UN report on Irish poverty level shows Govt policies are bereft of equity and fairness

by Magneto Mon Jul 14, 2003 12:31

other than the self evident fact that you are an imbecile. Your contribution is meaningless abuse. If you have a political, economic, cultural or social opinion to espouse then do so.

by meat packer Fri Jul 11, 2003 20:05

addicted to the sound of his keyboard - he thinks it is a sword and that he is a warrior - and no I am not a member of the SP before he drools some more -

by Magneto Wed Jul 09, 2003 16:46

I wrote "are a few ex DL people with dodgy pasts in Labour". Not that there were a few DL in Labour. I was making the points that the thugs stayed with the WP.

I can make what points I want about Labour Left. I have proved my independence. I have no blind organisational loyality to Labour. I disagreed with the leadership on Direct Action during the Gulf War, I disagreed with them on Nice and campaigned against it.

Be I right or wrong, I am attempting with others to move Labour Left. I took your remarks as yet another Labour bashing exercise. My apologies.

by Ex Stick Wed Jul 09, 2003 16:22

Its not a question of hating this or that organisation, its a question of analysis.

What I am trying to do is argue rationally about the political nature of the Labour Party. Now this isnt a question of labellling, its a question of analysis. Vague terms like the 'left' in Labour are just not good enough, nor a random examples of 'good things' Labour has done.

If you believe in the possibility of a radical socialist transformation of society and are a member of Labour, then the onus is on you to convice us that this is a logical position. If on the other hand you dont believe in such a transformation, but subscribe to a view that the best that can be achieved is to have a Labour or coalition government which will regulate capitalism ie social democracy, then thats fine we are involved in two very different political projects. If this is the case then it is dihonest for you to pretend that you are arguing for radical socialism.

It is a pity Magneto, that you resorted to the petty mudslinging, in this thread, as the consequences are the usual mudslinging.

It seems to me that you suffer from the exact same 'disease' that Ex Stick contracted in his days in the WP: organisational loyalty, my party right or wrong, never being able to concede the fault in your own org, and worst of all conflating the interests of the people with that of your party. Your Labour loyalism echoes the arguments of your Leninist bete noire uncannnily.

Finally Magneto, you are being disingenious in the extreme, when you mention 'a few ex-DL people' in Labour. The Party leader, deputy Leader, and a number of Labour TDs and councillors were all members of the WP and many of them had carreers in that organisation that stretched back into the 1970s when it was Official SF. Therefore all the incidents you challenged me with and many more of an even worse nature could equallly be put to them. The only differance is that many of them, unlike Ex-Stick, were in leadership positions.

Finally, I would welcome a debate with Magneto, where we arued for what we stand for and how we believe that should be brought about, but unfortunately that cant happen when Magneto responds with sectarian abuse, or as if everyone who opposes the Labour Party is a CWI clone (and Ex Stick did'nt swop Stalinism for a Trotskyist mini-me)

by Magneto Wed Jul 09, 2003 15:42

We know you hate Labour. 99% of the gangsters stayed with the WP. There are a few ex DL people with dodgy pasts in Labour. But most parties have people with a past.

Mr Lynch was found not guilty by a court of law. What additional evidence do you have?

I am not happy with all of Labours policies, I with otheres want to move it to the Left. I believe it was wrong to agree with Tax amnesties.

Actually, given the shortage of resources, I think Labour did what they could to attack social inequity. As did DL, de Rossa set up the National Anti Poverty Strategy. He also involved Community Groups, INOU and Anti Poverty groups in formulating strategy in a way which had never been done before in the Department of Social Welfare.

by Hebe Wed Jul 09, 2003 15:31

Kathleens husband shot Larry White, he got off on a technicality.

by Janus Wed Jul 09, 2003 15:26

and her husband know where one or two literal bodies are buried. They might be worth a question or two.

by Ex Stick Wed Jul 09, 2003 14:55

What a pity that Magneto refuses to engage in political discussion. Instead of responding to reasonable political points, he immediately launches into a vitriolic attack, attempting to link discredit the messenger, rather than responding to the message. This makes me suspect that contrary to what I thought previously, Magneto is purely interested in sectarian point scoring.

Unlike Magneto I will respond to the points he made. Ex Stick left the WP many years ago and unlike many of Magnetos comrades in Labour who also belonged to that Party, has no problem in acknowledging the grossly anti-democratic and anti-socialist activities it was involved in.

Like many youthful leftists Ex Stick toed the party line in alll its awfullness (including support for Stalinist regimes) for some years. Ex Stick was not involved in criminal activity, but like some members of the WP at the time, looked the other way rather than face the evidence that the Party was up to all sorts of illegal and anti-worker activity, sanctioned by its leadership.

As Magneto may some day learn, wisdom does not develop over night, and so with Ex Stick, but when I did come to reject the corrupt Stalinist politics of that Party, I did so openly and at some political and personal cost.

It goes without saying that many of the ordinary members of the WP were good honest socialists who were not implicated in the anti-working class actions that Magneto mentions.

Now , Magneto, unless you are just a rampant sectarian you will respond in a rational fashion to my points about the Labour Party. You might also find it useful to put the points you put to Ex-Stick to the current leader, deputy leader and frontbench members of your Party, all of whom held prominent positions in the WP, unlike Ex-Stick.

by Magneto Wed Jul 09, 2003 13:51

Did you disagree with the WP/OIRA protection rackets on building sites? Maybe thats why you left. Or it could have been because of counterfeiting or even their support for extradition.

Then again it might have been due to the protection rackets run by Doc Doherty on Cork Docks. Casual dockers had to pay money to the WP/OIRA if they wanted to work.

Or how about the deals done with prperty developers with the Cork and Dublin WP offices? In Dublin planning permission was refused foe luxury apartments because the WP had not included any provision for social housing.

How about the bank robberies or the shooting of Larry White? Did those put you off the WP?

The connections with North Korea?

by Ex-stick Tue Jul 08, 2003 18:19

Everything that Willie Penrose says about the growing inequality in our society is true. But any party can point out these facts (sure poor old Enda and the FG lemmings willl say the same). The point is what that organisation has done regarding this issue in the past and what it proposes to do in the future. So how does the Labour Party fare under these criteria:

1. During the LPs periods in coalition, including the most recent one, there was no significant reduction in social inequality.

2. The LP does not claim to be in the business of abolishing inequality (ie anti-capitalist). It does however claim to aspire to bring about serious reforms to, at the very least, reduce inequality. The hard facts are, that even though the LP has introduced positive reforms ( as have the parties of the right for a variety of reasons)in the past, none of these have been what we might call systemic ie leading to a significant shift in power from the elites that currently dominate to the mass of ordinary people or a significant redistribution of wealth and power.

3. We must also take into account that the LP have also often acted in a manner which has deepened inequality or strenghthened elite power ie the notorious tax amnesties, introduction of service charges etc.

4. Of course Labour will point to its present policies and some of theses, on paper, would be quite significant reforms. Problem with this is that the track record indicates that these are largely largely part of a PR exercise to convince people that Labour is a radical party, a real alternative to the right. The clear indication is that Pat Rabitte et al have no problem in entering coalition with FF, which would clearly preclude systemic reforms.

5. It is also clear, from Rabittes comments to the party conference that in fact he favours, in some circumstances, 'counter reforms', a la Blair, which actually increase inequality, such as so-called public private partnerships or even privatisation.

So this can only leave us with a number of conclusions:

That the real project of those who lead the Labour Party is some sort of social liberalism, not, as they claim radical reformism.

That those who want to build a socialist project which aims in a sober and realistic way to replace rather than reform capitalism are wasting their time in the Labour Party. Its time for them to do what so many in Scotland, England, France etc are doing ie make the break with Labour and join in building a mass anti-capitalist socialist movement.

Final conclusion: Spare us the press releases, they convince nobody!

by Ray down under Tue Jul 08, 2003 18:03

Although many contributers to IM may have their reservations, this level of a poverty gap would not have occoured under a rainbow government.

When will the working class people of Ireland understand that FF are a party of the rich elite?