Another Left Alliance Call

by Khalid Farouk Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:22

Mr O'Reilly is correct in much of what he says. He is correct to criticise the Labour Party for going into coalition and simply being a FG lite. He is correct to point out that the Labour Party are insular petty bourgeois nationalists devoid of any internationalism. where he is wrong is in his tactics. The Labour Party is incapable of being reformed. It is not a party of grass roots union activists, it is a party of the bureacracy and of partnership. Working class people see it as just another establishment party. It has no potential. Rabitte and co are incapable and unwilling to break with partnership and be a real left wing workers party.

One of the key tasks facing the working class in Ireland is the overthrowing of the union bureacracy and breaking with partnership. This will be done by the grassroots of the unions re-emerging. The tasks for socialsits and revolutionaries now is to help that process along. Making appeals to the Labour Party as O'Reilly is doing or to the bureaucrats as the SWP are doing is only providing obstacles to this process and making it more difficult.

As for the Sinn Fein party, I know this type of party from my time in my home country, they are a classic petty bourgeois nationalist chauvinist party that uses left rhetoric from time to time. No self respecting revolutionary would touch them with a 10 meter pole.

by cpj - labour Mon Jan 23, 2006 20:36

i think its blindingly obvious as in "dont deal with terrorists!!!!",when SF sort out their nasty allies and criminal links they'll go into bed with FF anyway.

by Hosniya Mon Jan 23, 2006 21:26

"As for the Sinn Fein party, I know this type of party from my time in my home country, they are a classic petty bourgeois nationalist chauvinist party that uses left rhetoric from time to time. No self respecting revolutionary would touch them with a 10 meter pole".

That's not really an argument. Saying that you don't like the shinners because they remind you of some other political party in Egypt or somewhere just displays prejudice.

What particular part of Sinn Féin's policies shows them (in your opinion) to be less than a revolutionary political party?

If you can avoid usuing terminology like "classic petty bourgeois nationalist chauvinist party" that would help.

by Hosniya Mon Jan 23, 2006 21:29

CPJ- ""dont deal with terrorists!!!!""

Do you have any idea of the past activities of the current leader of the Labour Party, and the people he was/is quite happy to deal with?

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal cap) Mon Jan 23, 2006 22:07

"If you can avoid usuing terminology like "classic petty bourgeois nationalist chauvinist party" that would help."

I agree with this. Terms like "petty bourgeois" have a useful technical meaning for Marxists, but they are also jargon which serve to exclude the uninitiated. It is perfectly possible to explain socialist ideas or given an analysis in the kind of English which is in normal use today. Jargon can be useful as a shorthand, but really just throwing it into a general conversation distracts from whatever points are being made.

"What particular part of Sinn Féin's policies shows them (in your opinion) to be less than a revolutionary political party?"

This of course is the key question or at least a key question. And in answer to it I'd point Hosniya to the article which appeared on the same page of the Sunday Business Post. The SBP, as the name suggests, targets itself in large part at Ireland's business elite and so it shouldn't come as a surprise that it asked O'Caolain about Sinn Fein's relationship to business. Here is what he had to say:

Caoimhghin O Caolain rejected the notion that businesspeople should be afraid of Sinn Fein in government. In recent weeks, the party has repositioned its policies on enterprise and job creation but O Caolain said he saw no reason why they would not be welcomed by industry.

‘‘I have never ever believed we are ‘scary’ to business people,” he said. ‘‘I have an excellent working relationship with business people in my constituency as does our party with all sections of society on the ground. I have no doubt that is replicated throughout the country.

‘‘People in business have absolutely nothing to fear from the idea of Sinn Fein being in government. We have demonstrated that in terms of our input directly in terms of governance north of the border. But I have no doubt we will demonstrate the required skills and commitment to the roles which may at any time be entrusted upon us.”

Article can be found at:
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=11179-qqqx=1.asp

Now read over that carefully. Here is Sinn Fein's most senior Southern figure outlining the party's attitude towards Ireland's capitalists. The central sentiment is that Sinn Fein is a friend to business. What's more he proudly points to Sinn Fein's record in government in the North as evidence of just how business-friendly Sinn Fein really is.

Now when Sinn Fein are trying to retain some radical or left wing credibility they tend to explain their record in government in the North in terms of the restrictions they were operating under. So McGuinness may have fought against the term time workers and both Sinn Fein Ministers may have made themselves busy privatising schools and hospitals but this was portrayed as somehow, in some higher sense, all the fault of the British or the Unionists or both. Here though the mask slips. O'Caolain is addressing the Irish capitalist class and he puts Sinn Fein's cards on the table - what they did in the North is what they are all about. Similarly when Gerry Adams was lunching with Dublin's business elite at the Chamber of Commerce he explained to his fellow diners that Sinn Fein was all about pragmatic politics, and pointed to their sell out over the bin tax in Sligo as the kind of thing he was talking about.

Yesterday I found myself browsing through Sinn Fein's Dublin newsletter, a colourful thing with plenty of pictures of the prospective election candidates smiling at their lucky voters. In it Sinn Fein talked of being opposed to Public Private Partnership. What it didn't mention is that some of Ireland's biggest PPP schemes were introduced by Sinn Fein. And regardless of what they may claim on a working class estate in the South this wasn't something they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into. Here is Martin McGuinness outlining a privatisation scheme of his:

Notwithstanding legitimate concerns about Public Private Partnerships, I believe that with proper management, PPP can be a viable method of procuring facilities for young people. Just last month the last of four pathfinder projects opened its doors to pupils. My Department will continue to work with school authorities to ensure that the best use can be made of PPP in tackling the backlog in the schools estate. Building on last year's announcement, I have decided to include two PPP clusters in this year's capital programme."

The Minister announced details of the projects: "There are three schools in the first cluster to be procured under PPP, with a combined capital valuation of over £27m. This is a challenging but exciting project, which will for the first time bring together controlled and integrated school sectors working together within PPP to procure new facilities without in any way compromising the ethos or management of the individual schools, and I would hope to pursue this approach further in the future."

"There are four schools in the second cluster to be procured under PP with a combined capital valuation of over £25m. This too is a challenging and exciting project, which for the first time here sees primary schools and post-primary schools going forward together under PPP."

The Minister concluded: "This major capital investment programme of £107million in our schools is a further example of local politics working and the development of partnerships within the education service. I am confident that this programme will be of huge benefit to our children and teachers and will contribute to the Executive’s goals for the education sector and the wider economy."

The rest of the press release can be found here:
http://www.nics.gov.uk/press/edu/020321d-edu.htm

These are not the actions of a "revolutionary party". They aren't even the actions of a genuinely left wing party. They are the actions of a populist party in the tradition of the early Fianna Fail (an organisation which included people like Countess Markiewicz and which was subjected to red scare campaigns by its opponents). Like all populist movements Sinn Fein tries to face in every direction at once. Radical in a working class housing estate, the best fighters for Catholic interests in much of the North, dependable and "pragmatic" to big business. Sinn Fein has many faces, but none of them are socialist.

by analyst Mon Jan 23, 2006 22:18

whatever about the philosophy of it, the electoral stats from the last election show that both labour and f.f could benefit dramatically from an election pact.

and in the final analysis political parties are about getting those grubby little hands on the power button.

by lab youth Tue Jan 24, 2006 15:00

why if Labour Youth members are so against the leadership and partnership and they seem to be so close to someone like Mick O'Reilly (read the Daily Ireland article above) are they still members of the Labour Party? Surely Sinn Fein or somewhere else would be a better home for them????

by Ronnie - Labour Youth Tue Jan 24, 2006 16:23

This one is easy.

Yes Youth members differ with the leadership on many issues, but this is in keeping with the tradition of Socialist/Labour parties where discussion and debate are part of political life.

Not so in SF if the treatment of anyone who steps outside the party line on the question of how to arrange councils in the North is anything to go by.

ps I say the above not as an attack, but an observation. If I have got it wrong, I will eat humble pie.

by Kenneth Owende Tue Jan 24, 2006 16:31

Labour Youth members can disagree with the leadership at times. But within certain parameters. You will still all have the pleasure of Labour Youth members knocking on your door in 2007 asking for votes for Rabbitte and his immigration/deportation policies and transfers to Fine Gael. They will do this. They may have disagreement here or there but they agree with the Labour Party's general polcies. Labour Youth are no alternative for young people in Ireland. There's a good chance that Labour will be in government in 2007 and with that you will have these psuedo-radicals turn greatly to the right and back up the government and all that goes with it. If in government Labour Youth will support Labour implementing restrictions on non-Irish people and they will deport. Labour will make cuts in public services and there will be no serious opposition to this. In the same way there was no serious opposition to the FG election pact. The opponants of the pact either a. prefered FF or b. thought more seats would be won without pact and hence more clout in FG coalition. Rotten f*ckers the lot of them.

by Kenneth Owende Tue Jan 24, 2006 16:36

Sinn Fein are also not a left wing party. Just have a read of their policies on business. They support tax breaks for big business. All around the local councils they dont oppose privatisation of services. Just last night on Questions and Answers they supported the Gardai and called for more Gardai in working class communities. Hardly the voice of a left-wing party. On that programme they also said that they did not rule out voting for Fianna Fail and the PDs in government after next election. In the north the SF party are apologists for terrorist sectarian tactics. They support the bombing of shopping centres in Britain (remember Warrington) and the killing of working class protestants (remember Kingsmill and Enniskillen). I dispair when people think this party is left wing. Left leaning at times like any nationalist group trying to fill a political vacuum.

by pat c Tue Jan 24, 2006 16:42

you sound like a broken record - stock LY condemnation, stock SF condemnation. I reckon you dont know what you are talking about.

you seem to have little appreciation of the role played by british imperialism in ireland or internationally. no mention of working class catholics killed by brits or by loyalists.

no mention of the international wide scale slaughter carried out by the brits during the same time as the war in the north.

are you a Spuppy? you sound like one.

by o'reilly Tue Jan 24, 2006 17:01

just read O'Reilly's comments in the article, they are Very very strong I agree with most of them..but sadly 80% of the Labour membership who voted for the "Mullingar Accord" with Fine Gael don't. Should O'Reilly not leave what he calls "Fine Gael-lite" and join or start something else!!!

considering the paper that it's in...could he be going to greener pastures???

by Trotwatch Tue Jan 24, 2006 18:34

K. Owende is from the Nigerian franchise of the CWI, so hes a bit behind the times with the abuse he churns out. The Nigerian Dection of the CWI seem to believe that the Socialist Party stand for a Socialist Federation of the British Isles. Would some kind SP member please point out to Comrade Ken that this is no longer the line? Now it all for an Equal and Voluntary Union of Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland, Cornwall, the Isle of Man, the Channel Isles, Shetland Isles, Orkney Isles, Scilly Isles and Rockall.

by bleuuuuurrrggghhh Tue Jan 24, 2006 19:01

Strange that Mark's detailed contribution to the thread has received no responses while the rest of you continue ranting at each other. Sometimes it seems that the less worth reading a comment is the more responses it gets.

by C Ó Brolcháin Tue Jan 24, 2006 19:17

As long as Free State Labour is run by ex-Stickies I can't see them wanting to even consider coalition with the Shinners. Hasn't Rabbitte already said as much on a few occassions?

Nonetheless, well done to the members of Labour Youth who want to challenge their party's status quo and actually look for alternatives to the party acting as a crutch for the Blue Shirts.

by pat c Tue Jan 24, 2006 19:18

You are right. Too often we let ourselves get distracted by the wilder comments.

Mark has produced a very thoughtful critique of SF. Every point he makes is backed up with qoutes. SF has moved to the right in its economic policies. Never the less, they are still to the left of Labour.

The only thing I would say about the Northern Executive is that it didnt have tax-raising powers so SF were circumscribed in what they could do. But they were aware of this before they went into Cabinet. They could have gone into opposition (with the PUP!). But there was probably a strong push from their supporters for SF to take the seats in the Executive. Their sojourn in office didnt lose them any votes in Working Class or Small Farming communities.

by Tom Shelley Wed Jan 25, 2006 07:24

The SBP article on O Caolain's comments about business includes much more than Mark pointed out. Here's a few other excerpts:

****
The party said recently that the corporation tax rate was not punitive and should rise to 17 per cent from 12.5 per cent as part of a wider programme of reforms.

It pointed towards the Nordic example and said that these countries had shown it was possible to be competitive internationally and yet have good quality public services, paid for by high tax rates.

What Sinn Fein wanted, said O Caolain, was a ‘‘society of equals’’.

‘‘We do believe that people in business are no less mindful or responsive to the needs of the less well off or the marginalised in our society,” said O Caolain. ‘‘People in business, captains of industry – describe them as you will – in my opinion, they are not excused from their responsibility of having to ensure that healthcare is available to all on the basis of need and not on the basis ability to pay. Childcare is critical to the type of society we want."
*****

Granted, even I (a left-wing social-democrat/democratic-marxist who used to be a member of the ILP's American sister org) find this to be a somewhat weak socialist position. It is a far cry from the 1980s SF socialist rhetoric, and also I'm sure Mark will say it isn't socialist at all.

But O Caolain is saying that business has to take responsibility for contributing to society; he's calling for a higher corporation tax to fund stuff like national health care and some kind of publicly funded child care. Although I'm not incredibly familiar with them, and they do fall a bit short of socialism, the "Nordic" model of social-democracy is really pretty imprerssive.

Over all, I was very encouraged to read his comments in both articles.

Also, on a related note, today it emerged that SF, the Greens, and Labour are all calling for a referendum on changing the constitutional definition of the family, to open up the way for allowing same-sex marraige.

I'm incredibly disapointed that Labour has ruled out coalition with SF. IF they were to arrange a transfer pact with them and the Greens instead of FG, there's a good chance the next election would produce a government of the left with Labor, SF, and the Greens (supported by the Higgins and the leftist independents). I'm not saying it would be the easiest coalition to maintain, but it would be better than the alternatives.

Tom

by Tom Shelley Wed Jan 25, 2006 09:55 Boulder, CO USA

I realized there was a part of Mark's comments I didn't respond to. I would say that, to a large degree, SF is a revolutionary party, even if it's current economic policy is more social-democratic. This based on a combination of the following:

1. Their centre-left/social-dem economic policies, plus the fact that there remain significant tendencies in SF that are very Marxist.

2. Their fairly consistent and strong opposition to homophobia, racism, sexism and religious bigotry. They're also one of the largest parties committed to abortion rights, and in the North a lot of their members who get elected are women.

3. I realize there will be plenty of disagreement on the nature of the struggle they're engaged in, but anyway.... They are engaged in a militant, anti-imperialist struggle based primarly among working-class nationally oppressed communities with a centre-left political culture. Their members and members of an allied armed organization have risked their lives and given their lives taking on the military aspect of that imperialism, and to a large degree the struggle has been conducted honorably (i.e. they almost never intentionally killed civilians). Despite the intense sectarianism against their communities and the incredibly divided nature of the North, republicans have frequently, on a more or less daily basis, tried to engage Protestants and loyalists in dialogue, and have won over some, such as Billy Leonard.

4. They consistently take progressive positions on international affairs and have a good relationship with the ANC, Castro, much of the British Left, some of the American left, etc. etc.

With all of that in mind, I would say that, in general, they are a revolutionary party, or at least close enough for me.

Tiocfaidh Ar La,

Tom

by The stats... Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:01

Tom you wrote "they almost never intentionally killed civilians". I went on the net and tried to find some stats and got the following information. Republican paramilitaries killed 829 civilians, 43.1% of their victims. On another site it said that they had killed 704 civilians who were protestant. That is a lot of unintentional deaths Tom or maybe you need to open your eyes to the reality that the IRA and other republicans deliberately targeted and killed civilians.

I think that this debate would be helped if someone explained what a revolutionary is, because what Tom has described to me is not revolutionary most of what you have said describes the beliefs of liberals i.e. for democratic rights. Taking up arms against imperialism does not make you a revolutionary, Osama bin laden and his followers do that, but they are not revolutionaries. So what is a revolutionary?

by Tom Shelley Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:24

You seem to be implying that they killed so many civilians, most/all of them MUST have been intentional. You also imply that all the Protestants they killed were killed BECAUSE they were Protestant.

To a large degree my understanding of this issue is based on reading through every entry in the Sutton data-base of deaths in the conflict, at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/

Most of the civilian deaths caused by the IRA were from bombings that went wrong. It is somewhat widely accepted that about 99% of the time when the IRA wanted to destroy non-military property, they placed the bomb, left called in a warning, the place was evacuated, the bomb went off. Sometimes something went wrong and civilians died.

I realize that those people are still dead and that is a tragedy, especially for their loved ones. But when we judge what kind of group the IRA was, whether or not they intended to kill all those civilians does matter.

Very few Protestants were killed because they were Protestant.

As I said, you need to take all of what SF is about into consideration to understand why I would say that they are "a revolutionary party, or at least close enough for me." You mention bin Laden. You're right, he isn't a revolutionary. He's a religious fundamentalist, a homophobe, and a misogynist. He's less interested in supporting the Palestinians than he is in creating a right-wing Islamic empire. And he cares little for human life.

All of what I just wrote about bin Laden can't be said about republicans.

Also, I would argue that, when added to other stuff like serious economic reform, democratic rights is part of what makes a revolutionary- especially in situations where democracy either doesn't exist or is very limited (as it was for several decades in the North).

Tom

by Politics Analyst Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:26

A previous poster had said that a Labour/SF/Green coalition would be "supported by the Higgins and the leftist independents".

There is a good chance that the Socialist Party will have 2 or even more seats. Joe Higgins and Cllr Clare Daly are likely to be elected. Either of their poll-topping councillors Mick Barry or Mick Murphy may even get a seat. Who knows it's still over a year away. I think that the Socialist Party will not vote for anyone as Taoiseach and would not back up any government. They would certainly not support the Labour Party or the sectarian Sinn Fein party. Who knows about the left independents? They are coming from different positions and from different points of view. I would not rule out Seamus Healy or Tony Gregory backing up such a coalition or even a FG/Labour coalition. A very likely outcome is a hung Dail and Labour will then go in with Fianna Fail in 'the national interest'.

by Tom Shelley Wed Jan 25, 2006 23:49

Briefly, I want to add one last bit about why SF are at least a little bit revolutionary. They want to build a new Ireland, not just add the two parts together. They see the ending of partition as a critical part of transforming Ireland. They make it very clear that their vision of a 32-County Ireland is one significantly different in terms of social and economic policy than in the 26 and 6 counties. But history has shown that partition makes it almost impossible to create socialism in either part of a partitioned Ireland, and there is very good reason to believe that ending partition, if it is done the right way (without provoking a sustained loyalist backlash), will result in a strengthened labour movement and Left.

SF want to end the oppression of the nationalist community, undermine/end sectarianism/orangeism, re-unite Ireland, and significantly change social and economic policy in Ireland in a left-wing direction- this will dramatically transform Ireland. Sure, it falls short of abolishing commercial property, declaring a dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. etc. but that doesn't mean it isn't revolutionary. It is.

Also, in response to the comment about the Socialist Party TD(s)- I could be wrong about what they would do, but I would be surprised if they would refuse to support such a solidly left-wing coalition such as I described, especially when you consider the alternative.

Tom

by Saoirse Thu Jan 26, 2006 19:19

Tom Shelley - I don't know where you get the idea from that Sinn Fein supports abortion rights. It does not. Its position is basically that of the Supreme Court in the South. That is, it supports the right to abortion if a woman's LIFE is in danger, including if it is endangered by suicide. Not only has it refused to support extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to the North [and don't go telling me that's because it's a british act, they are happy enough to support british legislation to free prisoners etc] but when Minister for Health, Bairbre de Brun defended the present situation in the High Court against the Family Planning Association. Not only did she refuse to publish guidelines as to when abortion is legal in the North, she allowed officials to argue that only 4 of the 1600 women who travelled to ENgland for abortions in 1998 were entitled to legal abortions in NI - thus excluding women who have been raped or whose health was being damaged by a pregnancy.

SF did have a pro-choice policy for a year in the late 80s, after repubicans from Derry had a motion passed supporting a woman's right to choose. But the leadership quickly moved to reverse the decision and now that the party is going for power, there is no hope of it supporting a woman's right to choose.

by Tom Shelley Fri Jan 27, 2006 04:14

To a large degree this one was my fault- I meant something a little bit different than what I wrote. I meant that among the larger parties on the island, they are, along with Labour, the most pro-choice. I realize that they aren't completely pro-choice and that several smaller parties, including the PUP and I assume the SWP and SP, are completely pro-choice.

But between their, in the Irish context, relatively pro-choice position, and a few other items, what I said wasn't too far off.

1. The brief psoition in the 1980s you refer to.

2. sometime when the NI Assembly was actually meeting, I think in 2001, there was a debate on abortion. A DUPer had proposed a resolution saying that the assembly opposed the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to NI. A women's Coalition member proposed an amendment which would completely change the resolution so that the issue of abortion would be referred to the Health committee for further research, discussion and then they would report back to the full Assembly. SF MLAs spoke and voted in favor of the WC amendment and amde it clear that there is a variety of opinions on the subject in SF and that the party is far from comitted to the anti-choice position. It was defeated, and I don't know if the Shinners voted for the DUP resolution- possibly the did.

3. SF was a full member of the pro-choice Alliance for a No Vote with Labour, the Greens, and some feminist organization during the 2002 Abortion referendum.

So, what I actually wrote was wrong. But that doesn't mean SF isn't close to being pro-choice. They are.

Tom

by Analist Watch Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:02

"I would not rule out Seamus Healy or Tony Gregory backing up such a coalition or even a FG/Labour coalition."

I would completely rule out Healy's involvement in the above.

by Politics Analyst Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:49

"Also, in response to the comment about the Socialist Party TD(s)- I could be wrong about what they would do, but I would be surprised if they would refuse to support such a solidly left-wing coalition such as I described, especially when you consider the alternative."

I think that the SP TDs would not back any coalition of existing parties. SWP may as they seem to have different view of Labour and Sinn Fein (though SWP are unlikely to have any TDs in the short to medium term future). A large bulk of the voting public think that "they're all the same" and there is no difference between the established parties. This is where the SP get many votes. I think that Labour and Sinn Fein policies are very bad and if going into a 'left alliance' they would drift even further to the right so 'reassure' business. I think that Seamus Healy would be under serious pressure if he held the balance of power. As an indepenent he'd be under serious pressure to back a Fine Gael/Labour coalition. Healy's Tipperary group has fallen apart in the past year and is politically weak. There is a high chance that Healy would do a 'deal' with Kenny and Rabbite. Although I think that the Labour Party would prefer to go in with Fianna Fail rather than rely on independents.

by observer Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:59

Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason Labour and SF do not have a pro-abortion position is that the majority of their members and supporters would not support this? It's called democracy people.

The pro-choice motion passed at the SF Ard Fheis in the late 80s was a procedural stroke. The debate and vote took place on a Sunday afternoon when 2/3rds of delegates had left. It was overturned by a democratic vote at the '87 Ard Fheis.

I suppose the fact that the UVF/PUP is pro-abortion makes them more progressive than the shinners and Labour?

by Analist Watch Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:00

"I think that Seamus Healy would be under serious pressure if he held the balance of power. As an indepenent he'd be under serious pressure to back a Fine Gael/Labour coalition. Healy's Tipperary group has fallen apart in the past year and is politically weak. There is a high chance that Healy would do a 'deal' with Kenny and Rabbite. Although I think that the Labour Party would prefer to go in with Fianna Fail rather than rely on independents."

And I think you are still wrong because even though you call yourself an analyst there is no proof that you have properly analysed this situation. I don't think Healy will be under pressure to back a Fine Gael led coalition. He is clear where he stands on such a development. Healy's group has not fallen apart. Certain members of Healy's group came under pressure from both Fine Gael and Labour. The opportunists fled. Healy's core group remains and might even be stronger for this development. Look at Catherine Murphy in Kildare. Being seperate from Fine Gael and Labour can strenghten your position when they are seen to be no different to FF/PD.
Personally I think you are mischeivous dirt slinger trying to discredit Healy.

by Politics Analyst Fri Jan 27, 2006 15:20

You say Healy's group came under pressure from FG/Labour already and some people left including their previous by-election candidate. That pressure is nothing compared to the pressure from the entire political establishment if he is the only TD holding balance of power (although unlikely as it's usually a party holding balance). I think that he would be capable of doing a deal and voting for Kenny/Rabbitte because he's not got the strong political backing behind him in the form of a political party. I think that Tony Gregory will be particulary vulnerable to this. He's done it before and would even do it again (assuming he gets re-elected as his constituency is particularly compeditive now). Catherine Murphy is most likely of the independents on the left to vote for a FG/Labour coalition. She was in the Labour party and was promised a Seanad seat as part of the DL mergers. She left because of this and not a serious political difference. Of course I hope none of these vote for any person to become Taoiseach. But these independents are vulnerable to doing deals for 'their constituencies' and giving in 'in the national interest'. As I said before I think most likely outcome would be a Labour/FF coalition rather than a minority coalition dependeing on Healy, Gregory and Murphy.

by Analist Watch Fri Jan 27, 2006 16:17

"You say Healy's group came under pressure from FG/Labour already and some people left including their previous by-election candidate. That pressure is nothing compared to the pressure from the entire political establishment if he is the only TD holding balance of power (although unlikely as it's usually a party holding balance). I think that he would be capable of doing a deal and voting for Kenny/Rabbitte because he's not got the strong political backing behind him in the form of a political party."

All you are basing your 'analysis' on is the pressure from the entire political establismment that Healy will come under. This is not based on knowing Healy, his supporters or his base. Healy and you might find this hard to believe has principles and a history of independence.
You don't get any points though for your guesses on Gregory (previous to be taken into consideration) and/or Murphy (only ran as an indepedent because of the mutual hatred between her and Stagg).

by Pluto Fri Jan 27, 2006 17:49

Healy, as any regular indymedia reader will know, has recently taken a leading role in starting a left unity initiiative which is explicitly based on rejection of coalition with right wing parties. In fact at the launch of the of this intiiative he was adamant that such a position was the bottom line for any organisations or individuals wishing to get involved. Any suggestion that he favours coalition is a downright lie being spun by a Labour hack.

by Philips Fri Jan 27, 2006 20:55

"rejection of coalition with right wing parties"

What is this exactly? Would he support a government that had a majority made up of Greens and Labour?

by Philips Fri Jan 27, 2006 20:59

Labour 35 seats
Greens 7 seats
FG 40 seats

Would Healy vote for this 'left' led government?

by Pluto Sat Jan 28, 2006 15:40

Healy has made it clear, repeatedly, that he will not vote for a coalition made up of any combination which includes a right wing party. He has explicitly ruled out support for a Green/Labour/Fine Gael or Fianna Fail/Labour or any other coalition with the right. If you don't believe me contact him at the Dail and ask himself!

He is central to a campaign which aims at building a new party of the working class which has as its central plank a rejection of coalition and an assertion of working class independence. If after all that you think he's somehow favourable to coalition you are either hopelessly cynical or just a Pat Rabbitte fan, which makes you as relevent to debates about the left as Michael McDowell.

by pat c Sat Jan 28, 2006 18:35

a little perspective please. the LP would require about 21% to get 35 seats. theres a better chance of RBB, Kevin Wingfield and myself being elected.

by rimmer Sun Jan 29, 2006 00:05

I think Philips has a point about asking these kind of questions. Many on indymedia think that Labour could provide a "left led" government (whatever that is!). I don't think it beyond the bounds of possibility of Labour and Greens having a majority of government TDs. Labour did win 33 seats before. I think the scenario that Philips outlines should be answered (ie if one vote is needed to elect a Labour Taoiseach what would they do). Personally I think that Healy would not vote for such an arrangement. But other independent left TDs would. For example I would say there is a good chance Murphy would back a FG/Labour coalition. I also think Gregory would be open for a 'deal' with anyone. I think the "left led" question should be answered by the Joan Collins-Seamus Healy group as they don't make it clear what they classify as left and what is right in their opinion. For example the SP would not see Labour as left-wing but the SWP probably would. Where do Collins-Healy stand? Where do other candidates that base themselves on left votes stand?

by rimmer Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:06

there's no answer to my question. says a lot.

by Holly Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:37

And there was me thinking that it said nothing. Only a trot could get an inference from nothing being said about a matter which you purport to have no interest in. Inflated self-importance. I wonder what party you are in?

by It isn't policy Tue Jan 31, 2006 13:00

The facts and quotes that mark from the socialist party gave on SF's enterprise and job creation paper is not policy it is only a draft and has not been voted on by the wider membership. There is a hugh difference of opinon between grassroots and leadership on econmic policies were the leadership do seem to be watering down socialist policies so I can't see the draft paper getting voted through the ard fhéis as policy paper. Sinn Féin is a still a very left wing party if the grassroots are anything to go by which is the majority of the party and are the ultimate decision makers on policies at the end of the day.

by socialist - none Tue Jan 31, 2006 14:38

How come the rank and file defended Martin McGuinness and Bairbre De Brun in introducing PFI in schools and closing hospitals (respectively)?