Labour Party row: hell will freeze over before I apologise, says defiant Bree

by Shane - Socialist Party Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:50

Fair play to the counciller. It is good to see that somebody in the Labour Party still has the courage of their convictions. However I can only presume this sort of stance is going to become less and less come common.

by Bunny Thu Sep 01, 2005 13:26

Marese McDonagh

A former Labour Party TD who is to appear before a specially-convened party complaints committee within weeks yesterday claimed the party had moved to the right under Pat Rabbitte.

Councillor Declan Bree, former Sligo/Leitrim TD, confirmed that a hearing would take place this month into complaints about his criticism of two party colleagues who voted against the Sligo Traveller accommodation programme last February.

Mr Bree said the decision of two local Labour councillors to vote against the programme was "disgraceful".

A complaint was later made to party headquarters by the local constituency secretary, but Mr Bree has consistently refused to withdraw his criticism.

In a strong attack on the party leadership yesterday, he said the decision to deem the complaint as valid, and to establish the special complaints committee, had brought the party into disrepute.

The former TD, who now faces expulsion from the party, added: "In the years up until Pat Rabbitte became leader it would have been inconceivable that an elected representative from the party would be hauled before a specially-established complaints committee for supporting the right of Traveller families to secure accommodation.

"In my opinion, it is a clear indication of the party's move to the right."

He added that he had served in the party under both Dick Spring and Ruairí Quinn "and I can only say that such a scenario would have been unthinkable during their respective tenure of office".

A spokesman for the Labour Party yesterday refused to comment on Mr Bree's remarks pending the hearing.

Councillor Veronica Cawley, one of the Sligo-based councillors who rejected the programme, has said that it would have resulted in four Traveller accommodation units being sited in one ward of the city and none in two other wards.

She said there was an onus on every councillor to make sure Traveller accommodation was provided in a fair and reasonable way.

It is understood that the general secretary of the Labour Party, Mike Allen, will present the case against Mr Bree to the complaints committee, established under the party's constitution.

Such a committee has the power to dismiss a complaint, to note a complaint but take no action, or to suspend or expel the subject of a complaint.

Sligo Borough Council became the first local authority to reject a Traveller accommodation programme at a meeting last February when seven councillors, including Labour's Jim McGarry and Ms Cawley, rejected it. A serious rift subsequently developed within Labour in Sligo.

Yesterday Mr Bree said he had no intention of apologising or withdrawing his remarks. "I think the people of Sligo will know that hell will freeze over before I renege on my principles."

He insisted that the decision to vote down the Traveller accommodation programme would compel Traveller families to continue living in appalling conditions. "Why in God's name should I apologise for that?"

© The Irish Times

by Con Carroll Thu Sep 01, 2005 14:17

whats new Does anyone remember the poverty pimp Mike Allen in the INOU during the 1980s. Allen was hell bent on opposing people who were unemployed in having a voice attacking the right wing policys of the government
as for Rabbitte he forgets his days in Moscow

by the shadow Thu Sep 01, 2005 15:01

In Irish politics today principle is poison.
Declan Bree has been convicted of having the courage of his convictions and of giving more than lip service to Labour Party policy on travellers.

by PeeFlynn Thu Sep 01, 2005 16:45

I will wonder will the left wing Labour Youth publically support Bree?

surely if they don't it puts there ideological stance on recent issues, such as the EU Constitution, into question......

There clearly is a move to the right within the LP, which side will the youth membership take? They have a lot to lose if they don't!!!

by Kat Thu Sep 01, 2005 17:09

It is quite unbelievable that the Labour Party would expel a member for supporting the rights of minorities. If anything he should be congratulated and supported publicly. Why haven’t other Labour Public Reps and T.Ds come out and given Declan Bree support??? Are they afraid of the Stalinist Pat Rabbitt or keeping their mouths shut in case it might jeopardise a ministerial car?

We all knew Bree and the organisation in Sligo was to the left and he was respected for his views and the strength of the organisation on the ground. But the treatment of him and he Sligo Labour Party since Rabbitt became leader has been a scandal, firstly imposing a right wing Fine Gael Councillor on the local constituency and now trying to marginalise criticism and debate within the party!

Anybody who cares about the future of the Party should raise their concerns soon….. Dissent is slowly being quashed by Rabbitt and any opponents are being marginalized. Just look at the recent vote on the fine Gael coalition and the outcome of Party’s General Council election.

by Labour Head Thu Sep 01, 2005 17:15

Shane do you think that Joe Higgins will approach Decaln Bree to join if he gets expelled?

If Bree goes i'm sure others will follow.....

by Re: Labour Head Thu Sep 01, 2005 18:00

I know it is tempting to just walk away when you see good comrades being put through this shit. But keep your head. After the next election the Sticky Carpetbaggers will be got rid of and real labour party people will be back in control. Fair play to Declan, hes been a committed socialist since the 70s and i hope he comes through this shit unscathed. Looks like the stickies in control have drafted in a former blueshirt to shaft Bree because he is on the republican wing of the party.

Rabbitte should be more concerned with holding onto his own seat than trying to shaft candidates in other constituencies.

I said it was a terrible mistake at the time and its being proved correct, handing the keys of the party to the stickies was a disaster and will cost us dearly.

by Greenback Thu Sep 01, 2005 18:08

My first general election in Ireland since I was 18 - this issue clinches it for me. There is no way that Labour gets my vote while Rabbitte is in charge.

by Leeroy - Labour Thu Sep 01, 2005 19:26

I would like the commend Bree on his valor and bravery, i think that it is time that we reclaim the labour party from the psudo-pragmatic social democrats in the higher echelons of the party. My thoughts are with declan at this moment he has done an excellent job in exposing the incompetence of Pat Rabbite as leader of the party.

''Better to go fight for something you believe in, then go along with something you don`t.''

by Bernard Cantillon Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:11 Berlin, Germany

I am sorry that this whole sorry mess has taken place, but I think that the willingness of Bree to run to the papers and denounce the party leadership is disgraceful. A strong left will only be built by people accepting that united coordinated action is the only way forward. There is no place for individual histrionics in the battle to deliver a Labour government. Bree should know this as well as anyone.

I believe that he should have held his fire and attacked the process at the hearing itself. I would think that it would have been most unlikely that he would be expelled for it. However, his behaviour over the past few days has raised questions about his loyalty and it is no longer just about the comments he made about Cllrs. Cawley and McGarry. He is bringing the party into disrepute.

In terms of his complaints about these two councillors, he could have formally complained in the same way as he has been complained about to the internal party machinery. Instead, he chose to blow his mouth off publicly. That is very different.

I hope that he is not expelled, but I am sickened that all the usual people that have no interest in creating a Labour government and indeed are antagonistic to the idea, are gaining solace from this whole sorry event.

by Shipsea Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:28

Have you forgotten what this issue is supposed to be about? Somewhere in the middle of it all are a group of travelling people denied housing facilities. But you forgot to mention that - or was it simply not that important? No, it seems what really matters here is the (deserved) embarrassment felt by the labour party because a crass decision supported some by their own members was publicly challenged! That's democracy, Mr Cantillon. People are actually entitled to express their views. Blind loyalty to the tribe is exactly what we do not need right now - we get enough of that from Fianna Fail already. Id advise you to read over your own post again and try to understand that it makes a brilliant example of what it is that has people turning away from you in droves.

by Bernard Cantillon Fri Sep 02, 2005 14:53 Berlin, Germany

Parties are what allow people to choose a new government. People therefore vote for the ideas that most closely resemble theirs, as represented by a party. It should not matter if the party puts up a sock puppet, the individuals are not important. It is the unity and the strenght of the party that is important. In many ways we have a bastardised version of democracy in Ireland. it is all based on local pulling of strokes. It distracts the people from actually participating in the process and forces those that are active in the political arena tpo concentrate on the anodyne local affairs of their constituents. I think that this is wrong and is actually not democratic.

Declan Bree was elected as a Labour Councillor. I think that we must assume that the people that voted for him did so on that basis. As such, they elected the Labour Party, not Declan Bree. He is, excuse the language, merely a bum on a seat. The sooner that we view politicians as just that the better. Ultimately, the only way that people can achieve true democracy is through a party. Problems with a policy or a vote should be dealt with internally, not in the full glare of the forces that are against the aims and objectives of the party, because those that are against our aims are against the people.

I think that there has been an unfortunate spillage of anarchist and autonomist ideas into mainstream left discourse over recent years. This is dangerous and misguided as ultimately it destroys the left, which lacks any discipline and becomes incapable of governing the people. All those that care about democracy and achieving socialism must fight the autonomist forces and ideas that would endanger our movement. The individual is not important and if we push the idea that a renegade in Sligo can publicly attack the party, than we must question 'what is the point of a party?'. Freedom and socialism will only be achived through coordinated action.

I, like Declan, am very concerned about the conditions that Irish Travellers live under, but I believe that the place to form policy is within the party and the place to challenge the voting pattern of councillors is within the party. He has disserviced the entire movement by his behaviour.

Pat Rabbitte is a good leader and will lead our party to better things. The last post talked about people leaving in their droves. In fact the opposite is the case. The party membership is continually growing. Of course, I don't expect many of the autonomists and anarchists to understand this, but I think that everyone else can see that the Labour Party grows stronger, week on week, month on month, year on year. That is our strength. We are engaging the people with the ideas of the Labour Party. There will be a strong and vibrant ground force to help bring out our vote and capture new votes for us come the next election. That is the achievement of socialism and we may have to share the cabinet table with the conservatives of FG, but it means that we can get policies into action that will change the lives of ordinary people. That is what is important. There are those that only interested in sitting on the fence betraying the workers by their pointless whinging and hurling from the ditch. The Labour Party is about action.

Declan Bree has brought himself into disrepute. Hopefully, he will consider the negativity of his actions and come to a new realisation.

by Dan - ISN (per cap) Fri Sep 02, 2005 15:45

Your comments on Bree are disgraceful. Declan Bree, to my mind, is one of the few senior figures in Labour who does credit to the party. The leadership obviously think he is bringing them into "disrepute" because he is contriving to give the impression that some people in Labour have principles and would not fellate a syphilitic camel in order to get near power.

You're quite right to say that many of us have no loyalty to the Labour party and feel no affection for it. We do, however, feel loyal to democratic socialist principles, and anyone in Labour who is willing to put his own neck on the line to defend those principles has my wholehearted support. Fair play to Bree, we need a lot more like him, and I hope to see the decent people in Labour Youth (not including yourself, naturally) come out actively in support of him.

by Shipsea Fri Sep 02, 2005 15:50

Unquestioning loyalty to the tribe is not 'discipline'. If there is no space for personal integrity, which is what you seem to be admitting, then to hell with the labour party! Party politics has done this country no service whatsoever. Why cant we have more Finian McGraths? There's a person worth voting for. People are disillusioned with party politics for all the reasons you offer. Its not about doing what is right, its about getting into power. That's why you're so angry with Declan Bree - because he's exposed you for being hypocritical. The more you criticse him the more unpleasant and hypocritical you look. The party political system is the terminal cancer of democracy. You cant find two people who will agree on everything let alone a group of hundreds/thousands of people trying to agree on vital matters of public administration. This means that at any one time, party political representatives will probably only agree with roughly half of what is policy and the rest of the time they are lying their heads off. What a lousy system. People should coalesce around individual issues and the whip system should be destroyed. That way we might stand some chance of ending the endmic corruption in Irish political life - and not have the lunactic spectacle of a labour party disciplining or expelling its members for speaking out against social injustice. No, Bernard, there is no way you can dress this up as a principled action and its no use being annoyed about it.

by indie Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:15

Bree should join the socialist party, for two reasons, because it would be good for bree who could get support for instead of being attacked. And two, it's good for the sp to have someone outspoken and willing to publicly air his beliefs.

by Bernard Cantillon Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:18 Berlin, Germany

The ultimate aim of the Labour Party is to better the lives of ordinary people, not to sit on the ditch, as the other forces on the socalled 'far left' and the autonomists do.

Real freedom will not be achieved through the 'high moral', but factually bankrupt inaction of the liars and scabs of these movements. The people need the Labour Party in power, because the LP is the only party that can acheive real change that can deliver Irish citizens from poverty and alllow for the establishment of a democractic socialist republic.

Just a point on Finian McGrath, the man is a rank hypocrite. He is an unreconnstructed nationalist of the Sinn Fein IRA variety, except he is a coward and refuses to come out wearing all his nationalist paraphenalia for all to see. He is a sysmpathiser with SFIRA and as such is not of the left. Nationalism and socialism are not bed fellows and never can be. I am saddened that politics has been so debased that otherwise intelligent people think that having more people like Finian McGrath would be desirable.

by Shipsea Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:27

Like you, Mr Cantillon, Finian McGrath has his faults. You make my point for me. Nobody agrees with everything any one politician or party says or does. Mr McGrath has proved himself time and again by speaking out forcefully against social injustice. The Labour Party have no monopoly on doing that. In fact, as things stand, they have an ever diminishing purchase on the politics of social justice. How can any party genuinely concerned with it consider an election deal with Fine Gael? Its no use hurling abuse at Finian McGrath. We will judge you by what you do - not by what you say or how you are organised. That's the bottom line. Leave Declan Bree alone.

by Bernard Cantillon Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:29 Berlin, Germany

The SP and dissent are not happy bed fellows. The party runs along democratic centralist lines and I think that any dissent from the official party line in the SP would be ruthlessly annihilated. If in doubt, ask Cllr. Joan Collins.

Labour is a party, where we debate policy and come to a consensus that we follow the will of the group. That is democracy and the way to freedom. The SP is differently structured, but don't allow your dislike of the forces of democratic socialism blinker you to the lack of democracy within the SP. I am all for internal party debate and democracy, but I have no time for people attacking the party in public, when there are ways and means that can be employed to achieve a better solution within the party.

Bree should realise that attacks on the party in public damage everyone in the party. We cannot tolerate people trying to damage us from within. Last year, a decision was taken to admit Cllr. McGarry, which Bree has never gotten over. That was a decision of the party. His place is not to question this, but I would suggest, he should support the will of the party. That is the role of internal party democracy.

by Chris Bond - Labour (pers cap) Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:31

Bernard to be completely honest Bree was acting out of principal, and the other two councillors disgraced themselves by voting against accomodation for the travelling community. And to be honest its better to have people like Finian Mcgrath in the Dail then to have the likes of Michael Mcdowell, John Deasy, Enda Kenny, and John O'Donoghue in there.

by Chris Bond Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:32

If you want discipline, you can Join the FCA.

by Person Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:35

"The people need the Labour Party in power"

Oh, no we don't.

by Bunny Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:39

Ah the ol' kneejerk reaction. Not a peep from the SP that I can see on this thread and off you go on a tangent. Infamy, infamy, they all have it in for me.
Glad to see there are more sensible LPY than you on this thread.

by Shipsea Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:43

Pointing to the failings of the SP doesnt make your position any better, either. Throughout this discussion you have done no more than pay lip service to the core issue - housing facilities for travelling people. It's sheer hypocrisy for you to claim to be concerned about that and to support it as an objective and then round on Bree because he finds labour party people doing the exact opposite. Surely your anger should be directed at them. They are the ones who are out of step, if you are to be believed. All you are saying is that the children ought not to be allowed to hear the grown ups arguing. Well I have news for you Mr Cantillon: we're not children and we prefer transparency in these matters. If a politcal party cannot withstand open debate, publicly conducted, then good riddance to them. Voters are tired of being patronised like this. We put you there - we want to know what the hell you are all getting up to, actually. As a political party you shouldnt be functioning like some private social club - getting all antsy because some chap complained about some of the members misbehaving! You do more damage to the Labour party here by insisting on defending an idiotic action against Declan Bree than he is probably even capable of. Leave him alone!

by Michael M Fri Sep 02, 2005 16:46

Where is this guy Bernard Cantillon coming from? Two Labour councillors join with the right-wingers and vote down Sligos traveller accommodation programme. Bree, as Mayor of Sligo, says the decision is ‘disgraceful’.

The Labour Party drags Bree before a special complaints committee to be disciplined. And what does the Labour Party do about the two Labour councillors who voted down the traveller accommodation programme. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Now Mr Cantillon has the gall to tell us that Bree has brought himself into disrepute!!

If Mr Cantillon is representative of Labours new flock of members, then Labour is in deep shit.

I say shame on Bernard Cantillon and shame on all those in the Labour Party who support this witch-hunt against Bree.

by observer Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:27

It is laughable to hear any supporter of Rabbitte attack someone like McGrath. Dead giveaway too that he is employing the old sticky crap about "unreconstructed nationalist" and socialist republicans not being on the left. So McGrath is a right-winger is he?

The fact that Labour is fundamentally no different to FG and FF is proven by the contortions being performed by Rabbitte to avoid supporting the Rossport Five. I am not questioning the genuine commitment of the likes of Broughan and MD Higgins but the party as a whole will do nothing to offend Shell and nothing to damage the prospects of coalition with FG. And once in coalition they will do what they have always done - nothing for the people they allegedly represent.

Now we will probably hear all about their "record" in office! right. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands forced to emigrate and onto the dole in the 1980s when Labour were in "power".

by Ex-Stick Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:41

Bernard says: Finian Mc Grath is a closet Provo, Declan Bree should submit to party discipline, Pat Rabbitte is a great leader.

Anyone else smell an unreconstructed ex-sticky? The party (whichever one it is, WP...DL...Labour) comes first, everyone else on the left is an ultra-leftist and all that matters is power. Wow I have'nt come across that since the mid-eighties, really brings me back. But fortunately, Ive done the required therapy (or was that purgatory?) and now I can go into a bar and not feel the urgent desire to blame the Provos for fact that my pint is flat!

Grow up Bernard. Sock it to'em Deco. Keep diggin Pat.

by Anorak Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:42

Bernard Cantillon,
Former Equality Officer of the Union of Students in Ireland,
Former LGB Rights Officer UCD Students Union,
Former director of ICOS (Irish Council for International Students),
Former editor of the UCD College Tribune.
Former Chairperson of Labour Party Youth.

Equality Officer and Rights Officer now isn't that funny. Makes sense really seeing as how Michael McDowell is Minister for Equality.
Tis a quare world.

by BS Fri Sep 02, 2005 18:49

I see that Mr Bernard Cantillon is not only attacking Bree but he also welcomes the admission of the blueshirt Cllr Jim McGarry into membership of the Labour Party, despite the fact that the constituency organisation opposed him.

Mr Cantillon says, “The people need the Labour Party in power, because the LP is the only party that can achieve real change that can deliver Irish citizens from poverty and allow for the establishment of a democratic socialist republic.”

A democratic socialist republic!!!!! How do you build a democratic socialist republic by attacking Declan Bree while supporting someone with a record like Cllr Jim McGarry? Cllr McGarry never shared the values of the Labour movement.


Cllr McGarry voted year after year to impose bin charges in Sligo while Labour members were campaigning against the charges.

Cllr McGarry supported and voted for the privatisation of the Refuse Service.

Cllr McGarry consistently opposed the liberal agenda relating to divorce, homosexuality, abortion, even opposing the abortion information amendment.

Cllr McGarry is opposed to the Government holding a referendum to insert an article on non-alignment and neutrality in the Constitution.

Cllr McGarry supports the U.S. using Shannon -even while Labour members were marching against the war - McGarry voted against a motion calling on the Government to halt US warplanes using Shannon.

Cllr McGarry voted down the Traveller Accommodation Programme.


Over to you Mr Cantillon......

by Bernard Cantillon Fri Sep 02, 2005 20:03 Berlin, Germany

Somebody questioned my record as Equality Officer of USI. As Equality Officer, I championed the rights of minorities and particularly the Traveller Community.

USI's Traveller Education policy was written by me and is, if I may be boastful, a very progressive list of suggestions.

I have nothing in common with McDowell and I fully support the rights and proper integration of the Traveller Community. I just don't think that the best way to go about this is to attack the only serious party that is committed to affecting change in this area.

I have said in my postings up to now that if Declan Bree wanted to complain about the actions of fellow councillors, the place to do this is within the party. There is a complaint system and a disciplinary system there to target any misgivings that members may have about the actions of other party members. Bree should have used these channels.

As regards SFIRA and unreconstructed nationalism, I am sorry, but I fully hold to this. I cannot understand how any socialist can believe that the independence of Ireland or indeed the union or non union of this island is of any importance. Nations are imagined. They are meaningless constructs, which no socialist should have any truck with. The nation state is an exercise in collective self delusion and as such is a sort of opiate of the masses. As long as the people are encouraged to attach themselves to the nation and build an alliance with their bosses through this, which alienates them from other workers, than they will never be free. Nationalism must be destroyed for the workers freedom.

Many otherwise good people have been trapped in this vortex of serving the interests of the nation state rather than the international worker. The workers or Belfast, west and east, should struggle for justice together not getting tied to irrelevant national tags and flags. It doesn't matter whether they are run from London or Dublin or indeed Timbuktoo. What matters is that the workers achieve freedom and socialism. Nations are a creation of the capitalist system and are all about property. What good socialist is more interested in territory than in real freedom.

by BS Fri Sep 02, 2005 20:26

What! No response to the establishment of the democratic socialist republic - with Cllr McGarry and co? Have you no comment Mr Cantillon??

by BS Fri Sep 02, 2005 20:31

Its all very well writing progressive policies in opposition to war, in favour of divorce, abortion and the decriminalisation of homosexuality, in favour of public services, against privatisation, in support of travellers rights etc. But when public representatives don’t have the balls to support and implement these policies why do you try to justify their despicable behaviour and attack someone like Bree?


ps By the way, if the nation state is an exercise in self delusion how do you establish the democratic socialist republic?

by Shipsea Fri Sep 02, 2005 20:34

That is a tuly lamentable response. Still, its Friday night and Ive had a couple of glasses too...

by indie Sat Sep 03, 2005 04:36

in fairness if joan collins had just said a decesion by another cllr was disgraceful, there wouldn't have been too much trouble. Constantly voting against the party position while her colleagues are in jail though... ..how would labour deal with it?

by Bernard Cantillon Sat Sep 03, 2005 16:16 Berlin, Germany

As I have already said, McGarry is not important. He is a bum on a seat. Some politicians think far too highly of themselves, when in essence that is all they are.

Democratic Socialism and building a republic out of that is perfectly consistent with my views on the nation state. I believe that it is important that we work with the realities on the ground. The Republic is a reality on the ground, but to be honest, I really couldn't care less what the administrative divisions of the future are. If we get out a big world map and declare nations to be what lies within particular boxes of latitude and longitude, I don't care. Nationalism in my opinion is incompatible with socialism and I look forward to its eventual destruction.

by BS Sat Sep 03, 2005 18:38

Mr Cantillon of the Labour Party says that Cllr McGarry, and other politicians are not important as they are ‘bums on seats’.

Perhaps Mr Cantillon can tell us what happens when the ‘bums on seats’ vote for bin charges, when they vote for privatisation, when they vote against traveller accommodation.

I have no doubt but that the travelling families living in third world conditions in Sligo and elsewhere will tell him if the ‘bums on seats’ are important and if the decisions they make are important.

Mr Cantillon is a great advocate and supporter of Pat Rabbittes views on the development of the Labour Party and says, and I quote him from yesterdays posting: “Ultimately, the only way that people can achieve true democracy is through a party. Problems with a policy or a vote should be dealt with internally, not in the full glare of the forces that are against the aims and objectives of the party, because those that are against our aims are against the people.”

It strikes me that Mr Cantillon and Mr Rabbitte are based in the wrong part of the globe. I feel the atmosphere in Pyongyang would suit them perfectly.

“Those that are against our aims are against the people.” says Mr Cantillon.

Comrade Kim Jong Il could hardly have put it better

by socialist Sun Sep 04, 2005 16:07

Dan Finn saying that Decaln Bree is a credit to the Labour Party! I thought you were a socialist Dan? Or have you ditched that as well.

Declna Bree is no credit to anyone, he went into the Dail in 1992 and proped up a right wing fianna Fail governemnt that systematically attacked the working class. This is after saying in the election campaign that he would NEVER go into government with FF. For example Bree voted for Water Tax and the disconnection of people's water! He also voted and supported a FG lead govt that put the nurses out on strike! Hardly the actions of a socialisst. Bree is discredited, he is a sell out. Dan's support for Bree says alot about some in the ISN.

by Leeroy - Labour (pers cap) Sun Sep 04, 2005 18:18

Declan Bree voted against the water tax, and he got a lot of stick from the spring/howlin/quinn wing of the party, also could you please qualify your claims that Labour in government attacked the working class. when we were last in government we increased child benefit, money for disabled people and the number of local authority housing by unprecedented levels.

by Gerry McNamee Sun Sep 04, 2005 19:03 gerrymac1 at mac dot com

It seems a shame to introduce some facts into the debate when you are all having so much fun. If you actually read the Sligo papers you would know that half an hour before Sligo Borough Council voted to reject the Traveller Accommodation plan, Declan Bree proposed a successful motion to block a Traveller Site from his own election area. This meant that of the four sites Sligo Town none would be in Declan’s ward, and all four would be in the North Ward. Knowing he had ensured that his own base would remain a Traveller-free zone Bree voted for the overall plan.

It seems to me that the overall plan was defeated because it was so unbalanced, which resulted from Brees motion - and the local campaign he ran against the site in his area.

Maybe his socialist shame at this hypocricy explains the typical diversionary tactics of attacking his fellow Labour Councillors.

by Killer Sun Sep 04, 2005 20:42

Leeroy asks what are the crimes of the Labour Party. Here are a few of their attacks on the working class. Opposing Nurses' pay increases forcing them on strike. Labour support social partnership which has seen the share of wealth to wages decrease. Labour voted for the Tax amnesties for the wealthy. Labour (incl Declan Bree) voted for Albert Reynolds AND John Bruton for Taoiseach. Labour introduced the water charges. Labour supported the disconnection of water from working class homes. People like Leeroy are fooling themselves to think that Labour are a progressive force. Labour offer no alternative. They oppose workers on strike. The implement stealth taxes while the wealthy get tax amnesties. If Bree was genuine he would have left Labour a long time ago. Why did he not leave Labour when he was a TD? Answer is: his career! Same today he's only fallen out with a group of fellow careerists. I disagree with Dan Finn: to paint Bree as a principled socialist is mistaken.

by Killer Sun Sep 04, 2005 20:56

Germany is a good example of Labour's 'socialism' in action. Maybe Bernard Cantillon could tell us about how Schroeder's 'Agenda 2010' is going down among the German working class? Are you on the campaign trail for SPD? I'm sure you'd love to see them in government to see through their 'reforms' of welfare!! This is the type of 'socialism' that Labour represent. Bree is more like Schroeder and Blair than Connolly and Larkin!!

by Ryan Sun Sep 04, 2005 21:00

Gerry McNamee’s allegation is totally unfounded. Declan Bree in all his years in local government never, ever, ran a campaign against travellers in his own East Ward, or in any part of the town or county of Sligo. It would be anathema for Bree to participate in any such campaign.

A quick phone call to his worst enemies in FF or FG in Sligo or to the SF elected reps in Sligo, or to the local press, will confirm what I say.

I would also point out that the minutes of all Sligo Corporation meetings are available online and they will show that Declan Bree in fact supported an amendment to the Traveller Accommodation Programme proposing that the apartments for newly married travellers be provided in his East Ward area.

It is also a fact that the traveller accommodation proposed for the North Ward is to house a number of traveller families from the North Ward who are currently living in unacceptable conditions in the ward.

As for the posting alleging that Declan Bree voted for Water Tax and the disconnecting of people’s water etc. Again a scurrilous allegation and without a grain of truth. The fact is that Bree and the Labour movement in Sligo consistently campaigned against all forms of local authority service charges over the years and the dogs in the streets in Sligo will confirm this.

Lets have a bit of honesty in this debate.

by Bernard Cantillon Sun Sep 04, 2005 23:08

I note that the individual, delightfully apendaged 'Killer', is consumed by some sort of vicious hatred of the mainstream left across Europe. Indeed, any day, I would rather be governed by somebody like Schröder, than some of the reactionaries on this site. That is all those that have no solutions and are only willing to criticise are. Infact, people like that are worse than conservatives. Sometimes, hard decisions have to be taken and of course, it is awfully easy to sit on the sidelines and throw stones, it takes much more effort and a great deal more courage to explain to people why change is necessary. All the radical left has achieved in Germany is that the Union-Liberal coalition will probably be elected in two weeks, meaning that of course, things will get an awful lot worse, but at least, the far left will be able to have a protest outside the Bundestag in ideology purity and point to the worsening situation of the poor and deprived and blame it on the conservatives. Of course, they will never accept responsibility for stoking the flames that will probably mean that Schröder leaves the Kanzleramt in two weeks and will be replaced by Merkel and Westerwelle, who will be slash taxes and benefits, aswell as a good old traditional dismantling of the welfare state. The Ministerpräsident of Niedersachsen is talking about a 'Thatcher Revolution in Germany'. The far left should be very proud of themselves.

It is the same in Ireland. All the far left is capable of doing is criticising. It won't sully itself by implementing anything that isn't universally popular, because well like here, they won't implement anything at all. In the mind of the far leftist, it is better to have a government made up of reactionary conservatives and neo-liberals than to have the left take part and attempt to moderate the actions of the right and implement policies and programmes that will better the lives of ordinary people. Of course, the Labour Party in government implemented many policies, which have slowly being changing our society. In government, Labour attempted to break the link between childhood poverty and poor educational attainment. Of course, things didn't change overnight, but that doesn't happen in the real world. in the airy fairy world occupied by the SWP, SP, WSM, ISN et al., if there is not change overnight, it is a failure. Labour in government introduced free third level tuition. Labour in government decriminalised homosexuality. Labour in government made contraception easily available. Labour in government pushed the government to hold a referendum on divorce and won. Labour laid the ground work for what became the Equality Authority and the Equal Status Act. Labour in government presided over the decrease in the jobless figures week on week. That is a record to be proud of. Of course, there were many things, which we didn't do, but we were at least trying and if we had remained in government would have continued to change Ireland in a social democratic programme. Yes, we had to elect Reynolds first and then Bruton as Taoiseach and in the world of the far left, that was criminal. We had to vote for tax amnesties championed by the right, but you know something, so what. People in Dublin, Galway, Cork and other towns and cities can go to gay bars or have a same sex relationship and while there is still homophobia, at least they don't have to worry about being arrested for being themselves. If someone wants to buy condoms, they no longer need to venture to a pharmacy with a marriage license or a doctors perscription. Slowly and surely, some of the programmes that Labour implemented were and are showing signs of changing our society. Of course, if we took the logic of the far left, we would have done none of this. Instead, gay people would still be living in fear, being blackmailed by scoundrels and harrassed by the police. People would be shuffling into their nearest pharmacy with a bundle of paper to buy a condom, Our health boards would never have started covering sexual health education and Ireland would collectively have done the ostrich route for the AIDS crisis.

But maybe it is better to read your Communist Manifesto and dream sweet dreams of a day far off (but possibly near) when the people will arise from their misery and install a new state, governed by the workers. In the meantime, they can eat shit and the left can offer them critiques of government policy from afar.

I am proud to be a social democrat and not a useless inactive ditchsitting stone thrower. The politics that I believe in are a politics of action, of doing what you can now for the betterment of the people. Sometimes that politics requires hard decisions to be made and sometimes you know that those, who live in the clouds, will attack and destroy you for compromising, but at least, you will have achieved something. The politics of the far left is the politics of protest and a politic that is only about protest is futile and a betrayal of the people. It is the politics of doing nothing.

This post has nothing specifically to do with Declan Bree, other than that he was part of the parliamentary party that sought to change our country for the better and that is something that he should be very proud of.

Real left politics is the politics of action. It is the politics of making decisions and having to stick by them. That is the politics of the Labour Party.

What do the others stand for?

by Chris Bond - Labour (pers cap) Mon Sep 05, 2005 00:01 chrisbonn_irl_2000 at hotmail dot com

No Labour member has come on indymedia and defended the tax amnesties, that happened over 10 years ago. The Current Labour leader, the deputy leader, our sole MEP and several members of our front bench, were in an organisation that vehmentley opposed the tax amnesties, and they did so a lot more than some of the spineless anonymous fools offering criticisms on this thread. Secondly Labour have done a lot of good things to defend ordinary people that have been overlooked by the media, and certain sections of the ''revolutionary'' left who only believe what suits their political agenda. It was us that exposed Smart Telecom for anti union activity, it was us that exposed Irish Ferries for despicable exploitation of foreign workers.

by observer Mon Sep 05, 2005 09:53

Buried in Mr Cantillon's last post is the glowing roll of honour of Labour in Government: "tried to break the link between child poverty and something or other"; contraception, divorce, the "idea" of the Equality Authority. Connolly must be so proud.

As for the nation state. The LP were in fact great enthusiasts for one nation state. Unfortunately, it was the British one in whose support they deployed the Heavy Gang, Section 31, Special Courts etc, etc, and in whose interests Spring attempted to destroy the peace process because one of his "progressive" chums didn't get a job.

by SH Mon Sep 05, 2005 13:22

Recently UCD labour has actually had some decent members. Bernard Cantillon is not one, Chris Bond judging by his comment here is in a category of his own in the Deleded members column.

Bernard during his time in UCD went from disaster to disaster. His term of office editing the College Tribune was known to be the lowest ebb of that paper. Bernard is a political waste of space he is the young Dermot Lacey, an embarrassment to his party and a joke to people who know him. Bernard is a conservative, a reactionary and quite bigotted in his views. He thinks he knows best but his understanding of everything is naive, unshopisticated and at times down right idiotic. He is at the far right of the Labour party.

Chris perhaps you could produce your evidence here for saying that the Labour Party exposed the Smart telecom and Irish Ferries explotation. The Trade Unions and the workers would love to know.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Sep 05, 2005 14:12

I am absolutely not going to comment on the main issue here. But to try and foist the notion that anyone should be the young Me is probably unfair to both of us.

For the record again I am happy to be a proud longstanding Social Democrat member of the Irish Labour Party a Party that has led virtually all progressive opinion in this country for very many years. The sooner College restarts the better and you can all go back to studying and stop posting nonsencial rubbish about issues you know little about the better. Alternatvely some of you could just grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by SH Mon Sep 05, 2005 14:48

"that has led virtually all progressive opinion in this country for very many years"
What embarassing nonsense from our resident clown. The labour party are slow to join any campaign these days, just look at the Rossport 5 campaign, the citizenship referendum, the bin tax. The Labour party under their current leadership helped by clowns such as Dermot Lacey have become increasingly regressive and in some cases reactionary, Cllr. Bree will certainly have the complete opposite view than our resident clown.

Dermot not everyone here is a student, and you certainly need a lot of education so I suggest that you should enroll in a school and start aiming to become a more intelligent person. It will take a while no doubt.

The sheer idea that putting Fine Gael in government is progressive is a laugh, the reality is Labour will go into government with Fianna Fail AGAIN.

by Dermot Lacey Mon Sep 05, 2005 14:59

The great thing about Indymedia is that you lot always, always rise to the bait.

by Dan - ISN Mon Sep 05, 2005 15:02

Bernard, it cracks me up to hear you talk about the "airy fairy" world of the SP/SWP/ISN etc. I remember well how you used to sneer at the likes of myself, Paul Dillon, Finbar Dwyer and others when we arrived in college. We were all deluded ideological fantasists, totally lacking in the realism that you possessed in abundance. We had to endure your smug, self-satisfied comments all the time.

And you know what Bernard? WE turned out to be the practical ones. WE were the ones who actually got things done. When I arrived in college, the student left seemed to be in thrall to a loser mentality. And YOU were the perfect embodiment of that mentality. You were an embarrassment to the left in UCD. We would cringe every time you got up to make a speech in the SU council; we would groan every time we heard you quoted in the college press. If it had been left to you, nothing would ever have been achieved.

Instead, we did things the "crazy", "ultra-left" way. We ignored all your wise counsel. And what did we do? We swept the right wing out of the Student Union and won a referendum and two elections with crushing majorities (I know elections are the only measure of success for people like you, so I can't resist pointing this out). We organised protests that brought hundreds of students out against the reintroduction of fees and against college cutbacks. Fees weren't reintroduced and the cutbacks were reversed. We organised students in faculties where there hadn't been a SU presence in years, never mind a protest, and forced their faculties to give them a better deal.

We also managed to organise protests in support of refugees, against the militarisation of Shannon, in support of jailed bin tax protesters, and we were the first college in the world to ban Coke from campus.

In terms of what you can get done in student activism, this was a pretty good record, and I'm proud of what we got done. And I certainly think it was more valuable the the shambolic political career of a man who has never held a position of any sort without having had a motion of no confidence passed in him - an awesome record of incomptence and failure.

If I were you, I'd be ashamed to show my face in public. How you can have the gall to write at such length, with such pretentious drivel, is a mystery to me (reading your arguments against nationalism gave me a pain in the head - I've rarely seen leftist discourse abused for such shabby purposes).

As for "socialist", I think it says all we need to know about you that you are not willing to sign your name or your organisation. However, your identity is crystal clear. There are only two people in the whole of Ireland who see fit to waste everyone's time with such hysterical outbursts.

Oisin/Finghin, as I said before, THE SHRIEKING MUST STOP. Even your own comrades in the SP think you are an embarassment (they've said so on this site).

If you really think you can "expose" me or the ISN, then sign your real name and let's have a debate, any time, any place. You can live out all your fantasies of being the Lenin of the keyboard! More exclamation marks than you will know what to do with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Otherwise the only positive contribution you can bring to the table is total silence. Your sectarian bile is worthless.

I will happily stand by what I wrote above. Declan Bree is a reformist and I'm a radical socialist so naturally I would disagree with him about all sorts of things. But I think he deserves credit for having taken a stand in support of Travellers - there's not enough people in Irish politics willing to do that. And he deserves more credit for having refused to bow down in the face of this disgraceful, Stalinist bullying campaign initiated by the leadership. It says everything you need to know about the Irish Labour party that people like Bree are so rare.

Fair enough, he was in the Dail when Labour formed governments with right-wing parties. You can criticise him for that all you like, and rightly so I'd say. But you can still give him credit for the stand he's taken on this issue. If a British Labour MP defied Blair over Iraq or immigration, I'd give them credit for that, although they might have supported the government on other occassions.

When are you going to learn that we won't get anywhere if we keep issuing these all-or nothing, absolutist diktats, demanding that people must agree with us on everything or be denounced bitterly as sell-outs, traitors, careerists etc? I think you would be happiest if there was nobody involved in left-wing politics who didn't share exactly the same views as you. You would rather see everyone, from left-wing members of Labour, to left-republicans, to anarchists, walk away from the left and walk away from activism, until there was nobody left bar the SP (then, of course, you would like to purge the ranks of the SP to remove anyone whose views seemed too heterodox).

That'd be great wouldn't it? Fifty people or so, with the correct views on everything, marching into battle against the bourgeoisie. They might lose every fight, they might be totally irrelevant, but at least they would all have read "One step forwards, two steps back" so many times they could write it down from memory, and that would be all that mattered, eh?

The irony is, you and Bernard Cantillon have far more in common than either of you realise. You are both obsessively sectarian. Anyone who is not a member of your organisation is totally illegitimate, and has to be "exposed" as a fraud whenever the opportunity arises. Independent thinking, pluralism, tolerance, has no place in either Bernard's political outlook or yours.

If we are going to create a democratic socialist republic, we had better start taking the "democratic" bit seriously. That means we will have to win over the majority of the population to our views. So we will have to develop the knack of ARGUING with people, PERSUADING them, instead of shrieking slogans and denouncing them if they don't agree with us on everything straight away. Lenin may have been able to use the Cheka to deal with dissent, but I'm afraid that option isn't open to us comrades (thank god).

When people with reformist politics take the right stand, whether it's Bree defending travellers, Mick O'Reilly opposing social partnership or Labour Youth opposing the EU constitution, we should give them credit for that (as long as their stand is sincere, of course). And we can do that without in any way ignoring our other differences.

If you want to vent your spleen at fake socialists, there are plenty around. There are plenty of arseholes like Rabbitte or Dermot Lacey or whoever who deserve nothing but contempt. There's no point trying to have a debate with them, they just respond with vulgar abuse anyway.

by Arsenic and Old Lacey Mon Sep 05, 2005 15:05

"The great thing about Indymedia is that you lot always, always rise to the bait."

That's rich coming from the Master Baiter, eh Dermo?

by Dermot Lacey Mon Sep 05, 2005 15:09

Not sure Dan how I can be a "fake Socialist" when I have never claimed to be even a real one. I'm not a Socialist and to be honest I doubt if you are either. I am, always have been and I hope always will be a Social Democrat - and proud of it.

by Mary Kelly Mon Sep 05, 2005 15:09

Declan Bree was a powerful Independent, even if he wasnt inside the corrupt gates of the holy grail/Dail.

Labour are a disgrace. Its disapointing and painful to watch intelligent principled men like Declan Bree participate in their cowardly party.

In this case the individual is all importtant and not the shameful party.

by Dan Mon Sep 05, 2005 18:10

No, Dermot, you're just an egomaniac who defied his party's official policy so he could call himself "Mayor" (funny there was no charge of bringing the party into disrepute then - but then, surely Rabbitte is happy to know that other people in the party are as happy to trade principles for office as he is). To have my political commitment called into question by you is a real honour.

by Michael M Mon Sep 05, 2005 20:18

I see that Councillor Dermot Lacey “is absolutely not going to comment” on the threatened expulsion of Declan Bree from the Labour Party.

Like the rest of Rabbitte’s flock he keeps the head down and turns a blind eye to the witch-hunt and injustice being perpetrated on one of his own party colleagues.

In days gone by the Labour Party was proud to proclaim, “an injury to one is the concern of all”

In Pat Rabbitte’s Labour Party the slogan is: “What ever you say, say nothing!”

by Chris Bond - UCD Labour (pers cap) Mon Sep 05, 2005 21:05

''Chris Bond judging by his comment here is in a category of his own in the Deleded members column.''

SH you know little about me, my political views, or my record as an activist, so dont be quick to pass judgement about me based on what you read on a website.

by Bernard Cantillon Tue Sep 06, 2005 00:10 Berlin, Germany

To all,

Once upon a time, I was attacked for being on something called the ‘far left’ of Labour Youth. Now I have moved full circle and have been told that I am on the ‘far right’ of the Labour Party. It is funny that over time things seem to move. Considering that the Labour Party is a social democratic party, being on the far right would not be even rightwing. But, I expect correction from the great intellectual warrior for the working classes from his perch in UCD. Mr. Finn, please explain my views to me, coz clearly they are a trifle irrelevant, when compared with your universally popular views, which of course, are just awaiting the revolution or whatever it is that you are waiting for these days.

Mr. Finn of course decided that a criticism of the far left is time for open season on me. Well, I cannot control what you think of me, but I did get a giggle out of the thought of you groaning as you had to listen to me speak, because that was just my reaction everytime that I had to listen to you speak at Congress. I remember that you were one of the speakers that I saw as completely incapable of making a speech that would win the floor. All you managed to do was polarise and push the middle ground into the arms of the right.

Let us look at failure. If I remember correctly, you were beaten by Aonghus Hourihane, because the students considered you rightly to be an arrogant stuckup self righteous fool with a quite obvious contempt for them. This was of course despite the fact that Hourihane’s popularity was plummeting. Many on the left in UCD admitted after the event that they would have gotten rid of Hourihane, if it hadn’t been for the candidate. Dan, you were the Achilles heal of the campaign. Well done!

My time with the Tribune stands on itself. It is not something that I am overly proud of, but who cares, it was an experience. I am not ashamed of it either. It wasn’t a great success, but neither was it an failure. I left the Tribune in a position, where it was handed over with money in the bank for once, enough to invest in new computors and other technology. The current office was the replacement for the old cupboard that we operated out. Of course, I don’t expect to get praise for that, but the paper had been on a very low ebb for about two years before I stepped in. Caroline and Alan were better journalists than I will ever be, the year before, and Eoghan and Fergus had an interesting year after me, but I think that I can stand on the fact that I increased the committed core of the paper. There were more people working on the production of the paper during my year than at any time previously. When I say production, I mean that I allowed people to try out ideas. OK, maybe that is not what an editor is maybe to do, but I think that it was very democratic. If that is something wrong, maybe I will instead leave it to the man that has produced nothing.

I do not believe that my views are better than anyone else. I believe that in democracy, it is the duty of those with an idea to debate it and take part in the debate of others ideas. I am a reformer. I believe in the reform of society and don’t desire a revolution. I make no apology for that. I don’t agree with Labour on everything, but I do believe that the policies of the Labour Party will better the lives of Irish people both alive today and those that come in the future. I don’t believe that the ideas of the far left are realistic. I consider it a distraction and think that many good people have abandoned the left, because of the behaviour of people like Dan Finn, who is persistently a rude and obnoxious individual. I do not normally go in for personal attacks, but in the case of Dan Finn, it is perfectly legitimate. There are many people on what I refer to as the far left that I disagree with. It is their views that I disagree with, not them. They also disagree with me. There are many people in the Labour Party, that I disagree with. I am afterall pro the EU Constitution, but that does not mean that I have to shudder off into my cave and condemn those that do not agree with me.

Mr. Finn is a ridiculous caricature, who is humourless and without empathy for anyone but himself. Just because you don’t like someones views does not mean that you denigrate the person. Mr. Finn always denigrates the views of others and is just a jumped up little brat, who has no respect for anyone else and has been repeatedly misled by others who keep telling him that he is a genius.

Get a life, Dan!

Yours in hope,

Bernard

by SH Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:08

Chris,
You never answered the question. Either you were deliberatley lying or you are deluded take your pick. According to you Labour exposed the Irish Ferries and Smart telecom exploitation. This is completely untrue. So are you deliberately lying or are you deluded.

Bernard,

Your self righteous tones brought a cringe to everyones ears in UCD, USI and most activists in Dublin. The College Tribune was a disaster your year, one issue even had a whole page as a scribble box. Perhaps you would like to inform everyone here how much renumeration you gave yourself, especially at the end of the year. I am not saying that what you did was illegal but it certainly wasn't honest and fair.

You were a laugh in USI too, perhaps you would like to explain to everyone how you got elected? How a well respected national officer was running until right at the end when she withdrew and you put your nomination in all prearranged with her. You knew that you wouldn't have stood a chance in an election against someone so you conspired to try and make yourself a shoo in. At USI congress whenever you spoke it was a sure thing that not only activists from other colleges but also those from UCD would be irritated by whatever you said. You were the right wing, nobody has ever called you far left instead people knew you were a supporter of Fianna Fail in Kerry before UCD.

So please save us the righteous indignation which you consistently put us through and you and Dermot can go off and snort and chuff in the corner while others look on in amazement at how the Labour party completely betrayed its roots.

by the shadow Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:46

I wish............
We would get back to the topic.
That Mr Cantillon could compress his long winded contributions..
That Dermot Lacey would form his SDLP party in Dublin.

That Labour would stop farting around and start representing the poor , the sick , the aged and the exploited....

by Curious Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:54

Is Bernard the 'Tory voting Socialist'?

by Dermot Lacey Tue Sep 06, 2005 13:08

Dan,

Before you continue to pontificate - you should read the excellent policy document "Waste Matters" written by Eamon Gilmore and adopted by Labour Annual Conference

and whatever your name is:

I am already a member of a Party that is comprised of Social Democrats and many progressive Socialists it is called the Labour Party. Indcidentally when I did - in the interests of the City and people of Dublin - ( though I do not expect you to believe that) vote differently to my colleages on the Council I accepted without question their decision and was delighted to rejoin when they invited me.

In relation to the Declan Bree affair I will not comment for very valid reasons which my good friend Declan will fully know about and understand.

by Curious Tue Sep 06, 2005 13:20

Have you put in any amendments to the Labour Party Constitution?
In it the Labour calls itself a democratic socialist party.
As we all know you are not a socialist. So how many times have you tabled an amendment being a man of principle and all?

by Kat Tue Sep 06, 2005 13:46

As i mentioned above and from what I’ve taken from Cllr. Laceys and Mr. Cantillon remarks, is that the party wants to crush dissent and ultimately to push radical figures like Declan Bree out of the party.

Clearly, if people like Bree continue to ruffle the feathers of the leadership and to shout about principles and talk of ideology and socialism, it could upset any smooth coalition with FG and threaten any Ministerial Cars for the Party’s ageing TDs!

The issue regarding Michael D Higgins presidential nomination highlights this worry not to upset conservative elements with FG. Rabbitt didn’t want Michael Ds radical and socialist views getting hours of airplay two years before any general election or coalition pact.

The problem for people like Declan Bree is that the party has moved to the right in recent years, in part do to the leadership and also due to the influx of 100’s of new members who see no difference between the policies of FG or Labour, and who have no ideology and understanding what it is to be a socialist. The admittance of Cllr. McGarry in Sligo is an example of this…. Knowing his background and past record how could LP members support his membership? Although it must be remembered that he didn’t have sufficient support at a selection convention and thus the party leadership were forced to add him to the ticket for the locals!

In recent weeks we have see remarks from a former LP election candidate in South Sligo who resigned due the partys rightward march. Mr Tim Mulcahy Local Election candidate (1999 & 2004) and former Sligo/Leitrim Constituency PRO, said it was this ‘new labour’ that was critical of Bree.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71087&search_text=tim%20mulcahy


I want to know why Cllr. Lacey won’t comment on the complaint about Cllr. Bree, surely as a LP member and an elected representative he has a duty to do so. What would he and Mr. Cantillon do if Labour councillors in their constituency voted against traveller accommodation purely on populist grounds?

by Dermot Lacey Tue Sep 06, 2005 14:25

Kat,

Nothing I have written and nothing I have said and nothing that I will say should be taken as in any way as me agreeing with the inference you have made about myself and my colleague Declan Bree. I will argue, debate, even trade insults on whatever issue you want but you should not infer something about me in relation to a colleague that has no basis in fact. There are valid reasons why i will not comment on this matter, Declan is aware of this, and I will, at this stage, comment no further on this matter. However quite frankly it is none of your business whether I comment or not.

by Pat C Tue Sep 06, 2005 14:33

Cllr. Lacey can you comment on your leaders remarks in todays Irish times?

by Reader Tue Sep 06, 2005 14:39

Madam, - May I comment on one aspect of the assertations of Cllr Declan Bree (The Irish Times, September 1st)?

Cllr Bree is correct that Labour has a consistent and honourable record on the issue of accommodation for traveller families. However, in Sligo Cllr Bree used his position as mayor to stop an accommodation site going into his own electoral ward and sought to put it into the ward of a colleague that already has three such sites.

Labour remains in favour of a fair and reasonable distribution of accommodation sites locally and nationally. - Yours, etc,

PAT RABBITTE TD,

Labour Party leader,

Dáil Éireann,

Dubin 2.

by Dermot Lacey Tue Sep 06, 2005 14:39

I only comment when I know the facts and when it is appropriate. In this case neither applies

by Kat Tue Sep 06, 2005 14:49

As a member of LP for a brief period about three years ago I came across a number of members and recognise that the party is somewhat of a broad church. Personally I don’t think this works as the more radical and active members end up wasting their time trying to keep the party to the left. But what baffles me at the moment is that this is such a clear cut issue, between what’s morally and ideologically right and wrong, and Cllr. Bree is obviously in the right!, has been followed by absolute silence among the party publicly…. Except of course from the former Sligo election candidate

So why has the party validated this complaint? Is it the fact that Declan Bree publicly criticised his party colleagues? We all know local politicians are critical of fellow party colleagues or T.Ds on a daily basis this isn’t unusual.

Cllr. Lacey your silence speaks for itself…. Remember this event took place in February and made national headlines at the time, long before any complaint!

by Pat C Tue Sep 06, 2005 14:54

It seems your party leader has commented on the issue without full knowledge of the facts

Look at the post above :

Lets have a Bit of Honesty
by Ryan Sunday, Sep 4 2005, 8:00pm
Gerry McNamee’s allegation is totally unfounded. Declan Bree in all his years in local government never, ever, ran a campaign against travellers in his own East Ward, or in any part of the town or county of Sligo. It would be anathema for Bree to participate in any such campaign.

A quick phone call to his worst enemies in FF or FG in Sligo or to the SF elected reps in Sligo, or to the local press, will confirm what I say.

I would also point out that the minutes of all Sligo Corporation meetings are available online and they will show that Declan Bree in fact supported an amendment to the Traveller Accommodation Programme proposing that the apartments for newly married travellers be provided in his East Ward area.

It is also a fact that the traveller accommodation proposed for the North Ward is to house a number of traveller families from the North Ward who are currently living in unacceptable conditions in the ward.

As for the posting alleging that Declan Bree voted for Water Tax and the disconnecting of people’s water etc. Again a scurrilous allegation and without a grain of truth. The fact is that Bree and the Labour movement in Sligo consistently campaigned against all forms of local authority service charges over the years and the dogs in the streets in Sligo will confirm this.

Lets have a bit of honesty in this debate.

by Pat C Tue Sep 06, 2005 14:54

It seems your party leader has commented on the issue without full knowledge of the facts

Look at the post above :

Lets have a Bit of Honesty
by Ryan Sunday, Sep 4 2005, 8:00pm
Gerry McNamee’s allegation is totally unfounded. Declan Bree in all his years in local government never, ever, ran a campaign against travellers in his own East Ward, or in any part of the town or county of Sligo. It would be anathema for Bree to participate in any such campaign.

A quick phone call to his worst enemies in FF or FG in Sligo or to the SF elected reps in Sligo, or to the local press, will confirm what I say.

I would also point out that the minutes of all Sligo Corporation meetings are available online and they will show that Declan Bree in fact supported an amendment to the Traveller Accommodation Programme proposing that the apartments for newly married travellers be provided in his East Ward area.

It is also a fact that the traveller accommodation proposed for the North Ward is to house a number of traveller families from the North Ward who are currently living in unacceptable conditions in the ward.

As for the posting alleging that Declan Bree voted for Water Tax and the disconnecting of people’s water etc. Again a scurrilous allegation and without a grain of truth. The fact is that Bree and the Labour movement in Sligo consistently campaigned against all forms of local authority service charges over the years and the dogs in the streets in Sligo will confirm this.

Lets have a bit of honesty in this debate.

by LY Watcher Tue Sep 06, 2005 15:38

........

by Peeflynn Tue Sep 06, 2005 17:01

In a letter in todays Irish Times Labour Party leader criticises Declan Bree on his stance over Travellers and comments on going row in the Sligo Labour Party, in a response to Decaln Bree's comments last week.
Madam, - May I comment on one aspect of the assertations of Cllr Declan Bree (The Irish Times, September 1st)?

Cllr Bree is correct that Labour has a consistent and honourable record on the issue of accommodation for traveller families. However, in Sligo Cllr Bree used his position as mayor to stop an accommodation site going into his own electoral ward and sought to put it into the ward of a colleague that already has three such sites.

Labour remains in favour of a fair and reasonable distribution of accommodation sites locally and nationally. - Yours, etc,

PAT RABBITTE TD,

Labour Party leader,

Dáil Éireann,

Dubin 2.


--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbitte has moved Labour to the right, says ex-TD
Thursday Sep 1 2005

Marese McDonagh

A former Labour Party TD who is to appear before a specially-convened party complaints committee within weeks yesterday claimed the party had moved to the right under Pat Rabbitte.

Councillor Declan Bree, former Sligo/Leitrim TD, confirmed that a hearing would take place this month into complaints about his criticism of two party colleagues who voted against the Sligo Traveller accommodation programme last February.

Mr Bree said the decision of two local Labour councillors to vote against the programme was "disgraceful".

A complaint was later made to party headquarters by the local constituency secretary, but Mr Bree has consistently refused to withdraw his criticism.

In a strong attack on the party leadership yesterday, he said the decision to deem the complaint as valid, and to establish the special complaints committee, had brought the party into disrepute.

The former TD, who now faces expulsion from the party, added: "In the years up until Pat Rabbitte became leader it would have been inconceivable that an elected representative from the party would be hauled before a specially-established complaints committee for supporting the right of Traveller families to secure accommodation.

"In my opinion, it is a clear indication of the party's move to the right."

He added that he had served in the party under both Dick Spring and Ruairí Quinn "and I can only say that such a scenario would have been unthinkable during their respective tenure of office".

A spokesman for the Labour Party yesterday refused to comment on Mr Bree's remarks pending the hearing.

Councillor Veronica Cawley, one of the Sligo-based councillors who rejected the programme, has said that it would have resulted in four Traveller accommodation units being sited in one ward of the city and none in two other wards.

She said there was an onus on every councillor to make sure Traveller accommodation was provided in a fair and reasonable way.

It is understood that the general secretary of the Labour Party, Mike Allen, will present the case against Mr Bree to the complaints committee, established under the party's constitution.

Such a committee has the power to dismiss a complaint, to note a complaint but take no action, or to suspend or expel the subject of a complaint.

Sligo Borough Council became the first local authority to reject a Traveller accommodation programme at a meeting last February when seven councillors, including Labour's Jim McGarry and Ms Cawley, rejected it. A serious rift subsequently developed within Labour in Sligo.

Yesterday Mr Bree said he had no intention of apologising or withdrawing his remarks. "I think the people of Sligo will know that hell will freeze over before I renege on my principles."

He insisted that the decision to vote down the Traveller accommodation programme would compel Traveller families to continue living in appalling conditions. "Why in God's name should I apologise for that?"

© The Irish Times

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0901/1710502967HM7PATRABBITTE.html

by potentially shocked Tue Sep 06, 2005 17:33

Now either it is Pat Rabbitte or it is 'Ryan' at:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71768#comment120481

I sincerely hope that the leader of the Labour Party would not tell a lie. I would even be quite shocked if that turned out to be the case.

by Pat C Tue Sep 06, 2005 17:35

Doubt we'll hear much more of Bree after his temper tantrum. Pat will have him expelled by the end of the month.

by Mike - LP Tue Sep 06, 2005 17:38

all someone needs to do is look up local media or city council records and that should clear up the matter. I presume Decaln Bree would know the matter more than Mr. Rabbitt!

time will tell.

by honestypays Tue Sep 06, 2005 17:39

I hope nobody is suggesting that any member of the labour party would engage in any kind of smear campaign against an opponent. That would be unprecedented and would drag Irish politics down to a new low.

by Kat Tue Sep 06, 2005 17:57

Sure the whole complaint against Declan Bree is a sham...... why wouldn't Rabbitts remarks be lies too?

by Shinner Tue Sep 06, 2005 19:38

The allegation about Bree opposing a Traveller site in his own ward is simply a bare-faced lie. Nothing more, nothing less. It's genuinely astonishing Labour think they can get away with this.

by graham Tue Sep 06, 2005 19:45

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why travellers should be entitled to free stuff.

by Shipsea Tue Sep 06, 2005 20:12

If Rabbitte's claims about Bree are wrong, Bree should have no problem proving him wrong.

This stuff about Bree today is all a distraction from the joint Fine Gael/Labour position paper on 'Social Partnership'. The big story is now about Bree rather than Labour's betrayal of their voter base. Thats also why Lacey, Cantillon et al have been stoking the fire about Bree on Indymedia so assiduously these last few days.

shhttp://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71830&condense_comments=false

by Shipsea Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:27

Why Dermot, I believe you're in a bit of wax there! If you have legitimate reasons for not involving yourself in this debate, why post here at all? If your discretion is so critical to Declan Bree, what is the point of coming on to Indymedia to tell us all about it? Does this stuff earn you brownie points with the Party Leadership?

I am a potential voter who is not impressed by the arguments that labour party people are presenting here. If you are only interested in debate with people who think just like you, then you are sadly fixed for life as a politician. Is this how you speak to people when you canvas them on their doorsteps? You need to persuade us - not insult us! You have to recognise that Labour's drift to the right has angered a lot of people. Here we are, telling you about it!

My post was about the Social Partnership Document issued yesterday. There are a lot of holes in it and no amount of insulting your potential voter base or villifying former colleagues (which you say you are not doing) will deflect our attention from noticing that the labour party is seriously betraying its natural voter base.

[This comment is a response to a comment which was hidden for abuse - indymedia editor]

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:29

Are you saying the thousands of viewers of this website don't need to know why you are not supporting your "good friend" Cllr. Bree. If you are not willing to engage with indymedia why do you consistently post your nonsense on this website. Even someone of your meagre abilitiies should understand that the level of intelligence that you have shown since you have begun posting on indymedia will come back to haunt you. How many more labour members now find you intolerable from your contributions here. If you cannot maintain intelligent and serious dialogue here then maybe you should not post here.

by Dermot Lacey Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:46

I would be more than happy to engage in intelligent debate on Indymedia if I could find any on it and why do I post or read indymedia. The answer is simple it keeps me convinced that Social Democracy is the best path forward for the Irish people..

by Trierista Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:52

Just when you thought it could'nt get worse (or better depending on your predelictions better) along comes another one! If you take it in the right spirit, Lacey is quite amusing whith his repetitive self-righteousness and simplistic misrepresentation of everything left of his hero and mentor, Irelands most conservative Finance Minister, Ruairi Quinn. Its hard to know whats funnier about him: his puffed up pride at being a councillor (yes, yes Dermot, we know, the people of Ballsbridge chose you as their representative three times, we on the other hand are unelectable ...) or his complete and utter ignorance of the complexities of the rest of the left (everyone else being slogan shouting, machievelian wasters who never engage in 'real' politics). And though he's been put in charge of Labours 1916 commemoration he has'nt read word of Connolly and thinks its a waste of time to do so.

Thats about as bad as it gets eh? Not quite, along comes this Saint Bernard guy, who makes poor Lacey look like a raving anarchist. Same disease though: real politics equals getting Labour into power, all else is extremist fantasy. Have nice election Bernard, hope the demise of your beloved SDP and the rise of the LInks Partei does'nt make you choke on your knudeln.

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:57

Dermot I am sure you know feck all about ideology including the ideology that you proclaim to be a proponent of. Not everyone who reads indymedia is a part of the far left as you like to proclaim. Trying to say the are is the same argument that neo nazi's use. It is a childish, infactual and an incredibly stupid argument. There are many Labour members and labour supporters who post and read here and there are many floating voters who do this same. It is without doubt that anybody who reads any of your posts would be astonished at the breathtaking arrogance of your posts. Most of your posts clearly give the opinion that you are nothing more than a Grade A idiot. This surely isn't the impression that the Labour party wants one of its Cllr's to give?

by Joe Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:28

Social democracy is a political ideology emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism who believed that the transition to a socialist society could be achieved through democratic evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. It emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable, usually with the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society.

I doubt if mr Lacey is remotely social democratic

by Chris Bond Wed Sep 07, 2005 14:14

Ah yes another thread that breaks out into discussion about abstract political theory. why dont we all get up off our backsides and do something beneficial.

by D'other Wed Sep 07, 2005 14:31

I'd rather see a proper theoritical discussion here than the likes of you churning out cut and pastes of Labour Party policy. I don't know if fawning after the political elders in your party online is what you'd consider beneficial, but it certainly is as boring as the rest of your politics..

by Sligo resident Wed Sep 07, 2005 18:56

I am not a supporter of either Bree or Labour but it is clear that there are lies being told here.
He did not oppose a Halting Site in the East Ward. He actively supported placing a Halting Site in the West Ward whichis also part of his County Council Constituency and beside an area where he would get a lot of votes and therefore which ha dth epotential to lose him votes.

The Halting Site in the north Wrad in dispute is for a Travekking Family that Currently reside in the North Wrad, are probably the longest resident family in the North Wrad and who have lived in appalling conditions for years.

Pat Rabbittes comments in the Irish Times letters page are untrue.

Bree has always supported the rights of travellers whether it was gonna cost him votes or not.

by Dan Wed Sep 07, 2005 20:10

That was really awesome, Bernard. An open letter! Who do you think you are, Zola?

I'll ignore the inept insults (I can imagine you flapping your arms in indignation and going red in the face as you worked yourself up into a flurry of outrage that anyone could DARE to question the great BERNARD CANTILLON...). I'll just tackle a few concrete allegations.

First of all, every motion that I spoke on at USI congress in 2004 was passed, if I remember correctly. I don't claim any particular credit for this, other people spoke on the same motions just as well or better. But it puts a rather sizeable dent in your shrill assertions. Most of the motions that we "ultra-left" dreamers put forward were passed.

As the rest of the delegation would tell you, the main problem UCD's delegation that year encountered came from a certain B.Cantillon, who disrupted every meeting of the delegation by shouting and throwing tantrums when he didn't get his way. He wouldn't let any motion go by without mouthing off, invariably to no useful end.

You seem to imagine that you can sting me by talking about the SU elections of 2002. Hard luck, Bernard, you fail in this as you fail in everything. We lost the elections that year because we were too inexperienced to run a proper campaign; we learnt from our lessons and went on to win the next five campaigns we fought, usually with big majorities (I say "we" rather than "I", by the way, because individuals are not the main thing; all of our campaigns were collective efforts, some of us happened to be the mugs put up on posters, but everyone made a contribution. Clearly someone as vain as you will find this impossible to understand, but no matter).

Despite our youthful incompetence, we were still able to run the incumbent, who had been considered invulnerable, to a very close finish - he had to resort to massive and unprecedented cheating that saw the first election postponed. By a funny coincidence, during the second election, Hourihane's team turned Traveller accomodation into a big issue. The council had proposed to put a halting site on UCD campus, I said I wouldn't oppose it if I was President, so Hourihane and his team went around telling everyone "you can't vote for Dan Finn, he wants to have the tinkers on campus". To judge by the experience of people canvassing for us, this swayed a lot of people when they went to vote, it might even have been decisive. So I can't help sympathising with Declan Bree in this situation.

Apparently people like me drive people away from the left. That's funny now. When I arrived in UCD, there were five or six left-wing activists. Three years later, there were 30 or 40. Somehow they had managed to resist the intense repulsion factor represented by me? Is that it? I don't claim any personal credit for the growth of the left in our college, it happened because a group of activists got together, shoved aside people like you and started playing to win. But I can reject with great certainty the claim that I have driven anyone away from the left.

Unless, of course, you mean that the likes of me drive people like you away from the left. In that case, good, I'm proud of it. The left needs all sorts of people; what it doesn't need is self-righteous, unprincipled loudmouths who never do anything useful, throw their egos around the place, and put the boot into decent people who are taking a stand in defence of some of the most down-trodden and impoverished people in Irish society in the name of some ugly, neo-Stalinist concept of "party unity".

I wouldn't have bothered ripping into you if you hadn't launched such a shabby attack on Bree, and then fed us such pompous blather about the "airy fairy" world of the radical left. Your smugness and arrogance are too much for me to tolerate I'm afraid.

by Gerry McMamee Wed Sep 07, 2005 23:53

The web-site of Sligo Borough council shows that at the meeting on 7th February, http://www.sligoborough.ie/downloads/councilmeetings/mins2005/07Febmins05.pdf the following motion was put:

"That Sligo Borough Council delete the proposed 6 unit group housing scheme in the Maugheraboy Area from the Draft Traveller Accommodation Programme 2005 – 2008”

Now Maugheraboy is in Bree's electoral area - the West ward, and this motion seeks to remove the proposed site in his area from the plan.

The minutes then record the vote:

For : Cllr. Bree, Cllr. D. Cawley, Cllr. McGarry, Cllr. McLoughlin .
Cllr. C. MacManus, Cllr. S. MacManus, Cllr. O’Grady (7)

Against : Cllr. Devins, Cllr. McGoldrick (2)

Cllr. V. Cawley and Cllr. Gibbons abstained

So Bree voted in favour of a (successful) motion to prevent a Traveller site in his electoral area. That is what I believe is called a verifiable fact. Cherish it there are not many around.

It is true that Bree had previously sought to make the deletion of the site temorary until traffic problems were sorted out. But Council officials say there are no traffic problems. Any way when push came to shove he voted agains the site.

Those who think of themselves as hard left will denounce him for being right wing. Those who think of themselves as living in the real world may reflect that not all proposals for Traveller sites are well thought out and progressive councillor can be trusted to make decisions on specific cases. The problem with that is that that is what the other two Labour Councillors - who have excellent track records on Travellers over the years - say, while Bree calls them (and Rabbitte) rightwing and a disgrace. He can certainly justify his vote but it is hard to see how he can avoid the accusation of hypocricy.

by Allen Thu Sep 08, 2005 00:43

Declan Bree is not a representative of the West ward.

http://www.sligoborough.ie/asp/News/ResultsOnline.asp

Declan Bree supported the only motion on Traveller accomodation in his ward (East).

-Cllr. Cawley proposed and Cllr. Devins seconded and it was unanimously agreed
“That a location be sought in the East Ward for the provision of apartments for newly
wed young travellers as recommended in the travellers on Draft Traveller
Accommodation 2005 – 2008”-


It also must be noted that a number motions and amendments were submitted on the site in the west ward.

One in particular was proposed by Cllr. Bree to resolve the only issue which Cllr. McGarry had regarding that site: that the only road to the traveller site was through a residential area and thus would lead to excess traffic.

(-Cllr. McGarry proposed and Cllr. S. MacManus seconded “That Sligo Borough
Council delete the proposed 6 unit group housing scheme in the Maugheraboy Area
from the Draft Traveller Accommodation Programme 2005 – 2008”-)

-Cllr. Bree proposed and Cllr. Gibbons seconded an amendment to this motion “Until
such time as an alternative access route can be provided via the Inner Relief Road”
A poll was taken on the amendment which resulted as follows :
For : Cllr. Bree, Cllr. Devins, Cllr. Gibbons, Cllr. McGoldrick (4)
Against : Cllr. D. Cawley, Cllr. McGarry, Cllr. McLoughlin,
Cllr. C. MacManus, Cllr. S. MacManus, Cllr. O’Grady (6)-


This Inner Relief road was opened by Minister Cullen Friday last and would have created an alternative access route for Traveller vehicles and eased safety worries for residents and meet Cllr. McGarrys soul complaint regarding the site.....

It is clear that this issue raised by Cllr. McGarry was just a smoke screen for his right wing populist anti-traveller views. This is the only conclusion one can take from his rejection of Declan Bree's amendment!

It all about moving the goal posts!

Further more, the final motion regarding the entire traveller programme was defeated with the votes for the two Labour Councillor Cawley & McGarry.

-Cllr. Bree proposed and Cllr. Gibbons seconded “That the Draft Traveller
Accommodation Programme 2005 – 2008 as amended be adopted
A poll was taken on this motion which resulted as follows
For : Cllr. Bree, Cllr. Gibbons, Cllr. C. MacManus, Cllr. S. MacManus, (4)
Against : Cllr. D. Cawley, Cllr. V. Cawley, Cllr. Devins, Cllr. McGarry
Cllr. McGoldrick, Cllr. McLoughlin, Cllr. O’Grady (7)
The motion was declared lost.-


All info @ http://www.sligoborough.ie/downloads/councilmeetings/mins2005/07Febmins05.pdf

by Gerry McNamee Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:23

Fair enough I typed that Bree's ward is the West Ward, when it is in fact the East. The fact remains that the Maugheraboy Traveller site is in Bree's County Council electoral area and he voted against a site being put there.

I am not saying Bree is anti-Traveller, he has a good record on that and other issues. I am pointing out the hypocricy of attacking his Labour colleagues in the extreme way he has saying they are a "disgrace" "etc when they only did what he did.

By the way you will note that SF MacManus Cllrs also voted against this Traveller site.

by Pat c Thu Sep 08, 2005 20:31

In fact all wards of Sligo town are in his Dail constituency and he gets substantial votes in all areas!

Cllr. Bree has supported the hosing and halting sites in all areas of Sligo, incl. The East ward and parts of County Sligo in his electoral area.

Bree did support the Traveller accommodation site in the west ward but was hoping to address the residents issues regarding through traffic by proposing an amendment, that another access road be built onto the new bye pass in Sligo. Had this motion been passed, the site would be part of the programme now. The people who voted against this motion are the bigots. As the allen mentioned above, this was just an excuse to have the site omitted. McGarry and Co. didn’t think that an amendment would have solved the issue. If they had, then an other suitable excuse would have been thrown out there - keep moving the goal posts.

by Yahoo Thu Sep 08, 2005 22:33

Gerry McNamee: 'Fair enough I typed that Bree's ward is the West Ward, when it is in fact the East. The fact remains that the Maugheraboy Traveller site is in Bree's County Council electoral area and he voted against a site being put there.

I am not saying Bree is anti-Traveller, he has a good record on that and other issues. I am pointing out the hypocricy of attacking his Labour colleagues in the extreme way he has saying they are a "disgrace" "etc when they only did what he did.

By the way you will note that SF MacManus Cllrs also voted against this Traveller site.'

Bree and McManus did not vote aginst this site. They voted against the proposal the way it was, and voted instead for entry to this site to be from the new Inner Relief Road because of the traffic concerns. As it is, Maugherabouy is heavily built up with more an dmore traffic and and with all the small children in the are it was felt unsafe to have another through road. So it is wrong that Bree or MacManus opposed this site. They supported it, they voted for it with entry to be from the new Inner Releief Road.

What that proposal done however, was expose McGarrys and Cawleys anti-traveller sentiment, as all along they were saying that their opposition to this site was solely about the increased traffic. When this amendment to have a different access route in to this site went through, Cawley and McGarry still opposed the site.


http://www.unison.ie/sligo_champion/stories.php3?ca=38&si=1464041&issue_id=12967


"Clr. Declan Bree has been accused of trying to destroy the Labour Party and create division in the local organisation.

The claim is made by the Party's local youth officer, Nicola McGarry, who, in the course of a statement to THE SLIGO CHAMPION, says that Clr.Bree is a man undergoing a 'midlife political crisis'.

The statement is the latest development in an ongoing row within the Labour Party in Sligo over Clr. Bree's criticism of local councillors, including Labour's Jimmy McGarry and Veronica Cawley, for failing to support the Sligo Traveller Accommodation Programme.

A formal complaint against Clr. Bree will be considered by the Party this month but the Councillor has said 'hell will freeze over' before he apologises for his criticism of his colleagues.

Responding to a statement by Clr. Bree in last week's Sligo Champion, Ms McGarry said he needed to familiarise himself with the concept of majority decisions. His Labour Party colleagues, Clrs McGarry and Cawley, did indeed vote down the proposed Traveller Accommodation Programme but had done so because the proposed sites were both inadequate and unsuitable for the purpose intended for them, she pointed out.

She added that Clrs McGarry and Cawley had discussed their reasoning at length on the matter and thoroughly defended and explained their decisions. They made their decision together, united, and with their constituents' best interests at heart.

CONFUSE AND MISLEAD

It was worrying, she said, that Clr. Bree was now trying to confuse the issue and was labelling his Party colleagues as being anti-Traveller.

The issue was one of finding suitable accommodation and not of forcing families to live in Third World conditions.

"Clr. Bree is deliberately trying to confuse and mislead the public in relation to the real issue. In doing so, he is trying to make himself a martyr.

"He embarked on a campaign to bring dispute and division into the Labour Party in Sligo a long time ago. Perhaps he doesn't like the direction the Party is moving in under the leadership of Pat Rabbitte. Perhaps he feels he has grown away from the Party. If so, I wish he would be man enough to accept it and move on", Ms McGarry added.

She claimed Clr. Bree was trying to destroy the organisation from within. He had slated his own colleagues and created division in the local organisation.

Scapegoat

"The entry of Clr. McGarry into the Labour Party provided him with a scapegoat on which he could vent his disillusioned anger", she added.

Clr. McGarry, she said, had maintained his dignity throughout, refusing to be drawn into a public slanging match with Clr. Bree. Clr. McGarry had proved himself to be a true Party man, proposing Clr. Bree to be elected Mayor of Sligo, a position he would not have attained had Clr. McGarry not joined the Labour Party. This was visible testament to the character of Clr. McGarry.

She maintained that Clr. Bree was not facing disciplinary action because he was some sort of flag-bearer for Travellers' rights.

"Strip away the flowery language and socialist slogans and what's left is a man undergoing a mid-life political crisis, not sure if he should stay or go", said Ms McGarry.

She added: "As a Labour party supporter, I would urge him to be honest about his reasons if he does decide to leave and stop trying to undo the work Labour supporters have done in Sligo.

"They want political representatives at a local and national level. They believe in the party ethos and know with a General Election approaching, there will be enough external attacks without any more internal ones.

"If he stays, I would urge him to be a Party man, respect majority decision and value the Party leadership and his own Party colleagues""

by Chris Bond Fri Sep 09, 2005 15:00

''I'd rather see a proper theoritical discussion here than the likes of you churning out cut and pastes of Labour Party policy. I don't know if fawning after the political elders in your party online is what you'd consider beneficial, but it certainly is as boring as the rest of your politics..''

WHO ARE YOU?, you`re spouting a load of crap, i never copied and paste anything from the labour party policy documents, i dont fawn after anyone in the party, these are my beliefs and i will stay through to them regardless of whether or not my '''' policial elders'''''' agree with them. What i consider beneficial is actually doing something activism wise, over the past 12 months ive been active on issues like grants, fees, criminal justice bill, asbos, anti-deportations and a lot more, thats what i consider beneficial. sitting on front of a computer discussing abstract political theory will achieve very little. i ask what your contribution has been to important issues affecting our society? now get a life and stop stalking me on the internet.

by TheoryHead Sat Sep 10, 2005 01:56

Is it the case that you don't want discussion on 'theory' because you realise how bad Labour are on this. Of course theory on its own is pointless. But theory comes from action and lessons from history of the workers' movement. There is a reason why left-wingers oppose coalition with the likes of fine gael and fianna fail. There are reasons why lefts want proper international parties not organisations with people like Blair and Schroeder in them. Labour have big big flaws. They think that socialism is not achievable. As a result they go into coalition and they sell-out. Labour do not have faith in working class people. That's why they support coalition and 'partnership'. On these 'theoretical' questions Labour are dodgy. This is why they are so bad. There is no point trying to 'reclaim' Labour. Just look at recent coalition debate not a single member at conference opposed coalition for principled/left-wing/socialist reasons. If you are serious about campaigning on the issues mentioned you should stop supporting Labour and all the sell-outs that goes with them.

by Chris Bond - Proud to be Labour, Proud to be Left Sat Sep 10, 2005 16:27 chrisbonn_irl_2000 at hotmail dot com

Great Another Spineless, anonymous begrudger.

Firstly i love a bit of discussion about political theory as much as the next person, however i dont believe that it constitutes activism. Abstract theory looks nice on a website or a piece of paper, but in reality it means nothing, unless you even try and put it in to practise. The Labour party have always stood for socialism and equality, and i say that not as a member, but as an individual in irish society who has benefitted from many policies that labour have introduced. When another organisation can come up with an argument that they have done more than us for the people of ireland, i will entertain it, but as it stands they havnt. Secondly you refer to Shroeder, and Blair, What relevance does that have to this thread, they are in different organisations in different countries , that i wouldnt even be in support of if i lived there stop trying to decontextualise the argument.

You state that Labour have no faith in ''working class'' people, as someone who lives in a local authority housing estate whos parents are unskilled PAYE workers i take great exception to that remark. Some of the strongest Labour branches in the country are in working class areas, As a matter of fact a lot of people like you who come on this site pretending to be romantic about the ''working class'' aren`t even working class or have never been in a working class area. Being left wing is not synonomous with being working class, so stop trying to pretend it is.

Also your remark that nobody at the Labour party conference opposed coalition for left wing reasons is blatantly false, Labour youth produced a document ruling out coalition with Fine Gael AND Fianna Fail for principled left wing reasons. If you were watching the conference you would have seen at least 3 big name TDs speaking against coalition with Fianna Fail and Fine Gael for left wing reasons.

Now please get a life, stop stalking me, and stop playing Lenin from behind your keyboard.

by Bernard Cantillon Sat Sep 10, 2005 19:44

I have been reading the ongoing debate and while many do not agree with me, as a democrat, I am happy to take part in debate.

I am, however, somewhat disturbed that some people believe that it is fair to come on here and throw around allegations about other people, whilst hiding their own identity by the use of a pseudonym. It is particularly spineless and is, I think, a really bad way of going about things. If you are confident in your viewpoint, attach your name to it. If you are not, why make the comment in the first place.

I have reprinted the offending piece by "SH" from last Tuesday (edited of course)

" wow
by SH Tuesday, Sep 6 2005, 10:08am

Bernard,

...The College Tribune was a disaster your year, one issue even had a whole page as a scribble box. Perhaps you would like to inform everyone here how much renumeration you gave yourself, especially at the end of the year. I am not saying that what you did was illegal but it certainly wasn't honest and fair.

You were a laugh in USI too, perhaps you would like to explain to everyone how you got elected? How a well respected national officer was running until right at the end when she withdrew and you put your nomination in all prearranged with her. You knew that you wouldn't have stood a chance in an election against someone so you conspired to try and make yourself a shoo in. ...people knew you were a supporter of Fianna Fail in Kerry before UCD."

As regards some things mentioned above by one of the people who uses initials to identify themselves, SH. This spineless individual tries to accuse me of financial mismanagement in the College Tribune, whilst of course throwing in the proviso that I did nothing legally wrong. If that is the case, why do s/he feel the need to put it in at all.

Here is what happened. Whilst Editor of the College Tribune, I paid a set wage to myself, which was allocated on a issue by issue basis. I was completely open about this and everybody who worked on the paper was aware of it. Most editors of the paper from its inception in the 1980's have paid themselves a wage. I left a substantial amount of money in the College Tribune account at the end of the year. I also ensured that the design editor was paid. There is a suggestion in the snide comment above that I paid myself a huge amount of money. Well to answer that, I worked for most of the year in an internet cafe a few evenings a week and at the beginning of the year had enough saved from my summer job to cover some of my expenses, like my rent and soforth. I make no apology for paying myself. If I had not been able to pay myself a wage, I would not have been able to take a year out of college and pay my way. It has long been a cause of the left, that everyone should be able to run for any office or public position. Well, if you don't pay people for something or you just make some sort of symbolic gesture, than you eliminate a lot of people from the running and you create an organisation like the L&H, where an upper class twit, bankrolled by their parents, is installed year on year. It is a sad day, if there are people on the left, who are so detached from reality, that they do not understand that everyone's parents can't endlessly bankroll them. I know many people, who get money from their parents and are able to do many good things as a result. That, I have no problem with. I would just like people to realise that everyone is not like that. I was a grant aided student from a middle income farming background in North Kerry. I did not receive my grant as I was leaving college for the year. How do you suggest that I was to maintain myself and do a job at the same time, if you don't believe in paying people?

Other than that, I was never a member of Fianna Fail. I was attracted to the idea of an all inclusive movement spanning from left to right for a brief period when I was sixteen. I quickly realised that this was not workable and realised that my loyalties and my politics are best served by the Labour Party. Is it a crime to have read and poked about at the different options that are available in our democracy. I think not. I have shown my commitment to Labour and have been a member for eight years this week. I refused to resign, whilst in the College Tribune and also whilst acting as Equality Officer of USI, because I believe that people should be open about their politics and their beliefs.

As regards being elected Equality Officer of USI, I declared for the post nearly three months before the election. I was the only candidate initially until Diane Goldthorp, who is indeed a close friend, was asked to run by some colleges and decided to put herself in the arena. Diane's decision at the time appalled me, because I was confident that she would beat me, but also because as a friend, I had not expected that one of my friends would run against me. She was well known after two years as National LGB Rights Officer and I was not. She decided to withdraw. We patched back together our friendship, which was quite strained by the whole affair and she indeed did help to write my hustings speech, but I don't see how the fact that she ran and withdrew is somehow a conspiracy. I understand that people may have been suspicious, but I think that some people just cannot seem to see an honest answer for what it is. If the colleges had not wanted me, they could have voted RON. I received 159 for and 58 against. That is democracy.

I am sorry that I have moved off topic for a moment to address a few issues, but I felt that it was legitimate to respond.

I make no comment on the content of the paper during my tenure in the College Tribune, as opinion on the style of paper is a personal preference and as such is not worth commenting on. Just though on the 'scribble box', it was meant to be an arty statement, that was meant to say to people that we needed and welcomed writers. It was also meant to be funny. I recognise that it didn't work and that people didn't get it, but please do not use the fact that I tried something different as a stick to beat me. That is pathetic!

by TheoryHead Sat Sep 10, 2005 21:00

Chris misses the point of my posting. Theory comes from activism. Activists gained experiences from their activity. Theory is a collection of lessons from the successes and failures of the past. This is where 'theory' comes from. Going into coalition with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is a move that is detriment to the workers' movement (btw I don't consider Labour a part of the workers' movement, but you think they still are). Supporting international collaberations of imperialists such as the EU and UN is not a good move for the workers' movement as it does not criticise the vicious policies that these institutions will implement. Building an international socialist organisation is also a big historic lesson. You should be scandalised by Blair, Schroeder, Persson and Rasmusson being in your international organisation if you are serious about international Socialism.

You also miss the point that the politics of Rabbitte and the Labour Party are the same as Blair and Schroeder. The dots and commas of the policy may differ from country to country but the general thrust is the same. In Ireland Labour have implemented serious tax write-offs for multinational companies like Shell. Labour implemented double taxes such as water and bin charges. I could go on... but I won't. Just today Rabitte was on the radio talking of the need to keep Ireland's 'compeditativeness'. In other words he wants to stop wage increases. Chris is genuine about his desire to end injustice in Ireland and internationally. The point is that you will not do this in the Labour Party. At the debate on coalition the opponants of the motion argued that more votes and a better 'bargaining position' would be achieved if campaigning alone as a party. They were tactically opposed to the FG pact, not on principle. Some even wanted a FF coalition instead. A small minority voted against the motion, of these the vast amount were only tactical (not principled) opponents. Even in LY I heard many 'lefts' say they will still call for transfers to FG. Chris will you do that?

by hs Sat Sep 10, 2005 22:57

shouldn't the labour members be trying to form some sort of defence for bree within the party, seems to me he's being shafted for rocking the boat. On such an issue too. And on an issue of a basic human right too. the labour members would put a better picture of their party forward if they rose to defend the rights of travellers and an outspoken member of their party,

rather than bickering with other left wingers and telling us how you're more practical, give some practical support to a member of your party who has taken a brave and principled stance. I don't understand why you all seem to be siding with the two who opposed the housing, and remember it's bree being disciplined not bree discipling the others, and the direct attack from his leader is incredible.

If you think the rest of the left are hurlers on the ditch or impractical or whatever fine. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't support Bree and especially his position on travellers rights. If party unity and discipline come to this level all I can say is go back to alabama (in the 50's) and look at the democratic party there. Except that time it was the other way round! It's an indictment that the central leadership is attacking the member who is sideing with the travellers, and supporting the side who is opposing the housing.

My own party may not be perfect, none are, but I think on an issue of such a basic human right if the central leadership attacked a cllr for taking such a principled position, many members (most i would hope!) would support him or her, I know I would. And I hope Bree will get some support from the rank and file or the labour party or at least whats left of it.

by Bernard Cantillon Sun Sep 11, 2005 01:34 Berlin, Germany

The problem is that Bree went and shot his mouth off in the paper first. If you have a problem with any organisation, or people within that organisation, it is best to use the internal procedures before you go outside. It is a basic expectation of any organisation.

From my experience, the Labour Party is a wonderfully democratic place, where the members can be found actively involved in everything from running the party to formulating the policies and not just a select few either, like some other organisations. That is not an environment, where he would have been unable to complain within, regardless of whether Rabbitte agreed with him or not. He got himself into trouble by his own actions. His behaviour is being dressed up by those that hate the Labour Party in a sectarian campaign to target and discredit the Labour Party, as some sort of principled action. He is not being pursued for his stance on travellers. He is being pursued for his unwillingness to follow the whip, his hypocritical stance and the serious smearing of fellow Labour councillors, one of whom he detests and wants to prevent being allowed to challenge for the nomination at the next election.

by Michael M Sun Sep 11, 2005 16:14

Bernard Cantillon says “the problem is that Bree went and shot his mouth off to the paper.” “He is being pursued for his unwillingness to follow the whip and the serious smearing of fellow labour councillors”

As I said before where is this guy Cantillon coming from?

In an interview with the local paper after Sligo Corporation voted down the traveller accommodation programme Declan Bree as Mayor referred to “the disgraceful decision to vote down the accommodation programme”.

Does Bernard Cantillon seriously believe that this was a “serious smearing of his fellow labour councillors”? Does Bernard Cantillon really believe that Bree should be dragged before a special complaints committee for making such a comment?

If Mr Cantillon is genuinely concerned about “serious smearing” he should read Mr Pat Rabbitt’s letter of the 6th September in the “Irish Times”, or he should read Cllr Jim McGarrys daughters statement to the “Sligo Champion” of the 7th September.

Bernard – you have commented extensively on Bree’s remarks. What have you to say on Rabbitte’s and McGarry’s comments to the press?

Is there to be one rule for Bree and another for certain other comrades.

by Michael M Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:49

Is the network down in Berlin!!!

by Bernard Cantillon Mon Sep 12, 2005 21:47 Berlin, Germany

What I believe should happen is irrelevant. It is what is happening that is relevant.

Cllr Bree was summoned before a panel of the party. He could have defended himself there and I think would possibly have won. (Indeed, he may still win). However, he unfortunately chose to drag himself and the party through the gutter, for whatever reasons. That is his crime.

B

by Michael M Tue Sep 13, 2005 00:12

Come on Bernard – yes, what you believe may be irrelevant, but we have had to read all your views and beliefs on this issue for the past week

You have commented extensively and attacked Bree’s remarks to the press. What have you to say on Rabbitte’s and McGarry’s comments to the press?

Is there to be one rule for Bree and another for certain other comrades?

Surely at this stage in your life you have the balls to answer a simple question.

by Bernard Cantillon Tue Sep 13, 2005 00:46 Berlin, Germany

I will admit that I was uncomfortable with a letter making its way to the Irish Times, though I think that Bree is to blame for all of this.

Oh and just a point of clarification. Once five members of the party request that somebody should be disciplined, I think that the rules require the party wheels to investigate and hold a hearing, that is what is in question here. Bree chose to shoot his mouth of and attack the party and its leadership in the media. I don't believe that the disciplinary hearing would have found him guilty of anything. He clearly intends to force the party to expel him, so that he can go on some sort of crusade against the party. I do not see a socialist when I see Bree. I see a hypocrite and someone that is trying to shaft his own party in the interests of his own ego.

Does that answer your question?

Bernard

by Michael M Tue Sep 13, 2005 03:03

What ? You were “uncomfortable” with a letter “making its way” to the Irish Times!

And you “think that Bree is to blame for all of this” !!!!!

I could have sworn that it was the Pat Rabbitte who signed the letter.


Let it be said loud and clear that Bernard Cantillon does not believe there should be one rule for Bree and another for certain other comrades.

Its simple – if certain other comrades break the rules blame Bree

by Mike Wed Sep 14, 2005 14:35

This issue was raised by Cllr. Bree at Labour National executive in March. i.e. that two Councillors had voted down the accomodation programme.

It was passed around like a hot potato and dropped.

So Bree went through the correct channels but it went no where!

by Bernard Cantillon Wed Sep 14, 2005 23:59 Berlin, Germany

Please find attached Article 14 of the Labour Party Constitution.

ARTICLE 14: COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

1. At its first meeting following each Party Conference, the NEC shall appoint from amongst Party members of standing, experience and expertise a Complaints Panel of not less than 10 members, none of whom may be Party Officers. Members of the Complaints Panel shall remain in office until the first meeting of the NEC after the next Party Conference, unless they in the interim die, resign or cease to be Party members. The NEC shall have power to fill casual vacancies in the membership of the Complaints Panel.

2(a) If a Party member, or any body having standing in the Party, complains that a decision of a branch, Council, Party Section or of a Party Officer or employee involved a breach or abuse of the constitution or rules or standing orders of the relevant body or of this Constitution, or otherwise infringed his or her right to fairness in procedure, the person or body affected may make a complaint to the General Secretary. Notice to the General Secretary shall specify the nature of the complaint and shall contain sufficient information to identify the rule alleged to have been breached or abused or the right alleged to have been infringed. Where the matter complained of involves the rights of an individual party member, the complaint must be made by the individual personally.

(b) If a Party member or branch having standing in the Party complains that the activities of another member have been -

(i) injurious to the interests of the Party or inconsistent with its Principles and Objects, and that such other member is therefore no longer eligible for membership, or

(ii) injurious to the interests of a branch,

that person or branch may make a complaint to the General Secretary. Notice to the General Secretary shall specify the nature of the complaint and shall contain sufficient information to identify the grounds by virtue of which it is claimed the complaint is justified.

(c) The General Secretary shall notify the NEC of every complaint which has been received under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and, having done so, may within 21 days of its receipt dismiss any complaint which he or she considers to be frivolous or vexatious or as not setting out a valid ground of complaint under the terms of this section.

(d) The General Secretary shall refer any complaint not so dismissed to a meeting of a complaints committee, which shall be appointed and convened by the General Secretary for that purpose and which shall consist of at least 5 members of the Complaints Panel.

(e) A complaints committee shall investigate and decide upon disputes referred to it by the General Secretary and may hold hearings, in compliance with the rules of natural justice. A complaints committee may decide -

(i) to dismiss the complaint,

(ii) to note the complaint and the relevant facts, but to take no further action,

(iii)to suspend a person from membership of the Party, or of a branch, for a period not exceeding 2 years,

(iv) to exclude a person from contesting, for a period not exceeding 5 years, any elective office within the Party, or within a particular branch, or

(v) to expel a person from membership of the Party, or from a particular branch.

The Committee shall report its decision in the matter to the complainant, the person or body the subject of the complaint and to the NEC.

3. A person against whom a complaint has been made may, within 21 days of being notified of the decision of a complaints committee, appeal to the NEC against that decision, on grounds confined to fairness of procedure, the nature of the penalty to be imposed and the impact on the Party of the decision being appealed against. The appeal shall be made in the manner prescribed by standing orders of the NEC, which shall provide for the exclusion, in the hearing and determination of such appeals, of those whose previous involvement in the matter would in natural justice disbar their participation. The decision of the NEC in any appeal shall be final. Every such decision shall be included in the report of the General Secretary made to the next Party Conference.

4. The General Secretary shall act as non-voting secretary to any complaints committee established under this Article. In the event of the General Secretary being unable to act in relation to a particular complaint, the NEC shall make provision for the performance of his or her functions under this Article by another officer or employee of the Party.

5. When a complaint has been made under this Article, the NEC shall at any time thereafter have power, as an interim measure pending the outcome of the investigation, to suspend that member from any office or position mentioned in this Constitution, other than the office of Party Leader or Deputy Leader.

6. If a person who has been expelled from branch membership under this Article does not, within 3 months from the date of expulsion or of an appeal to the NEC -

(a) either inform Head Office that he or she has opted to become an individual Party member, or

(b) transfer to membership of another branch (with the consent of that other branch),

that person shall be deemed to have resigned from the Party.

by kintama Thu Sep 15, 2005 00:55

Jesus I scroll down from Bernards 'Love Israel.com' posts and find he is not only castigating a dedicated Socialist Declan Bree but lauding the fat turd Rabitte. Bernard seems to favour strict control by a 'moral' authority with no dissension tolerated.
Bernard convince me that Declans instincts are wrong most people could'nt give a shit about Party rules they see an Animal Farm style metamorphosis from Rabitte to Mc Dowell .
God bless us all if Mc Dowell/Rabitte and Enda the human dynamo ever seize power.

by Aged Socialist Thu Sep 15, 2005 01:27

If Pat Rabbittes allegations in the Irish Times are un true,why doesent someone make a complaint against him?Lets see if Mike Allen as Party Secretary will be as quick to assemble a firing squad...oops sorry I mean an internal committee of inquiry, to investigate that complaint...........or is the party leader above the law??