Thursday, August 30, 2007
Sinn Fein’s second defection…
If one defection is unlucky; to lose two is downright careless. This column from the Southern Star almost anticipates the defection of Daniel Callanan, and reports widespread disaffection amongst Sinn Fein councillors with the directions from the top of the party to support Labour candidates in the Seanad elections. Not a disaster, but perhaps an intimation of the limits of ‘democratic centralism’?
Mick Fealty @ 09:46 AM
Jimmy Fleming is defecting to a right-wing Conservative party, so if that’s the price to pay for a closer relationship with Labour, then bring it on is what I say. The core rank and file of the party remain united behind party policy.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 11:32 AMObviously Joan O’Connor won’t feel her feet on the fire if the above is anything to go by.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 11:36 AMHaving a coherent line and efficient organisation (rather than democratic centralism proper) is surely what got these councillors elected in the first place, and enabled the growth of PSF. The same is true of the DUP. One need only look at the disaster that is the UUP to see the need for discipline within a party. The attrition of a small number of discontented people is inevitable in any party, and now that PSF has expanded they are more likely to be elected.
The two councillors seem to have left for different reasons. It still amazes me that anyone who thinks they are a socialist could ever have joined PSF in the first place but we are seeing the shedding of that element in the south. They are too isolated and disorganised to represent any threat to PSF’s growth. Rather the threat to that, as the article points out, comes from the bland policies and managerialist approach of the party as a whole. Why vote for them when there are bigger parties more likely to direct government policy?
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 11:39 AMThey are too isolated to represent any threat to provisional sinn feins growth.
Err….what growth is that?
PSF Rejected at the last election.
Labour rejected at the last election.These has beens are a threat to nobody.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 11:57 AM“Responding to speculation on Politics.ie yesterday about him joining Fianna Fail, his response was simply “hell would freeze over” - Cllr Callanan said that many people who are leaving Sinn Fein are doing so not simply because of disillusionment with the party, but they are not going to other parties, more to activist groups such as Eirigi.”
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 12:12 PMOf course Éirigí is now a political party. Perhaps that message is not getting across.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 12:17 PM“However, Cllr Callanan made a point that if all SF councillors had followed the pact, Labour’s Alex White would have received 26 more votes than he actually got”
I don’t know the maths that would substantiate or deny that claim but doesn’t that mean almost half of SF’s councillors in the RoI potentially didn’t follow the instructions?
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 12:26 PMSinn Féin in disarray?
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 12:39 PMFair deal, u halfwit, SF has a lot more than 52 councillors in the south!!! lordy lord…
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:19 PMI’m not sure of the maths either FD, but surely it could just as easily mean that not all Labour Cllrs followed orders?
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:21 PMJim
I took the figure from elections ireland that says in the last local government elections SF won 54 seats.
http://www.electionsireland.org/results/local/2004local.cfm
MS
Maybe.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:34 PMJim,
SF had 58 Seanad votes - 4 TDs and 54 County Councillors.
The combined SF(58), Labour(125) vote should be 183.
Alex White received 161 first preference votes.
The leaves 22 Sinn Fein votes unaccounted for.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:38 PMThoses are 54 county council seats. The town council seats aren’t included in this figure.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:38 PMLiam
Thanks, do you know what the figure is with town councillors?
AFAIK it is only city and county councillors (not town councillors) that make up the senate electoral panels? Am I mistaken?
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:47 PMCorrection
AFAIK it is only city and county councillors (not town councillors) that are included in the senate electoral panels?
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:49 PMFD,
Only TDs, County/City Councillors and outgoing members can vote. (Panels is the term used to describe the candidates nominated in each section - http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,3724,en.pdf)
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 01:56 PMThanks ummmm so my use of 54 was the relevant figure but the description of that figure as “SF’s councillors in the RoI” was mistaken.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 02:05 PMThe Gorey Echo notes that Cllr Maurice Roche is also a defection target for FF.
http://www.goreyecho.ie/news/story.asp?j=27301&cat=news
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 02:17 PMThe 26 figure is a quote from Cllr Callannan himself this avo.
D.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 02:58 PMI bet old man paisley wishes his defectione were so slight
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 03:02 PM22 out of 58 is around a third.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 03:08 PMCallanan is an able young Galway solicitor, straightforward and honest, a potential TD, who is regularly tortured to within an inch of his sanity by the local Labour loonies.
I think a combination of young family duties, a realisation that local govt. in the South is a really bad comic opera, and that 3 people are allowed to think in SF, has led young Danny to the conclusion that if the people of Galway get the politicians they deserve, they don’t deserve him.
If so, he has a point.Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 03:14 PMGaribaldy,
This is a bit cheeky but I wonder if you enlighten me as to your own brand of politics/party whatever?
You seem to have it in for people who don’t fit your definition of being a socialist.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 04:35 PMGaribaldy is, Red Haze, a Pure Socialist. That means he would never sully himself by actually taking a position on any thing. His job is to sit back and point out to imperfect socialists, like me - poor deluded fool that I am, where they have erred. I don’t know how I’d get along without him and without his constantly putting me right I would probably get a swollen head and take over the world and create a workers’ paradise and make everybody happy.
And that would never do.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 05:20 PMRedhaze and Rory,
I don’t think that was cheeky at all; it was a statement of my attitude, the reasons for which I’ll elaborate on below. As for pure socialism. Clearly in today’s world we must be flexible and adapt to realities. Pragmatism is important. However, so are basic principles. The first principle of socialism is workers unity. So I personally cannot square membership of or support for a movement that has consistently defined itself as representing the “Catholic/nationalist people”; or that intimidated and attacked the ICTU during the Hunger Strikes; never mind a movement that has carried out repeated murders of ordinary workers for their religion. And while we’re at it, nor could I ever support an organisation which, according to its chief press officer has no problem with capitalism, and whose President shows Jesse Helms round west Belfast and seeks approval and support from the White House, while implementing a at best centre-left agenda in government (left in some ways, but right in terms of PFI etc).
I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. Personally I cannot reconcile any of these things with socialism. And hence the problem I have with Éirigí, the IRSP and such like. They all remain locked within a worldview that is fundamentally a tribalist one. I see this as a problem, because the presence of these groups has the potential to hinder the possibility of creating a serious socialist force in Ireland once again. In much the same way that the strength of Trotskyism in Britain damaged the possibility of mobilising coordinated and effective resistance to Thatcher.
This isn’t, as Rory seems to think, a brand of ultra-leftist “my socialism is purer than yours” based on the interpretation of a scribbled note from Marx 150 years ago. Nor is it like an argument over whether the upper tax rate should be 40 or 50 pence. It is about people’s lives.
Sectarian violence and tribal attitudes have cost thousands of lives, and pushed the possibility of a democratic, secular, socialist unitary state further away than ever. Confronting and opposing sectarianism in all its forms and from wherever it comes is not a matter of doctrinal interpretation but of fundamental strategy and responsiblity that a socialist must take in a divided society like NI. All my positions flow from this analysis.
However, clearly you two see things differently. Perhaps we can discuss why. Cooperation on the broad left is more important than ever, and I have and will continue to work with people whose visions are far different from mine, from PSF to the PUP. But that still doesn’t mean I have to think their policies are consistent with how I interpret socialist and republican principles.
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 06:49 PM
