Make this man Taoiseach

Ardent

Came across this today...

TD ‘detests’ other parties

Socialist leader speaks out about opposing Dáil parties

07/10/2006

A DUBLIN TD famous for goading the Taoiseach in the Dáil yesterday said he “detests” what TDs from other political parties stand for.

Socialist Party leader Joe Higgins, who was jailed for a month in 2003 for opposing local bin charges, was recently branded ‘a nitwit’ and ‘a failed person’ by an enraged Bertie Ahern after a heated parliamentary exchange on rocketing house prices.

The ex-teacher, who studied to be a priest in the US but later became an atheist, said he doesn’t socialise with Mr Ahern or other political party TDs in the Dáil.
“I don’t have any social interaction whatsoever with the TDs from the other political parties. I detest what they stand for. I detest the fact that their system is now enslaving working people to 40-year mortgages, they’ll be in their 70s and they’ll still have mortgages around their neck.
“Any system that is responsible for that I deplore and I deplore those who support and are responsible for it.

The Dublin west TD (58) added, “You can’t be slapping their backs in the Dáil bar one minute and then be serious the next minute. That would be cynical politics if anybody would do that.
“You have to go in and stand and represent honestly the ideas that you believe in and the people who have elected me.
“That means I don’t really have the time or inclination to be hanging around with right wing establishment representatives.
“I don’t want to know anything about the private and personal lives of other deputies.
“I go into Dáil Éireann just to represent the people that have elected me and to represent socialist ideas and the views of the Socialist Party.”

He said he has a good relationship with the Independent TDs who nominate him to ask leader’s questions in the Dáil on their behalf, which he has used to expose the Turkish Gama labour scandal.

He also revealed he still doesn’t pay bin charges despite serving a month in Mountjoy Prison for opposing them in 2003.
“I still don’t. I recycle most of the material. Many people who were opposed to them have been forced to pay them.”

I like the cut of his jib. We need more men like this guy in politics.

Yes, another Taoiseach who feels he shouldn't pay taxes, that's what we need.

I think Joe Higgins fills a useful role in Dail as a part of the opposition, GAMA thing being a good example. I don't think I'd like to see him as Taoiseach though. I feel he may be better at spotting and highlighting problems than coming up with useful policies to solve them.

Nuttzz

yeah and gerry adams president :rolleyes:

Nuttzz

Nuttzz wrote:

yeah and gerry adams president :rolleyes:

good post

Ardent

Obviously the "make this man taoiseach" statement is tongue in cheek. I don't know much about Mr Higgins or his affiliations but I think his assessment of his political peers and his honesty is refreshing. We need more politicians who will stand up for what they believe in rather than follow the herd for the sake of paying the mortgage.

Sparks

Deleted User wrote:

I feel he may be better at spotting and highlighting problems than coming up with useful policies to solve them.

Yes, because that's exactly where Ahern&co. excel.

Say this much for Higgins, you might not agree with him, but you do have to acknowlege that he's not paying lip service to his ideology, he actually walks the talk.

monkeyfudge

He also only takes half his TD salary, the rest goes back into the party apparently.

The_Minister

I would prefer Pat Rabbitte to be president, or even Gerry Adams.

Jackie laughlin

He says nothing that the Labour Party or Tony Gregory has not been saying for years.

He was expelled from the Labour Party for operating a separate party within it, i.e. the Militant Tendency. Yes, they're the self same headbangers who made Liverpool council workers redundant.

Incidentally, Labour's TDs and MEPs have always been required to donate a part of their salaries to the Party.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote:

He says nothing that the Labour Party or Tony Gregory has not been saying for years.

Yeah but he says it better and more often.
Higgins agitates and keeps Bertie on his toes. While I don't fully agree with his politics its good to know there's an honest passionate man in there willing to highlight inequality and corruption. I’m not saying the rest don’t highlight wrongs and ask questions, I’m just saying Higgins does it better and more often. If there was one TD I’d like in my corner its Higgins.

Jackie laughlin

Clown Bag,
I disagree. Joe Higgins is a gift to the right wing because he can be easily dismissed. His background is in the Militant Tendency which sought to insinuate itself into and take over socialist political parties. His politics is still at the stage of awaiting the coming crisis of capitalism, like waiting for Godot. The media are busily building him up as "the one just man" and this gives the ultimate cop out: "I would vote socialist, if only socialists were like Joe Higgins. Meanwhile I'll continue voting for FF." (FF was just an example, obviously.)

pete

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Incidentally, Labour's TDs and MEPs have always been required to donate a part of their salaries to the Party.

Whereas Joe Higgins is known to keep no more than the average industrial wage for himself; the rest goes to the party. Bit of a difference there.


Incidentally - what exactly had Joe Higgins got to do with Liverpool council workers? And while we're on the subject, did any of the workers actually lose their jobs? My memory of events is a little vague (I was but a child at the time) but according to wikipedia:

In the early 1980s a broad left alliance with a large Militant contingent took over leadership of the ruling Labour group on Liverpool city council and became engaged in a struggle with the Thatcher led central government fighting for extra funding, which they won at first.

The tactical decision of the leadership of Liverpool City Council (agreed by the City Council Shop Stewards) in September 1985 to issue redundancy notices to all their workforce backfired and handed a propaganda gift to a Labour leader who had made no secret of his contempt for Trotskyism. However no member of staff was ever made redundant, and as explained on the reverse of the "redundancy notices" it was a tactical device to keep the Council solvent whilst the campaign for more funding continued

Jackie laughlin

Pete,
I accept that there is a big difference between keeping just the income of an industrial worker and making a sizeable contribution. My point was that it is accepted on the left that elected members contribute to the party.

There are several histories of the Militant Tendency. I'll try to dig one out and post the title here. They did however try to take over both the British and Irish Labour Parties and caused mayhem until they were dumped. At one stage the staff of the Militant Tendency was multiples of the Labour Party staff. They raised money and kept it for their own purposes. When they joined the Labour Party, they usually pretended to be unemployed so as to avoid paying a full membership fee to a party they despised. They met separately and came to Labour meetings with carefully worked out tactics and voted en-bloc with total discipline.

I don't know if the current Socialist Party is a continuation or if Militant collapsed completely after they were expelled from the party.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote:

They did however try to take over both the British and Irish Labour Parties and caused mayhem until they were dumped.

Maybe they didn't like the direction the Labour parties in both countries were taking and wanted to maintain traditional labour values. new labour with Tony Blair and the situation here in Ireland where a vote for labour means a vote for Enda as Taoiseach would suggest they had reason to fight even if they were further to the left of most of the party. The shift to the right meant there was no more room for the Trotskyists in the ranks and people had to make a choice, move to the right or move to the left and sadly the middle ground in the left was lost.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I don't know if the current Socialist Party is a continuation or if Militant collapsed completely after they were expelled from the party.

Not sure about that one either. The socialist party was certainly born out of Militant when they were expelled from labour but appear to have grown up a bit since then. I'm not sure how much of the old Militant is left and if they still control the party. One thing for sure is that the Labour party can learn a bit from them when it comes to making their presence felt in communities. The socialist party (who I respect in fairness, if for nothing else for their commitment to what they believe) and unfortunately Sinn Fein (who I detest) are very active in a lot of working class communities, including my own. It is unfortunate that labour are not as active at a local level as they are loosing a lot of votes to Sinn Fein, who while I detest and don't vote for, I can see how others in the community are duped into voting for them. They get involved in all the local issues and are forever organising meetings and dropping news letters in the letter boxes keeping people informed on local issues. FF held onto their seat by the skin of their teeth here last time and from what I can see SF are going to take it next year. I’d rather see labour get it but they don’t appear willing to get stuck in and fight for it.

The labour party needs to learn how to become activists again if they want to stop loosing votes in these communities to the sinners and the socialist party. Most ordinary people are not really looking into their ideology, but instead are approving of the attention they give them. That’s the problem. Labour are in a position to make realistic national policy but lack the will to convince people at grass roots level. In fairness I think the pact with the blue shirts also puts off a lot of potential labour voters and is pushing some of the more knowledgeable voters into joining the impressionable voters into supporting smaller alternatives they normally wouldn't go near

Jackie laughlin

Clown Bag,
I accept most of what you say.

However, there is a difference between staying in a party, trying to argue it down a different course and joining a separate, parasitic organisation whose purpose is to destroy the host. Credible, decent, democrats and socialists resign from parties in which they no longer feel reasonably comfortable. They then join or form another party or opt out.

Socialism is very unfashionable these days for a variety of reasons. A need to develop a leftist argument which addresses globalisation and neo-liberalism is vital. I know of a few people who are trying to think along these lines. That should eventually inform/create day-to-day policies. JH has the populist advantage of falling back on his old slogans; I doubt that he can see what has changed or has had a doubt in his own mind since he was a child. Do people any longer want poltical alternatives? As you say, on the estates votes go to people who "work on the ground" and never mind their politics. That's old fashioned clientelism perfected by FF. Labour is particularly bad at it. I have to say, however, that years ago one of Labour's virtues was that they were less inclined to clientelism.

history_buff

Ardent wrote:

Came across this today...



I like the cut of his jib. We need more men like this guy in politics.

Great. I can't wait for him to legalise abortion and euthanasia, flood the country with foreigners and hobnob with European lefties amid discussions over their weird "social project".

At least it'd be fun seeing him being chauffeured in a Merc...

Het-Field

history_buff wrote:

Great. I can't wait for him to legalise abortion and euthanasia, flood the country with foreigners and hobnob with European lefties amid discussions over their weird "social project".

At least it'd be fun seeing him being chauffeured in a Merc...

Funny but true. However, wedf need a referendum first.
#Higgins fulfils a purpose, and is worth having. BUt beyond that you cant have radical people running the country, it becomes a race to the bottom. FF Labour or PD Prime Ministers are the only acceptable ones

Jackie laughlin

Het-Field,
The problem is that we DO have radical people running the country. They have a childlike belief in markets and private ownership. Our future prosperity requires more sophisticated thinking.

Dirk Gently

Het-Field wrote:

#Higgins fulfils a purpose, and is worth having. BUt beyond that you cant have radical people running the country, FF Labour or PD Prime Ministers are the only acceptable ones

agree with the first part of your post regarding Higgins, he has his uses but without like minded governments dominating European politics and a significant shift globally in trade rules (i.e. a move away from neo-liberalism as the dominant force in world trade towards a more socialist world order) he would ultimately fail in his objectives of achieving equality as their would be a massive flight of capital from the country to more profitable locations.

The second part of your post regarding radicals as leaders of the country and you mention the Pd’s as acceptable non-radicals I have to dis-agree with. The pds are a radical party who would be as radical on the right as Higgins is on the left. It’s all about perspective. Higgins is radical from our point of view because he is so far away from what we have now but to someone in the middle like say Labour for example, the pds philosophy would be a radical right wing agenda. The fact is we have a radical party making up part of our government at the moment, just not a radical left party. Now let’s all run out and buy health insurance to prove we have money burning a hole in our pockets. It’s a sign of our prosperity that so many of us buy health insurance according to Harney (not because the public health service is inadequate though in her opinion) privatise everything is harneys policy and nationalise is higgins policy. We just live in a society where most services are privatised these days which we pay for when once we didn’t and accept it as the norm and non-radical. With radical right wingers like the PD's, requests such as wage increases and equitable wealth distribution are frowned on and in many peoples eyes are seen as counter productive. As a result of radical right policies it is now deemed extremely foolish to mention equality as this effects our ability to compete globally. What would once seem like a reasonable request for equality or public investment is now denied for the good of competiveness and accepted by most people as a result of radical right policies. If you can’t keep your head above water just keep your mouth shut or else risk the multinationals pulling out and going to third world countries where they don’t demand so much.

Jackie laughlin

This isn't off-thread because J. Higgins is part of the problem.

What the PDs are about is the restoration and consolidation of class power. The Left is not presenting a coherent response, though I've been reading stuff lately which is beginning to address this. The argument can be won on economic grounds and on grounds of efficiency and productivity. Morality can enter later. Marx's concept of fractions of capital is useful in that "a healthy environment for business" may attract vultures rather than entrepreneurs. Poor JH is stuck in the same simple world as the PDs; he just disagrees with them and will always lose the argument on their ground.

Tsar

well its very easy for Joe Higgins to make such statements when he knows he is never going to get anywhere near a dail office. I would love to see him in power for one they to watch what could only be described as "the climbdown"

Jackie laughlin

Tsar,
Simpletons in office don't always climbdown. They often do damage to a greater or lesser extent. Our present government is a case in point.

MrJones

being president would suit Pat Rabbitte alright because all he can do talk and pay lip service to this that and the other.
Joe Higgins is settings an example for all of the other TDs including Bertie Ahern.
I think FF need a few more Joe Higgins and a few less Frank Faheys.

Firespinner wrote:

I would prefer Pat Rabbitte to be president, or even Gerry Adams.

Jackie laughlin

Mr Jones,
Members of the Oireachtas are supposed to talk. Debate is their purpose.

What exactly is the example JH is setting?

MrJones

my personal opinion is that if p rabbitte got into gov, he wouldnt be very good.
in fact we may soon find out if FG &LBR win out in next election.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Mr Jones,
Members of the Oireachtas are supposed to talk. Debate is their purpose.

What exactly is the example JH is setting?

Jackie laughlin

MrJones,
I know you don't like Pat Rabbitte. It seems too that you are neither a FG nor a Labour supporter. However, none of this has anything to do with the question I asked: What exactly is the example being set by JH?

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote:

What exactly is the example being set by JH?

Honesty, solidarity, equality integrity?

The chap is committed and determined I’ll give him that. He talks the talk but he walks the walk as well. His party members make a pledge that if elected they will only take the average industrial wage and donate the rest of their salary. He drives a second hand car and lives on a housing estate. He puts in a huge amount of time and effort into his campaigns. He stood by his principles and went to jail along with a lot of ordinary people over the bin taxes. He not only speaks out about equality and exploitation, he also lives his life by his principles and looks the least likely politician to sell out. He talks about everyday problems facing ordinary people and he talks about the ideology behind those problems too, something Labour rarely mention.

So as for what kind of example he sets, well I think what you see is what you get. You can look at Higgins and either choose to support him or not. He doesn’t have a hidden agenda as he is open and honest about his ideology. He represents his constituents by being one of them, living the same lifestyle as the people he represents and can’t be accused of being a smoked salmon socialist or of living a separate elitist life beyond the means of those he represents.

I’m not going to join in any Higgins bashing because imo he doesn’t deserve to be bashed as he is simply doing what he says he will do and if people elect him then fair enough. I would bash the likes of Labour for making him look good before I condemn him. I’m glad the Socialist party aren’t running the country but at the same time I am glad we have someone of Higgins calibre in the Dail making noise. A few more like him in the opposition and maybe the government might be put under some sort of pressure which they are rarely put under by Enda and Pat. I would ideally like to have more Labour Td’s elected with Higgins qualities. I think if Labour Td’s were as passionate about their style of socialism as Higgins is about his style and if Labour talked more about ideology rather than simply Bertie bashing then they would get a lot more support.

Jackie laughlin

Clown Bag,
I'm not being at all rude but most of your points have been addressed above.

JH has a history. He may be above board now but most of his political life was spent in a shoddy conspiracy.

He patronises the poor and farms them via constituency work like any clientilist politician. He's no more working class than CJH!

His finest hour was getting himself jailed. Neither Tony Gregory nor Joe Costelloe got that kind of coverage when they were jailed. Joe is a "performer".

I vehemently oppose liberal and conservative politics but I don't think that all liberals and conservatives are corrupt. Most fulltime politicians have a modest lifestyle.

I don't see JH as setting an example. I do agree with him frequently but I could never trust him again.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Clown Bag,
I'm not being at all rude but most of your points have been addressed above.

You asked a question and I gave an answer.
Most of your points have also being addressed but you still go on. IMO Higgins provides a good example and sets the standard for other politicians across the political spectrum to follow. He is who he is and doesn't try to spin or climb down on what he says he will do.

I don’t think Higgins is naïve enough to say all the other politicians are corrupt (as in they all take backhanders), I think what he is talking about is that the ideology they promote is in itself corrupt and it leads to exploitation and inequality. Fair enough you don’t rate his form of socialism as achievable in Ireland (I don’t either), but it’s not his fault if he out performs the others because of his work ethic and commitment. It’s up to others to compete with him and put heir message across better than he puts his across.

You keep mentioning “clientilist” politicians as if it was a bad thing to mix among those you are theoretically suppose to represent at a national level. I can see your point if you’re talking about a populist rustling up support among apathetic voters tired of feeling left behind by the bigger parties but again, it’s up to the bigger parties like labour not to let that happen on their patch. The socialist party are very well organized and can mobilise their small numbers very efficiently on the ground, Labour appear to be somewhat of a sleeping giant and part of the reason for that is they are not seen where it matters on the ground.

I don’t think myself and yourself would be too far apart politically, were probably quite close in our thinking tbh but where as I see it as Labours failure to convince working class people to vote for them you see it as Higgins fault for being populist and “clientilist” as you put it so often and taking votes away form Labour.

Jackie laughlin

ClownBag,
Yes, politically I think you and me would be very close.

My main problem with JH is not that he would directly take votes from Labour but that his politics is so easily ridiculed and dismissed that socialism is discredited. I think this is the role he plays for the neo-liberal parts of the media.

I have a diificulty with socialists being involved with clientilism as it's essentially about constant lies: operating clinics in order to gather in problems, write a letter or two, and then pretend to people that you got them a house, planning permission, a medical card, the street light fixed etc. Honest people have told me that they know they are doing wrong but there's no other way of getting elected.

Dirk Gently

Jackie laughlin wrote:

My main problem with JH is not that he would directly take votes from Labour but that his politics is so easily ridiculed and dismissed that socialism is discredited..

I don't think Labour have too much to worry about with Higgins making socialism look bad. Labour never seem to mention the evil "S" word much anyway and most ordinary voters would vote for labour based on a few promises they make rather than looking at them and saying I'm gonna vote socialist because I think that ideology works better for me as opposed to neo-liberalism. Most people aren't even aware that there are different approaches to trade and development and Labour dont really "market" (for want of a better word) socialism.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I have a diificulty with socialists being involved with clientilism as it's essentially about constant lies: operating clinics in order to gather in problems, write a letter or two, and then pretend to people that you got them a house, planning permission, a medical card, the street light fixed etc. Honest people have told me that they know they are doing wrong but there's no other way of getting elected.

Again I see what your saying but to be fair the local FF TD has made a career out of getting street lights fixed and giving advice on medical cards. He's the housewives favourite around these parts but will probably get out voted this time cos SF are out doing him at his own game. If Labour recognize this is going on but make no attempt to tap into what is a vote winner then that’s a tactical failing which they need to address. Most people are not ideology driven and wouldn’t even recognize that there is any difference in ideology between the parties. Approachable TD’s and party members in their area who get things done for them is what wins votes.

Not everyone (and I believe a majority of people actually) connect what a TD's party does policy wise at a national level or even locally at a council vote level with what the individual TD himself stands for. Getting stuck in at a local level fixing street lights is what wins votes and FF realise this, Labour don't.

To be fair I don't think that’s what Higgins is about anyway, he sees the importance of making his presence felt in the community (would be mad not to imo as this is what influences most people) but he also remains consistent in that he follows through on what he says and try’s to organise people into standing up for themselves and his party is consistent in that what you see on the ground is what way they vote at council level and what Joe pushes for when speaking in the Dail.

You mentioned earlier that “you would never trust Higgins again”. If I can make an assumption here, I would guess that you might have been active around Labour at the time of the split with militant. I think maybe your past grievance might be clouding your judgment a little with regards your analysis of Higgins and the socialist party in General. There is more to them than simply clientism as you describe it. Time for Labour to follow their example and push the Labour agenda locally as well as nationally. Many people view what goes on at a national policy level as abstract and not affecting them (ok they're wrong about that but it is how people view things), these are the people Labour need to win over. I would really like to see Labour grow over the next few years so come future general elections they might be in a position to form a government without having Fine Gael as a senior partner but they wont do it with their heads stuck in the sand.