jump to navigation

Socialist Party Statement on Clare Daly’s involvement in the ULA, Monday September 3rd September 3, 2012

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.
trackback

The Socialist Party have issued a statement outlining its views on Clare Daly’s participation in the ULA

Comments»

1. Zakalwe - September 3, 2012

Leave it go, move on. Put it in the past. The damage is done, if ye boot her out of the ULA, then it could very easily be fatal for them. The “but” in the statement, leaves room for concern.

Like

Reply
2. Jolly Red Giant - September 3, 2012

If Clare Daly continues to support Wallace (and undoubtedly the media will find more skeletons in the cupboard) – then the ULA will continued to be damaged.

Like

Reply
EWI - September 4, 2012

This is bullshit. Throw it back in their teeth.

No-one expected Beverley Flynn or Séan Haughey to betray a personal relationship. Some things are outside the orbit of politics, and ordinary people know this.

Like

Reply
pat - September 4, 2012

Nobody is concerned with any personal relationships, political support is the issue.

Like

Reply
Julian Assandwich - September 4, 2012

Yes. It is bull. Weeks ago the SP were having public meetings on just how hostile the media were to the left. Now they’re filtering every opinion they have through it. If the SP had any concern for the ULA they wouldn’t be dealing with the matter how they have been and they know it. Rather, they are displaying exactly the same amount of concern for the ULA that they have for the past 18 months. Pull the other one.

Like

Reply
pat - September 4, 2012

Easy on the hyperbole.

Yes, the media is hostile to the left. That doesn’t mean that the left doesn’t try to put its views across in that same media, or that we could avoid engaging in the media even if we wanted to. We always have and always will. If the media want a story they will find it, or they will make it up. In this case the Socialist Party put a statement on its website, hardly an evil ploy to destroy the left. The statement doesn’t really introduce anything new, it simply make our views more clear on a certain aspect.

What your saying is essentially that the issue of Mick Wallace is of no concern to the ULA, I don’t agree with that and many in the ULA don’t either.

Like

Reply
Julian Assandwich - September 4, 2012

Won’t be derailed thanks. Mick Wallace is clearly an issue for the ULA. And the ULA will discuss that in its membership and at the ULA Council.

There’s a million ways of saying it but basically the issue is that the SP is emphatically making a right dogs dinner out of all of this. That has damaging implications for the ULA and CAHWT – both of which are associated with the SP. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Like

Mark P - September 4, 2012

Julian.

There is no prospect of the Socialist Party’s views on this subject remaining private. How exactly do you suggest that the Socialist Party communicates its views to ULA members in a way which won’t immediately end up in the public domain? Through some sort of psychic link? Even if its members just showed up in two weeks time and said much the same thing then, it would end up on the web within hours.

Better to be clear from the start.

Like

WorldbyStorm - September 4, 2012

There’s surely a distinction between being aware that views will seep into the public domain as part of an appropriate discussion using agreed structures and bypassing those structures and using the general media to have – well, not a discussion, but a single sided communication.

Like

ejh - September 4, 2012

I think I probably agree. I don’t much like this:

Accountability is vital in building a new left. We want Clare Daly to be a ULA TD and we accept that she is a member but because of her actions the ULA and its component parts have a right and indeed a duty to ask Clare some questions and to seek commitments on the crucial issues of concern.

There’s no “duty” to do this whatsoever, and what it amounts to is putting somebody in an impossible position.

Like

Reply
que - September 4, 2012

“the ULA and its component parts have a right and indeed a duty to ask Clare some questions ”
interesting point that – The ULA and its component parts – to what extent does a ULA exist outside of the component parts or beyond them? Assuming that the SP continues to articulate the necessary questions then does it not also put the other parts – SWP and Tipp group in an awkward situation – if there isnt a sufficiently empowered over arching body capable of stepping in and potentially saying right enough about this lets stop and damage control then is there not the prospect of a constituent part wagging the dog. Specifically if the Socialist Party loses perspective on this by being too close who’ll step in and say enough. Thats a difficult situation.

Like

Reply
WorldbyStorm - September 4, 2012

great point que. that’s key to this. what is the ULA exactly and what do people think it is?

Like

3. XtraXtra - September 3, 2012

I really think Clare could do wwaaay better than M.Wallace.
But apart from whatever relationship is going on there; the ‘sitting-
next-to’ someone, this-that-or the other (and there are a lot more Independents in the Dail now) person in the Dail Chamber is vicious to watch. Strong people, with strong views, ain’t ever going to be plain-sailing chums, and in their own ways every person in the Dail can be said to be of rancour to others. But Clare at least is not being intimidated by the ‘group’, who are intent on fear and undermining.

Like

Reply
4. mccarthy - September 3, 2012

So, the press release is now the preferred discussion method of the Socialist Party? This issue is to be worked out via the national media?

witchhunt.

Like

Reply
pat - September 3, 2012

Did you read the statement?

Like

Reply
5. mccarthy - September 3, 2012

It’s been so secret that the Socialist Party has been looking for an exit strategy from the ULA for some time now – believing as it does that it can make significant political gain on its own steam at this stage- and this whole thing just stinks of opportunism.

This is not the first time Kevin McLoughlin’s ego has gotten the better of the socialist party, but it is by far the most high-profile.

It will be interesting, though, to see if the public will still think the same of Joe Higgins and Paul Murphy after this sorry mess is over.

Like

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - September 3, 2012

The comment doesn’t merit a response.

Like

Reply
RosencrantzisDead - September 3, 2012

Every week there is a rumour that someone wants out of the ULA so they can focus on their solo career and that chill-out album that they have been talking about making for a few years now. This is getting boring.

Like

Reply
EWI - September 4, 2012

Is Joe a jazz or Country’n’Western guy?

Like

Reply
RosencrantzisDead - September 4, 2012

As long as he doesn’t go the Paul Gogarty, singer-songwriter [sic] route, we should be alright.

Like

Reply
Jim Monaghan - September 4, 2012

Meanwhile we face more austerity. Time to get over this and build the opposition. These things are par t of life. The challenge is to stabilise the ULA and move on.

Like

Reply
6. Julian Assandwich - September 3, 2012

The SP have been at this long enough to know they are absolutely cack-handling this and rubbing their hands on the entire left. Sound.

Like

Reply
Mark P - September 4, 2012

This is nonsense, Julian.

The Socialist Party staying silent wouldn’t get any of these issues out of the media. It would only fuel inaccurate speculation. The Socialist Party had no choice but to explain Clare’s departure and it had no choice but to hold a press conference after being inundated with questions and interview requests (all but one of which, incidentally were turned down precisely because the SP has no desire to get into a prolonged slanging match).

This latest statement is not a press release and is not an attempt to drum up more publicity. It’s a straightforward explanation of the Socialist Party’s stance on something which is inevitably going to come up within the ULA, particularly in the wake of Clare’s rather unfortunate performance at the CAHWT meeting last weekend. The notion that this sort of thing can be dealt with privately is naive in the extreme. Clare is a public figure. The Socialist Party, despite its small size in the greater scheme of things, is a topic of media interest, and still more so the ULA is.

Like

Reply
Julian Assandwich - September 4, 2012

Can we expect another one tomorrow evening when tomorrow’s media (shock horror) twists this one?

Would rather the SP communicated its concerns about the ULA within the ULA to it’s colleagues in the ULA in the ULA branches ahead of the ULA Council meeting in 2 weeks time. Not through Independent News & Media. That would be showing concern for the development of the ULA.

Like

Reply
Mark P - September 4, 2012

Julian, the notion that an already public political issue involving two public figures, a small political party and a political alliance with a bunch of TDs, which will inevitably be discussed in a range of forums and which is of significant interest to the media could be dealt with in private is very naive.

Reports of what was said would be on the internet in hours (filtered through other people’s views), and that would fuel further speculation and that in turn would result in more media questions and more hostile coverage.

I realise that its frustrating to see a second statement about this, but believe me, there’s nothing that the Socialist Party would like more than to never have to mention the subject again. At this point, the SP has stated its view of Clare’s resignation and has made its view of the issues arising for the CAHWT and ULA clear. It’s better to be clear about things. I don’t anticipate there being any further need for public statements, precisely because those views are clear.

Like

Reply
WorldbyStorm - September 4, 2012

Julian, that was my thought exactly, that logically given that control of the response of the media is entirely outside the gift of one of those involved in this it makes no sense to say it can’t happen again. Of course it can.

Like

7. revolutionaryprogramme - September 4, 2012

Has anyone else noticed that this latest statement by the SP seems to be implying that there is some collective discipline in the ULA that its members must abide by:

“Will Clare Daly give a commitment to abide by the policies and decisions of the ULA?”

It may not have been the SP’s intention but the logic of the argument outlined here is for a programmatically based discipline – and that is only appropriate for a party type organisation.

This is quite different from the consensus model with right of veto over disputed questions.

If the ULA has the right to impose programmatic discipline based on a majority view then clearly we need to have fully democratic structures to come up with that programme and that means a party with one-member one-vote.

The SP can’t have it both ways I’m afraid.

Like

Reply
pat - September 4, 2012

Actually the statement doesn’t imply that the ULA has the right to implement programmatic discipline. All the statement does is ask questions, they are not conditions, Clare doesn’t have to agree to any of them in order to be a ULA TD, although in our opinion it would not be a good thing if she didn’t agree to them.

Like

Reply
revolutionaryprogramme - September 4, 2012

Come on – be serious. This is an implied political threat and anyone reading it knows that:

You “seek commitments on the crucial issues of concern” and “Any issues or questions over Clare Daly’s status in the ULA can quite easily be resolved if Clare breaks her political alliance and connection with Mick Wallace”.

The clear implication being that if she doesn’t make those commitments then her “status in the ULA” is still in question and would need to resolved.

Like

Reply
pat - September 4, 2012

Well if the ULA agree something, by consensus on the steering committee, and a ULA representative goes against that decision, there is obviously a problem. And a resolution of such a problem would be required, nothing unusual there, nothing that the current structures in the ULA can’t cope with.

There is no threat, these are just the views of the Socialist Party on the issue.

Like

Reply
revolutionaryprogramme - September 4, 2012

So decisions of the steering committee are binding on the membership? And if any of us, and obviously that is more significant as a public rep, argues a different position then we are in some way a problem that needs to be resolved?

Actually I don’t see how this can be resolved within the current structures. The current ULA structures have no disciplinary procedures to enforce decisions of the steering committee so what would you concretely do if she refused to bow to your will?

Like

Reply
pat - September 4, 2012

If the ULA is being damaged by something, and all groups are in agreement, then of course the ULA can take action stop such damage taking place. I find it strange that you think this somehow isn’t the case.

Hypothetically, if a ULA public rep began to deny the holocaust do you think that there would be nothing that could be done by the ULA disassociate itself from that public rep? If there is agreement by all, then we can find ways of dealing with a particular situation.

If Clare doesn’t agree to stop her political support for Wallace and others in the ULA think that is acceptable then there isn’t much that the Socialist Party can do, except to sate our own opinions on the matter.

Like

Reply
pat - September 4, 2012

*state

Like

revolutionaryprogramme - September 4, 2012

I agree that any organisation which claims to stand for the independent interests of the working class can’t be politically tied to a bourgeois populists like Mick Wallace.

I am merely pointing out a problem that there actually isn’t anything that can be done about Clare while we remain tied into the alliance/consensus framework. The SP are rightly calling on her to disassociate herself politically from Wallace but the fact that, as Pat says, there isn’t much that can be done beyond moral pressure if she doesn’t indicates a major problem with the ULA as it currently exists.

My point is not to defend a political association with Wallace, or to criticise the SP for making this political point, but to highlight the problem with the alliance/consensus framework.

To be able to deal with this kind of issue requires a party type structure.

It is just another example of why we need to move forward towards a party.

Like

Reply
Cuthe Krapp - September 4, 2012

Look the kind of party that you are talking about is not going to come out of the ULA, in the near future. There just isn’t the level of agreement necessary to create such a party. Any attempt to apply discipline on an issue where there isn’t a pretty broad consensus is going to split it asunder. Moral pressure, force of argument and freedom to criticise are the only realistic ways of exerting pressure on public representatives given the nature of the broad alliance that exists.

Like

revolutionaryprogramme - September 4, 2012

“Look the kind of party that you are talking about is not going to come out of the ULA, in the near future” – and you guys wonder why the non-aligned are so pissed? We were promised the development of the ULA towards a party the day after the last election by Joe Higgins, “not tomorrow, but soon” and have just been strung along ever since…

Like

Cuthe Krapp - September 4, 2012

What? Because the ULA is not yet a party there should be no discussion or criticism or accountability of the roles played by its public representatives? I understand people’s fears. I understand people don’t want to give ammunition to the right. I understand a desire to not drive a valuable and forceful public representative out of the ULA. I get all of that.

However, Clare Daly should break her political alliance with Mick Wallace. Most of us here probably agree that that would be in the best interests of the ULA. If people or organisations can’t feel they say that openly, and if public criticism of representatives is considered to be off-limits, either because the individuals concerned may up and leave the alliance, or because the right will attempt to exploit disagreements, then what you’ll have will be the unity of the graveyard which would ultimately far more damaging to the ULA than any public disagreement.

Like

Reply
8. Ringacoltig - September 4, 2012

The only disciplinary route available to them in the ULA is contained in their Candidate Pledge. I can’t see them being able to exclude her on the basis of that as the only rounds for exclusion relate to drawing public funds for attending council conferences http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/about/candidate-pledge/

Like

Reply
9. eamonncork - September 4, 2012

But what can the Socialist Party do? There seems to be an implication in some of the comments here that they should have adopted an FF or FG approach, maintaining a principled and dignified silence in public while briefing furiously against her in private. They seem to have tried to be honest about the thing. Everyone seems to have a theory on how to be a media Machiavelli but these things are much harder to work than they look. Especially when said media isn’t exactly awash with left wingers.
The bottom line is that there wouldn’t be any of these arguments about the ULA if the SP and Clare Daly hadn’t fallen out over Mick Wallace. It’s obviously very tempting to land a punch on the SP over this if you’re so inclined but it’s a bit beside the point.
Comments about the right wing media reacting with glee to Mick Wallace’s misfortunes don’t seem to me to be any more sophisticated than Lowry loyalists bitching about the Dublin Four Media being against their man. Are Wallace’s comments slagging off his ULA critics for not knowing anything about business not enough of a dog whistle for people? Particularly as they seemed designed to cosy up to the prejudices of that very same right wing media about the left wing. There were definite echoes of Jimmy Tully’s old line about the left wingers with the ‘sweat dripping onto their schoolbooks talking about the working man.’
I actually think the story has lost media traction already. It wasn’t even in the headlines on today’s News At One. And given that the ULA won its seats on the basis of local effort and work,rather than some national swing, I don’t think the controversy will have that bad of an effect on the sitting candidates. Is it really going to cost Seamus Healy votes in Tipp or Joe Higgins in West Dublin|? What you’re largely getting is people who wouldn’t have voted for the ULA anyway saying that they surely won’t vote for them now.
Wallace’s involvement in the CAHWT makes a mockery of it and provides a stick for its opponents to beat it with. It’s the gift that keeps giving for the government and anyone who can’t see this is codding themselves.
The CAHWT was hugely successful in its initial campaign, I can’t remember anything like that level of civil disobedience before. It would be a pity to see it sidetracked because someone has decided that Mick Wallace is our Feltrinelli without the dynamite.

Like

Reply
WorldbyStorm - September 4, 2012

I think there are a number of different discussions/arguments taking place in threads here. Firstly, and one I’m involved in slightly, is that about the over abundance of SP communications. A statement and a Press Conference were surely sufficient for the moment.

The ULA stuff in the last statement I’d have thought is implicit – albeit is a different argument and one would think something that would be dealt with within the ULA.

The point about participation in the CAHWT is a different one again. Broadly I think you’re right that there seems to be a significant lack of appreciation of just how much damage could be inflicted on the CAHWT and indeed the ULA in certain circumstances by misunderstood perceptions.

I’d add a further point. I think that at the heart of this has been a confusion between personal friendship, which is fine and entirely laudable, and political linkage which is more difficult. I don’t think there’s any problem in being friends with people who hold different socio-economic views, but this doesn’t mean one needs to try to make out that those differences don’t exist (even or perhaps particularly where there’s contention about these differences).

I kind of take your point about what else would the SP do. At this point feelings must be very raw, and understandably so, and one would have to sympathise, but it might be better to let the dust settle a bit.

Like

Reply
EamonnCork - September 5, 2012

On reflection I think you’re right about letting the dust settle. The SP and the ULA in general should let the hare sit for a while and not do anything to distract from the spectacle of FG and Labour tearing each other apart.
That few quid Mark P gave to James Reilly and Lucinda Creighton to make everyone forget about the SP row turns out to have been well spent.

Like

Reply
10. Jolly Red Giant - September 5, 2012

The one thing that actually infuriates me is not that Clare Daly resigned from the SP but the claim she made that it was because of some new found love of building the ULA. Her resignation brought an end to a very difficult period where the NC of the Socialist Party bent over backwards to try and facilitate Clare Daly in dealing with the political difficulties she created for herslef, the SP (and the ULA and the CAHWT in the wider context). Her resignation brought these difficulties to an end and the SP has moved on.

Since the last election the strategy of the ULA group in the Dail was that the ULA would forge a distinct and separate presence in the Dail from the wider Technical Group. The ULA deputies would sit together, the ULA would propose its own private members bills etc. It was the SP that pushed this position within the ULA Steering Committee and had to fight politically to get acceptance for this from other elements within the ULA. Almost from the off Clare Daly operated in a fashion which undermined this approach. She set out not to forge a separate identity for the ULA but to subsume the ULA into the wider Technical Group. Time after time when ULA private members bills were being proposed she went out of her way to secure support from non-ULA elements, including the likes of Donnelly and Shane Ross. This actually demonstrates that her political attitude to the ULA was not one of forging a separate ULA identity and of building the ULA, but of attempting to regard the ULA as nothing more a vehicle to bring far more reformist and even right-wing liberal elements on board as part of a ‘progressive’ rather than ‘left’ movement. I believe that this approach by Clare Daly was fundemnetally flawed and her new found love of all things ULA will not mask this mistaken political approach.

I expect Clare Daly to significantly tone down her, up to now, unwavering support for Wallace in an effort to forge an alliance with Joan Collins and Dermot Connolly within the ULA. Her resignation has considerably weakened her political position and she has practically a non-existant political base (those in Swords who support her do so because she is a ‘good worker on the ground’). She needs to latch onto some other political elements in order to survive politically. However, it is inevitable that there are further skeletons in the cupboard of Mick Wallace and when the court cases start on the Houshold Tax I expect further ‘revelations’ to be made in an effort to derail the campaign. The question for Clare Daly at that point will be to what extent will she continue her political support for Wallace and will it impact on the work of the CAHWT?

Like

Reply
Blissett - September 5, 2012

“Time after time when ULA private members bills were being proposed she went out of her way to secure support from non-ULA elements, including the likes of Donnelly and Shane Ross.”

Given that the ULA is only 5 out of 16 or so TDs in the Technical Group, that strikes me as quite sensible. The Private Members time belongs to the technical group, and up to them what they do with that time. So given that there was no guarantee that the rest of the Tech group would facilitate a ULA motion or Bill, it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to seek support from other people in the techinical group.

Like

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - September 5, 2012

The Technical Group have to facilitate private members bills from each individual member of the Technical Group. The Technical Group as a group cannot stop a member putting forward a private members bill.

No matter what private members bill was put forward by a member of the ULA the government would have voted it down, often with the help of elements of the opposition. It was absolutely 100% correct for the ULA to put forward private members bills under the banner of the ULA and without assistance from other members of the Technical Group in order to forge a seperate identity from the remainders of the Technical Group. The establishment would like nothing better than to mesh the disparate political entities in the Technical Group into one indistinguishable blob (as they attempted to do during the Wallace scandal) – the object of the ULA was, and always should be, to demonstrate that it is a left-wing anti-austery alliance comiitted to building a mass socialist party that does not have any truck with the likes of Wallace, Ming, Donnelly, Ross etc.

Like

Reply
Blissett - September 5, 2012

Ok, it may be the case then that I am mistaken as to the operation of the TG, but could you clarify, how does the TG decide who gets the PMB slot each time it comes up?

Like

Reply
Blissett - September 5, 2012

And by the way, while I am no big fan of the SP, I would add that I think in this instance the SP was put between a rock and a hard place, and probably had to bite the bullet. Its just that Im not sure that signatures to a motion/bill is necessarily the strongest ground.

Like

Reply
D_D - September 5, 2012

“the object of the ULA was, and always should be, to demonstrate that it is a left-wing anti-austery alliance comiitted to building a mass socialist party that does not have any truck with the likes of Wallace, Ming, Donnelly, Ross etc.”

Like

Reply
Joe - September 5, 2012

The first paragraph of JRG’s comment above ends with the words “the SP has moved on”. Ironically, JRG then continues with two more long paragraphs which show that he clearly hasn’t. I would be in the SP’s corner on this issue but I would suggest that it’s now time to let the hare sit. Wait and see what happens in the immediate term and argue out the issues as they arise within the ULA.

Like

Reply
WorldbyStorm - September 5, 2012

I’d hold a fairly similar position to you Joe (not for the first time!) and would tend to agree. Not, by the way that there’s any problem in people airing opinions here, but I think outside of forums like this which aren’t newsmaking it’s what you say, let the hare sit.

Like

Reply
Mark P - September 5, 2012

That’s pretty much the Socialist Party’s attitude. It hasn’t said anything on the subject in 48 hours and it has all along been declining extraneous interview opportunities in the media.

There is an unfortunate, but understandable, tendency amongst some to take the opinions of individual members of left groups on internet forums as some kind of collective statement.

Like

Reply
WorldbyStorm - September 5, 2012

I think that’s fair enough. For example I’ve a few thoughts or perhaps more questions about the whole situation I’ll post up in the week, but I’m only an observer. Which is not to say that you or JRG or Pat shouldn’t put in your thoughts either.

If I can add, I completely understand how hurt and sore people feel about all this. When there are splits, or resignations or departures it’s an huge thing (even if the political consequences are minimal) for people on a personal level as well as a political level. It’s like EamonnCork was saying elsewhere, in some ways the SP didn’t have a lot of choice in all this but to try to make its case because everything was propelled by the resignation.

Like

Mark P - September 5, 2012

No, not a lot of choice.

It would probably be a lot messier if a group of people had left with Clare, as discussions here and in other places on the internet would be more likely to become inflamed as friends express their aggravation with each other.

Like

WorldbyStorm - September 5, 2012

There’s one of the questions for a start. Those working with CD don’t both by her own admission on RTÉ and from the fact there’s been no more than two or three other resignations appear to be SP related. Just as a matter of interest where are they drawn from?

Like

Mark P - September 5, 2012

Neither of Clare’s previous parliamentary staff left the Socialist Party, nor did either of the two councillors in her constituency. In fact, I’m unaware of any resignations to date in sympathy with her.

There were two other resignations on the same day as her, the Greene brothers. All that Brian has said publicly so far is that he wasn’t leaving with Clare. Both of them are from Dublin North East (or Dublin Bay North or whatever its called now).

In its own way, that’s pretty remarkable. I can’t really think of a TD who managed to leave a party without bringing a group of members with them. I’d assume that she will have the loyalty of at least some of the non-members who have regularly helped the SP in her area, though.

Like

Mark P - September 5, 2012

I just realised that I didn’t really answer your question, there. Her new staff are not recent members of the Socialist Party, although I think one of them may have been in the SP or Militant years ago. I can only assume that she had them already lined up before she resigned from the SP and sacked her Dail staff.

Like

11. ag - September 5, 2012

“This actually demonstrates that her political attitude to the ULA was not one of forging a separate ULA identity and of building the ULA, but of attempting to regard the ULA as nothing more a vehicle to bring far more reformist and even right-wing liberal elements on board as part of a ‘progressive’ rather than ‘left’ movement”

thats quite a statement, no?

Like

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - September 5, 2012

It was and is the situation – until Clare Daly demonstrates otherwise it stands as a valid assessment.

Like

Reply
que - September 5, 2012

Does this not mean the working relationship tween the sp and daly is broken short of cd showing a repentance. cause if the situation is Claire is not even a socialist but more just a left leaning liberal , at least in the SP mind then you will have no closer a relationship with her than Thomas pringle.
That’s a very hard to reconcile position with building the Ula up. Close enough to kill it unless 1 goes

Like

Reply
Mark P - September 5, 2012

What the working relationship between the Socialist Party and Daly will be depends on the political attitude Daly adopts now that she is no longer encumbered by the Socialist Party’s policies and ideas. We’ve never had any difficulty working on shared concerns with people we disagree with on some other issue, including many others in the ULA.

JRG’s assessment quoted above is his assessment, not necessarily one that is shared by the Socialist Party as a whole. Personally, I’d be less confident in my crystal ball gazing abilities. I expect some others in the ULA to take a much softer line on the Wallace issue then they did when Clare was in the Socialist Party, for what are, to be blunt, opportunistic reasons. But I also expect many in the ULA to have as much of a problem with her tendency to politically stand up for Wallace as they had previously.

Like

Reply
12. Jolly Red Giant - September 5, 2012

Joe criticises me for saying the Socialist Party has moved on and then making a two paragraph personal assessment of the reasoning given by Clare Daly for resigning from the SP. The SP does not operate as some sort of monolith where members cannot express a personal opinion – when I am putting forward something that is a personal opinion I state it as so, like I did in this instance above.

I have known Clare since she joined the SP and my initial disappointment that resulted from her actions has given way to more than a little irritation at what I consider to be her political stupidity. I spoke about the private members motions to demonstrate that her words in her statement do not equate to her actions over the past few months.

To answer the couple of questions –
1. Blissett – private members motions occur on a rotational basis among each of the Dail groups. FF are allowed 4, SF are allowed 3 and the Technical Group are allowed 3 in each rotation. Within the Technical Group the time slot for private members motions is rotated among all members. So roughly once in every rotation a member of the ULA is entitled to submit a private members bill.
2. D_D’s photo – the CAHWT is a broad community based campaign, to confine it to the ULA only would have restricted it potential for support. There is a difference between using the Dail procedures to demonstrate an independent identity for the ULA and to bring on board as much support as possible for a broad communtiy based campaign – and you can bet everyone regrets having Wallace in that picture.
3. WbS to the best of my knowledge only two members outside of Clare Daly have resigned and in their resignation letter they didn’t mention Clare Daly.

Like

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - September 5, 2012

Just as an additional point – my SP branch had its regular weekily meeting last night where we had a long and detailed discussion on the entire issue with lots of political points being made, lots of questions asked and lots of assessment of the situation and the potential developments that will flow from this. The branch was 100% behind the position adopted by the Socialist Party. Furthermore, as a positive, two members who hadn’t been active over the past period attended and made they point that they came to the meeting because they felt it necessary to demonstrate that people like them understood what had happened and that they were in support of the position adopted by the Socialist Party on the issue.

Like

Reply
Ringacoltig - September 5, 2012

JRG re point 2 above I’m somewhat concerned that some are under the impression that the CAHWT is the brainchild solely of the SP or ULA or that it should be led by them in relation to Clare Daly. Long before CAHWT was formed there were initial meetings of left activists and others to discuss the move to introduce water charges (before any talk of a household charge or property tax). Indeed the nucleus of such groups was still around from groups such as the Dublin Anti-Water charges campaign, HASC in Cork and others around the country in which of course the SP and others were involved. The SP and SWP were involved in such discussions and many others such as the WSM, WP and non-aligned people.
I agree with the SP that the CAHWT should have no truck with Wallace and that Clare Daly needs to accept this and remove all ambiguity that exists in relation to Wallace’s exclusion for CAHWT but this is a matter for CAHWT as a whole to decide through it’s democratic structures and not just because the SP says it must.

Like

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - September 5, 2012

I never claimed anything different – I was solely addressing D_D’s photo of the nine TDs who backed non-payment. The suggestion was that I was being contradictory in stating that the ULA should have a seperate identity from these individuals in the Dail – although I do believe that it would be positiive if Pringle joined the ULA (not something I can see happening in the short-term).

You are absolutely correct about the CAHWT and its attitude to Wallace – and the National Steering Committee last Saturday voted 78-4 (the 4 included Clare Daly) to have nothing to do with Wallace.

Like

Reply
Mark P - September 5, 2012

Ringacoltig, the meetings which led to the establishment of the CAHWT were precisely the “brainchild” of the Socialist Party, and were organised through what was then the office of Joe Higgins MEP. But you are correct in your essential point that the CAHWT is not the property of the Socialist Party – that’s exactly why the Socialist Party initiated a process of discussions involving as many interested activists and groups, which in turn led to the creation of the CAHWT, rather than simply initiating a campaign and presenting others with a fait accompli. As is, unfortunately, still the modus operandi of some others on the left.

However, the CAHWT’s attitude to Wallace doesn’t need to be “led” by the ULA or the SP. Its national delegate meetings have already taken the decision that Wallace has no place in the campaign, and then reaffirmed that decision by an absolutely overwhelming majority.

Like

Reply
Ringacoltig - September 5, 2012

Mark P, there was a meeting in Cork a full 12 months before Joe Higgin’s initiative to discuss the moves by the then FF / Green coalition to introduce water charges (attended by people from a variety of left parties and of none). I accept that J. Higgins acted as a facilitator in getting it off the ground, and fair dues to him, but it was going to happen anyway. There seems to be an arrogance of the SP that they are somehow the singular vanguard of the campaign. They are an integral and important part of it, but no more important than others and the most important aspect of CAHWT is that it is a genuine mass movement.

Like

Reply
Mark P - September 5, 2012

I think that perhaps the issue here is with you rather than the Socialist Party, Ringacoltig. The process of meetings initiated by the SP, through Joe Higgins’ office, led directly to the foundation of the CAHWT.

The Socialist Party has the most resources to put into the CAHWT of any group on the Irish left and a huge amount of experience of non-payment campaigns. Therefore it has mobilised those resources and that experience, which is in a sense no more than it should do. That doesn’t make it a majority of the CAHWT and it has gone out of its way to avoid giving people the impression that the CAHWT is its property. To be very blunt about it, if the SP had wanted a CAHWT that was essentially the property of the SP, it could have set it up in that way. It didn’t do so, because it doesn’t want a CAHWT of that sort.

The idea that no group’s contribution is “more important than others” is a pleasant sounding nonsense that doesn’t reflect the reality of disparate levels of resources, organisational capacity and experience. However, you are entirely correct that what makes the CAHWT important is its potential as a mass movement.

Like

13. Ringacoltig - September 5, 2012

There’s that arrogance again, the issue must be with me and without the SP there’d be no CAHWT and sure we’re only allowing other people participate out of the goodness of our hearts.

Like

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - September 5, 2012

oh – stop being so bloody pedantic

Like

Reply
Mark P - September 5, 2012

There’s nothing remotely arrogant about what I said.

It is a statement of fact that the CAHWT came directly out a series meetings initiated by the Socialist Party for the purposes of involving as wide range of people and groups as possible in the establishment of a non-payment campaign.

It is a statement of fact that the Socialist Party has more in the way of resources and experience to put into the campaign than other organised groups involved, and that therefore a responsibility rests on it to actually put those resources to work.

You seem to regard it as arrogant to say these things, even though they are plainly true. And the fact that they are plainly true doesn’t change the fact that the CAHWT is not the Socialist Party’s property and that the CAHWT is of importance because of its potential as a real mass movement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Socialist Party taking credit for the things that it does well. God knows, it will take enough lumps for the things that it does not.

Now, this last part is a statement of opinion rather than fact, but I don’t think it’s ridiculous to suggest that if the CAHWT had been founded on the initiative of the force involved with the second greatest level of resources that we wouldn’t be able to talk with a straight face about how the CAHWT wasn’t their property.

Like

Reply
14. dilettante - September 5, 2012

Is the SP looking for an exit strategy from the ULA or am I reading too much in to some of the polemics going on in recent days?

Like

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - September 6, 2012

You are reading it wrong. If the ULA fails it will do so because of opportunistic manoeuvreings by elements not in the SP.

Like

Reply
dilettante - September 6, 2012

When you talk about “opportunistic manoeuvrings” of others it could be (mis?)understood as getting ready to blame the said others for a failure you are already resigned to.
For the record, if that’s the way things are going then I wouldn’t blame the SP for being prepared

Like

Reply
Jolly Red Giant - September 6, 2012

The Socialist Party is 100% committed to the ULA and will work to ensure it succeeds. The Socialist Party will continue to fight for the ULA to argue a socialist position and for a socialist analysis of the crisis. The position of the Socialist Party has been consistent and principled during this issue – however, others in the ULA have changed their positions as the current situation developed.

Like

Reply
15. Jolly Red Giant - September 6, 2012

Well it didn’t take long for the media to put the boot into Wallace and to sprawl a large picture of Wallace and ‘his political ally’ Clare Daly across the page. Wallace who said he would give back half his Dail salary towards his tax debt has started claiming the Dail Independant TDs Allowance of €41K. In effect he is better off fiancially as the Allowance is untaxed. They also take a dig at Clare Daly for looking for money from the SP’s party leaders allowance.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mick-wallace-tops-up-pay-with-41000-dail-perk-3221621.html?start=2

Like

Reply
CMK - September 6, 2012

Two stories this week in the Independent about payments to politicians on the same week that we handed over 600,000,000 million to an Anglo-Irish bondholder and while we’re being softened up for another savage budget. All this several years after being told’ we’ve turned a corner’ and, no doubt, we’ll be told soon enough that ‘we’re turning the corner’ again and again.

I’ve no doubt that the Indo have a slew of stories about Wallace ready to roll every couple of days between now and Christmas. Expect Wallaceology to peak as each large (and small) bond is paid off. I’d take bets here that over the course of the period 25 September to 5 October, Wallace will feature regularly on the frontpage of the Indo as the AIB bond of 1,000,000,000 is paid off on the 1st of October. Expect Newstalk, RTE and the Times, amongst others, to jump in on that.

I hope those members of the Left and the ULA who have been having a chuckle to themselves at the SP’s expense over the past few days are preparing to take the heat. A robust organisation like the SP will probably survive the media heat attendant on Wallace revelations; the ULA, as a much more fluid and looser organisation, could well be blown asunder under the pressure that will be brought to bear on that organisation by the Daly-Wallace axis. Prepare yourselves, boys and girls, it ain’t gonna be pretty!

Like

Reply
16. Emancipation & Liberation » THE END OF THE ROAD FOR THE ULA? - November 4, 2012

Leave a comment