jump to navigation

PBP in Right2Change but the AAA are not , is PBP-AAA gone? October 31, 2015

Posted by irishelectionliterature in Irish Politics.
trackback

Right2Change and the voting pact has been covered before.
However according to Reports
People Before Profit has signed up to a left-wing electoral alliance while its election partner, the Anti-Austerity Alliance (AAA), has not, according to a Right2Change briefing.

Is PBP-AAA finished?

Comments»

1. dublinstreams - October 31, 2015

no the AAA and PBPA still exist as their own organisations, I expect this kind of stuff from others like the IT, you could think and write a little more about it rather jumping off from the Irish Times who been trying to cause trouble all week

Like

WorldbyStorm - October 31, 2015

I presume IEL posted this up with tongue firmly in cheek.

Liked by 1 person

WorldbyStorm - October 31, 2015

Btw just on the substantive point, I think PBP’s approach to this is interesting.

Like

dublinstreams - November 1, 2015

PBP has obviously been more willing to coalesce with other groups, or atleast appear to do so, its always been their MO.

Like

dublinstreams - October 31, 2015

The SWP, as part of People Before Profit, here reproduces today’s People Before Profit press release on the Right2Change Conference.http://www.socialistworkeronline.net/people-before-profit-support-right2change-principles/

Like

2. Jolly Red Giant - October 31, 2015

2+2 = 200 – lazy stuff by the IT

Like

3. dublinstreams - October 31, 2015

http://richardboydbarrett.ie/2015/10/31/people-before-profit-supports-right2change-principles/ “The Right2Change movement should not be focussed on narrow transfer pacts with particular parties but on building a real people’s movement for change.

People Before Profit is involved in a formal alliance with the Anti-Austerity Alliance. We openly acknowledge that, while we both share a radical left agenda, we can differ on tactics. We believe that the radical left must organise on a 32 county basis but have not yet convinced our allies of this.

People Before Profit will be calling for transfers to other parties and independents who endorse the Right2 Change principles. How this works will be a matter for voters’ own choice and we are not singling out Sinn Fein or indeed any other party by endorsing their specific policies.”

Like

Liberius - October 31, 2015

People Before Profit will be calling for transfers to other parties and independents who endorse the Right2 Change principles. How this works will be a matter for voters’ own choice and we are not singling out Sinn Fein or indeed any other party by endorsing their specific policies.

Including DDI and NCM?

Like

dublinstreams - October 31, 2015

yes they are not going to endorse their policies

Like

Liberius - October 31, 2015

Advocating transfers though with collections of xenophobes, anti-vaccinationists and ‘freemen on the land’. That is very far from sensible.

Liked by 4 people

WorldbyStorm - October 31, 2015

This is the danger with loose arrangements that people can buy into but don’t exclude. CL has toiled long and hard on this site pointing out that being anti-austerity isn’t per se a left position.

Liked by 1 person

sonofstan - October 31, 2015

R2C insists on eliding ‘anti- austerity’ and ‘progressive’ though. Nothing progressive about DDI

Liked by 2 people

4. dublinstreams - October 31, 2015

and AAA statement ftr https://www.facebook.com/AntiAusterityAlliance/posts/606889286119558 “The AAA will call for transfers to candidates who advocate non-payment of the water charges; candidates who are opposed to coalition with any party that implements austerity and who offer principled opposition to all austerity; and for candidates who stand for a genuine left and socialist alternative.”

Liked by 1 person

5. Jim Monaghan - October 31, 2015

I think the anti SF line of the SP has got harder. Paul Murphy appeared a few weeks ago to be critically engaging with SF, challenging it’s openness to coalition. Indeed many of us think on similar lines. Now it is totally anti. And retrospectively anti to Syriza. “People Before Profit is involved in a formal alliance with the Anti-Austerity Alliance. We openly acknowledge that, while we both share a radical left agenda, we can differ on tactics. ”
For me this is sophistry.

Like

dublinstreams - October 31, 2015

the founding statement from PBP “We have come together to maximise the potential for the Left in the election and will co-operate and adopt an agreed approach to try to maximise transfers among our candidates to ensure as many AAA-PBP TDs are elected as possible. The AAA-PBP is a left electoral bloc and a unified parliamentary group. Within the parliamentary group, there will be full political autonomy for both People Before Profit and the Anti-Austerity Alliance. However, there will also be a commitment to the maximum possible co-operation both inside and outside the Dail.” http://richardboydbarrett.ie/2015/10/08/launch-of-anti-austerity-alliance-people-before-profit/ PBP don’t have a fundamental problem with AAA deciding not to join R2C whatever it is

Like

irishelectionliterature - October 31, 2015

On a practical level PBP will be targeting Dun Laoghaire, Dublin Mid West and Dublin South Central. It’s likely that there will be a decent number of SF transfers available in all three.
The AAA are looking for seats in Dublin SW, Dublin West and Cork North Central areas where they are in direct competition with SF. There may not be too many, if any SF transfers there.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - October 31, 2015

Jim – the position of the AAA has been consistent and hasn’t altered since it was founded.

I do take exception with the implication of yours and many other comments that indicate the AAA viewpoint is dictated by the SP. It is not. The AAA decided the position towards the R2C platform – a decision that was similar but not the same as the SP. The SP’s position has not ‘got harder’ – what has happened is that SF have engaged in musical chairs – signing up to R2C, stating that R2C were ‘aims, not definitive commitments’ and then declaring that the R2C platform for an electoral transfer pact – which it is not. What is also relevant is that most of the R2W groups (specifically their facebook pages) are now nothing more than mouthpieces for SF (and a vehicle for attacking the AAA).

The AAA has consistently pointed out that SF are speaking out of both sides of their mouth by claiming to want a ‘left government’ while still saying they will go into coalition with right-wing parties. And the statements by Paul Murphy that you say was ‘critically engaging’ with SF actually made this specific point along with the many other fudges by SF. The comment about a SF led government was one of a whole series of comments made in an interview but it was the one that made the headlines (and in a typically distorted fashion). A similar thing has happened with the way the AAA’s statement on R2C was presented. Ruth Coppinger clearly outlined the position of the AAA on the Claire Byrne show today.

I might add one important point – if the R2C platform was to be implemented it would require any government to directly confront the EU fiscal compact and a rejection of the EU fiscal rules. None of the political parties and individuals who have signed up to R2C have addressed this fact – the AAA has clearly outlined that it would support the implementation of the R2C proposals but recognises the necessity to break EU rules and that the AAA is willing to do this. None of the signatories have stated that they will do what is needed to implement R2C and SF have clearly stated that they will not make any definitive commitments.

Last point – the PBP can choose to do what it wants – it has no impact on the agreed parliamentary platform between the AAA/PBP. However, there is one interesting point in the PBP statement where they say they will ‘be calling for transfers to other parties and independents who endorse the Right2 Change principles’ – including SF – and at the same they attack the role of SF in the Northern Executive and the fact that SF will not rule out coalition with the austerity parties. To me that is like trying to have your cake and eat it.

Like

6. sonofstan - October 31, 2015

I notice the WP haven’t signed up either.

Like

WorldbyStorm - October 31, 2015

I think they have as it happens – but expressed caution as to the detail for any actual progressive government.

http://workersparty.ie/wp-support-right-2-change-principles-as-basis-for-progressive-change/

Like

sonofstan - October 31, 2015

That’ll teach me to believe the IT. Apologies

Like

WorldbyStorm - October 31, 2015

None necessary. It’s the IT again!

Like

Liberius - October 31, 2015

Judging by this photo of the anointed one and his projector screen those reservations were enough to see the WP put on the sectarian naughty step.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-0/p180x540/12191513_1667910876756289_3146333086789277956_n.jpg?oh=8be1555bea813eb6986f87619c3907ec&oe=56B30D39

Like

CMK - October 31, 2015

The Emperors at Right 2 Change appear to have been displeased that the WP did not kowtow sufficiently. Thus, Mr. Ogle left them off the slide listing the political parties endorsing R2C at today’s meeting of the ‘community pillar’. This has probably been the most batshit crazy day on Irish Left in a long time.

The capitalist establishment both here and in Europe can rest assured that they face very little challenge from R2C.

Striking that a policy platform put forward by a group of trade unions makes no reference to industrial action, from what I can see.

Liked by 1 person

7. Joe - October 31, 2015

The thread begins with the question is PbP/AAA finished? But it never started did it? Or did I miss something?
It’s alphabetical, innit.

Like

dublinstreams - November 1, 2015
Joe - November 2, 2015

DS, you miss my point. Like I said, it’s alphabetical innit?
But reading that Oireachtas list and all the other alphabetical and more complicated permutations on this thread, I think there’s a job for Aonrud to do a map of all the various variations and linkages and mishmashes of SP and SWP over say the last 5 years. I’d expect you’d have it done by Christmas, Aonrud.

Like

dublinstreams - November 2, 2015

if somebody misses your point, perhaps you should explain more rather then just repeating what you said previously

Like

Joe - November 2, 2015

The thread asks “Is PBP-AAA finished?”. But there never was a PBP-AAA. What that Dáil list confirms is that there was and still is an AAA/PBP.
The thread on here after the announcement of the AAA/PBP lash-up had some wag asking innocently was PBP/AAA considered as a name!

The way things have gone with the nomenclature of SP mainly over the last while, I will make this prediction. AAA/PBP will be disbanded within the next year or two. There will be a period of stand-off then. A year or two later some exploratory talks will commence. Then there will be a breakthrough and PBP/AAA will be launched…

Liked by 1 person

8. jamesmcbarron - October 31, 2015

Isn’t it depressing the level of trouble this electoral stuff has caused within the anti water tax movement. Fair enough people and parties have electoral strategies but the vehemence with which people insist theirs is the only way is utterly alienating.

In Cork city at the mo the battle against water meters is at its height in Ballyphehane where the local group has been very successful at resisting. Mahon where I live is next on the agenda and we are doing a lot of groundwork to prepare for that. We previously ran a mass canvass for non payment. The group is quite diverse and includes people who firmly believe in contesting the election. we agree to disagree on that and the group has focused on building non payment and organising resistance to water metering. The benefits in building confidence, experience and networks are very visible. If we were forced into a situation of choosing which block to back in the current debate or into an argument over elections, we would risk fracturing the group for what exactly? I’m not coming at this from an ideological position just a practical one, we have PBP, WP and CPPC people, people who love R2W and people who think tis very undemocratic. Yet because we have focused on the immediate and most important tasks of building non payment and meter resistance we have succeeded in mobilising lots of people of no party affiliation and spared ourselves the fighting we endured during the house tax campaign. I am sure many of our group will become involved in the elections as is their right ,but Mahon Says No will not and will thus stay united and big for the fight to come.

Liked by 2 people

9. roddy - November 1, 2015

Lest anyone think that the SP is behaving on a matter of principle with regards to voting pacts,a reminder of who they teamed up with in the North in 1996 is worth looking at.Then they formed a political entity called “the Labour coalition” to contest the 96 elections which was made up of a collection of misfits,SDLP rejects and Jackie Healey Rae type figures like the wig wearing Johnny McLaughlin MBE.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 1, 2015

MBE’s were very popular amongst them. I see Hugh Casey also of the Labour Coalition accepted one in 1994 hence his departure from the SDLP.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

While SF hopped into bed with the UUP and the DUP.

In all honesty roddy – your will have to try harder

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 1, 2015

The dispensation in NI is based on involuntary coalition. That’s hard wired into the GFA itself. That’s what power-sharing means. I can’t recall and don’t much care about the position of the SP on the GFA at the time but to simply characterise it as hopping into bed with the UUP and DUP is a massive over-simplification. Sure, one can and should be critical, there are significant problems with the dispensation not least the sense that it goes nowhere in particular, but as has been noted by others here it’s not something that any of those involved actually wants as an optimal or near optimal solution.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

Of course its an over-simplification – but no more of an over simplification than the claim by the likes of roddy that the SP ‘supported’ the GFA and now oppose it.

The reality is that the GFA is nearly 20 years old – it was a fudge in 1998 and it remains a fudge now. Little progress has been made on anything (they are still fighting over flags) except for the fact that the Executive has engaged in wholesale privatisation, widespread cuts and entrenching sectarianism in society. The entire SF strategy now seems to revolve around demographic changes that somehow in the near future Catholics will be a majority, a referendum will be held and passed and Protestants will realise that they have had a good run but the game is up and they will meekly accept a united Ireland. It is an utterly fraudulent position and it has the potential to catapult the North into a vicious sectarian conflict.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 1, 2015

Not sure that that is entirely correct. I’m far from uncritical of SF but the last couple of years they’ve been discussing openly different forms of sovereignty and stressing that any future UI is highly unlikely to accord with the traditional version, i.e. there’d be overlapping sovereignty, forms of representation etc. Now, that could be simply tailored to the audience, but given that that is probably much closer to the sort of outcome that will develop in any case perhaps it is simply going with the grain rather than against it.

As to the GFA being a fudge. Sure, of course. All conflicts over national identities that arrive at any sort of an agreement are unlikely to be ‘solved’ however one defines that in a short period of time. Or even perhaps a long period of time. To think that the reservoirs of bitterness would evaporate after a hard edged conflict of three decades which saw numerous deaths, and after a longer period before that of a bluntly sectarian state, and before that the reality of sectarianism in pre-partition Ireland and so on seems on the face of it to be simply utopian. To be honest I tend to be surprised that things have remained as relatively calm as they have since the GFA, with one or two very notable exceptions. And in the context of that the idea of a vicious sectarian conflict kicking off any time soon – or indeed being allowed to by London and/or Dublin is minimal.

Finally, and again the point was made before that privatisation and the other issues you address are highly unlikely to be the sort of outcomes that SF particularly wants to see, not that they’re massively left wing either. But the nature of the dispensation, the reality of London funding the set up etc, clearly limits matters. That clearly is different to a Marxist position, or even a left social democrat position, but it’s also different to the position of FG or FF or indeed right Unionism.

Like

10. roddy - November 1, 2015

WBS, while researching Johnny’s career,I have discovered the lengths the SP were prepared to go to obtain an electoral presence.Gombeen man Johnny was asked to stand for the SP and was actually elected to Omagh council where he previously sat as an independent.I came across an “indymedia” article- sat July20 2002 entitled “Socialist party elected councillors opportunism”.Not only does it show Johnny in his true colours but it contains a letter from SP guru Peter Hadden which exposes the cynicism of the SP for all to see.The next time their apoligists on here attack the likes of Peadar Toibin ,refer them to this letter.As you know I am unable to link to other articles,but maybe you could post this article to let people know what they are dealing with.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

If the SP wanted an ‘electoral presence’ all they had to do was to tell Donal O’Cofaigh not to resign his council seat when he resigned from SF and joined the Socialist Party. Instead the SP adopted the position that because Donal was elected as a SF councillor and he was then rejecting the pro-austerity policies being implemented by SF in the North he should resign his council seat – and Donal agreed with that view and resigned from the council when he joined the Socialist Party.

Like I said roddy – you will have to try harder.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 1, 2015

I’m utterly confused. Did Donal O’Cofaigh leave the SP eventually? I see he ran as an anti-fracking candidate last year.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

Donal is a member of the SP. The SP in Fermanagh were very active in the anti-fracking campaign and the campaign group asked Donal to stand as their candidate. The SP supported this decision.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 1, 2015

Cheers, that clarifies that perfectly.

Like

11. roddy - November 1, 2015

SF did’nt form a”party” with the unionists like you’re crowd did.And like your party colleague Johnny was told on many occasions -“keep your hair on”!

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

You don’t have to have a party to hop into bed with someone.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

Remember the Chuckle Brothers

<a href="http://“>chuckle

Like

12. roddy - November 1, 2015

Your crowd supported the GFA and the system of government it entailed.Your strong farmer and landlord leading light Harry stood as a “pro agreement socialist ” in 98.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 1, 2015

I think that’s a fair point re support for the agreement and all it entailed. it’s odd to criticise people for working the agreement in the way it was outlined from the off.

Like

13. dublinstreams - November 1, 2015

Sinn Féin accused of misleading people over Right 2 change principles says Brid Smith http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/sinn-fein-accused-of-misleading-people-over-right-2-change-principles-703436.html “However People before Profit has said while it has signed up to the principals it is not asking supporters to vote for Sinn Féin”

Like

14. roddy - November 1, 2015

wbs,any chance of you posting that letter of Peter Hadden’s I referred to above?

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

Jaysus roddy – its becoming a bit of an obsession at this stage. I hope that WbS does post the letter and lets see what ‘issues’ you have with it.

I am looking forward to the next time a SF rep is on RTE shouting about the Socialist Party being against the ‘peace process’.

You have to wonder the reason why the shinners all over the internet and social media are getting their knickers in such a twist over the fact that the AAA won’t help them get enough seats to go into coalition with FF. I thought that the AAA was just an insignificant little annoyance on the forward march of SF to power.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 1, 2015

I don’t think there’s any need to publish letters. Roddy, if you have the link to the indymedia thread that’s grand. Just copy and paste it into this comments thread.

Like

15. roddy - November 1, 2015

Dunno how to do it WBS. I came to computers late on in life.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 1, 2015
16. roddy - November 1, 2015

yes

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

given roddy’s obsession with trying to denigrate the SP – maybe you’ll get around to addressing the point I raised about Donal O’Cofaigh.

Like

17. roddy - November 1, 2015

Donal had signed a pledge to vacate his seat if he ever left SF.Johnny “syrup of figs” was an independent gombeen man with no ties who was persuaded to come on board the SP.He was one of several gombeen men and British title holding uncle Toms who the SP had campaigned with as a political formation in 96.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 1, 2015

Tell me roddy – how many SF councillors have left SF and handed back their council seats?

Like

18. roddy - November 1, 2015

John Kelly for one,but I think you are engaging in a bit of diversion to hide the fact that the SP are pretending to be highly principled and “choosy” with regard to Right2 change.They were prepared to officiallly link up with some of the most discredited individuals in Northern politics in 96 in an attempt to get an electoral foothold and for many years thereafter.

Like

19. eamonncork - November 1, 2015

Like

20. dublinstreams - November 5, 2015

Joe Higgins TD @JoeHigginsTD
Unfortunate that the AAA’s actual position was not reported accurately over the last few days #Right2Change #dubw pic.twitter.com/6qMDhVtiot Higgins says R2C added a No.their answers. But their response was ultimately a no.

Like

CMK - November 5, 2015

Nice try, ds, but R2C deliberately falsified the AAA position. Why did they do that? If there was doubt about the AAA position why didn’t they seek clarification.

That falsification – the addition of one word which completely coloured the meaning of the subsequent text – was a well planned and orchestrated attack on the AAA by elements with R2C.

Go to Paul Murphy’s FB page and you’ll one of the R2C ‘leaders’ get his ass handed to him on a plate over this; he has scarpered and won’t be seen again.

If the AAA falsified a document from R2C or another political organisation there would be a 200 comment thread here a hour after the new broke.

But this will probably pass by unremarked upon.

Ogle, Gibney and the rest of them should resign; park their egos for a while and realise they have no monopoly on social progress.

They won’t do that.

How, R2C handle this will tell you a lot about what kind of outfit they are.

Interestingly, the Social Democrats answered in the negative to all three of the R2C questions but did not have a ‘No’ inserted before each response.

Finally, any mass movement that can only 55 people to a conference on a Saturday afternoon in Dublin is going nowhere, fast. CAHWT could regularly get 100 plus to meetings which were often held every couple of weeks.

A real low for R2C but one no doubt they’ll be forgiven for by most of the Irish Left.

Like

Ed - November 5, 2015

Which thread on Paul’s page is that, CMK?

To be fair, I’m not sure how broadly you’d define the ‘Irish Left’, but pretty much everyone I’ve spoken to has had it up to here with the R2C carry-on (and especially Ogle’s interventions); this would include people who have no great love for the SP.

Like

CMK - November 5, 2015

Ed, top post on PM’s TD page. Read the R2C’s response on their FB page, where they keep digging.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 5, 2015

I don’t understand this at all CMK. I thought AAA did indeed say No to R2C in terms of participating. There’s statements to that effect on the AAA as with this:

http://antiausterityalliance.ie/2015/10/aaa-response-to-sinn-fein-and-right2change/

“For us the involvement of Sinn Fein in Right2Change unfortunately meant that we couldn’t be involved as it is clear that when it suits, Sinn Fein like Labour and Syriza in Greece, will make compromises with the system and that will undermine the whole basis of the initiative and lead to a dead end. We have a political responsibility to point out these problems in advance and not allow a situation where the movement is encouraged to look to another new dawn that would, unfortunately, prove to be false.”

That’s surely a No in all its components. Sure, R2C emphasised it in their presentation, but so what? It was a no. I can’t see how that’s somehow falsification. Genuine question, what am I missing?

Oddly enough Ed, I’m hearing a rather different response from activists on the ground. Not suggesting you’re wrong, just it may be more mixed than a simple antagonism to R2C.

Sorry, I reread it, I should qualify that. Yes, the first one wasn’t an absolute No – though it is fairly heavily qualified, but the second clearly was. Silly of R2C to do that int regard of the first. Are they arguing the first was a No still? Still the second is a No even if the word itself isn’t used.

Like

CMK - November 5, 2015

Ogle placed a ‘No’ to the text of the AAA response to Q1 and Q2 of the R2C questions. In the official AAA response sent to R2C there was no blunt and unequivocal ‘No’ to either question on the document.

Political positions can’t be reduced to ‘Yes/No’ answers. Ogle wanted a ‘Gotcha’ on the AAA and because he has no capacity for or patience with complex political ideas and formulations he just doctored the AAA document to suit his purposes and he has been caught out.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 5, 2015

In fairness, as others have noted, the question of coalition for SF is one which people from AAA and elsewhere have reduced to Yes or No answers.

I’ve some sympathy re the first point, but the second, it’s hard to take seriously, it was a clear No and all that was done by R2C was editorialising. A bit blunt, a bit shabby, but it’s also all a bit meh, I mean the poor old WP was ignored entirely at the launch, but I don’t see them getting too exercised about.

Like

CMK - November 5, 2015

Sorry, WbS, but you don’t editorialise a political party’s position. The Social Democrats said ‘No’ to both points but Ogle didn’t see fit to put a ‘No’ before their responses. If it was clear ‘No’ then we would have said that. Your interpretation is that it’s a ‘No’ to one question and that’s fine. It’s not fine in setting where efforts at a political alliance are being made.

Look up ‘Part 2 of Brendan Ogle speaking at the community pillar meeting’ on YouTube and you’ll see all of the parties’ positions. Listen out for the jeers when Ogle covers the AAA’s.

He has succeeded in whipping up a social media bullying campaign where I have seen good AAA people called ‘abusers’, the usual allegations that AAA members pockets the proceeds of collections at marches and meetings and threats by R2C supporters to call the employers of AAA members to inform on the latters political opinions expressed on Facebook.

Extremely ugly, totally divisive and in the long run totally unnecessary and evidence that the R2C process is extremely politically crude and debased. These bozos want to replicate Syriza, with the latter light years ahead in ideological coherence and with several genuine intellectual heavy weights on boards. And they still got turned over the the EU.

Perhaps the oddest thing about this is that the R2C principles are supported by the National Citizens Movement and DDI, both extraordinarily dodgy outfits.

That the union movement gives cover to outfits like that should ring enough alarm bells but the Left is asleep in this situation and contented enough to sit on the fence while Ogle uses R2C to undermine the AAA. In other countries trade unions giving succour to the Right would be subject of debate and controversy. Here it’s deemed acceptable.

Ogle’s objective would appear to be to delegitimise the AAA, maybe ensure it drops one or two Dáil seats and that R2C serves as a prop for SF in the hope that the latters association with the former deflects some of the bad publicity and media attacks SF are sure to endure in the next election.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 5, 2015

I’ve never seen that as a rule. Of course people editorialise responses. SF has been criticised all over the shop for its responses in recent times by many many people. And isn’t there’s a more fundamental problem, that there’s an effort to control how others perceive responses? I don’t think that’s conceptually or in actuality possible. AAA, or the WP, or SD can write what it likes and that can be interpreted by those who receive it as they see fit. The responses stand as they are – its’ not as if people can’t go and check the text. I did, you did, we all did.

There’s another aspect as well which I think is missing from all this. Of course there’s some antagonism to the AAA response. That’s entirely natural, AAA refused to join up! I don’t understand why the expectation would be that this would be received with anything other than a negative response, a few jeers whatever. And in fairness one could read between the lines of the AAA statement and feel that it was saying that those involved in R2C were chumps for going in with SF. After all it effectively brands SF as a neoliberal party and the equivalent of FG, FF and Labour. It’s hardly a surprise that people are pissed off by that – and it’s not exactly the first time that charge has been levelled across the years, is it?

re whipping up social media, all of what you say is bad (though there’s also push back the other way too), but let’s also note that for years people have, for example, criticised SF online ‘not leftwing’ or WP ‘Stalinist’ or PBP ‘destructive’ or whoever. I mean none of this exists in a vacuum and no one – absolutely no one is innocent online or off (well maybe Des Derwin and Michael Taft! Seriously). Now there’s some stakes in the game – alliances of one sort or another, possible seats,the tension is increasing.

Frankly I don’t think Ogle or anyone can make AAA drop a seat – not least because all this is utterly peripheral. Most voters out there neither know nor care about this. It’s not even inside baseball, it’s inside inside baseball. For example… who genuinely gives a toss that Ogle threw in a couple of ‘No’s’ the other day? I hadn’t even heard about it until I read about it on Paul Murphy FB. And I’m clued in to the left.

I think R2C has been too open, it should have had minimum standards as regards who was invited in, I think the admission of DDI and NCM is utterly counterproductive, they’re not left forces at all. I share that criticism entirely. But I can’t help but think this is all being spun (not by you btw) by the formations involved or not involved in R2C to their advantage.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 5, 2015

WbS – the AAA did not refuse to ‘join up’ – the AAA rejected the PR stunt by SF to turn the R2C into a transfer pact.

It is clear from subsequent events – and evident even before last weekend – that the ‘leaders’ of R2C are using R2W/R2C as left cover for SF. Both SF and the R2C ‘leaders’ have claimed to want a left government, but SF refuse to rule out coalition with FF/FG/LP and the R2C ‘leaders’ have refused to call them out on this.

The basis of this animosity stems from the consistent calls from the AAA for both SF and R2W to back the boycott campaign. SF point blank refuse and Ogle and Co state that they support the boycott but they want R2W to be a broad church – i.e. to provide left cover for SF.

As CMK has pointed out – given the effort that the union bureaucrats have put into R2C it is telling that they had 55 people at their ‘conference’ on Saturday afternoon. My AAA branch had more people at its regular weekly meeting last week.

The latest (and ‘final’ statement from R2C ‘leaders’) is utterly dishonest – getting on their high horse over questions of ‘personal honesty’ when they have consistently distorted the AAA’s position and manipulated the R2C process to create an ongoing atmosphere of hostility and intimidation of anyone from the AAA (something that CMK has pointed out already).

This entire episode is turning out to be a shambles – and the basis of this shambles comes from the undemocratic nature of the R2C process and the control exercised by a number of trade union bureaucrats who are running it.

The latest part of this strategy appears to come down to attacking the AAA in an effort to undermine the AAA’s electoral campaign.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 5, 2015

This you see is where you lose me. AAA did indeed refuse to join R2C, it is pure semantics to argue otherwise. The statement I quoted from above is explicit about that.

“For us the involvement of Sinn Fein in Right2Change unfortunately meant that we couldn’t be involved as it is clear that when it suits, Sinn Fein like Labour and Syriza in Greece, will make compromises with the system and that will undermine…etc”

If one says one ‘can’t be involved’ in an alliance that is saying one ‘cannot join it’ and it’s just nonsense to say otherwise.

And by the way you’ll note I supported AAA’s right to do so when it did. I think it’s entirely fair enough to go it alone.

But it’s also fair enough for people to be pissed off about that if it’s okay for AAA to be pissed off at others. It’s not in truth as if all has been sweetness and light across the years.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 5, 2015

WbS – the AAA has been involved in R2C since it started and was involved in drawing up the R2C principles and policies.

The AAA clearly stated that it supported the R2C policies.

The issue for the AAA was that R2C included SF who refuse to give a commitment to rule out coalition with FF/FG/LP and the R2C ‘leaders’ refuse to address that issue. All of the R2C and SF bluster about a left government is just bluster – it is contradicted by SF’s approach and R2C acquiescence. In effect what R2C is doing is facilitating SF getting enough votes to go into coalition with FF and possibly LP.

SF have made it clear that it will not be bound by the R2C Platform and that was demonstrated again by the statement that repeal of the 8th amendment would not be a red-line issue for SF in government.

R2C is setting up working class people for a SYRIZAesque betrayal – promising a fight – delivering a sellout.

Why should or could the AAA be a party to this?

Now the entire antics of the past week have been a set-up to facilitate votes for SF and undermine and attack the AAA. The barrage of abuse from R2C, elements within R2W and particularly SF is demonstration of that. All of the disgraceful accusations and threats that have been spouted, facilitated by the R2C ‘leaders’ leads to the sulk of the union officials ringing hollow.

I fully expect Ogle to stand in DW – and expect the entire basis of the campaign of Ogle and SF an attempt to undermine Ruth Coppinger and deprive the AAA of a seat. I suspect Ogle has little interest of actually becoming a TD (he would have to put up or shut up).

It is actually quite frustrating looking at this carry on. The AAA have put a huge effort into building the boycott of water charges with open opposition from SF and hostility from many in R2W because of how effective the organisational efforts of the AAA have been. Many ‘activists’ expected to ride the wave of R2W into career positions and were found wanting when they were faced with the ability and commitment of AAA activists that exposed their limitations. The hostility has been abusive, personal and downright slanderous in content. The AAA have largely ignored these antics – despite the R2C leaders facilitating this by their ‘ambivalence’ to the jeers and abuse. The past week has seen this ‘ambivalence’ shift into open hostility as they move to give SF left cover for their efforts to hop into bed with FF (and whether that happens or not is not the issue – the purpose of the current attacks on the AAA is to facilitate SF efforts to make it possible).

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 5, 2015

WbS – the AAA has been involved in R2C since it started and was involved in drawing up the R2C principles and policies.

Never denied it.

The AAA clearly stated that it supported the R2C policies.

Up to a point. There’s a clear divergence on the GFA.

The issue for the AAA was that R2C included SF who refuse to give a commitment to rule out coalition with FF/FG/LP and the R2C ‘leaders’ refuse to address that issue. All of the R2C and SF bluster about a left government is just bluster – it is contradicted by SF’s approach and R2C acquiescence. In effect what R2C is doing is facilitating SF getting enough votes to go into coalition with FF and possibly LP.

No problem with AAA not wanting to be in an alliance, however loose, with SF. Perfectly grand.

SF have made it clear that it will not be bound by the R2C Platform and that was demonstrated again by the statement that repeal of the 8th amendment would not be a red-line issue for SF in government.
Again, fine. Not an issue.

R2C is setting up working class people for a SYRIZAesque betrayal – promising a fight – delivering a sellout.

Not sure about that. It’s a fairly different beast from SYRIZA, not as left wing as that formation was (at least nominally) prior to government or during its first term. But, whatever, I’m always dubious about certainty as to the future.

Why should or could the AAA be a party to this?

I never said it should be. Indeed I expressly said a comment or two above on this thread that AAA had every right not to enter/join/whatever this phase of R2C.

Now the entire antics of the past week have been a set-up to facilitate votes for SF and undermine and attack the AAA. The barrage of abuse from R2C, elements within R2W and particularly SF is demonstration of that. All of the disgraceful accusations and threats that have been spouted, facilitated by the R2C ‘leaders’ leads to the sulk of the union officials ringing hollow.

Well in fairness as I’ve noted before this isn’t all one way. The accusations of sell-out against SF have been coming fairly consistently across the years.

I fully expect Ogle to stand in DW – and expect the entire basis of the campaign of Ogle and SF an attempt to undermine Ruth Coppinger and deprive the AAA of a seat. I suspect Ogle has little interest of actually becoming a TD (he would have to put up or shut up).

Just on that I agree it would be a bad thing for Ogle to deprive AAA of the seat and I hope he doesn’t stand there – on the other hand it is his right as a citizen to do so, and there are places were AAA is running a challenge against incumbent left TDs. So I wouldn’t be too precious about it. But let’s wait and see. It’s one thing to give out about two ‘no’s’ in a conference, slightly different to weave a conspiracy theory whole cloth.

It is actually quite frustrating looking at this carry on. The AAA have put a huge effort into building the boycott of water charges with open opposition from SF and hostility from many in R2W because of how effective the organisational efforts of the AAA have been. Many ‘activists’ expected to ride the wave of R2W into career positions and were found wanting when they were faced with the ability and commitment of AAA activists that exposed their limitations. The hostility has been abusive, personal and downright slanderous in content. The AAA have largely ignored these antics – despite the R2C leaders facilitating this by their ‘ambivalence’ to the jeers and abuse. The past week has seen this ‘ambivalence’ shift into open hostility as they move to give SF left cover for their efforts to hop into bed with FF (and whether that happens or not is not the issue – the purpose of the current attacks on the AAA is to facilitate SF efforts to make it possible).

In fairness AAA hasn’t been alone. Lots of hands have participated. And again the hostility hasn’t been at all one way. You yourself for years have been openly hostile to SF on this site, on P.ie, etc, etc.

But all that aside, I’m taking it that it’s a Yes as regards AAA refusing to join R2C in this latest endeavour. That’s all I sought to clarify.

Like

Ed - November 5, 2015

WBS, I don’t think this ‘six of one, half a dozen of the other’ argument will really fly if we’re talking about Ogle. The stuff he’s been coming out with is on a whole different level; for sheer vitriol and hatred of ‘Trots’ (a pretty broad category for him), you’d have to go to Pat Rabbitte’s columns. And it’s by no means restricted to the SP, who aren’t always the best at winning friends and influencing people. He had the most extraordinary outburst directed at Brendan Young the other day, for daring to disagree with him about something, and BY was one of the names displayed on hus big slide. The most striking thing is his absolute refusal to engage with any of the arguments people make; virtually everything he says is a diversionary non sequitur, laced with personal insults. I’ve often found the SP grating but I’ve never seen them come out with shite like this. I think the single best thing that can be done to foster greater unity and comradeship on the broad left would be to impose a barring order preventing Ogle from coming within fifty feet of the Internet.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 5, 2015

But we’re not just talking about Ogle are we Ed? We’re talking about broader groups and the interactions that we’ve seen across years, months and now weeks and days.

Is this really descending to an argument about who is more unpleasant? Because if it is I’ve spent years on this site being asked by people to ban certain people because of their interactions. I’ve seen people leave the site as commenters because of those interactions. I’ve avoided banning for the most part… but it’s been enlightening (and the irony is I’d have for personal reasons a certain affinity with the stated ideological approaches).

Now that’s just my personal experience here.

So I take all this stuff with a massive grain of salt. Everyone here wants to claw competitive advantage. Ogle and R2C, SF, AAA, whoever. And they’ll all do everything they can to gain it because it is, as JRG notes about seats won and lost. I’ve no argument with that but let’s recognise it for what it is, it is politics and positioning from start to finish.

I was talking to a friend today whose read was that it would have been better in a way if the whole R2W/R2C had never started because the bitterness engendered is now so deep. I’m not there, but I’m glad I’m personally out of it.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 5, 2015

WbS

1. The AAA has stated that it supports the R2C principles but will not be used to provide left cover for SF and assist them in getting enough seats for a coalition with SF. You can imply this means ‘not signing up to R2C’ – but R2C is nothing except a statement of principles. It is not an organisation, an alliance, a movement or anything else. I would argue that SF claim to have signed up to R2C but haven’t actually done so because they have stated they will dump the R2C principles. This nonsense is being facilitated by Ogle and Co.

2. Practically every single person or group who responded to the R2C questions made some conditional points. While the AAA raised the GFA as an issue the R2C ‘leaders’ have no problem with SF being willing to dump ALL of the R2C principles.

3. Your implied assertion about the AAA standing against incumbent left TDs is false. Where the AAA is standing it will have little or no impact on the incumbent left TD. In Dublin Fingal there is the potential for two left seats. Clare Daly will have a significant surplus and should attempt to channel this into trying to get a second left TD elected – I doubt this will happen. In DC the AAA will have minimal impact on O’Sullivan and could actually help Perry winning a seat. And as you state – the AAA is entitled to do this. If Ogle was to stand in DW it would be for one purpose and one purpose only – to try and deprive the AAA of holding the seat. I suspect there will also be a few other similar stalking horses (with a much lower profile) also engaged in these antics.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 6, 2015

WbS
1. The AAA has stated that it supports the R2C principles but will not be used to provide left cover for SF and assist them in getting enough seats for a coalition with SF. You can imply this means ‘not signing up to R2C’ – but R2C is nothing except a statement of principles. It is not an organisation, an alliance, a movement or anything else. I would argue that SF claim to have signed up to R2C but haven’t actually done so because they have stated they will dump the R2C principles. This nonsense is being facilitated by Ogle and Co.

This is further semantics. If R2C means nothing, if it’s nothing but a statement of principles then why all the fretting on this site and elsewhere about it? If agreeing or disagreeing with that statement is nothing then why all the fuss today? If Ogle or R2C or whoever connected with it has no agency then what on earth is all this about?

2. Practically every single person or group who responded to the R2C questions made some conditional points. While the AAA raised the GFA as an issue the R2C ‘leaders’ have no problem with SF being willing to dump ALL of the R2C principles.

I’ve no problem with AAA resiling from this. Or from having a point of conditionality. Or whatever. Never said I did. You’re the one who has raised the claim about them not not joining R2C in this phase. Not me.

3. Your implied assertion about the AAA standing against incumbent left TDs is false. Where the AAA is standing it will have little or no impact on the incumbent left TD. In Dublin Fingal there is the potential for two left seats. Clare Daly will have a significant surplus and should attempt to channel this into trying to get a second left TD elected – I doubt this will happen. In DC the AAA will have minimal impact on O’Sullivan and could actually help Perry winning a seat. And as you state – the AAA is entitled to do this. If Ogle was to stand in DW it would be for one purpose and one purpose only – to try and deprive the AAA of holding the seat. I suspect there will also be a few other similar stalking horses (with a much lower profile) also engaged in these antics.

Hold on, so AAA is standing, for example against Clare Daly. That’s an incumbent TD and the idea that it will have no effect is simply your assessment – an assessment by the way from the other side of the state. I actually think in that particular instance you’re right that it will have little or no impact, but nothing is an absolute given in the current political context, something might happen, perhaps FF will be stronger than expected, or who knows, there’s a risk in all these things. But more importantly clearly there’s no absolute principle at work here in regards to standing against incumbents, or am I missing something?

Though it raises the question as to why AAA is running candidates in all these places?

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 6, 2015

WbS – I actually object to your assertion that the AAA is attempting to gain ‘competitive advantage’.

The AAA has one objective and one objective only – to build a mass anti-austerity left movement and in the process defeat the water charges, roll back austerity and ultimately see a left government in power that would challenge the rule of capitalism.

If for one moment AAA activists felt they were a hindrance to this objective the AAA would leave the political scene.

Nor would I claim that the AAA has a monopoly on this outlook – but I would argue, with some clear evidence in support, that both SF and the R2C union officials do have a different objective – one based on their own political influence and a willingness to bend and break whatever principles and commitments they have to in order to achieve their own political influence (in contrast to political power for the working class.

There are many diverse groups on the left that I would have fundamental disagreements with – but I would not and haven’t accused most of them of attempting to gain power for the sake of it and being willing to sell their soul to do it. Most have working class interests at heart even when they make mistakes in approach, methods or tactics.

The AAA want to win Dail seats not for the sake of winning the seats or for the sake of being in the Dail, or the financial, political, profile benefits it brings. The AAA want to win seats to use these positions to agitate for struggle, raise the banner of socialism and fight in the interests of the working class.

Like

Ed - November 6, 2015

I am just talking about Ogle WBS, he’s been by far the most prominent and vocal and aggressive person pushing this particular line (and by extension I’m talking about all the people who are following his lead; I think he knows very well that it’s easy enough in online debates with no moderator it’s quite easy to stir up a fairly hysterical swarm of people all saying the same thing). To be honest if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you can’t have been looking at the stuff in question. There is a real qualitative difference between what you are talking about and this crap and I can’t make it any clearer than that.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 6, 2015

WbS – Clare Daly will comfortably top the poll – I have seen an opinion poll that has her on two quotas.

It is utter nonsense to suggest that an AAA (or a PBP) candidate is remotely any kind of threat to Clare Daly. There should be two left seats in DF – and Clare Daly could assist in bringing this about – but from what I have heard she has no interest in doing so.

As ds has noted – Clare Daly issued a joint statement with Wallace about R2C (and not with Joan Collins) – and this statement, like the AAA statement, also contained some criticisms of the approach of Ogle and Co.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 6, 2015

WbS – I actually object to your assertion that the AAA is attempting to gain ‘competitive advantage’.

Really? That’s quite absurd. Of course AAA is trying to gain competitive advantage politically. Why else is it in politics? Because it believes it has the correct analysis and that it is important to forward it.

The AAA has one objective and one objective only – to build a mass anti-austerity left movement and in the process defeat the water charges, roll back austerity and ultimately see a left government in power that would challenge the rule of capitalism.
If for one moment AAA activists felt they were a hindrance to this objective the AAA would leave the political scene.

Again AAA and SP members believe that their analysis is correct and all others isn’t. You’ve made that entirely clear over the years. No reason to be shy about it now.

Nor would I claim that the AAA has a monopoly on this outlook – but I would argue, with some clear evidence in support, that both SF and the R2C union officials do have a different objective – one based on their own political influence and a willingness to bend and break whatever principles and commitments they have to in order to achieve their own political influence (in contrast to political power for the working class.

Well of course you believe that because in your analysis that is all they could be about. I’m not saying you are wrong. But I’m not saying you are correct either. Because others would say that no formation has a copyright on commitment to the working class or indeed Marxism, or socialism.

There are many diverse groups on the left that I would have fundamental disagreements with – but I would not and haven’t accused most of them of attempting to gain power for the sake of it and being willing to sell their soul to do it.

Which is effectively painting your political opponents, or at least those who constitute the most proximate threat, in the worst possible light, isn’t it? And yet these are the same people you’ve worked closely with in R2W and then as you say yourself in R2C, you said it yourself as well, drawn up policy etc with them over weeks and months and years.

Most have working class interests at heart even when they make mistakes in approach, methods or tactics.
The AAA want to win Dail seats not for the sake of winning the seats or for the sake of being in the Dail, or the financial, political, profile benefits it brings. The AAA want to win seats to use these positions to agitate for struggle, raise the banner of socialism and fight in the interests of the working class.

Again, that’s admirable, but again you don’t have a monopoly on this. It’s also worth pointing out that all formations are filled with humans and as you know yourself from your own political history (and I know myself from mine) that can lead to the strangest outcomes.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 6, 2015

I am just talking about Ogle WBS, he’s been by far the most prominent and vocal and aggressive person pushing this particular line (and by extension I’m talking about all the people who are following his lead; I think he knows very well that it’s easy enough in online debates with no moderator it’s quite easy to stir up a fairly hysterical swarm of people all saying the same thing). To be honest if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you can’t have been looking at the stuff in question. There is a real qualitative difference between what you are talking about and this crap and I can’t make it any clearer than that.

Ed, I count BY as a friend and I’ve some sense of what Ogle is about already, but this isn’t the discussion we’re having here today. I can’t put it plainer than that. And R2W/R2C was and is broader than BO. And the phenomena we’re discussing are broader than him too.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 6, 2015

WbS – Clare Daly will comfortably top the poll – I have seen an opinion poll that has her on two quotas.

Well that’s fantastic. Let’s ponder the excellence of polls unseen by the broad number of us and their alignment with reality.

Seriously JRG, I am meant to take your word on it? Seriously?

It is utter nonsense to suggest that an AAA (or a PBP) candidate is remotely any kind of threat to Clare Daly. There should be two left seats in DF – and Clare Daly could assist in bringing this about – but from what I have heard she has no interest in doing so.

You cannot and do not know that, any more than I do, for sure. We may both think that CD is in a very good to unassailable position, but as I’ve said to you before, having canvassed for years for TG I know that he never took anything like that for certain, and he was absolutely right not to.

As ds has noted – Clare Daly issued a joint statement with Wallace about R2C (and not with Joan Collins) – and this statement, like the AAA statement, also contained some criticisms of the approach of Ogle and Co.

Hold on a second. I’m not here to support Ogle, not in the slightest. I’ve already noted above that I’m deeply wary of what R2C is evolving into. I don’t think the inclusion of DDI and the other crew suggests that it has anything like the right admission approach.

My position in this is well back from R2C. Don’t get the wrong idea on that.

Like

Enzo - November 5, 2015

Been hearing the same from quite a few people in the community groups about Ogle

Like

dublinstreams - November 5, 2015
Alibaba - November 5, 2015

In its ‘Final Response to AAA’ Right2Change said, which is a paradox, “Unfortunately the AAA decided not to answer the yes or no questions in a yes or no fashion but provided lengthy, formulaic answers. These answers were provided to the meeting in full and read out word for word without comment or judgement”. If so, why was No inserted?

If R2C leaders were to be redeemed should they at least have stated that the questions weren’t responded to by AAA in a closed yes/no fashion and hence shouldn’t have been wrongly noted? The fact they did otherwise was understandably challenged by AAA, albeit sharply.

R2C accuses the AAA of questioning the personal integrity of it leaders. It adds further “That you have now done so is to have crossed a line that makes any further communication between this campaign and your alliance futile and redundant”.

How convenient. Challenges will not be tolerated by union bureaucrats. Consultation sessions were controlled with manipulative means and anybody or group that takes issue with this will be marginalised. And this from those who “will now move on with those who are on board to change Ireland with progressive, broad based policies”. Jackanory, c’mon, the leopard hasn’t changed its spots.

Like

ar scáth a chéile - November 6, 2015

It may not change the substance of the AAA repsonse – but putting in a “NO” is a misprepresentation and quite bizarre. ( and seems nobody from R2C is denying it was done) .

The R2C principles are impressive – but as D’unbelievables say “Jesus ye can;t be dong that lads”

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 6, 2015

And the AAA stated that –

“The AAA generally supports the reforms outlined in the policy principles. We believe that for these to be realised will necessitate going much further than the projected spending increases in the Fiscal Framework Document. These reforms are reasonable and necessary and provide the opportunity to win mass support for the radical change that is needed but they are beyond what the current system can offer…”

R2C ‘leaders’ added a ‘No’ to the beginning of this.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 6, 2015

I think i said above that first was silly of R2C to do but if one reads the rest of the first answer it also appears to position AAA in opposition to the GFA. That may be in regard to the orientation to SF but it clearly would be problematic for a fair few in R2C beyond SF.

R2C would have been much more sensible as well as courteous to not paraphrase the responses but just let them stand, AAA not to rise to the bait avoid social media and just get on with the real work of getting as many AAA TDs elected as humanly possible.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 6, 2015

The AAA stated that it opposed the GFA and has been subjected to abuse for this.

SF states that the R2C platform are ‘aims, not definitive commitments’ – have already said they will dump the repeal of the 8th to get into government – yet not a pipsqueak from anyone.

R2C officials have been engaged in an ongoing campaign of vilification against the AAA (because the AAA kept pushing support for the boycott of water charges) since the start of the AAA process and what happened on Saturday was set up to attack the AAA and bolster SF.

As for social media – the AAA activists have defended the AAA against a stream of abuse and false accusations and are focussed on building for the election (my local branch had 25 people out on Wed night canvassing).

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 6, 2015

Well, in relation to the GFA I think that line does open one to fairly stringent political critiques.

I’m not going to defend SF any more than I’m here to defend Ogle. This indeed would be my criticism of R2C, anything that is do wide it will allow DDI in is problematic from the off.

In fairness no one is behind the door in terms of criticism but glad to hear canvass is going well. Long may it continue.

Like

CMK - November 6, 2015

WbS, context is everything here. Had the individual doing that presentation been cordial and comradely to the AAA and its members there would likely have not been this s**tstorm. However, it was Brendan Ogle and it was the culmination of a long, long, long tiresome campaign of abuse, distortion and lies from him and others in R2C.

It’s funny now listening to him and others use their ‘trade unionism’ to argue that they have been protecting workers while ‘others’ (the AAA/SP) have been doing ‘nothing’ but arguing.

The facts are the Ogle et al finally in mid-2015, ya know, SEVEN years after the onset of austerity decided to do something about it. Luckily for them it co-incided – and it was just co-incidence – with the uprising over water charges. Neither Ogle or any of the other trade union bureacrats lifted a finger to fight austerity prior to that and they have some cheek in claiming a dominant position now and deigning to lecture those of us on the Left on ‘unity’.

Did any of them play any part in the CAHWT? No, they didn’t as they would have to subject themselves to formal structures etc.

From the get-go in late 2008 the Irish Left (SP/SWP/WP and Left independents) were out fighting and organising to fight austerity.

AAA have been damaged by this and Ogle has achieved his aim in spreading doubt and confusion and sullying the name.

It may cost seats it may not. But he is a man on a mission to hole the AAA below the water line and his deviousness, utter lack of comradeliness and his ego will do further damage yet to the Left, which is clearly the implicit objective of R2C.

Not only is Ogle allying with DDI and the National Citizens Movement he is also cultivating forces who think that calling the president a ‘midget parasite’ is cutting edge political commentary.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 6, 2015

My advice fwiw is ignore all this, AAA has its own path – this is all inside baseball as noted above, it does not resonate with anyone beyond a tiny group, the real struggle is on the streets and in communities.

Like

21. dublinstreams - November 5, 2015

Joint statement from Clare Daly (Untied Left) and Mick Wallace (‘Independents 4 Change’) on Right2Change http://claredaly.ie/statement-in-relation-to-right2change/ committed to supporting Right2change criticises focus on electoral pacts

Like

Liberius - November 5, 2015

That is why we are contesting this election as independents & will work with other like mined individuals to build the type of grass roots, bottom up politics, that bases itself on empowering people to organise for themselves.

I take it that means that she won’t be standing under the aegis of the ‘United Left’; good to finally have some clarity on that. Actually does the ‘United Left’ have a claim to being one of the most ‘zombie’ registered parties in the history of the state?

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 5, 2015

In fairness there’s no end of competition in regard to that.

Like

Liberius - November 5, 2015

Aye, though it’s interesting to note that Declan Bree remains as an authorising officer according to the register of political parties, this despite him having failed to authorise himself during the local elections a year and a half ago.

Like

WorldbyStorm - November 5, 2015

I met Bree for the first time over the Summer, he seemed a decent head.

Like

22. Joe - November 6, 2015

I see from JRG above that the AAA is running a candidate in Dublin Central. So I googled it. Diana O’Dwyer. Very impressive. Competition for my vote is hotting up. Looks like I’ll be able to transfer after all.

Like

23. Joe - November 6, 2015

Where would I find the SP rationale for opposing the GFA?

Like

Jolly Red Giant - November 6, 2015
WorldbyStorm - November 6, 2015

Links got caught in spam filter,should be okay – if that happens just post a comment saying you’re having problems

Like

24. Jolly Red Giant - November 6, 2015
Joe - November 6, 2015

Thanks.

Like

25. Paddy Hackett - December 11, 2015

The Right2Change

The policy document of the Right2Change movement shows it to be merely a nationalist movement. This explains why it is supported by the Sinn Fein party. Indeed it echoes some the sentiments of the old Eire Nua document which I recall studying when I was a zealous member of Sinn Fein. In those days, unlike now, it was not easy being a member because of
Harassment, among other things, by the Special Branch. In addition it was not as fashionable to be a member as it may be today.

The policy principles outlined by Righ2Change is an effective denial of the need for a communist revolution. It represents a defense of capitalism. It offers a programme that suggests that capitalism can serve the interests of the working class. It suggests that capitalism can be restructured in such a way as to meet the needs of the Irish working class. It deceives workers by falsely claiming that it’s ten policy principles are realisable within capitalism —–within the EU. It fails to point out how Syriza in Greece was unable to even secure debt restructuring from the EU.

The Right2Change does not understand that communism is a historical necessity because capitalism is inherently limited and thereby unable to enable the realisation of programmes such as the ten principles of Right2Change. The conditions within capitalism for the replacement of the latter with communism now exist. Indeed it cannot even meet the needs of much of the capitalist class itself. The 2008 financial collapse is undeniable evidence of this. Capitalism is an obsolescent system that has not been overthrown because of the failure of the working class to successfully develop political class consciousness –communist consciousness. To realise this political consciousness requires a revolutionary communist party that promotes an anti-capitalist programme.

The ten principles outlined in the policy document are not realizable under capitalism. The document advocates an idealistic capitalist Utopianism as a solution –a mere abstraction. Among the more radical aspirations featuring in the document is that the Irish working class should share responsibility with the indigenous capitalist class for the better functioning of the Irish economy. But even if such a project was achievable, in itself, the Irish economy would still be subject to the law of value as manifested in market relations. Consequently it would be subject to the limiting laws of capital –the very same laws that led to the recent economic crash. This means that this restructured economy cannot escape exposure to the devastation of capitalism’s cyclical nature.

From the foregoing it is clear that the Righ2Change programme advocates an alliance between the working class and the native Irish bourgeoisie. This alliance is proposed in the interests of sustaining capitalism by supposedly restructuring it. But in actual fact this alliance with native bourgeoisie is intended as an anchor by the Right2Change to keep the working class down. The current leadership of this movement advocates such an alliance because of its fear of the working class. It effectively envisions the indigenous bourgeoisie as the force that will prevent the working class from proceeding towards social revolution. In 1917 the Russian bourgeoisie played such a role. But the point is that the indigenous capitalist class is already in an unbreakable alliance with the imperialist bourgeoisie. Consequently Right2Change proposed alliance is impossible. Given thisthe Rright2Change is essentially no different from the traditional bourgeois parliamentary parties embedded in Ireland.

But given the frailty of the Irish working class there is no possibility of its being able to create the kind of utopianism advocated by these ten policy principles on a small island with a relatively weak economy. It’s encirclement by the big capitalist powers (the EU) can only but guarantee the savage crushing of such a state. Revolution in Ireland must form an integrated part of the European revolution. There can be no insular Irish communism –no socialism in one country.

Then there is the question of the general character of this movement. If it’s allegedly diverse elements share such a general and radical programme then it makes no sense for these autonomous elements to continue as independent entities. There is no reason as to why they could not form themselves into a unified petty bourgeois party. It is also questionable as to whether, if it was elected into bourgeois state power, it would even seriously struggle to realise it’s declared policy principles. Righ2Change is the Irish light version of the Greek Syriza party. However, unlike Syriza, it stands little chance of making the electoral gains of Syriza. Syriza and Right2change are forces designed to obstruct the revolutionary development of the working class.

The document expresses support for Good Friday Agreement. This is an agreement that further institutionalises sectarianism in Ireland.

To finish: The Right2Change policy document resembles the old Stalinist document of the Communist Party called The Peaceful Road To Socialism. Perhaps Right2Change will even announce its adherence to
The old Stalinist stages theory doctrine. Stalinism is dead.

Like

26. Paddy Hackett - December 11, 2015

should have written: Stalinism is dead. Long live Stalinism

Like

CL - December 12, 2015

“a historical necessity”. Care to elaborate on that notion? is something preventing historical necessity from occurring? Was everything in the past historically necessary? in the future will what is necessary come inevitably to pass?

Like

Paddy Hackett - December 12, 2015

Many events are historically contingent. However if the needs of the working class are to be met then the realisation is a historical necessity.

Like

27. Paddy Hackett - December 12, 2015

Should have written above the realisation of communism. I apologise. Print very small.

Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: