Local Election Socialist Alliance

national | politics / elections | opinion/analysis

Monday December 01, 2008 15:09

by Michael Murphy - Socialist Party

The Socialist Party has been in discussion with others on the left with a view to forming an Electoral Alliance for the Local Elections which will take place in June 2009. These discussions have been publicly carried in the pages of our paper "the Socialist" and on sites such as this. The Socialist Party has put forward a very positive proposal for a local election slate of candidates. It is important the slate would field credible candiates with a record in the their area that there is political agreement with the programme of the slate which will flow from discussions. We feel these issues among others mentioned in the material below are extremley important if we are to get aggreement. This is why in these proposals we have provided fuller elaboration of our position in an open, honest and constructive manner we hope that other groups will respond in kind.

Socialist Party proposals for Local Election Socialist Alliance
The Socialist Party has been engaged in discussions over the last few months with a number of left groups including the Socialist Workers Party/People before Profit Alliance, the South Tipperary Workers and Unemployed Action group and others with a view to establishing a slate of candidates for the local election due in June 2009.

Changing political situation

The economic and resulting political crisis in Ireland has had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. The budget cuts, in particular the attempted removal of the over 70’s medical cards and the attacks on education are seen by people, as harsh attacks on the some of the most vulnerable sections of Irish society to make them pay for an economic crisis caused by bankers, speculators and facilitated by the banks and the Flanna Fail led government.
The movement by the pensioners which forced the government into a significant retreat has inspired many workers around the country. The movement by students on third level fees and the mass demonstrations by teachers, parents and school students is the music of the future. The economic crisis will continue to worsen and it is clearly the intention of the government to continue to make workers pay. There is the strong possibility of a second budget in the spring of 2009 where more attacks on public services and workers living standards can be expected.
The local elections next year will be an important test for this government and, given the recent opinion poll figures reflecting the massive anger at the economic crisis it is likely they will take a hammering. Labour and Fine Gael, in this context, while offering no solution to these problems, are likely to make gains partly because they have a base, they have been in opposition for so long and are the most obvious force to defeat the government but also because there is no strong left alternative on a national basis. Labour has adopted a left posture on issues recently including voting against the bank bail-out in an opportunist attempt to gain electoral support.

Local Elections 2009

Left groups can potentially do well in the local elections next year and in some areas could provide a fighting socialist alternative to the establishment parties including the so called opposition.
The continued move to the right of the Labour Party and Sinn Fein has meant that there is no real left alternative on a national basis to the main right wing establishment parties. There is a gaping need and role for a new left party to represent working class people. The Socialist Party has consistently argued for such a party not just in Ireland but internationally and our sister organisations in the Committee for a Workers International have participated in a number of initiatives in countries such as Brazil, Scotland, Germany and Greece with other forces to launch such initiatives.
We believe that the involvement of a substantial number of activists in communities, workplaces and the unions is critical to the establishment of such a party. These activists in our view will emerge from the struggles of the working class that are arising and will continue to arise from the current economic crisis. However these forces don’t exist in sufficient numbers in Ireland at the present time and bringing the relatively small existing forces of the left together would not constitute a significant step forward as this stage.
Timing is a very important factor in establishing any new formation. There have been several examples of premature initiatives in Europe that have collapsed because of the absence of significant numbers of workers.
We are in favour of left co-operation on specific issues and campaigns as long as it is done on an open, genuine and democratic basis, which is why we have made this proposal for a slate of left candidates for the local elections.
In our opinion there doesn’t at this moment exist a sufficient number of strong candidates or mood to raise the prospect of a broader slate of candidates of a generally left position fighting around particular issues such as existed around the Taxation Justice Alliance in 1997 or the bin tax in 2004.
In view of this situation, we believe that a specifically “left” slate of candidates is a more appropriate prospect. It could pose a real political alternative and point a way forward for how the working class can get organised. Any slate involving the participation of the Socialist Party would have to be made up of credible candidates. We are opposed to inviting anyone and everyone on to a slate just to add as many candidates as possible. The significance of a slate will not be based on the number of candidates who stand but what it represents and the results it receives. In our view a slate would also be a testing ground of the potential for the formation of a new party or left alliance to represent working class people.

Candidates with a record and credibility

We believe if there is going to be a slate of left candidates; it is important that some political criteria apply to ensure that any left or socialist slate is made up of genuinely left forces that are committed to building a socialist alternative. The disaster of the Respect coalition in Britain is illustrative of what can happen when a politically loose arrangement is agreed. The defection of a number of Respect councillors to New Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party illustrates the very weak political position of these councillors. We want genuine left candidates who are opposed to the market and capitalism and who would argue for and are committed to building a new party of the working class that fights for socialism.
We also believe that opposition to coalition at local or national level with right wing parties – including voting for Mayoral candidates from the right wing parties needs to be a pre-condition to any candidate participation.
Any slate of candidates should be opposed to double taxation service charges including water, bin, recycling and sewerage charges. There are some who may be considered to be on the left who have voted for charges in the past or are at best ambiguous on the issue and may be in favour of such charges on “environmental” grounds.
In our opinion the credibility of candidates is critical. Political agreement on issues is important but it is not sufficient for someone to simply sign up to a set of demands if their previous political history has been counter to some of those demands for example on coalition or doing deals with right wing parties at local or national level. We need to learn the lessons of experiences such as Respect and not repeat those mistakes.
The movement of pensioners recently showed how struggle by people is the critical way to win gains for working people. If people are serious about representing working class people and fighting on the issues then standing in elections should flow from being involved in campaigns and struggles alongside people. Obviously occasions arise where important issues can blow up in a matter of days or weeks, people get organised and decide to stand in an election to highlight their issues. We have seen this on some occasions with health and other campaigns. If this were to arise we would adopt a flexible approach but that is entirely different to a particular group putting forward people who have no record or history behind them to be part of slate with people who have been campaigning for years on important issues in areas. We do think that it may be possible to have a slate of up to 30 credible candidates which in our view would be a significant number. While the change in the political situation and the impact of the financial crisis can have a positive affect on the votes of left candidates in the local election campaign this is not automatic. It is still the case that the work done on the ground by candidates will be decisive.
If there is a slate it could be launched publicly in early 2009 at a press event launching the candidates. There could be then a series of local launches in areas where candidates are based with the possibility of a small number of public meetings involving some of the more “high profile” candidates or existing councillors. However the key goal is to try and make the alliance a success by ensuring as many of the candidates get elected as possible. This will involve a lot of hard work in the local areas on campaigns and issues. The success or failure of the slate will be judged on its successes in the election and that cannot be taken for granted.

Democratic Structure

We have proposed that there should be a democratic structure elected to oversee a slate. All groups should be entitled to put forward representatives to this structure; the number of reps for each can be discussed. This structure should take decisions on such matters as the political programme of the slate, who would be selected as candidates, as well as the number of candidates.
We believe that there needs to be trust on these issues but there have been problems in the past regarding alliances and election slates. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in particular has an inglorious history of playing a destructive role in campaigns and initiatives in which they have been involved. They have used their force of numbers to try push through their proposals in an undemocratic way in many campaigns and initiatives which has alienated many genuine people. Our sister organisation in Britain were left with no option but to leave the Socialist Alliance in Britain, an alliance they initiated. The SWP used their greater force of numbers to vote down proposals from us for a democratic and federal structure for the alliance. These proposals were deliberately designed to prevent the domination of the alliance of any one political group. Under the stewardship of the SWP the Socialist Alliance then disintegrated.
In 2004 there was an attempt to stand candidates as part of an anti bin tax slate for the local elections in Dublin proposed by the Socialist Party. The SWP insisted on putting a number of people on the slate who had not built a campaign in their area and had no place on a slate alongside people who had been to prison on the issue and had slogged over years building a campaign and in particular played crucial role in extending campaign during its high point in September/October 2003. The Socialist Party proposal would have resulted in a slate of people who had played an important role in that struggle and it would have amounted to a slate of about 20 candidates. The Socialist Party would not give in to the demands of the SWP and the slate did not go ahead because of the intransigence of the SWP and some of their supporters on the left.
We have also seen recently where the SWP attempted to set up a campaign against the social partnership deal. They organised a conference in Dublin supposedly to discuss the establishment of a trade union rank and file network and didn’t invite the Socialist Party, individual members of the Socialist Party or many other prominent activists who have important positions in the trade union movement. Then at the event, which was inevitably dominated by the SWP, they initiated a campaign against the social partnership deal, which was undemocratic and served to consciously exclude genuine activists. A genuine approach to discuss the agenda, speakers or even building a campaign against the partnership deal would seek to include as many left activists in the trades union movement irrespective of party affiliation.
It is for these reasons among others that the issue of trust is so important for the Socialist Party. To that end we believe a democratic structure such as this is not only necessary but critical. We believe all major decisions taken must be on the basis of serious and thorough discussion and unanimous agreement at a structure particularly by the groups representing the majority of candidates on the slate.

Name

The Socialist Party believes the left slate should have an independent new name. Clearly Socialist Party candidates will carry our name but would carry the slate name on material and dealings with the media etc. We would be opposed to the use of any name that is linked with any particular political grouping or party. As befitting a new slate for upcoming elections, it should be launched anew and fresh. We believe at this stage something like “Local Election Socialist Alliance” could be considered.

European Elections 2009

Joe Higgins will once again be the Socialist Party candidate in the Dublin constituency for the European election in June 2009. Joe Higgins stood in 1999 and 2004 when he received a very credible 23,000 votes (5.5%). While Joe Higgins played a crucial role in the recent No campaign in the Lisbon referendum which strengthens his candidacy for the euro elections it was our intention to stand Joe Higgins irrespective of the Lisbon campaign and result. Joe Higgins is the most credible left wing candidate for the euro election and all groups on the left in Dublin have benefited from the work of Joe Higgins in the Dail.
Joe Higgins is clearly seen as a tremendous fighter for working people having spent ten years in the Dail as a workers TD for Dublin West. The SWP raised that they may stand a candidate in effect against the Socialist Party in Dublin. We think this would be a mistake and would be an opportunist move for short term gain and is not in the interest of serious representation for working people. The Dublin constituency has been reduced to three seats in a recent electoral review which means there will be fierce competition for votes on the left with Labour and Sinn Fein also competing. Rather than strengthening the radical left vote the decision of the SWP to stand would split the left vote. We think too that many people looking on this would think it rather foolish that candidates stand together on a local slate would then stand against each other in the European elections!
We would welcome the participation of groups and individuals who want to play a role in Joe Higgins election campaign and who would assist with giving out leaflets, assist with canvassing, organising meetings or fundraising. Local campaigns, for example on health issues, could also find it very helpful to have their issues highlighted through the European Election campaign of Joe Higgins.
The Socialist Party believes if a local election slate was pulled together made up of serious forces and resulted in getting a number of people elected to councils around the country it would potentially represent a step forward for left wing representation and working class people in this country particularly in light of the developing economic crisis and the impact it is having and will continue to have on workers’ consciousness. However the economic and political crisis gripping Ireland will result in massive increase in working class struggle against the attacks of the Fianna Fail/Green government and will pose the need for new political representation for working class people. The Socialist Party with others will play a key role in that process. But crucially it will be from the participation of new forces of young people and workers entering into struggle which will be critical in bringing about a new party for working class people.

save preference

Comments (23 of 23)

Jump To Comment:

socialist alliance

by Jen - none

Tue Dec 02, 2008 20:43

That sounds promising. I can't imagine that the SWP would stand someone against Joe Higgins in the European elections.

Maybe a joint campaign on the next Lisbon referendum would be a good testing ground for how well the two parties can work together.

Agreed.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity)

Tue Dec 02, 2008 23:28

I think it's a good proposal, and a slate on these lines would be useful. We'll have to wait and see how the other organisations involved respond though. An alliance consisting only of ourselves wouldn't be much of an alliance after all. So far nobody has made a public response, that I'm aware of, although there have been discussions.

Left Slate

by Gino Kenny - Sociaist Workers Party

Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:13

I agree and disagree to a lot of the points Michael has made. I think the idea of left slate is a good idea, and hopefully it will come about. But can Michael clarify a few things for me. What constitutes a credible candidate on the slate? Do they have to be a member of a party/movement ? Can a person with a record of community activity be put forward ? I agree that putting two Socialist candidates in the Euro elections would be a joke, but nobody should have a monopoly in going forward for the seat. I certainly hope that their is unity on the left in the coming period, otherwise we'll all loose out.

Anti-Lison tactical voting

by tactician

Wed Dec 03, 2008 14:19

There are three seats in the Dublin constituency for the European Parliament elections. The first two will pretty certainly go to Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, in that order. The last will probably be taken by Proinsias De Rossa of the Labour Party.

So the three seats will go to Pro Lisbon Treaty candidates.

The only credible risk to De Rossa is May Lou McDonald of Sinn Féin. A defeat of De Rossa by McDonald would be another serious blow to the treaty, and the prospects of the FF/Green govenment holding a second referendum.

Running candidates who will take votes away from McDonald will help the pro-Lisbon parties. However worthy those candidates are, and however interesting it is to ponder the future of the left, it would seem more important to retain a voice against the treaty.

A reply to Gino

Wed Dec 03, 2008 15:06

Hi Gino,

Firstly, please don't take this as an official response from the Socialist Party. This response only reflects my own understanding of the proposals and I could be wrong on some of the details.

"What constitutes a credible candidate on the slate? Do they have to be a member of a party/movement ? Can a person with a record of community activity be put forward ?"

There are three aspects to this.

1) A candidate should agree to the common political platform of the slate (obviously).
2) They should have a serious record of involvement in working class campaigns or struggles, whether that be in the workplace, in the communities or wherever else.
3) They shouldn't have undermined that record with a history of support for coalitions with right wing parties or bin charges or anything similar.

None of these things would inherently be an obstacle to an independent with a campaigning record who wanted to stand on a socialist slate. Such people would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, just as people put forward by any of the groups involved would have to be evaluated. In 2004 the issue that led to the breakdown of discussions around a common anti-bin tax slate wasn't independents but candidates put forward by your own organisation who had no record of involvement in the campaign the slate was supposedly based on.

"I agree that putting two Socialist candidates in the Euro elections would be a joke, but nobody should have a monopoly in going forward for the seat."

I'm glad to see that we are in agreement that putting forward two candidates would be a joke. Unfortunately, that seems to be what the SWP are threatening to do at the moment. You are better placed to take that up with your organisation than I am.

As for anyone having a monopoly, I would also agree that the support of the left in going for the seat isn't any individual's private property. Instead these things have to be assessed on the basis of what the prospective candidate represents. In this case Joe Higgins got nearly 6% of the vote across Dublin last time and is clearly the best known and most credible left wing candidate. If other groups on the left want to be involved in helping his campaign that would be very welcome, but standing against him would be crassly sectarian. I think it would undermine the possibility of a good socialist vote and I don't see how a joint slate could be credible in the local elections in those circumstances.

"I agree and disagree to a lot of the points Michael has made."

Perhaps you could outline your agreements and disagreements? It would help clarify where there are potential problems and where there are none.

Mark & Gino

by Interested Party

Wed Dec 03, 2008 16:09

The discussions are ongoing. Any chance of letting the reps for your respective groups get on with it? Does it really need to be cyber-debated? If it's a case that the reps in your groups don't bring the discussions back for internal debate well then I can understand it and you might comment on that.

A reply to Interested Party

Wed Dec 03, 2008 16:59

I'm well aware that there have been discussions and that those discussions are ongoing. However there is no reason for all discussion to go on behind closed doors. This will effect the wider left in Ireland, including people who aren't in the organisations currently involved and who won't therefore be getting internal reports from anyone.

The Socialist Party has made it clear in this article what precisely it is proposing. At the start of this process it made its proposals public in a more bare bones format. That's been our consistent approach. We'll talk with anybody, but we'll also explain what our bottom line is to anyone who is interested. I don't see any reason why all of this should be kept secret. It's not really an issue for backroom haggling alone. Let organisations and individuals make their views known if they so wish. If they'd rather stay silent, no doubt they'll do that.

European Elections

by Curious - -

Wed Dec 03, 2008 17:00

What would be wrong with 2 left European candidates?

Continue the debate

by Showball

Wed Dec 03, 2008 17:21

I disagree with the last comment. Let the debate on this very important issue be both public and private. Providing the trolls aren't allowed to ruin the debate it could be enlightening.

Reply to Curious

Wed Dec 03, 2008 19:14

Nothing would be wrong with two left candidates in the European election if they were standing in different constituencies. Here however the SWP are threatening to stand in the same constituency as an established left candidate.

The consequences of such a move would be that we all look rather silly, particularly if we are allegedly part of the same alliance at a local election. A vote split between two candidates will not have the same impact. If a socialist candidate manages say 6 to 10% of the vote that would be impressive and would have a certain impact. Joe Higgins could potentially achieve that. Two left candidates managing say 3 percent of the vote each would fly entirely under the radar. A split vote would have a split impact. It would also result in confusion amongst any voters looking towards the left and a great deal of duplicated effort and expense. There is no serious argument in favour of running two left candidates against each other, and quite a few against it.

I certainly - and this is a personal view - would not be in favour of an alliance in the locals with people who are so insincere in their talk of unity that they would simultaneously be going out of their way to split the left vote in the Europeans.

Unity is at hand.......

by David Crowe

Thu Dec 04, 2008 00:40

I can only imagine that the socialist group have decided that the correct way to debate these issues is through indymedia. A logical choice for such important matters. No point meeting face to face when you can use the internet!
As for the content, I think the author should be a bit more honest,,,the socialist group has admitted that it will not itself be running credible candidates in some areas but members who will raise their profile. Why challenge other groups on this matter so?
The claim that Joe Higgins played a "crucial" role in the Lisbon Treaty is stretching it. A role yes but a similar role to every other opponent to Lisbon. Also, the claim that " all left groups benefited from the work of Joe in the Dail" is bordering on the "heres a whopper" scenario.

As I said, the left slate alliance debate is only strengthened by the use of indymedia to repeat all the old hatred of the SWP/PBP stuff, the "we are the only ones" dicktat and a few porkies to embellish a good old leftie article.
Well done comrade.....the future is ours!

Response to David Crowe

Thu Dec 04, 2008 02:03

Well that's a predictably cynical response from someone unwilling to provide his own organisational affiliations.

Nobody is suggesting that negotiations should be carried out through Indymedia. That's why the Socialist Party made it's proposals directly to the other groups concerned and why a series of discussions have been ongoing since before then. There is no contradiction between holding serious face to face negotiations and also being open about what you are proposing, what you are saying and what you are arguing. None of this is secret and really none of it should be.

The Socialist Party is not saying that there should be any bar on any group putting forward whatever candidates they want. Sometimes any group may decide to stand a candidate to raise their profile or to cohere local activists and solidify a branch or for any one of a load of reasons. The thing is though that if the Socialist Party does that - and we have done that in the past and may do so in the future - we take responsibility for the likely poor result and don't insist that a campaign or a broader alliance take responsibility for it instead. We did not for instance argue that one of our candidates who was standing for reasons like that should be on the proposed anti-bin tax slate during the last local elections in the South. We opposed putting our candidate in the North onto a broad anti-water tax slate there for similar reasons. We were standing those candidates for good reasons, but it would not have benefited the campaigns concerned to attach their name to candidates who were always going to get a very modest vote.

It seems that, for whatever reason, the SWP/PBPA are planning on nominating a bunch of candidates with little record or profile. It is entirely their right to do that. It is also our right to say that we aren't interested in taking responsibility for those campaigns or in forming some kind of joint slate composed of such candidates. If there is going to be a joint slate - and we are very serious about forming one - then it should be composed of people with an agreed political platform and who have a record of campaigning. It should not be an open invitation to the SWP to scrape up every paper candidate they can find and foist them on all of us.

As for the Joe Higgins remarks - I think that anyone who doesn't think that the left as a whole benefited from having a strong, coherent left wing voice in the Dail and in the media, not to mention the profile his position helped to give the GAMA and bin tax struggles, is myopic at best and more likely a blinkered sectarian.

MEP elections

by Jen - still none

Thu Dec 04, 2008 21:56

I still don't see the SWP running someone against Joe Higgins in the European elections but I'm starting to wonder if it's such a big deal if they do. Fantastic TD as he was, Joe is unlikely to get elected to Brussels. Realistically, Mary Lou McDonald will be re-elected. The European elections come down to funding. Last time a virtual unknown, and former FF member, took Patricia McKenna's seat simply because the SF campaign had oodles of cash, was exceptionally PR-savvy and had an overly smiley poster on every pole from Dublin to Kinnegad. The same thing will happen again, and while SF still sound leftish maybe that's not such a big deal. I don't for a moment suggest that the SP and SWP should campaign for SF, but they should concentrate on the local elections and the second Lisbon referendum (October?) instead of wasting scarce resources. Running a token candidate(s) at least gives people someone to vote for to show their opposition to a neo-liberal EU (which SF are also currently opposed to, similarly to the Greens in the past). I still think it makes sense for the SWP to back Joe on this one, but I don't think it's the end of the world if they don't - neither will be elected MEP on this occasion.

Running credible candidates makes sense but beware the SP candidate who was once tabled to speak at a meeting on the Nice treaty and instead announced she would 'Sit in the audience and listen to the other speakers as [she was] just an ordinary person and [she] wouldn't know about these sorts of things'. The left needs to present credible candidates but working class people don't need to be presented with token women, or candidates who play dumb as this think this is what their voters seek. The SWP didn't have anyone of this calibre but presented an interesting host of the walking wounded of capitalism from various pockets of Ireland. However, Gino Kenny (posts above) is a good example of someone who probably would not have been deemed ''credible' by the Socialist Party, but who bucked the trend, attracting a very large vote and probably encouraging many who would not normally have voted to turn out. The left needs more credible candidates of his calibre.

I'm sure building an alliance is easier said than done, especially since there is so much mistrust on both sides, but if it can be done it would be a great move for the left in Ireland. Good luck;)

Update

Thu Dec 04, 2008 22:35

The SWP (PBPA) have informed the Socialist Party that they have rejected the above proposals for a socialist alliance in the Local Elections..

As far as the European Elections are concerned, it remains to be seen if they will take the sectarian and destructive step of standing a candidate against Joe Higgins. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose.

clarification

by REALpolitik

Thu Dec 04, 2008 22:56

Jen,

You say "Running a token candidate(s) at least gives people someone to vote for to show their opposition to a neo-liberal EU (which SF are also currently opposed to, similarly to the Greens in the past)"

you kind of answer yourself there. THat the Greens "used" to oppose a neo-liberal Europe is the essense of the situation. What is the point to supporting someone who presently, opportunistically opposes or has a passing opposition to a neo-liberal Europe. The central argument of Sinn Fein during the Lisbon treaty was that it should be re-negociated - i.e. a nicer europe, something they could swallow. That, in my opinion is not a principled opposition and leaves the door open to do exactly what the greens did, dump it overboard when something meatier comes along (coalition, anyone?).

In that context, it is not about running token candidates, but running a credible campaign that registers a serious, genuine and principled result, but in doing also, and most importantly, builds a serious opposition - a platform from which something bigger can be built.

ALso, if i'm not mistaken, wasn't Gino Kenny included on the slate for the bin tax that the SP supported. I could be wrong but its probably recorded on the annals of indymedia somewhere.

who?

by curious

Thu Dec 04, 2008 23:38

Running credible candidates makes sense but beware the SP candidate who was once tabled to speak at a meeting on the Nice treaty and instead announced she would 'Sit in the audience and listen to the other speakers as [she was] just an ordinary person and [she] wouldn't know about these sorts of things'.

Who was that?

All over

by over and out

Fri Dec 05, 2008 00:39

Mark P said that the SWP have said no to the Socialist Partys proposal to have a election alliance, so its all over and done with. SWP and their puppets in PBPA not interested in democratic arrangements, they only want "unity" if it means they are in control - a disgrace, but not surprised look at what they did with Respect, they give opportunism a bad name!

Reply to Realpolitic

Fri Dec 05, 2008 00:40

Yes, if you are talking about the 2004 elections and the discussion around a possible anti-bin tax campaign slate, Gino Kenny was on the list of candidates the Socialist Party wanted included.

Credible Candidates: 'Mine is bigger than yours' reversed

by Returning Officer

Fri Dec 05, 2008 13:56

The following is a comment from an Indymedia thread of 8th March 2007 on the Northern election results:

'Mine is bigger than yours' reversed
author FG Thu Mar 08, 2007

Well done to all the left candidates for the effort.

SEA/SWP 2045 5.0%
PBP/SWP 774 2.3%

SP 248 0.8%
SP 225 0.8%

Now one thing this result must end ONCE AND FOR ALL, and it is this: no doubt the SWP will as usual talk up their result as a wondrous achievement BUT let us have NO MORE, on Indymedia or anywhere else, smug crowing from SP people, on the basis of election performances, on how much closer they are to the working class and how much their superior politics connects with people. NO MORE.

Let us all now be realistic and modest (and co-operate instead of competing):

South: SP tiny, SWP tinier (but only in elections);
North: SWP tiny; SP tinier (but only in elections).

No more silly nose thumbing. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Reply to Returning Officer

Fri Dec 05, 2008 16:58

Actually, Returning Officer, you will find that the Socialist Party was opposed to including its own candidates on a slate based on the anti-water tax campaign in the North, on the grounds that candidates getting a very modest tally would damage the credibility of a movement which had much wider support than most candidates connected to it could hope to get at that point. The bills had not arrived, the mainstream parties including the DUP and Sinn Fein were still pretending to be opposed to the tax and therefore there was no prospect of anti-water tax campaign candidates getting a vote reflecting the strength of feeling on the issue. Credibility is important, and while the Socialist Party might want to stand its own candidates understanding that they would get a modest vote, we did not want the We Won't Pay Campaign to take responsibility for those modest votes.

Similarly, when there were discussions around an anti-bin tax campaign slate in the South in 2004, we did not seek to include one of our own candidates who we again knew would get a limited vote. We wanted to stand that candidate for good reasons, but we didn't want any wider slate to take responsibility for that decision or for the vote that would result.

The SWP/PBP are perfectly entitled to stand any candidates they want, to raise their profile, to cohere a local branch or whatever. We are of the view though that only candidates who agree to the common political platform, have a campaigning record and haven't undermined that record through support for things like coalition or the bin tax should be on a central slate. The Socialist Party, the other groups on the slate, the alliance itself, should not automatically take responsibility for people who will get 7 or 11 or 200 votes (as some SWP candidate last time out) just because the SWP say so. It isn't just the vote tallies however. We also shouldn't automatically take responsibility for people whose politics aren't socialist or who have a record of undermining struggle, through support for coalition or the bin tax or anything similar.

You should be able to remember that not very long ago the British SWP was involved in a slate of candidates in Tower Hamlets on London. That alliance was put together on a very low political level involving a number of candidates with little or no campaigning record and rather dubious political views. That alliance - the Respect Coalition - got a very good number of votes. But within a couple of years most of the elected councillors had left, defecting to New Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even the Tories. The defectors included two people who weren't just Respect members but were SWP members! We are not interested in a repeat of that debacle, and neither should anyone else be.

If we are going to endorse people and take responsibility for their campaigns then we - like every other group involved - are entitled to insist that they meet certain basic criteria in terms of their record and politics. The SWP announcing that they want to stand them is all very well, but it isn't enough. An alliance slate should consist of candidates that all of the groups involved are happy to support, who agree with the political programme of the alliance, who have a campaigning record and who haven't undermined that record with support for right wing policies.

That's not an unreasonable position.

As I understand it, the SWP oppose it for a couple of reasons. Firstly they are unfortunately already scraping together a few candidates with no records themselves and secondly they want to use the offer of an alliance to entice a candidate or two with non-socialist politics and poor records on things like the bin tax and coalition. Unfortunately no SWP members have come here, identifying themselves as such and openly defended their views, so I can't say what their reasoning is with any certainty until after I hear a report back from the Socialist Party delegates at the meeting.

cedar lounge debate

by CPK - -

Fri Dec 05, 2008 18:19

Interesting remark on Cedar Lounge site:
"Perhaps it was a tactical error for the SP to market their proposal with such an attack on the SWP’s record. Unless the intention was to have it rejected."

Sounds likely

Reply to CPK

Fri Dec 05, 2008 19:03

Are you suggesting that the SWP decided against an alliance because some rather mild criticism of their record in the Socialist Party document hurt their poor little feelings?

Come off it.

The SWP rejected the proposals because they aren't interested in an alliance a firm political and organisational basis and are planning on putting together an Irish Respect Coalition. Something that they control organisationally, but with watery soft left politics. All the stuff about left unity was just their usual guff. The desperation with which certain anonymous people, who don't reveal their organisational affiliations, are trying to come up with some kind of sympathetic explanation for the SWP's refusal is pretty amusing though.

The left disunited will always be left out (to the tune of...)

by Raymond Deane - Unaffiliated, for obvious reasons

Sat Dec 06, 2008 21:42

I've written "unaffiliated, for obvious reasons" because it seems to me this "discussion", and the sequence of events giving rise to it, prove why any kind of constructive political affiliation on the left in this country remains a pipe-dream. This is a time of unprecedented crisis for global capitalism, and hence of unprecedented opportunity for a united left. Instead, we get the usual machinations, manipulations, and recriminations (I suppose this message comes under the latter category). Admittedly the right is a bit disunited too, thanks to the Ganley lad, but on the whole they get by just fine and will continue to rule the roost on this benighted island while the scattered cocks peck impotently at one another in the dust. Sad, sad stuff.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Local Election Socialist Alliance

Comments (23 of 23)