For Lefties too Stubborn to Quit
…at least I thought so. I’d have put the attendance a bit higher than this, but who knows? To be honest the Chambers Ireland crew should get down on their knees and thank ICTU for getting a volume of people into Dublin on a day when many many would have been put off by the weather.
Others opinions?
 | Jim Monaghan on Republican Party Crazy Stateme… |
| Jim Monaghan on SF Ard Fheis… the latest… |
 | Tomboktu on No fault dismissal…Yeah, that… |
 | CL on SF Ard Fheis… the latest… |
 | makedoanmend on Sunday Independent Stupid Stat… |
 | ivorthorne on Sunday Independent Stupid Stat… |
 | Alan Rouge on Sunday Independent Stupid Stat… |
 | GM on Sunday Independent Stupid Stat… |
| As the crisis unfold… on Those Labour Posters … | |
| GM on Sunday Independent Stupid Stat… |
 | EWI on Sunday Independent Stupid Stat… |
| EWI on Republican Party Crazy Stateme… |
| EWI on Republican Party Crazy Stateme… |
| CL on SF Ard Fheis… the latest… |
| GM on No fault dismissal…Yeah, that… |
I’d say there was at least 80,000. 150,000 seems unlikely, but 100,000 would be no shock.
Begg and O’Connor should count themselves lucky they don’t have to face a public vote any time soon. There was little in the way of love for either.
The apprentice plumber was great. Fintan O’Toole spoke well. The musical contributions were inoffensive. All in all, it was okay, but I think that the speakers weren’t quite as angry as many in the crowd. The speakers at the Socialist party demo were probably more in tune with the mood.
Great to see so many people on such a shockingly cold Saturday.
Fintan O’Toole spoke well
Did he re-hash his Troika of Dictators idea, that he floated on the frontline the other night.
You know, three unelected randomers that just happen be liked by Fintan. Including Mary Robinson, for crying out loud. Just the right background for solving an economic crisis.
Nope. Though he did highlight the complete absence of a mandate the current shower suffer from.
I estimate 100,000, while a guard informed a colleague of mine that he believed it was 150,000. It was only when we heard on the radio that the figure was 50,000, which came as news and a bit of a shock to us all as it certainly looked like the largest 50,000 we had ever seen.
It’s very hard to tell. Love the way the Leinster House protest I pushed large on RTE.
That should be ‘is pushed large…’
50,000? Even here in London my bullshit sensors are going wild! The Guardian is saying 100,000 ffs!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/27/ireland-bailout-angry-demonstrators-dublin
On RTE at One they were saying 20K and then literally in the next breath Ingrid Miley says the front of the march had reached O’Connell Street while the back of the march had still not left Wine Tavern Street.
The Irish media, a wonderful reflection of their bourgeois masters, they can’t even lie competently!
Thanks for the ref to the Guardian
And on the news now, they mentioned the 300 who went to the Dail and the one – that’s ONE – arrest three times. A it happens, I took a stroll up to the Dail just in time to catch the arrest: it took half a dozen cops in riot gear, a few ‘ordinary’ guards, and the dog unit to drag one guy who’d thrown something – allegedly – out of the crowd. I then walked around to Merrion Row, where there were the best part of 100 gardaí ranged in front of Government building and all the way down to the national gallery – and not a single protester.
I reckon the cold eventually broke up the crowd on Kildare street – it was OK walking today, but standing still or – worse, sitting down on the street – was to invite frostbite.
Re: Chambers Ireland – I love to have a little chat about the nature of ‘reality’ with them
“Re: Chambers Ireland – I love to have a little chat about the nature of ‘reality’ with them”
Yeah that pissed me off as well. I’m sure we’re not the only ones.
They’re… well, I wouldn’t even say it.
By the way SoS, sorry I didn’t have your mobile, otherwise I’d have arranged to meet up.
No bother..
I was with people, who, with one exception were marching virgins….which has to be a good sign, right?
Yes, I think it is.
Do you think Fr. Begg and angry Jack actually get the message or are they confident that most ordinary union members will look to their job reps for guidance, who in turn look to their officials, who in turn will always take head office’s side? The left-wing rally was a bit like preaching to the converted for me- bit of a difference between the bulk of the marchers and the left-wing ‘bloc’ at the end.
From little acorns mighty oaks do grow.
Hard to say Capt. Rock. It’d be great if this was an eye opener. Though to echo what was said above I think there was some scepticism about Begg/etc expressed by many.
I thought it was an excellent turn out – well over 50,000 I would have thought. The speeches at the end were a bit of a damp squib as there was a palpable sense of the crowd wanting direction and a bit of rousing rhetoric (BTW, the guys with the ‘Cowen puts the ‘N’ in Cuts’ placard had me in stitches). Seriously, though, the weather was ballfoundering and the pavements were lethal and the numbers were still high. Very orderly too – didn’t hear or see anything untoward til was on the bus home. Now to the extremities for frostbite and a warming pint.
That should be _check_ the extremities. Mental impairment from the cold…
Should have brought a Cedar Lounge banner then we could have all met up
Now that’s a good idea!
Some “WBS for Taoiseach” placards perhaps
Er no… I’d puke at that idea so I can’t imagine anyone else liking it much.
Seriously, though one thing that has struck me over the past thirty plus years of political activity is how odd people who go forward to elected positions on a sustained basis are. I’m hugely suspicious of that. One of the very few I met who I have had any real respect for was Tony Gregory who, and I know I’ve said it before once told a mate of mine that had Seamus Costello lived he (Gregory) would be the one driving the car bringing him around canvassing (by the way Gregory drove his own car when canvassing, just in case that’s not clear). I kind of liked that attitude on his part.
Indeed. In fact it should almost be a case of “canvassing disqualifies”. The self-promotion of careerist politicians is hard to stomach alright. A fundamental flaw in representative democracy really.
Well how about “Garibaldy for Minister for Internal Affairs”, is that a better suggestion?
There’s some who might be worried, but I’d be pretty chilled about it…
LATC for Minister of technology?
Should have brought a Cedar Lounge banner then we could have all met up
Certainly should have (I went, despite my cynicism towards the unions these days. I left when Fake Angry Jack started his speech after Fintan and the two women).
I’m planning on going to the ULA meeting on Monday night. Anyone else?
I’ll be there anyway, EWI!
Almost a Freudian slip – the extremists with frostbite!
Agence France Presse estimates 100,000.
Thanks Reilly
Do you have a link for the AFP estimate, Reilly?
Have to say it brought an oul tear to my eye, not the cold now, but seeing so many ordinary people out protesting, very encouraging. Good atmosphere on the walk down, some very good home made placards.
Plenty of ULA activists out distributing leaflets. And the IBT seemed to be out en masse aswell.
Very lucky with the weather on the day. Got rightly snowed upon on the drive home.
@Pope, I kept an eye out for your Wolfe Tone placard but didn’t see you in the crowd. Next time!
I still regret not taking that IBT mag… Next time.
I picked up a copy, will scan it for you!
You’re a star Damian, much appreciated. Might just pop it in the Archive – I know it’s recent, but…
Last time I read the IBT journal I remember bursting into hysterics at the sub-heading ‘Perfidious Albion’
Maybe it’s a regular column….
your lunch arrived about 5 mins later
Sky news report was introduced with ‘there were scuffles in Dublin today…..’ but then the actual report was fairer and more comprehensive than RTE’s – good vox pop, emphasis on the ‘ordinary people taking to the streets’ angle.
Sky’s coverage was good, though I’m probally slightly biased on that one.
Financial Times:
-Joe Higgins, a socialist member of the European Parliament for Dublin said Saturday’s rally should be the start of a broader movement of opposition to the austerity package.
“This is a demonstration of the anger and feeling of working people in this country. It’s a disastrous strategy to bleed them dry to pay tens of billions of euros back that were gambled by international speculators for private profit. But this is only the beginning. Workers need to organise and move in the direction of a 24-hour general strike throughout the country. We have to stop this policy. It will ruin our society.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b577c9f8-f953-11df-a4a5-00144feab49a.html#axzz16XOOehDq
Sky’s coverage was good, better than RTE.
The vigorously hostile reception Jack O’Connor got was beautiful. You could barely hear him over boos and shouts of sellout.
Jack O’Connor’s speech:
So what’s the priority: stopping the deal or shafting J O’C?
So what’s the priority: stopping the deal or shafting J O’C?
I’m trying really hard here to imagine the sellout being stopped with O’Connor and Begg at the helm, and not having much success. The bankers and developers have been removed, FF are next, but it’s about time that the unions put our own houses in order by tossing the Partnership bums out.
If you believe the labour movement is going to play any role in the fightback, shafting Begg and O’Connor is not just a priority, but a prerequisite.
“I’m trying really hard here to imagine the sellout being stopped with O’Connor and Begg at the helm”
Indeed, but was yesterday’s march a suitable occasion to oppose them?
Yesterday’s march was called to oppose the “austerity” (inverted commas because, of course, Lenihan means austerity for some but not others). Also, however much I may dislike the union heads, they brought the largest turnout onto the streets to oppose the cuts — larger, for particular example, than the Tuesday marches in May this year.
I do believe there is a possibility that the cuts can be stopped — it would take only two or three FF TDs to vote against the budget, and enough have signalled doubts and concerns, and they need the push. And I think a clear, simple message would be central to achieving that.
Of course, if one believes that the “austerity” package cannot now be stopped, then a protest-within-the-protest would be reasonable.
Alternatively, if one thinks the “austerity” deal can indeed be stopped, but that it would make do difference, then a protest-within-the-protest would also be reasonable.
(For my own part, I left when we got to O’Connell Street.)
That’s a crucial point Tomboktu, for all their faults the unions in tandem with other sectors (such as community, of which there is an overlap, but they’re not coterminous) got the largest march out we’ve seen. And I think the anti-austerity message is vastly more important than the leadership of the unions at this point because the former will impact much immeasurably more greatly on working people than the latter.
There is absolutely no reason for people to play nice with the partnership bureaucrats.
O’Connor and Begg have done everything they possibly can to demobilise and demoralise union members, repeatedly marching them up the hill and then right back down again, and signing the worst deal in the history of the trade union movement.
One march will not stop the austerity programme. It will take a serious struggle and a serious campaign. One which the likes of Begg and O’Connor are completely unwilling to lead. There are two reasons why thousands of people showing their justified rage at O’Connor is a good thing:
1) The bureaucrats will only do anything at all if they are under unbearable pressure from below.
2) In the slightly longer time it’s crucial to sweep the partnership bureaucrats out of the top of the unions.
Point 1 is the reason why it was “a suitable occasion” yesterday. It’s worth noting by the way, that the booing was widespread and that it was overwhelmingly people with no connection to the organised far left who were shouting things at O’Connor and Begg. Progressive things, denouncing their wages and damning them for their inaction.
The unions have great mobilising capacity but we do not have the union heads to thank for that. They only put on 3 buses from Cork for example. The march was a success despite the union leaders rather than because of them.
They (with a few exceptions like Eamonn Devoy, Brendan Ogle & Paddy Healy) are part of the problem and we need to get rid of them to have any chance of defending our future against the elite – of which O’Connor and Begg are a part. O’Connor was named ‘Business Man of the Month’ by Business & Finance Magazine a while back FFS! They are one of the main reasons we have not had effective mass action since the crisis began. People need to realise what they’re up against so they can start fighting effectively. Pretending the current shower of sell outs are on our side in the class war does not help.
No one is talking about ‘playing nice’, it’s a question of what priorities one has. For me it’s dealing with austerity, not the union leadership. And while one march won’t of course alter the course of the current direction of the state it does serve notice that there is a large number of people antagonistic to the austerity programme. The more people, and it’s hard enough to get union members out on marches like yesterday, who are there the better. Again, anything that blurs the central focus of austerity is problematic, not least because there’s plenty of time to deal (if their members want to) with union leaders but much less time to blunt even in a small way the austerity measures.
And for me, and it seems for many people on the march yesterday, the question of “dealing with austerity” is intimately linked up with dealing with the partnership bureaucrats.
As I said above, one march will not deal with austerity no matter how many people go on it. The march has to be the starting point for a real campaign and a real struggle, and that certainly won’t happen of the volition of the likes of O’Connor. They will only do anything if they are forced to do it.
They would be perfectly happy to continue wheeling union members out as a stage army once every year or two ad infinitum, making their faux-radical speeches to a quiescent crowd and then getting back to the real business of wheedling to be let back into partnership and whining about how our masters should whip us more softly.
They aren’t just harmless fools or imperfect allies. Left to their own devices they will actively demobilise and demoralise people. As they already have done over the last period.
The fact that significant numbers of people were giving them stick, were demanding more from them, should give us some heart. People weren’t shouting anti-union things at all. They were demanding that the union leaders get off their arses.
But it’s not just about a ‘real campaign’ or a ‘real struggle’. It’s about demonstrating, literally, that yesterday x numbers dissent about the austerity. That’s the function of the march, for I’d hazard the vast majority of those who are there, because the decisions about that austerity are taken next week, the week after and so on.
And that’s why the O’Connor/Begg issue is really quite secondary at least, I hazard again, for most people there yesterday.
Of course a march is about showing dissent. But if it isn’t also about starting, organising, encouraging and building an ongoing campaign against austerity then it is ultimately of very limited value.
The IMF doesn’t care if you personally demonstrate your dissent. What the IMF, the EU, the government and our government-in-waiting, will actually care about is an escalating struggle against their policies.
You can either look at the march as a one off show of disagreement or as the start of something bigger. If you are serious about stopping austerity only the latter view makes sense. And that necessarily means that strategic matters (like the role of the partnership bureaucrats) are matters for the here and now not the dim and distant future.
The two obviously aren’t incompatible. I’m presuming you’re not suggesting that I’m arguing there should be no effort post-Budget or that that was that, that was the one-off and all else is immaterial?
But given that the decisions are taken in the near future are the crucial ones and once implemented near impossible to reverse then the primary function surely was to get as many people out.
And I worry that there’s an attitude abroad that everything is a done deal, that expressions of opinion count for nothing that we accept defeat in advance and kick the ball into the next Dáil term (effectively) etc. That’s not much help to the community sector, or whoever.
I think that governments, and the IMF do calibrate public dissent, not hugely, but to some degree. I think they’ll have noted that even in sub-zero conditions at least 80 – 100k were out yesterday providing a pole of opposition, albeit inchoately across the next while.
And the ‘strategic’ need to take out Beggs/O’Connor? As Capt Rock notes, it ain’t going to happen – not soon anyhow, not least because as evidenced by the thrust by some to get back in under the Croke Park Agreement terms the fear abroad isn’t pushing towards ruptures with that leadership but to a passive acceptance (at least on the PS side of the equation) of the agreements made.
Another tangent, my concern yesterday wasn’t that 100k or so turned up which was excellent, but that for every you, me and whoever there were five or ten others who potentially could have been there that didn’t bother. Hardly any of them would be because of Beggs/O’Connor but more because they simply don’t agree/can’t be pushed/are afraid to take a stand.
“Hardly any of them would be because of Beggs/O’Connor but more because they simply don’t agree/can’t be pushed/are afraid to take a stand.”
Or didn’t want to take a risk that another snow fall would strand them in Dublin
Another tangent, my concern yesterday wasn’t that 100k or so turned up which was excellent, but that for every you, me and whoever there were five or ten others who potentially could have been there that didn’t bother. Hardly any of them would be because of Beggs/O’Connor but more because they simply don’t agree/can’t be pushed/are afraid to take a stand.
That’s the point really, isn’t it. It’s fine for the thousand or whatever Left activists to come out on these things but the bigger issue is to move the bulk of the population, not just Left party members and union members, to a point where they WILL get off the fence and make their voices heard, even if that voice is initially calling for the watered down message coming from the existing “leadership” behind the alternative narrative.
And in that battle for hearts and minds the issue of whetver or not the existing union leadership are Quislings to the working class is really just a side event of limited immediate concern, and as noted above offers the media a convenient oppurtunity with which to label the protest as something of the loony Left.
That’s true too. I know quite a few from Maynooth/Meath, etc, who were in that category.
On the broader issue, one thing I don’t at all disagree with MarkP is that the sooner O’Connor et al depart the better for us.
What was the combined left vote in the last general election? How does it compare with the numbers who marched?
Unfortunately, a flu kept me away from this but observed it through the lens of twitter. The very loud and vocal anti- union and anti- progressive onlookers were in their element when the booing began. One popular commentator encouraged marchers to remember that union leaders were just as culpable for mess as bankers and politicians!!
At a time that they are on the ropes, I wouldn’t be handing any more sticks to the right to beat us with. Mark P & others, would you support someone throwing something at O connor or Begg? If that had happened that would be the reports and headlines sorted and personally I don’t think it would advance anything one bit. Yes definitely keep pressure on union leaders but with 100,000 on the streets it is time to know your enemy and as is commented above nobody gets a crowd out like ICTU have managed to do.
Regards Chambers, I would presume that there are plenty of cafes and restauraunts in city centre not members of Dublin Chambers. Alert them in advance of next one that a leaflet highlighting non chambers members will be distributed, bit like the fairhotels idea in reverse. 100,000 people boycotting chambers members might help them to see a bit more clearly.
Shane, no I would not support someone throwing something at O’Connor or Begg.
I think that you are misunderstanding the nature of the reception they got, by the way. Which is probably understandable if your impression is filtered through the opinions of various right wing fools on twitter or politics.ie. They weren’t there for the most part and didn’t understand the dynamic if they were.
The shouting and heckling was overwhelmingly for union action not against trade unionism. Speaking of twitter, to give you an example, here’s what Mary Fitzgerald, an Irish Times journalist, tweeted:
“Lots of booing and heckling for union leaders @ #dubmarch. One man yelled ‘surrender monkey’ at Jack O’Connor of SIPTU”
But that’s self-evidently misinterpreting Shane’s point. He’s not saying his view is shaped by the right but that the a right view exists and that certain approaches assist in that.
The general perception isn’t going to be nuanced to pro/anti-unionism by the overwhelmingly right discourse, but will be inevitably shaped to the latter.
WbS,
Of course internet rightists will seek to interpret hostility to the partnership bureaucrats as hostility to trade unionism. That doesn’t mean that they are correct and it certainly doesn’t mean that we should tailor our activities and views to avoid making them feel smug.
It’s not about what some fool on twitter thinks. It’s about building an effective challenge to austerity. And whether you like it or not, a necessary part of any serious challenge to austerity will
(A) have to start by putting the bureaucrats under such enormous pressure that they can’t demobilise and demoralise people as they have done up to now, and
(B) In the slightly longer term sweep the partnership bureaucrats out of their positions of power in the unions.
Those are cold, hard, realities. The fact that a substantial minority of a huge crowd of trade unionists is starting to see through the likes of O’Connor is an entirely positive phenomenon and one we should welcome wholeheartedly.
But it’s not just internet rightists. A moments conversation with a broad tranches of people in this society will evidence an antipathy towards unions. I’m not suggesting one tailors to that, but it’s a fact that one has to deal with.
And calling them ‘fools on twitter’ is far too reductionist. There’s a lot more of them out there who don’t won’t and haven’t a clue about twitter.
I still remain hugely unconvinced about your austerity=Beggs/O’Connor. Even at best the latter could only ameliorate – given the real balance of forces in this society – what has and will be implemented. Their failing is that they did remarkably little even to do that much.
WbS:
It really is quite simple. A protest, no matter how large and how welcome it is, will not stop austerity. The question is how can we stop austerity?
An occasional protest march will not do it. Voting for Labour or Fine Gael or Sinn Fein will not do it. Appealing to our masters to whip us less hard (the ICTU “strategy”) will not do it. Generalised, coordinated, serious, strike action might do it. In my view, the only social force capable of stopping austerity is the organised working class.
I’m not sure if we are both coming from this starting point in this discussion. It may be that you think some other force or some other strategy will be able to stop austerity, in which case your wider argument would make more sense to me. But if you agree that the organised working class, through industrial action, is the only force realistically capable of stopping austerity then certain things flow from that.
On your other point, the partnership bureaucrats have not simply been ineffectual. Their role has been much worse than that. They actively make things worse. They have actively demoralised and demobilised people over the last couple years. They call people out on demonstrations aimed only at getting themselves back into partnership talks. They have called strike action and then called it off. They use people as a stage army. They make a show of resistance and then completely capitulate over and over again. They breed cynicism and despair about the prospects of anything being achieved.
Many working people look to the unions for leadership, particularly at a time of crisis. The partnership bureaucrats have used that trust to demobilise and demotivate.
If we want the union movement to actually do anything worthwhile, anything effective, in response to the austerity assault then that will have to mean putting the bureaucrats under enormous pressure and/or sweeping them aside. That a large crowd of trade unionists took such a hostile line to O’Connor and Begg – something that simply would not have happened a year and a half ago – is an entirely positive phenomenon. It is a prerequisite for the union movement to lead a real fight that the bureaucrats feel that can’t get away with shirking and capitulating.
Or to put it more concisely, as the TUI guy quoted in the Financial Times said:
“ICTU are in a partnership with the government in order to quell the public’s discontent and dissent,” said Kevin Farrell, a member of the national executive of the Teachers Union of Ireland, who booed Mr Begg.
“They agree with the government that there should be cuts. The only difference between them and the government is that they want to do it over a longer time. We should be telling the IMF to stick it. The Partnership process [of national wage negotiations between the government, unions and business] has created an Irish Congress of Trade Unions that has forgotten how to negotiate.”-
One need merely look at the mobilisation of pensioners two Budgets back to see that protests can indeed blunt political policy. In the subsequent two years there’s been a significant aversion to engaging with that issue.
Of course demonstrations per se won’t stop austerity, and at no point in this discussion have I suggested it would, but blunt it they can. And the more feet on streets the more that would be true.
As for the organised working class through industrial action stopping it, I’m presuming you mean after the fact. I’m dubious.
By the way, I never said the unions were ineffectual.
You didn’t use the term ineffectual, but the tenor of your last paragraph was a complaint about them not doing enough. I was pointing out that they’ve actually done quite a lot – it’s just that their behaviour benefits the government and the right rather than the working class.
You didn’t really answer my central question though, WbS. What social forces do you think can halt austerity and by what means?
Much of the rest of the issues under discussion here flow from that question. I do not think that protest or public opinion will stop austerity, valuable and important as both of those things are. The Iraq war was a good demonstration that the ruling class will ignore these things if the issue is important enough to it, and the programme of austerity is a great deal more important to our rulers than the war in Iraq ever was to the British state.
I agree with you that the unions played a part in consolidating the orthodox consensus. No doubt about it, whether intentional (I think to some extent yes) and unintentional (also to some extent). I think that different instincts vied there, from the complacency of years of social partnership to a genuine fear at the backlash that occurred in the last 18 months against the PS (and by proxy the unions). Neither was an excuse for a pisspoor response. Hence I’ve no problem with the leadership being shown the door.
Re who can stop austerity. I genuinely don’t know. I suspect that the forces of the political left are too scattered to make any impact. I think it’s possible that some actions akin to the pensioners may have some effect, though it’s notable to me how the community sector has been marginalized (not least by the anti’ quango’ discourse). Frankly I don’t think austerity is going to be stopped. I don’t have any hope, any more than yourself, that the LP will do much more than mess around the edges. It certainly won’t present a systemic attack on it. I think organized labour is too weak. I think that actions by sections of the working class will be marginalized. As for a grander mass working class resistance I worry that if it hasn’t happened yet it’s unlikely to manifest itself.
In other words stopping it is unlikely. Again, I think that ameliorating it is the best that can be hoped for. In other words, and here I do agree with you yet again, that we have to resist it where and when we can. Which really seems to me to be the same as it ever was.
But in truth you don’t believe either that austerity can be stopped this side of its imposition in the Budget. That’s fair enough, but as you know it’s much harder to stop something in train than even slightly amend something that is proposed.
Well that’s an honest response WbS. But it also leaves me with the following question:
If you don’t have a particular strategy for defeating austerity, how can you determine what is or is not strategically useful? What’s your basis for deciding that some turn of events or set of actions is a good or bad thing?
I support a particular strategy for defeating austerity, one which draws on protest and seeks to influence public opinion but which is centrally about mobilising the latent power of the labour movement.
I don’t think that protest or public opinion alone will be enough to stop the austerity programme. I think it’s simply too important to our ruling class for that, much more important than the use of Shannon was here or than the entire Iraq war was to the British state. The most which those elements will achieve on their own is to convince the government that some particular sectional group is a harder target and that the viciousness is better focused on some other, more strategically vulnerable group.
In my view, the latent power of the organised labour movement is enormous. The unions are the largest social organisations in the country and they have the capacity to shut the country down should (a) their members be riled enough and (b) their leaders have the bottle.
People are going to see their jobs, their pay, their conditions etc, attacked and attacked and attacked. There will be a huge amount of anger and a desire to do something about it. The question is if that anger and that desire can be channelled constructively or if it will be undermined and replaced with despair and demoralisation.
How quickly this process can move, or if it will happen at all, is an open question. A surly response to people like O’Connor is an encouraging sign however. They could get away with marching people up and down the hill in an attempt to get back into partnership a year or two ago. It’s getting harder for them now.
I’ll be back in a short while, not a child in the house washed, etc, etc…
“If you don’t have a particular strategy for defeating austerity, how can you determine what is or is not strategically useful? What’s your basis for deciding that some turn of events or set of actions is a good or bad thing?”
Two answers, firstly I can’t give you a precise response to that. I have no certainty at all that any specific course of action prior to the event will be clearly positive or negative in its outcomes. All I can say is that I hope a broad range of activities will reap some level of rewards. Secondly, the metric afterwards would be whether the situation was ameliorated in part.
I support a particular strategy for defeating austerity, one which draws on protest and seeks to influence public opinion but which is centrally about mobilising the latent power of the labour movement.
I don’t think that protest or public opinion alone will be enough to stop the austerity programme. I think it’s simply too important to our ruling class for that, much more important than the use of Shannon was here or than the entire Iraq war was to the British state. The most which those elements will achieve on their own is to convince the government that some particular sectional group is a harder target and that the viciousness is better focused on some other, more strategically vulnerable group.
That’s more than fair enough and I broadly agree. But, I don’t see that as doing much more than I’m hoping either (see below).
In my view, the latent power of the organised labour movement is enormous. The unions are the largest social organisations in the country and they have the capacity to shut the country down should (a) their members be riled enough and (b) their leaders have the bottle.
Absolutely, the latent power is enormous. But, it’s latent, and there’s no clear way to harness it. There’s also a basic problem with the unions. Members of unions aren’t all equally active. In many workplaces they’re not active at all, and neither do they want to be. So the social organization aspect of that is perhaps broad, but very shallow in large part.
There are also clear political problems. Hitherto the unions saw more members voting for FF than for the LP let alone the further left. Now that’s changed, but I’d tend to think that on the polls we see the drift is still largely to the LP. I hope that the ULA and other leftists, SF, independents, WP, etc will get some of the drift as well. Not sure though that that’s yet evident.
I don’t want to sound entirely pessimistic here, but I’ve been strongly active in unions across my working life and what characterizes them is just how difficult it is to mobilize people. Because workers are locked into salaries, mortgages/rents, families, etc, etc, all of which stay their appetite such as it is to act. Granted if conditions reduce to the point where the distinction between little to lose and nothing to lose draw together that’s a different matter, and for some – far too many – that’s already the case, indeed that’s where a lot of the activity is. But arguably (and I don’t like to argue in terms of others pain or discomfort) not sufficient numbers of same.
People are going to see their jobs, their pay, their conditions etc, attacked and attacked and attacked. There will be a huge amount of anger and a desire to do something about it. The question is if that anger and that desire can be channelled constructively or if it will be undermined and replaced with despair and demoralization.
I agree. But what concerns me is that this process is now near enough three years old. Across the private sector and the public sector precisely those conditions are extant and yet we don’t see a huge uptick in militancy.Why? Well, perhaps when there’s less the tendency is for people to hold on to what they’ve got even more tenaciously.
The other point is channelling. There’s a real danger that the alternative left speaketh unto itself rather than the society more broadly. I don’t know how to fashion that conversation.
How quickly this process can move, or if it will happen at all, is an open question. A surly response to people like O’Connor is an encouraging sign however. They could get away with marching people up and down the hill in an attempt to get back into partnership a year or two ago. It’s getting harder for them now.
In a way that’s why I think the surly response to O’Connor, while by the way I’m not particularly antagonistic too, just doesn’t mean very much one way or another. Disillusion with the TU leaderships doesn’t seem to me to necessarily or inevitably translate to anything like a more radical approach.
Now on the other hand it is possible that the attacks will generate some sort of response, but what I suspect is rather than this say coming from the working class private sector and public sector (in the classic sense of the term) we’ll more likely see the lower middle class and middle class private and public sector recognize that the vestiges of universalism that they’ve actually quite liked are being stripped away, and this will see them mobilizes in their own way, indeed I can’t help but think that in part that’s why we’re seeing the LP jump ahead. The problem with that mobilization is that it doesn’t necessarily lead to more progressive outcomes, as even a cursory glance at many members of the LP will demonstrate. It could lead to still stratified approach to social provision, etc, etc.
None of this, I know, is news to you, but what I’m trying to explain is why my own approach is one that eschews specific party or group programs against an approach of lets try a broad number of approaches and see which gain traction and support over time. I’m fond of the community sector, though I’m very very aware of the limitations of same. And that’s another poll of opposition along with the unions. Same with other areas. Harnessing all of these as you suggest with the organized labour is crucial.
Again, I’m not trying to be particularly downbeat here. There are possibilities ahead, the ULA seems to be a very positive development. There are others as well. That even the broadest definition, as noted before, of the left is now pushing upwards is somewhat heartening. But given the scale of the crisis and the attacks it seems oddly disproportionate, ie. too small.
I’d also add that while there is some radicalism in the union memberships it would be pointless to overstate how much. Again, getting people out for even the most minimal actions is next to impossible and that’s not simply an echo of some sort of O’Connor/Begg approach but is all its own dynamic. Private sector workers are fearful, the PS is cowed by the attacks from Private sector boosters, there’s the usual inertia etc.
None of which is to let O’Connor Beggs off the hook in the slightest, they have been dismal in the extreme in their handling of this, but it’s simply not a problem that’s restricted to the leadership of unions and that if that were changed all would be great.
By Fr. Begg and co’s membership of the board of the Central Bank, FAS, RTE etc they are culaple. Where did Bertie tell the govt’s critics to commit suicide? At the ICTU conference. Was he eaten alive? No, they loved the fucker.
But there is a big gap between what the left think and ordinary union members. Look at the IMPACT conference where a motion condemning McLoone (one of the most Fianna Fail-tastic union leaders of them all) was badly defeated. Most ordinary SIPTU members would still vote for ‘angry’ Jack (‘No, I’m sorry Pat, I didn’t mean YOUR trophy house’) then a left-winger.
Good to have a Laura Ashley striker on the platform. If you are in Grafton Street they need your backing. They are private sector workers: so I’m sure Eoghan Harris, Shane Ross and the all the rest of them have been down to show their support…
What we now need is an effective left alliance in each union. This can be broader than ULA.I am sure that O’Connor would be fascing a Donegal type result
Oh and Paddy Healy is not a paid official. I think we should distinguish between people him who represent the rank and file and who stand for elections.Oh and in SIPTU it is difficult to mount a campaign without support from the bureaucracy.
Financial Times:
-While all the protesters opposed the government, not everybody present agreed with the official organisers of the march.
“ICTU are in a partnership with the government in order to quell the public’s discontent and dissent,” said Kevin Farrell, a member of the national executive of the Teachers Union of Ireland, who booed Mr Begg.
“They agree with the government that there should be cuts. The only difference between them and the government is that they want to do it over a longer time. We should be telling the IMF to stick it. The Partnership process [of national wage negotiations between the government, unions and business] has created an Irish Congress of Trade Unions that has forgotten how to negotiate.”-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b577c9f8-f953-11df-a4a5-00144feab49a.html#axzz16bPTu6R6
That FT article is really very good.
On another note, Circumlimina has a good piece up about an extraordinarily revealing press release from a Labour councillor:
http://circumlimina.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/the-red-scare-begins/
Some footage from the left platform at the end:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfts4t_united-left-alliance_news
Am amused that the last speaker is named on the video as “Ciaran Nolan” of the SIPTU Education Branch.
Ha!
What was that chap’s name?
Kieran Allen
-and the birth of a new formation, the United Left Alliance, to the left of our hopelessly pipsqueaking Labour party, give some genuine cause for optimism.-Harry Browne
http://www.counterpunch.org/browne11262010.html
LATC: “the issue of whetver or not the existing union leadership are Quislings to the working class is really just a side event of limited immediate concern”
really? this seems self-evidently wrong to me – at least if we’re talking about building working class resistance to austerity rather than simply getting as many people along to a march. And I don’t even buy it on a numbers element. How many people stayed away yesterday who marched about the pension levy back in 08 but learnt from that dismal sell out that protesting is pointless. Plenty of non-rightwingers will have been glad to see the hypocrisy of angry Jack exposed & that we weren’t all just standing there passively absorbing his bullshit. Real social movements are full of lively disagreement and impassioned debates. The worst thing would be polite applause of empty speeches as it would show people aren’t engaged – which they certainly are now.
I don’t believe bland agreement is necessary for an effective show of dissent either. How would most people know what to agree on yet with everything so much in flux? Now is the time for real passion and political debate and argument – not some fake slightly left of mainstream consensus.
But are we talking about building working class resistance to austerity in any meaningful sense? How do we asses that as an actual living thing? What we saw yesterday was the closest to a mass response to the austerity that we’ve had a chance to see since the last big TU march. Anything smaller than that will be pinprick resistance, no harm in itself, but far from the sort of thing that makes governments take notice.
As for agreement, surely, but on the other hand it’s not like Beggs/O’Connor are dug in for ever (something by the way that in the comparisons of them with bankers demonstrates how stupid the comparisons are). They’ll be gone soon enough.
And protesting isn’t entirely or why else were there so many formations represented yesterday?
There’s another obvious issue. For the further left, and a bit beyond, Beggs/O’Connor are betes noires not because they’re extreme but because they’re too moderate, a viewpoint I broadly agree with (i.e. I think they’re far too moderate). But for vast swathes of the population beyond the further left and parts of the TU’s Beggs/O’Connor are regarded and presented as antediluvean trades unionists straight from central casting of the worst excesses of the rightwing in presenting working class and union activism. They’re seen as dangerous and dissident. That we know that’s not the case doesn’t for a second reduce the power of such characterisations and indeed their harmfulness in undermining the causes we champion.
I’ve already noted the antipathy to trades unionism in this society and this adds to that. Indeed the media are happy to feed it into the mix. So that even such malleable guys as the leaderships are effectively presented in such a way as to cause us yet further problems.
And that too is something that has to be dealt with.
Protests during the working day, strikes, mass walk outs from schools & universities & mass civil disobedience would be one way of stepping things up. More innovative protests such as targeted withdrawals from banks have been suggested elsewhere but I’m not sure how this would work in practice. Whatever method is used, further protest needs to be designed to be as disruptive as possible rather than vice versa (i.e. Saturday’s event was). More events like that should also be held but everyone knows they can’t work on their own.
On the public image of unions issue – the unions will never get fair treatment from the mainstream media. Part of the union heads’ problem is that due to their demobilisation of the movement, the main way they communicate with their members is through the filter of the media and so they constantly worry about how the media is portraying them. The solution is to revitalise the trade unions movement and communicate directly with members and the wider public through activism – achieving this is a long term process that will take time.
Which means that the chances of the very widespread actions you argue for are limited at least in the short term. In the longer term as the effects of the Budgets/IMF plan bite there’s more optimism that people will be radicalised, but for example I’m a union member in a highly unionised area and I simply don’t see how one could get support for the measures you propose. I’m not saying that it would impossible in the future to do so, simply that now as things stand it would be very very difficult indeed.
“Which means that the chances of the very widespread actions you argue for are limited at least in the short term. ..’ I’m a union member in a highly unionised area and I simply don’t see how one could get support for the measures you propose.”
Me too
Have you noticed how it’s only a small group who take on stuff like picketing etc? I was highly amused/depressed to find out how few were on the line with me a while back.
In the last 24-hour at my place, we had a rota which seemed to work well, and all in the unions did show up for pickets.
However, we’d arranged a pre-march coffee elsewhere so that people would have somebody to go with — to make it less daunting to arrive in that size of a crowd, and four of 43 people (across four unions) showed up. I don’t know how many went directly to their union’s assembly point.
I wouldn’t be surprised if members of my own union stopped paying for the privilege. We had some concerns about local security and work conditions, and when (after a lot of pleading) the fulltime official serving our branch agreed to meet staff, he told us we were lucky to have jobs.
I wouldn
Lucky to have jobs?
WTF?
“But for vast swathes of the population beyond the further left and parts of the TU’s Beggs/O’Connor are regarded and presented as antediluvean trades unionists straight from central casting of the worst excesses of the rightwing in presenting working class and union activism. They’re seen as dangerous and dissident.”
So what’s wrong with the actual left making it very clear that Beggs and O’Connor are actually pussy-cat moderates perfectly happy to implement austerity?
The inevitable result of the softly-softly approach you (WbS) seem to be advocating is that the only criticisms voiced of TU leadership comes from the right. The “well-mannered” “show of unity” which mutes any actual left criticism will then result in any compromises being made towards the right, not towards the left. It’s the old lesson of triangulation: moderates, social-democrats, progressives or whatever they want to call themselves should be damn glad that there’s an “extreme left” against which they can position themselves as “the compromise”.
I can’t believe what I’m reading on this blog. Normally it seems very analytical and sane, but much of the above discussion suggests that you’ve already thrown in the towel and are content to publish mere dry analysis of how terrible it all is.
Have you noticed how it’s only a small group who take on stuff like picketing etc? I was highly amused/depressed to find out how few were on the line with me a while back.
Speaking for my own generation (people in their thirties) there is deep cynicism about the play-acting that the current leadership engage in. No-one really believes that they mean it – and why therefore should they bother in the farce of a national day of action in that context? Who can blame them?
On your other point – the painting of Begg et al as extremists if they were more resolute. I think this is a red herring – no matter what they do, they’ll still be painted this way because of who they are. Has no-one learned the lesson of the poor Democrats in the US?
L..aughable, a couple off thoughts, there’s no question of advocating a softly softly approach. The only point of significant disagreement I have with Mark P is the function of the march which I see as having more potential than he does in relation to where we are today. In other words the key to me was feet on streets protesting against austerity and disagreeing with government policy in advance of the Budget and to me all else is a distraction. Sure we can think and chew gum simultaneously and do more than one thing at any given moment but I’m trying to be clear about my priority, perhaps not yours, perhaps not his, etc.
Whatever comes next is fair game for Beggs etc, you’ll note my criticisms of them are very similar to yours. We’ll be well rid of them soon.
But I’m puzzled as to why you think arguing for a primary focus for Saturday, one where we concentrate on combating publicly the austerity measures in train and try to shift the govt. agenda there, is”throwing in the towel” when already others have argued that such events are of limited if any efficacy and that the government/IMF isn’t open to any external influence, and so on. That seems to me to be a much greater concession that nothing is going to change before – well when? 2016 and the next election after an LP/FG coalition? Hopes the coalition will founder sooner than that? A rise in activism that we haven’t seen in the last three years?
In other words I’m precisely arguing for something here, now in advance of all else, as big as is possible and as focussed as is possible. If we could have another march next week I’d be up for that like a flash. And the week after if it were any use. And so on.
I’ll take every opportunity we get at every point it appears to do something and hope that I and others will maximise it to it’s full potential. And I’m certain you’d do precisely the same.
Re the tone of the comments above, we are in a dismal place on the left, but that’s not a reason to stop at all. There’s more opportunities even from my perspective today than there were three years ago (and my definition of the left even in its softest form still sees some hope in that politically we see increasing support from the wishy washiest forms etc). We’re about I hope to see a range of left voices returned ot the Dáil to supplement the very few we have. There’s a good spirit abroad. That the forces against us are so much greater than they used to be is a quantitative change, not qualitative.
But I’m not going to sugar the pill about where we are as distinct from where we want to be. There are no get rich schemes for us, and that is even more obvious today after the single greatest crisis in capitalism of the last five decades.
EWI that’s true re extremism, but it remains a problem nonetheless.
You know as well as I that for significant portions of the working population Beggs etc are persona non grata. And that’s because what they represent, trades unionism is for many many workers unthinkable.
I’ve heard it so many times, ‘this that and the other about the unions, never needed them, etc etc’, and my own response is always, ‘you’re lucky you never needed them, but many many people have and do and if the circumstances were slightly different you would/will too’.
By the way, I’d hazard that the situation of the Democrats in the US is in percentage terms better than the unions in this society.
You know as well as I that for significant portions of the working population Beggs etc are persona non grata. And that’s because what they represent, trades unionism is for many many workers unthinkable.
I think that there is a significant issue in that the trades unions have boxed themselves into a corner of irrelevancy, afraid to upset “Partnership”. I’m not just thinking of numbers or sectors here, but even of new ideas. The human and civil rights agendas of modern trades unions are nearly invisible; where are they on outsourcing, sub-contracting, and all the other strategies of shark capitalism?
The unions have deliberately retreated entirely from any sort of active political or social role, which has helped ambitious young middle-class liberals (and aging former socialists) to hijack the ‘Labour’ Party.
I’ve heard it so many times, ‘this that and the other about the unions, never needed them, etc etc’, and my own response is always, ‘you’re lucky you never needed them, but many many people have and do and if the circumstances were slightly different you would/will too’.
Even in my own place of work, the unions (at least the one I was associated with) actively resisted targeting the younger workers (always lower paid, often on temporary contracts). This (and the shenanigans around fake protests and fixed elections) isn’t anything to do with the media or IBEC; these are union machines (patronage and all) which have developed with help from Partnership. The SIPTU slush fund is just the most visible evidence.
By the way, I’d hazard that the situation of the Democrats in the US is in percentage terms better than the unions in this society.
But even this is you boxing yourself in. Even in the example you give, the ‘strength’ of Democrats over time fluctuates wildly (and their own effectiveness, or lack of it, is usually the cause). Six or seven years ago we were discussing the wrapping-up of Fine Gael, for example.
he told us we were lucky to have jobs.
Heard a very similar story from someone I was marching with.
Heard a very similar story from someone I was marching with
I heard the very same from a woman (a frequent lecturer on the topic in the work canteen) who was then one of the *very first* out on the recent early retirement scheme. I’ll leave it to your imagination the language that springs to mind when I think of this (well-paid, management grade) individual now.
The ease with which the elite in this country exploit the self-interest of workers in order to divide and conquer is the worst damnation of how lousy the current trade union leadership are. And I don’t for a moment believe that this is a case of “well, nothing we can do about it”. Trade unions faced *much* tougher circumstances in the past, and prevailed.
Two young teachers at local school told parents that pensioners should be hit more and not young teachers. Sad.
Booing the union leadership at this protest march was organised stupidity.If you dont like the leadership then you should organise voting them out.These clowens just give the media a field day.There is a time and a place for everything,a show of unity is whats needed,we have to attract the Million that was’nt there.I sometimes wonder whos side some people are actually on.
They gave the media such a field day that they barely reported on the booing at all. And while the wisdom of the booing and heckling is a matter of opinion, that it wasn’t organised is a matter of fact.
Unity behind the bureaucrats is unity behind surrender.
Will you be going to the March next sat and will you be booing.
I probably won’t be going to the march next Saturday, as it seems to be a rally for one political party – one that I’m not a member of and don’t support.
I suppose if there’s some sign that the march would be very large I might go along, but I’d be there to leaflet people not listen to speechifying. And while it’s worth saying that Adams hasn’t said anything worth listening to on any subject for some considerable period of time although he says it at very great length, it’s also worth saying that he isn’t actually personally holding people back and demoralising them either.
What people think of Adams just isn’t as relevant one way or the other as what union members think of the bureaucrats.
I don’t believe it’s just for SF members,I think it’s an open invitation maybe somebody could confirm this.There would be nothing to stop the ULA from attending and then they could boo any leaders for telling any porkies and possibly mis leading the public as to their Left wing credentials.In fact Id say it’s their duty.
1) You seem to be under the impression that the booing and heckling of O’Connor and Begg was carried out by the ULA. It was not.
The booing was carried out by a substantial minority of a crowd overwhelmingly made up of politically unaffiliated trade unionists. Something which absolutely would not have happened a year and a half ago.
2) The SF event is an SF event. Of course anyone can show up, but I suspect that few people in other parties will be particularly interested in it unless there’s some sign that it’s going to extend to a large crowd beyond SF’s base.
3) I don’t think you understand the distinction between being pleased that a large minority of a crowd of trade unionists seem to be starting to see through the bureaucrats and advocating booing anyone you disagree with.
That’s odd HAL. You were just criticising people for booing the union bureaucrats and now you’re saying its the duty of the ULA to attend what is essentially a SF rally and boo Adams and co.
Also HAL, if you saw how the Union bureaucracy abandoned the Coca Cola strikers, the 4 homes occupiers and any number of workers engaged in struggle you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss as ‘clowens’ the workers who quite rightly booed the leaders who are determined to assist the government in annihilating wages and conditions.
‘I sometimes wonder whos side some people are actually on.’
I have no doubts as to whose side O’Connor and Begg are on. It ain’t the working-class.
‘a show of unity is whats needed’
A militant fightback in communities are workplaces is what need with a fighting strategy and leadership, not a mindless loyalty to ineffective buffoons on over a hundred grand a year still yearning for a return to social partnership (unity with the bosses and FF). If we want to see that other million on the streets we can’t accept a strategy that condones cuts on one section of the working-class while opposing others. Anything other than total opposition to the cuts is guaranteed to sow division.
Thanks for that link Mid-Ulster…
The worst thing would be polite applause of empty speeches as it would show people aren’t engaged – which they certainly are now.
My sense yesterday, and seeing people interviewed on TV and in the papers is that the people are well ahead of (most) politicians and the union chiefs on this.
Here are Jack O’Connor’s views on a general strike, as extracted by MadamK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tdhCM_6rfc
Does anybody know what is next in Congress’s campaign?
If Congress were to call a general strike — 24-hour or otherwise — what do you* think will be the outcome. I suppose most would accept it would not change the “austerity” programme — much as the strikes in France didn’t prevent the pension and retirement changes.
However, what about the turn-out or participation? I could see the public sector participating pretty much fully (but I would bet that the AHCPS in the civil service — assistant principal and principal officers, salaries €61,966 to €110,844 depending on grade, year of recruitment and PRSI class — might not take part (they did participate in last December’s one-day public sector strike). But Mandate members (some of whom are on the minimum wage and probably have one of the strongest reasons to strike), SIPTU members in private sector employment, Unite members? What would their legal situation be — it would, after all, not be a dispute with their employer but with what is legally a third party, the government.
_________
*That’s the generic “you”, not directed at DD or whoever’s comment is above this one when I finish typing.
Can’t speak for the legal situation. But re the private sector I’d imagine that their participation would be low enough. And that’s simply unionised members. For non-union members I’d suspect there’d be very very low participation rates.
Private employments genuinely aren’t that different to the old command style economies and the psychological aspect of that is very constraining indeed. One of the biggest issues I have with the unions is how they allowed the last fifteen years to go by with simply not enough efforts in the private sector area to build up union membership and a pro-union mentality. Those of us who worked there and have been pro-union, let alone active, will attest to how spotty coverage and interest was.
Actually I’ll add to that. A mate of mine who had never joined a union, finally did so in the last couple of years after prompting from myself and others. He’s in a private sector employment, non union company. He’s not active as such, and if his membership were discovered it would be difficult for him, so so far it’s quietly as it goes. But he rang the union head office with a query a while back and when asked when he joined and he said 18 months or so ago he was roundly given out to along the lines of ‘typical, only joining when things get tough’. He was a bit gobsmacked, as was I and others, because surely now is the time the unions should be doing their best to extend membership into the private sector.
reflects the kind of union attitude I recount in my comment above
That’s my experience also. I’d be very curious how many members of further Left parties work in non-unionised private-sector companies. For people who work in such places there is a simple air of disconnection between the calls of the ultra-left for “general strike tomorrow” and their daily reality, so we need to get the baby steps right before we can be confident of making the giant leaps forwards. And the ICTU march is one such step in the right direction in building confidence and class consciousness in this section of the working class and those elements of the disintegrating middle class who are waking up to some hard realities.
That’s a very good point LATC. It’s actually disturbing how different and detached from our left concerns such environments can be. Oddly some of the more traditional companies can be okay because there’ll be electricians union representatives or whatever, by ‘okay’ I mean in the broadest sense of the term.
It was admittedly a decade ago, but I tried to join the old MSF union-think its Amicus now?- at Irish Life, took them a year to get me on the books. The punchline being of course that I had just given my notice as I was congratulated for joining the union. Admittedly it was a London based union but even then I could probably have got a mortgage or anything else you like in about a tenth of the time. I dont imagine it got more efficient as the Celtic Tiger roared on.
What would their legal situation be — it would, after all, not be a dispute with their employer but with what is legally a third party, the government.
As I understand, a legal strike has to arise out of a dispute over the terms of a contract of employment. You cannot strike to oppose ‘austerity’ on its own, but the inevitable cuts that are going to be imposed on the PS and the lowering of the min. wage as a result of ‘austerity’ can be construed as changes to the terms of an employment contract.
All unions would have to ballot and follow proper procedures. ICTU has to sanction all sympathy strikes.
There is nothing stopping people from organising a rally that supports striking workers/opposes austerity to coincide with the strikes – i.e. something for unemployed, students, etc. The net effect would be a French-style general strike.
More innovative protests such as targeted withdrawals from banks have been suggested elsewhere but I’m not sure how this would work in practice.
One very useful, sane and practical thing ICTU could do, and they’re probably the only organisation in Irish society with the resources to do it, is set up a co-op bank. Old fashioned type of place, capitalised through deposits, and democratically run, but with stringent trust conditions, so, for example, unlike the building societies, it could never be de-mutualised, it can’t ever be under-capitalised and so on.
Credit union movement?
Unfortunately, credit unions are limited in what they can do. (and when they sell off EBS, the last vestige of not-for-personal-profit in anything but the “smalls market” will be gone. (And, to add insult to the injury, the front runner is a private equity form — not even a listed company, which has some public accountability.)
Those are great ideas.
Thanks, sonofstan. There’s a motion for my union branch’s AGM.
I do my banking at a Labor Bank.
http://www.amalgamatedbank.com/home/aboutus/news/facts
The only union that has called for ‘civil disobdience’ the TEEU, is mainly based in the private sector. A good chunk of UNITE’s membership, which has also been a bit more militant on the issues, is also private sector.
A lot the bigger, well known chains: Easons, Marks and Spenser, Tescos, Dunnes etc are unionised.
But the broad private sector working force isn’t hugely or anywhere near hugely unionised and that’s a big obstacle and a terrible indictment of Beggs/O’Connor and their ilk.
As are all the banks, which until recently were also private sector. The bank staff’s ability to strike must surely be a relevant tool in this situation especially as every Irish bank job is under direct threat at the moment.
The Irish Independent reported on the booing today: it made clear that the union leaders were being accused of ‘selling out.’ Jimmy Kelly of Unite has called for a general strike.
By the way, WbS; just looking through the Wikileaks metadata right now. Both Excel (older version) and OpenOffice are protesting at bringing in the full CSV, but what is importing for me right now gives back 90 results for both “EI” (our country tag in the internal US diplomatic system) and “Embassy Dublin”.
Lots of fun to come?
Hmm – and at least some cables in there from the Vatican US embassy, regarding Ireland.
Sounds good.
Thought I would forward this from Nigel on Trainspotters.I usually find Nigel accurate on facts.
JIm M 1a. Spotting the Dublin demonstration against austerity
Posted by: “nigel_irritable” nigel_irritable@yahoo.com nigel_irritable
Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:53 am ((PST))
Yesterday saw a huge march in Dublin, organised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The march wasn’t formally against the bailout, nor even against all of the cuts but was instead nominally in support of the ICTU bureaucrats campaign for “fairer” austerity. Estimates of attendance by the mainstream media ranged from 50,000 to well over 100,000.
Hearteningly, the two main pro-partnership union bureaucrats were booed and heckled by a large part of the crowd when they spoke.
Just about every union was there, along with all of the left and various campaign groups. There were also some very small groups of cranks there handing out leaflets about conspiracy theories, direct democracy, the need for a national government, water fluoridation etc.
Here’s a list of some of the left groups I saw, in no particular order. Please remember though that the march was very large and it was very easy to miss people and entire groups.
United Left Alliance. This is the new alliance between the Socialist Party, the People Before Profit Alliance (which includes the SWP) and the Workers and Unemployed Action Group. It was the single most visible political organisation on the march, with placards, a large contingent, banners and hordes of leafletters. It marched as part of an even wider left bloc, which also included a number of smaller forces not in the ULA. This wider left bloc held its own rally on the street when the main rally finished, which attracted a crowd of several thousand.
Socialist Party [CWI]. A very big turnout. It marched as part of the United Left and had leafletters and paper sellers everywhere.
Socialist Workers Party [IST]. Also had a big turnout and also marched as part of the United Left. Oddly they didn’t seem to have a leaflet in their own name.
Eirigi [Left Republicans]. A banner and some flags. They marched as part of the One Percent Network, a campaign drawing attention to the wealth of the top 1% of Irish society, which itself marched with the wider left bloc. They were handing out a leaflet which was all about socialism and didn’t mention the national question once, which seems to indicate a shift in emphasis at the very least.
Workers Solidarity Movement [Platformist Anarchists]. They were part of the One Percent Network contingent. They were, as usual, handing out copies of their freesheet.
Labour [neo-liberals, Nico rule]. They had four banners or so and a small contingent. No leaflet because they have nothing to say.
Workers Party [Moscow-line types]. A larger contingent than I’ve seen them muster in some years. They were selling their new magazine Look Left and had a banner and some placard.
Republican Sinn Fein [Traditionalist Republicans]. I saw one person selling their paper, Saoirse. I understand that there are now two rival RSFs, but I don’t know which one he was from.
Communist Party of Ireland [Moscow line types]. They had a small contingent right at the very end of the march with six or seven flags and a banner. They had a large and elaborate portable display depicting various Irish politicians as puppets of the IMF.
Irish Republican Socialist Party [Left Republicans]. They had a small banner and some starry plough flags. Seemed to be about a dozen people in their contingent.
Communist League [Pathfinder tendency]. The shy and reclusive UK sattelite of the US SWP was one of a number of British left groups over for a revolutionary day trip. This now seems to be a regular thing when we have big demonstrations. Once again they win the internationalist prize – a group from one country, selling a paper from another country in a third country. There were at least two of them over.
Socialist Equality Party [the Northite version of the ICFI]. Also over from London to bring their programme to the Irish heathens. They were handing out a double sided leaflet consisting of dense unbroken type. It denounced the Irish left as the “middle class pseudo left”. There seemed to be four or five of them.
Spartacist League [ICL-FI]. There were also four of five of them, mostly over from England. The Irish Spartacist Group is, sadly, no longer with us.
International Bolshevik Tendency [IBT]. Two of them, selling their annual magazine and they also had a leaflet, although I didn’t actually see the leaflet because they’d run out by the time I bumped into them. I was about to congratulate their Irish based activist on making a breakthrough, but it turned out that his colleague was also over on a revolutionary day trip.
Workers Power [L5I]. I saw their Irish supporter, who was handing out a double sided leaflet of dense unbroken type. I don’t know if they had sent anyone over to help out this time.
Sinn Fein [Republicans, Nico Rule]. I’m actually cheating by listing them as I didn’t actually see them. In fact I’d assumed that they were all too hungover after their by-election win in Donegal and hadn’t shown up. However, I saw a video of part of the march today and there were a few SF placards, so they certainly were there somewhere.
Groups I didn’t see:
Irish Socialist Network [anti-Leninist Marxists]. Were probably there with the One Percent Network.
Fightback [IMT]. No sign of him.
Republican Sinn Fein. I only saw one RSF paper seller, which means that I didn’t see the other side of that split.
Jim,
You’re not supposed to forward stuff from the Leftist Trainspotters list. It makes them very cranky.
NICO rule?
The Nico rule is one of the conventions of the Leftist Trainspotters list.
It states that if a group, party or organisation describes itself as “left” then for the purposes of the list it is indeed “left” and discussions of the group are on-topic.
The rule comes originally from someone called Nico who set up the leftist parties of the world website.
I couldn’t resist. Its not exactly private.Will restrain myself in future
I was about to congratulate their Irish based activist on making a breakthrough, but it turned out that his colleague was also over on a revolutionary day trip.
Lol. Well done!
The march was discussed on Joe Duffy today: one of the Laura Ashley strikers were interviewed, and several people rang in to explain the booing of Begg and O’Connor. Two people in particular explained well why they felt partnership had made the unions weaker, while one man was angry that TU leaders sat on the board of the Central Bank etc. These were all people who had been on the march, not anti-union cranks.
I’m seriously glad to hear that and it may indicate that it was helpful in ‘deepening’ the story – I’m happy to have my reservations shown to be baseless.
The New York Times (with a photo — anybody here in it?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/world/europe/28dublin.html?hpw
an iconic event that many in Ireland regard as the tipping point in Ireland’s long struggle for independence.
Seems as if the NYT is still sitting on the fence with regard to 1916!
excellent
Those who went on the march might be interested in this story on the WSM site
http://www.wsm.ie/c/secret-police-dublin-protesters-ictu
It was certainly the case that one protester beside me, who booed the union heads and indeed got more booing going outside Cleary’s, was aggressively questioned as to his identity by what I and several others took to be a cop. He legged it when he was asked who he was.
There’ll be more of this.
[...] Can we up a new co-op bank? November 30, 2010 Posted by Tomboktu in A co-op bank. trackback The other day, sonofstan suggested One very useful, sane and practical thing ICTU could do, and they’re probably the only organisatio… [...]
‘Stripped to its essentials, the €85bn package imposed on Ireland by the Eurogroup and the European Central Bank is a bail-out for improvident British, German, Dutch, and Belgian bankers and creditors.
The Irish taxpayers carry the full burden, and deplete what remains of their reserve pension fund to cover a quarter of the cost.
This arrangement – I am not going to grace it with the term deal – was announced in Brussels before the elected Taoiseach of Ireland had been able to tell his own people what their fate would be.
The Taoiseach said afterwards that Brussels had squelched any idea of haircuts for senior bondholders: a lack of “political and institutional” support in his polite words: or “they hit the roof”, according to leaks.’
From ‘Socialist Worker’? No, The Daily Telegraph, 30/11/10.
[...] At the end of November, I mulled here the idea of getting a co-op bank established in Ireland. Sonofstan had suggested that the ICTU would be a useful organisation to act as the catalyst. This week, I will try to get a motion on the topic on the agenda of my own [...]