debate with people who put words in my mouth and set up imaginary men of straw to be knocked down. find another windmill to tilt at.

if you have problems with paul dillon being elected, then take it up with the electorate of UCDSU who made him president. you seem to have a problem with democracy. reminds me of Bechts line on the East German Stalinists after the 1953 workers uprising in Berlin: "the Party resoved to elect a new people."

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:26

i dont have access to the LPs membership records so i cant provide a socio-economic breakdown of their current membership. but neither can you. we are both operating on empirical evidence and observation.

so lets leave it at that.

by Benny Benassi Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:35

We are operating on observation to a certain extent. But you and I are active on the ground in left wing politics. If it was the case that LY/LP were recruiting left wing working class activists we should be able to point to plenty of examples.

But it is also empirical evidence. Not a breakdown of their socio economic background but the existence of left wing or revolutionary groups within labour. If there existed such groups we would be able to give examples of their publications.

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:41

good point. certainly leftists in labour may not be well organised. maybe the sligo group or LY have newsleters.

Could Manus , Cian or Ray supply info on this?

by Benny Benassi Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:53

LY do have newsletters and do produce leaflets for the big demos. I am sure you have recieved them. They are not what I would call socialist but at best vaguely social democratic. LY is clearly not a revolutionary organisation, they don't call for socialism, the nationalisation with workers control of the big corporations or anything like that. They don't oppose partnership, the Nice Treaty or the Rabitte leadership.

Apart from the official publications there is no publications to my knowledge that is socialist and against the leadership on the key issues. If there is such a publication can someone please send a link or mention the name of it. My experience is that looking for such a group in LY is a futile exercise

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:29

you might at least have waited for some LPer to reply before proving them wrong.
but we get back to the point that its a matter of opinion as to whether labour is qualatively different now than in the 70s/80s. the one noticeable difference being that the sp are outside of labour. but that was enforced on you.

note that i'm not saying that labour is some great radical party. just that those socialists presently in it are as honest in their beliefs as militant were in their day. i agree that they are not as well organised as militant was. but then militant was a party within a party.

i am not going to convince you that i'm right, you are not going to convince me that you are right. in such a situation where no objective/scientific evidence can be produced one way or another, IT IS OPINIONS THAT ARE AT ISSUE. in these cases rational adults normally agree that there is little to be gained by repeating the same points ad naueam. so why do you have a problem with agreeing to disagree?

by Benny Benassi Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:42

It is not just an irreconcilable clash of differently held views. I gave evidence on the post i posted on (Jan 18 2004, 8:33pm ) of why I believe the Labour Party has gone to the right. I wont repeat them again, you can go back and look at the evidence that I pointed to.

You have not given any evidence of a significant working class socialist opposition group in the Labour Party. I did not wait for a LP member to give examples as I am fairly active politically, I know many people in the LP and have never come accross such a group or any members with these ideas. If someone from thr LP could give such an example I'd be delighted.

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 13:48

in that post you gave opinions based on your subjective observations. thats not objective evidence.

benny, your opinions are just that: opinions. not self evident truths.

by Postgraduate Student - Department of Political Science, Trinity College. Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:00

I've been looking at this argument develop over this morning between Benny and Pat. The fact is that the Labour Party has changed quite dramatically in the past 10-15 years. Throughout Europe the social democratic parties have changed. They have lost membership and changed their programme. Pat, there is evidence of this. Labour in Britain are down to 300,000 members. They used to have over 1 million. In Ireland there has been a similar loss of members. I apologise I don't have the figures to hand, but I do know that a colleague of mine has said that Labour Youth have about 100 members max nationally and mainly in the Colleges. In the past LY had a number of hundred members and the Colleges made up a minority of LY members. Benny, I've not seen much about the socio economic backgrounds to LY members, a possible area of future research I suggest.

They have also changed their party programme a lot. They have removed references to nationalisation and no longer 'sell themselves' as parties of the working class and of the labour unions. This can be seen as what Benny calls "moving to the right". Pat, there is research done on this issue. Go to a library, read the political science journals. Academics writting about the change in the Labour and Social Democratic Parties all the time. (and giving plenty of evidence)

by Benny Benassi Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:01

Yes I gave some personal opinion in my posting but there is definite facts there too. I think I will have to go back and spell them out.

FACT 1
Workers do not see the Labour Party as there party as much as they did in the past.

- you are an activist for many years, are you claiming that this is not true?

FACT2
The LP have watered down their programme. They no longer have any mention of socialism.

- This is backed up. Previous manifestoes would have called for nationalisation of banks and key industries, and one slogan in the past was 'The 70s will be socialist'. Do the current Labour party have the slogan of 'the 21st century will be socialist'? The current Lp support the EU for example, in the past they opposed it.

FACT3
Workers are more likely to vote SF, SP or for a left wing independent when given the choice.
- Look at the collapse of the LP in the past 10 years. One of the main sections of society switching away from Labour is the working class. This is fact that I know from personal experience and could be backed up with survey evidence.

FACT4
The people joining Labour are very different to those that joined Labour in the past. They are mainly now recruiting middle class liberals not young working class socialists.
- This is hard to quantify but I believe this to be fact from personal experience and from the fact that there exists no organised or significant left wing socialist block in the Labour Party or LY.

FACT5
Democratic structures in the Lp have all but disappeared. Conference and branches are at best rubber stamping bodies. Power is concentrated more and more on the parliamentary party. Activists in Labour would find in near impossible to 'reclaim' the Labour Party. This is fact

Pat (or anyone else) if you wish to contest any of these facts please do so.

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:09

are irrelevant to arguments about the irish labour party.

how many times do i have to repeat what labour did in government 73 - 87? thats when militant were happily in labour. strikers arrested under offences against the ste act, irish shipping workers thrown on side of the road, hospitals closed, yellow pack workers in public service.

what is it with the SP/CWI? Do you think your opinions are Laws of Nature?

For the last time: your opinions are just that: opinions. They are not self evident truths.

i am only disagreeing with you. why can you not accept that and agree to disagree?

Now give it a rest. Its starting to look as if you are intolerant of opinions which differ with your own.

by Curious Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:13

If you have read all this evidence about the backgrounds of Labour Party members in Ireland why dont you print it here? You are the person who has direct access to these documents so lets see your proof. Name the journals and specific articles. Surely some of it must be online. Provide some links.

by Benny Benassi Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:19

Pat I have given facts. please read them.

Are you saying that the Lp programme in the 70s is as left wing as their current one?

Are you saying that workers see the Labour Party as their party?


Are you disagreeing that workers are more likely to vote SF, SP or independent than for Labour?

Are you claiming that present day recruit for the Labour Party are as radical and as working class in composition as in the 60s, 70s and 80s?

Are you claiming that the Lp are as democratic as they were in the past?

Many of what I present as facts are not backed up with survey data. However everything I say is backed up with the experience of myself and many other activists. I am sure that one could get survey data but I don't have the resources to find such or conduct such surveys.

Pat I am interested in debate, I don't want to go around in circles. I have given evidence can you please either acknowledge it to be true or argue why you think it is false

by Labour Hack Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:23

"I apologise I don't have the figures to hand, but I do know that a colleague of mine has said that Labour Youth have about 100 members max nationally and mainly in the Colleges."

A friend told me.... Try using that in a Post Graduate Research Paper and see how many marks you get. This is third hand anecdotal evidence. Whats wrong with being strong in the colleges. Do you see SP members in UCD and TCD as being somehow lesser than non students?

by pat c Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:29

my opinion differs with yours. what is the problem with that? i dont see labour now as being different from labour in the 80s. i have said why numerous times re the 73 - 87 govts. why do you insist on repeating your opinions as if they were laws of nature?

i might be wrong. you might be wrong.

Benny , your opinion is just an opinion. It is not a self evident truth. the same applies to me.

lets agree to disagree.

by Cian Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:41

Firstly membership of the Labour Party and Labour Youth is increasing rapidly not decreasing.

In fact membership of Labour Youth has doubled in the last year. To suggest that there are only 100 members of Labour Youth is ridiculous. In NUI Galway alone there are 130 members.

Secondly the class composition of Labour Youth members is changing. Previusly LY members came overwhelmingly from the university sector which meant that they were more likely to come from the middle classes (who still dominate entry to universities). Now the membership is more balanced between young people in universities, institutes of technology, schools and young workers.

Finally the idea that Labour Youth members are all studying law etc. has no grounding in fact. About 2% of members study law.

There is a Labour Youth newsletter. It is not revolutionary or anti-leadership and has not dealt to date with the issue of partnership. Most people in Labour Youth are more concerned with been anti Fianna Fáil and their big business vested interest allies than with fighting with other members of the Labour Party.

I think it would be fair and accurate to say that membership of LY and the Labour Party is broad and diverse both in terms of class, gender, geographical composition as well as political outlook.

Personally if I was in a mass organisation where everyone thought the same way and repeated the same mantras I think I'd be a little worried.

by Labour Hack Mon Jan 19, 2004 14:44

Labour is currently at about 14% in the polls which is higher than it was for most of the 1970s and 1980s. It did better in 1992 but that is when more Middle Class voters were attracted. So I cannot see how your assertion about loss of working class votes holds up. If you have poll data to support this then lets see it. In 1981, 1982(2) Labour got about 10%. In 1987 Labour got 6.5%. Those were the heady days of Militant.

SP, SF and independents have attracted votes but the problem remains that the majority of Working Class voters support FF. Surely you would be better off targetting this rather than continuing a blood feud against the Labour Party.

by manus - lp Mon Jan 19, 2004 15:27

Having just flew through the comments above, its seems that we are back to the same oul story of figuring out where the LP is on the right - left spectrum of Irish politics. Does this debate every change? the original entry was about the party's condemnation of electoral changes and the development of 3 seaters in particular. From my experience in LY over the past number years i can undoubtedly say that it has moved from a movement which mirrored YFG to a committed socialist organisation. This is clearly due to the fact that the majority of members that have joined in this period have expressed more left wing opinions than before and they have become part of policy.

As for the party, well this has always been hard to pin point, even historically the party has changed through the decades. Today the party is clearly not calling for the banks to be nationalised and for withdrawal from the EU, so in this analysis the party could be seen as moved to the right or more precisely too many in the party have accepted the inevitability of capitalism and neo-liberalism But the party still firmly believes in redistribute economics, in equality and justice like most other left wing parties.

But as Cian notes, the party is not homogenous, on issues such as EU and Neutrality, there are numerous opinions within the party, particularly among TDs and Senators. An MRBI survey before Nice II said that 53% labour supporters would vote against the treaty. Indeed certain branches in Limerick, Galways and Sligo openly endorsed a no vote, while other campaigned strongly for yes.

The problem is that many critics of the party clearly associate membership and support of the party with the degree of its left credentials. That is, if the party is not supported by the Working Class (which it is in huge numbers) it is not left wing! What about FF, the traditional party of the WC! SF which has huge support from the farming classes! GP support from the middle and upper classes!

To say that there are no working class members in the party is ridiculous. The majority of members in urban branches or working class or lower middle class. I don't see many bank managers, insurance brokers or property developers canvassing for the LP.