Workers' Party Árd Fheis in Waterford

by Pax manus Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:44

I would have a lot of criticism of the WP, but fair play to them for actually having an ard fheis, with motions, voting etc. Something the other micro left groups and the Labour Party don't seem to feel the need for.

by Uthar Pendragon Thu Apr 19, 2007 14:15

Actually, the LP, SP and even the SWP have conferences at which motions are discussed and voted on. The LP even has a youth section which holds positions contrary to its parent body.

I'm disappointed to note that there are no North Korean fraternal delegates at the WP conference this year. But young Jung may bet his bottom superdollar that he retains the support of the WP.

by Pax manus Thu Apr 19, 2007 15:49

The last two conferences of the Labour Party had no debates or motions, and no voting that I was aware of.

Labour Youth is not a party, it does not stand for elections or organise in the way a party does. It's like a sandpit for weekend activists to play in. Like one of those children's parliaments you hear about.

I am interested in the fact that the SWP and the SP have conferences. Where were they held this year?

Were there any press reports of them? How many attended, what where the main items of dscussion etc?

by Uthar Thu Apr 19, 2007 16:16

I reckon yiu are a troll who is just stirring things up. Why not contact LP, SP & SWP about their conferences? The WP are not exactly paragons of democracy. Do you really want me to start down that road?

by pax Thu Apr 19, 2007 17:25

If I ask when and where the socialist party and the socialist workers party conferences were, that makes me a troll. Interesting...

Say what you like about the WP, they are more openly democratic than a lot of groups.

by soc Thu Apr 19, 2007 17:59

Why do you need to know were they are. Why do you care.
I really dont give a damm where the wp conference is held

by pax romanus Thu Apr 19, 2007 18:39

Because I'll be surprised to find that happened at all.

The socialist party and the socialist workers party get their orders from London.
No need to bother with the views of the Irish, except in the most perfunctory way.

At least the WP have an ard fheis, vote, and so on.

The Labour Party have a conference but just so they can go on TV, they make their decisions behind closed doors.

by ned the red Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:03

At least the WP are a socialist party not to be confused with the middle of the road social democrats that make up the LP.In reality Rabbitts party are only an election crutch for the Blueshirts,they sold out their principles long ago.

by soc Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:45

"The socialist party and the socialist workers party get their orders from London."
If you are so sure of this why care if they have conferences, sure u already no how the decisions are made dont you, you clever person

by soc Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:51

People use to say that the WP took their orders from Moscow. The WP would reply;
"but we have annual conferences etc"
all the sceptic has to do is reply
"i dnt care, u take ur orders from moscow"
dont need any evidence, jus need to keep repeating it

by red Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:53

"At least the WP have an ard fheis, vote, and so on"
as people keep repeating you buffoon, both the sp and swp have annual conferences as well were "AT LEAST" they vote on things

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Thu Apr 19, 2007 21:51

Report in 'The Socialist'

2006 Conference
Report from successful Socialist Party conference

http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/news/confreport28-04-06.htm

by PAXO Thu Apr 19, 2007 23:25

Thanks for that JRG,

So the 2006 conference was in Maynooth. Where was the 2007 one?-or, if it hasn't happened yet, where it scheduled to be?

I didn't see any reference to voting at the coference in your report- can you give us some information on what motions where considered, what the votes were etc etc.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Apr 20, 2007 02:30

2007 conference hasn't taken place yet - I believe decison on when and where has been posponed until after the election.

Individual branches or members can propose motions, but generally there are not a large number. The National committee presents discussion documents (mentioned in the report) and reports that include policy positions, strategy etc. This can be ammended etc. Votes are taken on all documents, reports, financial statements and motions as well as votes for the various elected bodies.

I cannot give details of individual motions from the last conference as I wasn't able to attend and I have absolutely no idea where my conference documentation is.

by tom Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:05

Most political parties conferences are publicity stunts. They are seen as an opportunity to promote the Party in a positive light. This means that the Parties do not wish to be portrayed as divided or there is deep disagreement on any particular issue. Some parties attempt to address divisive issues in closed sessions but the media will eirher view this as 'sinister' or 'expose' what happend in the discussion.

The left is poor at allowing proper democracy at conferences. Its laughable to see the SP and the WP slagging each other about conferences when both do not allow any real debate inside their organisations. Both consider themselves as democratic centralists and that simply means the members do what the leadership tell them.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Apr 20, 2007 15:19

There have been many occasions when the SP rank and file have gone against the wishes of the party leadership. The difference in the SP, unlike other parties, is that when the conference makes a decision the leadership actually follow through on the conference decision.

by Dub Fri Apr 20, 2007 15:56

Why do some people think they own Parties? Why should anyone other than the membership of a Party have any right whatsoever to access to internal Party conferences? What gives you the right to demand information on motions, elections, debates? You are not a member of these Parties.

by Uthar Fri Apr 20, 2007 16:00

I think we have been provoked by a troll. Pax doesn't care about the WP, he would be happy if someone started attacking it. Lets not feed the trolls any further.

by Red Dwarf Fri Apr 20, 2007 17:58

Ive never attended an SP conference so I dont know if what JRG says is true. Can the Giant give us a few examples. To be precise, by that I mean, can he cite examples where the majority of delegates at an SP annual conference voted against a position advocated by the majority of the leadership.

Although the SP seems to me to be more transparent than the SWP (thats not much of a compliment!) I really would be surprised if there were instances where people like Peter Hadden, Kevin McLoughlin and other leading figures found the membership rejecting their proposals/positions. Im not sugessting that a democratic party has to be ripping the guts out of itself at every conference but in a truly democratic party, at least occasionally, there would be a good vigorous debate with a real division of opinion, with leadership figures on both sides (and without an inevitable split at the end of the debate).

Now you dont get that in SF/Labour or the right-wing parties but from the outside it does'nt look like it happens in the SP either. BTW, Ive got some time for the SP, I vote for their local candidate and I hope Clare Daly wins the extra seat but (especially having experienced life in a far left group in England in the 1980s) Im wary of any organisation that is not really controlled by its members.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Apr 20, 2007 18:33

Off the top of my head -

The leadership of the SP wanted to call the party 'Socialist Alternative' and when that proved a non-runner 'Socialist Left' - the majority of the delegates at a special conference decided to call the party the Socialist Party. This may not seem like a major issue but there was a lot of discussion whether we should have the word 'party' in the name of the organisation and it turned out to be quite controversial.

A further controversary then arose at the following conference over whether the Socialist Party should actually register as a political party. The leadership did not want the party to register but the delegates rejected this position and instructed the leadership to register the party.

There were several attempts by sections of the leadership thorughout the 1980's to change the name of the paper from 'The Militant' to a variety of other names. This was consistantly rejected by the rank and file.

The rank and file also went against the leadership's position on the establishment of Socialist Youth. These disagreements revolved around what it would be called, what role it would play, how it would be structured and what relationship it would have with the parent party.

When a new consitiution was written it had to reflect criticisms the rank and file had made on a couple of important issues.

by Red Dwarf Fri Apr 20, 2007 18:45

Fair enough JRG, that indicates to me that there is real debate in the SP and a healthier internal life than SWP-style organisations. That said, these are not exactly major strategic/theoretical/policy questions, in fact they are relatively minor ones. Im afraid it would take more to convince me that the patient is doing well rather than just alive! Suppose alive is better than the living dead of the SWP and the smaller left groups.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Fri Apr 20, 2007 19:03

It is possible that some people are trolling this thread, but really very little of what has been asked is any kind of secret.

The Socialist Party has an annual delegate conference. This is the main decision making body of the party. Any member is welcome to attend and speak, but only elected branch delegates have a vote. The conference is divided into different sessions, covering different issues. So there is a session dealing with international issues, sessions dealing with Northern and Sourthern politics, a session dealing with trade union and workplace issues and so on.

Any branch or other organisation of the party, and for that matter any individual member, may bring a motion or amendment to a motion on any issue. Some motions take the form of discussion documents and may be extremely long, while others might only be a line or two. In recent years the number of motions has tended to be quite high by historical standards, ranging between maybe 20 and 40. Voting is by simple majority and there are vigorous debates and disagreements on different issues. Unanimous votes do happen, as you would expect, but there is no endless succession of them. Conference also elects the leadership for the year ahead.

Conference is normally held outside of major cities, and in recent years it has been in Dundalk, Athlone, Maynooth and elsewhere. This year it will be held later in the year, because of the election. Each conference has a session open to the media and in recent years it has been covered in the major broadsheets and on the television news.

The other sessions are for members only. People looking for the precise details of votes, who was on what side of what issue and the like, will I'm afraid have to join the Socialist Party to find out. We take the view that broadly speaking such details aren't the business of non-members. Broadly speaking though I can confirm that the elected leadership is not universally on the winning side of votes. To give a small example, most of the leadership argued for a different name for the organisation while the eventual vote decided on Socialist Party. But really, if you are interested in our decision making in that kind of detail, you will have to get involved to participate.

I can't speak in detail about the decision making of other organisations, but I can at least confirm that the SWP do also have an annual conference, usually in Dublin. One of the documents from their last conference was, I believe, posted here a couple of months ago.

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Apr 20, 2007 21:07

While a debate on the name of the party or whether it should be registered or not might seem like something quite trivial, in fact it was far more substantial than that. Incompassed in this debate included issues about how would we pursue an electoral strategy, what dangers were posed by having parliamentary representation, would calling ourselves a 'party' attract or repel potential recruits, how would registering the party with the oireachtas impact on our relationship with the state etc.

by Pink Fairy Sat Apr 21, 2007 02:26

Or is that a state secret?

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:35

If you read my previous post rather than just attempting to troll you wouldn't have had to ask the question.

But - just because I'm in a good mood.

The leadership initially proposed 'Socialist Alternative' and subsequent to that 'Socialist Left'. The second proposal got less support than the first.

Main rank and file proposals were 'Socialist Labour Party' and 'Socialist Party'. SLP was rejected because it was felt it was that it would not distinguish us enough from the Labour Party.

by yeti Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:52

Did anyone mention the problem of distinguishing your party from the Soocialist Workers Party?

by red square Sun Apr 22, 2007 00:40

How come the party leaders address was not on RTE.

by Red Hair Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:25

Ask RTE, not the Socialist Party