"Maynooth Students' Union Snubs Hanafin Visit"

banquo

We were considering making Prof Gabler an honorary member of the Union and posting him a hoody just for being such a legend.

irish_goat

LeixlipRed wrote: »

This government is wanted out of office by the majority of the people in this country.

I]citation needed[/I

Regardless, what has that got to do with anything? Are you expecting the SU to come out and demand the government resign or something?

funky penguin

Man I hate it when politics creeps into the forums I mod. I could NOT be less informed about it.

/hides in Harry Potter forum.

hypersquirrel

funky penguin wrote: »

Man I hate it when politics creeps into the forums I mod. I could NOT be less informed about it.

/hides in Harry Potter forum.

Well personally I think Voldemort would make an excellent Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport.

J.D.R

It was pointe out to me today and I have to aggree, doesn't St.Pats campus have a Hogwarts feel to it?

the_observer

My favourite statement from yesterday was from one of the silent protesters, while he was arguing with one of the people near the FEE banner, regarding silent protest vs. chanting. He said:

"She heard you, but she listened to us"

dory

Does no one else see how ridiculous the signs with this were

Flight to Australia €644
A year in college €1500

Do these people think third level education is free in Australia?

CnaG

dory wrote: »

Does no one else see how ridiculous the signs with this were

Flight to Australia €644
A year in college €1500

Do these people think third level education is free in Australia?

I can't tell if you're joking. No, the implication was that it's cheaper to buy a one way ticket to Australia (as in, to emigrate and not come back) that it is to finish your third-level education.

synd

As a member of FEE/SWP Id just like to make a few points.

The SWP are the Socialist Workers Party (a national party, perhaps better known as People Before Profit and the Right To Work Campaign)

RTW is a broad network composed of various organizations, among them the SWP as well as UNITE (who sponsor RTW) - Ballymun Unemployed Action Group ect. The first national National Conference was on May 22nd at UNITE hq Abbey st. http://www.swp.ie/industry/key-trade-unionists-call-right-work/2478 (there's a list in the link of those involved on the committee). The composition is fairly diverse as anyone who cares to look will see.

I think it's because they tend to turn up at protests and mass leaflet, almost like they're pretending they organised the whole thing.

For the record, the SWP held a stall in Maynooth Town on Wednesday 15th urging people to attend the protest. The same (unfortunately) cannot be said for members of the exec, who's attempt to mobilize was confined to facebook. Moreover the SWP where not in possession of any leaflets during the protest, the only leaflets being distributed where by FEE Maynooth. I should know, because i wrote them.

On the issue of opportunism, you might want to look at Labour Youth on that count. Last year FEE organized for students to assemble in support of striking staff, a reasonable crowd showed up. Around six members of Labour Youth then proceeded to unravel their banner, stand in front of the entire crowd and have pictures taken. The occurence was later spotted in (the labour tribune) being presented as a labour initiative.

Ironically enough, the member of the student executive who had issued a statement encouraging students to pass pickets during the strike was (on Thursdays event) threatening to have a member of the SWP removed from campus by security on account of her arguing that students (should they so wish) be allowed to chant.

FEE organised the protest against Bertie Ahern getting the honorary doctorate, with assistance from Labour Youth. Their members also campaigned to try get Maynooth to rejoin USI last year.

FEE's organization of the Bertie protest was not assisted by Labour Youth. It was not until key figures within the Labour milieu saw a relationship with FEE as being personally advantageous that they decided to engage with us. In fact Angus had written an article in the print expressing a degree of opposition towards FEE earlier in the year. On the USI, it was a FEE initiative, and a successful one. FEE had been pushing for NUIM to rejoin the USI since two years ago.

I could go on, but hopefully that's enough info?

If your going to go on, please get your facts sorted.

synd

I think the rationale was that a wall of silent students would be more dignified and come across more grown-up than being obnoxious would. Silence would also have been unexpected. As someone observed earlier, protesting quietly actually let Aengus make the points for the students to the minister. If everyone had been bellowing, I don't think Mary Hannifan would have come over.

If your suggesting that loud protest would have been obnoxious/childish, then by your measure the vast majority of protests are ''obnoxious & childish''. Mary Hannafin (cannot) act on the concerns of ordinary people given that she is functionary of a social elite who's interests are diametrically opposed to those of the majority.

This understood, talking to her does nothing but perpetuate the myth that that Fianna Fail can be negotiated with. While a quiet chat with Mary might look good on a CV, it does nothing to inspire the people of this country to stand up to those who are hellbent on making them pay for the current crisis. The fluffy liberalism that suggests lobbying a social elite (who benefit immeasurably from the dispossession of ordinary people) can make a difference is Utopian in the extreme.

As far as I understand it was the *SWP* who where shouting

The SWP (who are all in FEE) where shouting/chanting, along with all non-party affiliated FEE members. In addition, there where also numerous mature students shouting/chanting, two of whom are now FEE members on account of Angus-O telling them to ''shut up''.

Alt_GrrrThere was a very small turn out for the SWP, 5 by my count.There was a smaller turn out for FEE.

There where actually 10 FEE (including SWP) members within 15 mins of assembling at the Iontas. With an additional three joining us through the course of the event. The two mature students who joined us on the day had been told to (shut up) by Angus to which they where understandably upset about. In all the balance wasn't stacked enormously towards the exec's VIP list.

the Silent Protest was at best 50+ -ish.

Doesn't look like 50 tbh, but nice try. The exec brought along a small group (around 20). The composition of the ''silent guard'' where mainly Labour Youth & personal affiliates of the exec. There had obviously been no real attempt on the part of the exec to mobilize a broad event. There where of course possible tactical motivations behind the execs lack of mobilization, larger crowds being more difficult to contain ect.

During the course of the event FEE/SWP broke into groups and went around campus encouraging first years to come over and participate (the exec took no such initiative). On FEEs part, there was certainly a failure in terms of the turnout. Even though we had gone to no great lengths to mobilize we had expected double the number.

The chanting was fairly short lived. to be honest

As was the silence SO

Alt_Grrr

synd wrote: »

Doesn't look like 50 tbh, but nice try. The exec brought along a small group (around 20). The composition of the ''silent guard'' where mainly Labour Youth & personal affiliates of the exec.

I do enjoy a bit of revisionist history,
and

looks like 30 from that small section of the SU Protest alone.

Whats over is over of course,
The SU invited over 1500 students to join the protest, many decided not to, but those who did turn up were the ones who could spare the time (a lot of students are still slaving away in summer jobs).

dory

CnaG wrote: »

I can't tell if you're joking. No, the implication was that it's cheaper to buy a one way ticket to Australia (as in, to emigrate and not come back) that it is to finish your third-level education.

Of course it's cheaper! How can you even compare 24 hours on a plane with a year of third level education?

Also, a motorbike is cheaper than a car. Some things are worth more.

This is coming from an ex-NUIM exec member who did all the no-fees protesting back in the day. But now, we are a poor country. Not one of the richest in the world as we once felt we were. Free education for all would be fantastic. But if Oz, the UK and the States can't afford it, I don't understand why you seem to think we can.

Ataxia

I think the issue here is about what we intend our protests to achieve. Personally, I think our focus should be on building a mass grassroots student resistance to the government's cuts agenda. This protest doesn't do that. Students are passive rather than active participants, while our Glorious Leader does all our talking for us; it's choreographed, its top-down, and doesn't allow for individual students to express their own anger. Moreover, a silent protest is boring. It was just a lot of standing around. Anyone who's ever been on a proper energetic protest march will tell you how exciting it can be. That's the sort of thing that engages people, and gets them to come back for more.

Talking to Mary Hanafin achieves nothing. It's not like she's not aware of the impact of her government's cuts on students (and the low-paid, the unemployed, the disabled and special needs etc.). All that we have done is to make her look reasonable by coming over to speak to the protest and "listen to our grievances".

I also don't appreciate being shushed, particularly by those who claim to be leftists (Aengus, Shmick, etc.) as if this was their issue and their protest, rather than an issue for all of us. The Executive need to remember that they are elected to work for us not to dictate to us. If we choose to express our anger at the government loudly, they have no right to tell us to be quiet.

Alt_Grrr

dory wrote: »

Free education for all would be fantastic. But if Oz, the UK and the States can't afford it, I don't understand why you seem to think we can.

Of course those countries are too busy spending billions on defence,
yet if you look at Norway, Sweden and Finland, they've invested the money in education over the years and made it work rather well.

I think everyone can agree here that now is the time to invest in Ireland's future, rather then fill in the hole in the economy from Anglo Irish with the taxes of the next few generations.

Had the last 13 years been spent with better nation building in mind we wouldn't have had this (or many other) problem.

Now, this protest won't fix any of those problems, but it does register the problems which exist. there not going to get solved any time soon or be directly solved by this protest, but that doesn't stop many other groups from protesting.

synd

looks like 30 from that small section of the SU Protest alone.

When things where at there peak, there where between 35-40 in that section. Not 50+ as you claimed earlier. This is a failure (for everyone) and should be acknowledged as such.

Discounting FEE & the 15-20 randomers who showed up (first years sent over by FEE/SWP ect.), the exec led a contingent of around 20 personal affiliates & labour youth to the event. There was obviously no attempt to push for a high turnout.

In any case, its nothing to gloat about. I wrote an article on it and pushed the number up to 50, i said everything was great fair play to exec ect. but between us we should recognize that it was a flop and learn from the experience.

The SU invited over 1500 students to join the protest,

I assume your referring to the facebook event ? in which case the FEE account invited 1000+ people. Id know because i sent the invites. Im sure the SU sent out invites aswel, but as anyone with any experience is aware, you cant build anything worthwhile over facebook.

CnaG

There are a few things about my contributions on this thread that I would like to clear up for Synd, who has accused me (by mail to my facebook account) of slandering his party the SWP. So let’s take it from the top.

So to start (16-09-2010, 22.00) I said the SU, FEE and the SWP were all entitled to be at the protest. The SWP were shouting. Among others. But the SWP in the main. This is what I was told when I made it to campus at 1 o’clock that day. Is it slanderous to say they were shouting, when it was true?

16-09-2010 22.10
“I think the rationale was that a wall of silent students would be more dignified and come across more grown-up than being obnoxious would...”

The problem word here is probably ‘obnoxious’. Was it slanderous against the SWP? No. Nor was it intended to be. This on the other hand:

“I think the SWP could have picked their time and place to make a show of themselves better.” (22.33)

Could be interpreted as slander, by someone who doesn’t know what slander is. Note I did not make a false or malicious claim about the SWP themselves, I expressed an opinion, albeit a bitchy one, about the conduct of certain people from the SWP at the event. The grown-up/obnoxious dichotomy (which, arguably, I fell on the latter side of with certain comments here) is also an opinion, though if anyone could claim slander it’s the people who organised the silent protest as (in retrospect) I did make a claim to understand their thinking.

And onto the juicy bits.

16-09-2010 22.39
“The SWP are the Socialist Workers Party (a national party, perhaps better known as People Before Profit and the Right To Work Campaign).”

No issue taken with claiming the SWP are better known as People before Profit, ok. Issue taken with claiming the SWP are also better known as the Right to Work campaign. Actually, I can’t see what the issue is here at all, I didn’t intend to give a comprehensive summary of SWP and Right to Work history, I just gave two examples of things the SWP might be better known for, for the benefit of someone who didn’t know who you were.

In any case – methinks perhaps the gentleman doth protest too much. Before your SWP days you said yourself that you thought the Right to Work campaign was basically an attempt to launch James O’Toole as a public figure. You also said that the latest Right to Work event was basically a flop numberswise (though you did say you got a good few new names for your mailing list), partially because the festival set-up discouraged older people from attending, and partially because the SWP hadn’t worked enough with other groups in the run-up to the event. So if I misrepresented the SWP, it was primarily because you misrepresented them to me in the first place.

But strangely enough, I can quote links too. Here, from your own SWP website is an article about the second right to work campaign protest:

http://www.swp.ie/news/thousands-tell-cowen-he-has-got-go/3261

Please note the caption of the video down the bottom (the bold font is my emphasis):
“Video by Paurig Gibbons of speeches at the Dail by Anne Moore whose family was evicted in Dun Laoghaire last week, Richard Boyd Barrett of the People Before Profit Alliance and James O'Toole of te Right to Work Campaign--more video coverage later so chec back”

No credit given to the Ballymun Unemployed Action Group et al. there, oddly enough. It’s merely James O’Toole of the Right to Work campaign. James O'Toole being, of course, one of the glorious leaders of the SWP.

“A lot of people on the left dislike them, for whatever reason. I think it's because they tend to turn up at protests and mass leaflet, almost like they're pretending they organised the whole thing”

The example which sprung to mind here was actually the same protest you feel Labour Youth tried to hijack – the march/protest in support of the striking lecturers. I distinctly recall the SWP turning up and distributing leaflets (my first encounter with them), as they have done at many demonstrations I’ve attended in the last couple of years.
Fair enough that the SWP didn’t hand any out on Thursday, but as you said yourself you wrote the leaflets which were distributed for FEE, and you’re a member of the SWP, so...

While we’re straightening out facts, I think the LY hijacking you might be referring to was actually just a badly captioned photo of Labour Youth, which said it was a picture of them marching to deliver the Bertie petition when it was actually of them on the striking lecturer’s support protest. Aidan had the link posted on his facebook didn’t he? It wasn’t NUIM LY which captioned that, it was some other LY person who made a mistake.

As for this gem:
“It was not until key figures within the Labour milieu saw a relationship with FEE as being personally advantageous that they decided to engage with us.”

While you are right about the relationship between LY and FEE being advantageous (I remember wondering why Aengus was handing over the petition on the day, as that was the first I personally had seen or heard of him), I genuinely don’t think that their motives were as Machiavellian as you would have us believe. Also, it was advantageous for both LY and FEE as on a personal level members of LY supported Hassan’s motion to sign the boycott, divest and sanction Israel document in UC last year, and also attended FEE meetings.

As for rejoining USI being a FEE initiative, I never said otherwise.

On a different point, as I recall that Nov 24th protest was organised via facebook. Unless you’re saying that striking in favour of the lecturers instead of crossing the picket line is not worthwhile, which I’m sure you aren’t, it does kind of fly in the face of your statement that as “anyone with any experience is aware, you cant build anything worthwhile over facebook”.

Incidentally, would you really disagree that a lot of people on the left dislike the SWP for whatever reason? (Neo-)Marxist ideology and differing tactics puts you/them in conflict with the SP Trots, the WSM anarchists, RAG anarcha-feminists, Gluaiseacht eco-anarchists and Labour social democrats/left-leaning liberals, among a myriad of other left factions. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f*cking Judean People's Front, and so forth.

I don’t disagree with the point that choosing a silent protest was probably a crowd control measure. I do however think the SU organising even a silent protest is a step-up on the Henry Durka days when the SU reps met then Minister for Education Batt O’Keeffe privately on campus, without letting anyone know beforehand that he’d be there, and on the Brian Murphy days when the exec took a 'neutral' stance on the staff strike. There’s still room for improvement, no doubt. But first there needs to be a discussion of Thursday's protest with everyone who was involved and everyone who is likely to be involved in similar events in the future. And like I suggested:

“If there's one thing I think the SU should probably do, it's sit down with the various parties involved (to discuss the protest)... during the semester, a Union Council should be called to discuss protests/actions before they take place so there is at least some sort of working consensus between everyone who attends.” (22.33)

I would revise that last bit actually, to a Union General meeting rather than just a Union Council meeting.

Anyway, evidence of slander against the SWP? None on my part that I can see.

Ataxia

Ciara, while I would agree with much of your criticism of the SWP's methods in general, I actually think the SWP behaved quite well on Thursday. They didn't leaflet - the only leaflet handed out was a FEE leaflet which was discussed and approved among FEE (written mainly by Ian, designed by me and printed by Paudi to be precise).

I would also point out that many of those who were SWP were also members of FEE, and students of NUIM, or if not, they were students of other universities who came to support our protest, and in particular, FEE's part in it. (People, quite rightly, had no problem with the likes of Chris Bond of LY coming from outside to support the demo.)

I don't really see the point of attacking the SWP here. All it serves to do is to characterise all of us on the left who attended the protest as a bunch of outsiders from a shady Trotskyist organisation who came to cause trouble and hijack the demo.

banquo

SWP? Hijack a demo?

I jest... Though I do believe this thread has run it's course. Protest is over, what's done is done and alll relevant opinions have been voiced now.

(ps: sorry, don't mean to be backseat modding)

squishykins

By the way banquo, loved the outfit :P

biomed32

ok, to start off im not here to piss anyone off but to merely state what i feel.

My first point refers to the student fees and that of the regrestration fee in maynooth. I personally dont qualify for a grant as my parents earn enough money which prevents this and fortunatly for me they paid my rising fee for the 4 years i attended college while i held a part time weekend job that paid for travel, labs, books (science books aint cheap!!) food which i can tell you now amounts to way more then the fee itself. i understand peoples frustrations with the rising fees but people do and dont get grants and still have enough for the week long sessions of drinking in either the town or the SU itself. As stated in the thread, other countries have way higher costs and as also stated i feel that the government needs to organise and manage things much better then they currently do.

on the su:
after 4 years attending maynooth I now feel that there is finally a competant SU in power, particularly after last years SU which i found to be woefully ineffective and inactive, with the main achievement i found to be the joining of the SU to USI.

the protest:
I was on campus on the day of the protest and saw the group walking to the new iontas building. I personally thought it was a very good turn out as it can still be defined as the summer holidays, colleges arn't back to full capacity yet, people are working and others are on holiday or have moved from the country alltogether. I found the protest very dignified. I find that actions speak louder then words and in this case i am referring to the silence. I believe this fostered an environment that allowed the minister to approach the crowd and listen to the points that were made to the president of the SU, Aengus. i believe that a group or a croud of shouting and chanting individuals does not achieve this and would more then likely be ignored, at least i would.

on the issue of FEE and SWP:
This was a protest organised by the SU and not by FEE or SWP as far as I know, they just joined in with their own ideals. Personally I believe the rules of the organising body of the protest should be followed and in this case i believe FEE and SWP should have respected this by not shouting especially when Aengus was making his 4 points to the minister: http://www.facebook.com/#!/video/video.php?v=431833754295&ref=mf
as i have stated previously i believe a person is more likely to listen and respect you and hear and take on board what you have to say if you approach them in a dignified mannor, in this case no shouting or chanting. we are supposed to be third level students, the future to our economy, mature, respectful and grown up

my final point would be to agree with the suggesstion of CnaG in that the various parties involved should get together and discuss matters. A united front is better then one that shows dis-unity and i feel that much can be achieved if all involved were on the same page, butting into a protest is not an example of this

synd

The SWP were shouting. Among others. But the SWP in the main. This is what I was told when I made it to campus at 1 o’clock that day. Is it slanderous to say they were shouting, when it was true?

To re-iterate, everyone in FEE was chanting/shouting (no ifs, no buts no education cuts). Not just the SWP who only made up for about half of the FEE turnout. Together with the mature students, a decent contingent of what had become a much smaller protest by around 12.30 where chanting.

However, that's not what my comment was directed towards. It was in response to this nonsense

''I think it's because they tend to turn up at protests and mass leaflet, almost like they're pretending they organised the whole thing''

I was clarifying that the SWP did not leaflet the event, as anyone not present could easily misinterpret the above comment as implying. The leaflets being distributed at the protest (and around campus in general) where part of a FEE initiative. It had been decided between FEE prior to the event to draw up a leaflet and distribute around 200, saving the rest for Clubs/Socs day.

“I think the rationale was that a wall of silent students would be more dignified and come across more grown-up than being obnoxious would...”

I think this gives us a real insight into your politics. If shouting/chanting are ''obnoxious'' then this renders the vast majority of protests obnoxious/not grown up. On the other hand, having a quiet chat with a member of FF on the understanding that your grievances will be taken seriously, belies a childish naivety. Perhaps this is why many of the ''mature students'' where chanting with us & fair play to them.

“I think the SWP could have picked their time and place to make a show of themselves better.”

Sure, this wasn't supposed to be an insult. FEE/SWP chanting is no less (making a show of themselves) than the disgraceful behaviour of certain exec members. One, telling a group of mature students to ''shut up'', another threatening to have an SWP member removed from campus (by security) on account of her conveying the opinion that students should be allowed to chant if they so decided.

Before your SWP days you said yourself that you thought the Right to Work campaign was basically an attempt to launch James O’Toole as a public figure.

The tacit dishonestly here is unreal. What I actually said was that O'Toole was becoming known as a public figure through RTW. My first experience with the RTW was a discussion with Michael Taft at the first event, where he was giving me a rundown on the coalition (being a member of UNITE, the sponsor of RTW) ect.

You also said that the latest Right to Work event was basically a flop numberswise (though you did say you got a good few new names for your mailing list), partially because the festival set-up discouraged older people from attending, and partially because the SWP hadn’t worked enough with other groups in the run-up to the event.

The first few RTW protests where successful. The last few where total flops, for numerous reasons. I don't think anyone in the SWP would argue any differently, anyone present at the last event would know how poor the turnout was. Live and learn.

No credit given to the Ballymun Unemployed Action Group et al. there, oddly enough. It’s merely James O’Toole of the Right to Work campaign

So the SWP projected it as their own event ? because their article clearly doesn't.

''Brendan Ogle from the UNITE union called for a broad alliance to drive the present government out of office.''

''Eugene McDonagh, a victimised trade unionist from Dublin Bus, described how he had been forced out of his job because he stood by his members in resisting cuts to the bus services''

''Therese Shallow told the crowd how the Crumlin hospital could be saved if a fraction of the money spent of the banks were spent on the health service.''

There where plenty of speakers beyond the SWP there that day, as the SWP article acknowledges. To reiterate, the RTW CC included members from the Labour Party, Sinn Fein, UNITE, INTO ect. To project it as an SWP organization is disingenuous.

James O'Toole being, of course, one of the glorious leaders of the SWP.

Glorious Leader, as in he was (elected) onto the CC ? a bit like Gilmore & Quinn without the interests in venture capital firms.

I distinctly recall the SWP turning up and distributing leaflets (my first encounter with them), as they have done at many demonstrations I’ve attended in the last couple of years.

Everyone on the left hands out party material at protests, its hardly an SWP specialty. With regards the picket, two SWP members where present and handed out a few leaflets, there where no banners ect. Contrast this with Labour who actually brought out a Counselor for photo-ops ect.

Fair enough that the SWP didn’t hand any out on Thursday, but as you said yourself you wrote the leaflets which were distributed for FEE, and you’re a member of the SWP, so

I was handing out FEE leaflets in my capacity as a FEE member, feel free to have Padraig (who edited them) or Aidean (who did the design) send you a few.

While we’re straightening out facts, I think the LY hijacking you might be referring to was actually just a badly captioned photo of Labour Youth, - it was some other LY person who made a mistake.

A picture of them (with their banner out) in front of about 30 people marching, entitled (NUIM Labour protest Bertie Ahern). Granted, it doesn't say they organized it, but a picture speaks a thousand words.

While you are right about the relationship between LY and FEE being advantageous (I remember wondering why Aengus was handing over the petition on the day, as that was the first I personally had seen or heard of him),

FEE had met with Labour members earlier in the year, i was at the meeting and they took a negative line on the issue of co-operation which we where actually pushing. One member commenting that he ''would not touch our tactics with a barge pole''. This actually deviated from LY's wider position, LY had been involved with FEE to some extent in other universities. Fair play to those who had been involved, esp in the UCD. Within the context of NUIM however, Labour Youth (who are actually quite small on campus) only bothered to affiliate once they saw our capacity to mobilize/organize.

Also, it was advantageous for both LY and FEE as on a personal level members of LY supported Hassan’s motion to sign the boycott, divest and sanction Israel document in UC last year, and also attended FEE meetings.

That was an IPSC initiative, which Hassan decided to bring up. FEE received no notification about it, but decided to get behind it (at the last minute) as did Labour Youth. Moreover, the amount of time and energy spent on UC tends to detract from recruitment/organization, FEE's membership began to decline when we moved towards UC involvement and away from grassroots organization/calling meetings ect.

On a different point, as I recall that Nov 24th protest was organised via facebook.

FEE had postered/leafleted and made phone calls for days in advance of that protest. We actually organized a public meeting in Maynooth before hand, encouraging people to come along. It wasn't a ''facebook event''. Consequently the turnout was quite successful.

Incidentally, would you really disagree that a lot of people on the left dislike the SWP for whatever reason? (Neo-)Marxist ideology and differing tactics puts you/them in conflict with the SP Trots, the WSM anarchists, RAG anarcha-feminists, Gluaiseacht eco-anarchists and Labour social democrats/left-leaning liberals, among a myriad of other left factions.

I think your overstating the tension, which doesn't do anyone any good. The SWP have ideological differences with the WSM ect. The WSM's critique of the SP is much the same as the one they extend towards the SWP. However there is co-operation through the anti-capitalist left. There will be an alliance between the SWP-SP in the next general election. The WSM on the other hand are now involved in the 1% initiative, a broad coalition including Erigi/RAG/ISN/Seomra Collective ect.

These are steps in the right direction, considering the left needs to unify/co-operate against both the current cuts & the ones that Fine Gael & Labour (the party you work for) hope to push through when they get into power. So while Labour currently project themselves as the party of the left, they have already committed themselves to pushing through the same neo-liberal cutbacks they protest against in order to gain members.

This is something students should understand about the labour party, and why they should move to get involved with genuine left wing organizations.

I do however think the SU organising even a silent protest is a step-up on the Henry Durka days when the SU reps met then Minister for Education Batt O’Keeffe privately on campus, without letting anyone know beforehand that he’d be there,

I agree entirely, this is FEE's position. Fair play to the exec for not being as conservative as their predecessors. In any case, there needs to be unification on the left through various campus's, not just in opposition the current range of austerity measures but also against what Labour/Fine Gael have lined up down the road. Fine Gael for example have proposed tax would see the average graduate incur a debt of €12,000. While Labour (the party that CnaG works for) have committed themselves to cutting wages & privatizing public assets through PFI schemes.

Ataxia

Perhaps the SU should have sought the views of FEE in advance, given that we're the body on campus with most experience of organising mass demonstrations. As it was, we were not consulted, our views were not sought, we mere merely issued a fait accompli that there would be a silent protest and we would have to keep quiet. I see no reason why we should follow orders when we were not involved in the decision-making.

biomed32

Ataxia wrote: »

Perhaps the SU should have sought the views of FEE in advance, given that we're the body on campus with most experience of organising mass demonstrations. As it was, we were not consulted, our views were not sought, we mere merely issued a fait accompli that there would be a silent protest and we would have to keep quiet. I see no reason why we should follow orders when we were not involved in the decision-making.

generally its best to follow what the organising comittee have decided. it is after all their protest!!

Ataxia

biomed32 wrote: »

generally its best to follow what the organising comittee have decided. it is after all their protest!!

It was our protest as Maynooth students, not the exec's. They work for us, not the other way round.

biomed32

Ataxia wrote: »

It was our protest as Maynooth students, not the exec's. They work for us, not the other way round.

but they are the organising body of the protest and are doing it for the students with the participation of the students, i was more so referring to FEE and SWP gate crashing the protest

CnaG

Two things. Firstly, I happen to have a good memory for detail of conversations and I was not being dishonest (tactically or otherwise) with regards to what Ian said about the right to work campaign and James O'Toole. As it's my word against yours though Ian, I guess anyone who took the time to read through my essay and your novelette will have to give one, other or neither of us the benefit of the doubt.

Secondly, I do not work for the Labour Party. I intern one to two days a week with a Senator who happens to be from the Labour party. A small distinction perhaps, but an important one which Ian, since I told him about it in June, has spectacularly failed to grasp. It is an unpaid internship which, with nothing much else planned for the summer, I undertook primarily for the experience of the research. I am not a member of the Labour Party, nor of Labour Youth and I have no immediate plans to join any political party because I don't believe any of them represent my views. Just to set the record straight.

With regards to the protest I have said all I have to say, and do not intend to post again on this thread.*I don't see the point in responding to someone who doesn't want to listen, just to shoot people down.

synd

As it's my word against yours though Ian, I guess anyone who took the time to read through my essay and your novelette will have to give one, other or neither of us the benefit of the doubt.

Oh give it a rest. There's a huge difference between saying someone is becoming well known through RTW and saying that the RTW was an elaborate plot designed to make them famous.

Secondly, I do not work for the Labour Party. I intern one to two days a week with a Senator who happens to be from the Labour party.

Ergo, you work for the Labour Party. You might not be on the pay role but you do work for them. Unpaid labour is still work, something you would probably agree with. I personally wouldn't work for Labour if they paid me millions, never mind do it for free. Anyway, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I don't see the point in responding to someone who doesn't want to listen, just to shoot people down.

Im willing to listen, but il shoot down nonsense when i hear it. Nonsense in this case being the idea that a ''quiet chat'' with a Fianna Fail minister is going to achieve anything. As Ataxia already pointed out, it just makes students look naive. The sensible thing to do given the current climate is to treat the government with the same contempt & disrespect they extend to ordinary people. The idea that we should treat these people with reverence is masochistic.

biomed32

synd, i hate to point it out but you are attacking one person only and that is CnaG and you dont appear to be properaly acknowledging the material given

funky penguin

Lets leave this be.

Mainly because I'm too busy to read it all. If I get a chance to I might, and then perhaps it'll be unlocked.

As is........go play with the new first years or something.