Report on SWP bin tax rally

by Janus Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:43

Two points, first of all, I think there is an obvious contradiction between stopping bin trucks when they are willing to collect everyone's waste and building support in the community.

People can be convinced to support their neighbours when those people are not getting their rubbish collected, being told they can't have their bins collected even when the workers want to and can do so, isn't going to win you support.

I was chatting to a comrade over the weekend who has a relative working in one of the Bin Depots in administration. On the day of one of the blocakdes he got a load of angry calls from people asking why the rubbish wasn't being collected. Many of them attacked him for refusing to collect everyone's rubbish.

His response was that he, and the drivers, were willing and able to collecte everyone's rubbish. So why are the protestors picketing you then? was the response. And frankly, he couldn't really explain it to them.

Even if you have the best arguments in the world why no-one can have their rubbish collected when the Council is prepared to collect it all. Even if you have a cast iron gurantee that you can convince everyone of the merits of your arguments, the campaign does not have the ability to make this case to every householder in Dublin. Many people are going to be wondering why you are preventing the Council and bin workers from collecting everyone's rubbish.

I have no problem, and have taken part in, blockades of trucks when they refuse to collect everyone's rubbish. When they are willing to collect everyone's rubbish, I think it's ridiculous and only loses the campaign support in communities. It undermines and weakens the arguments, gives the media another stick to beat us with and puts activists at risk of jail time.

I realise this is a minority view on Indymedia and most people think you're not a real revolutionary until you prevent every householder in Dublin from getting their bins collected when the Council is prepared to collect them.

I will agree with one of your final points, Rory's bizarre comment about the 'old left' (Usually SWP code for the Sticks I thought), about the SWP being 'nicey-nicey' (As in threatening and intimidating Des Derwin?) and how 'things have changed'. Certainly Rory seems to be a couple of steps outside of the real world, hardly a unique position for a member of the SWP in fairness.

All in all, fair play to Brian for attending an SWP meeting for Indymedia. Rather you than I comrade.

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Fri Oct 31, 2003 12:18

Janus:
"I have no problem, and have taken part in, blockades of trucks when they refuse to collect everyone's rubbish. When they are willing to collect everyone's rubbish, I think it's ridiculous and only loses the campaign support in communities. It undermines and weakens the arguments, gives the media another stick to beat us with and puts activists at risk of jail time."

me: The problem is that your argument is quite a good one in theory and in different circumstances (notably a fighting trade union movement) one I could support.

In practise what has happened at this stage is that since the depot blockades (when several workers refused to even mount their trucks) the workers have been more or less instructed by their officials to do what they are told and that there will be no support forth coming from SIPTU or IMPACT.

I STRONGLY AGREE that where the bin men are willing to collect all bins they should be suported in every way possible - this never happened in Fingal and unfortunately is begining to be less likely every where else at this stage

I think that they are still very sympathetic to us but they were placed in a no win situation and WHEN they are instructed not to collect, accompanied by an engineer and IF they see no counter demos/blockades or even meet and greet they won't collect - simple.

The council's technique is salami slicing.
First non collection was implemented one council area at a time eg Fingal, then the City, then South, then Dun Laoghaire.

Further WITHIN these areas they are further sub divided so that the middle class/private areas are picked off first.

If we sit and wait in the "strong areas" and let other people be picked off bit by bit and do not respond as a campaign then non payment will collapse and we will lose.
Certain people I fear are well aware of this and are already looking for the exit strategy that leaves them a council seat at the end of it all.

Bully for them !

Unfortunately for those of us with big bills and uncollected bins who have fought to build the camapign for 4 years its a case of "your prejudice won't keep me warm tonight" to quote the great bard (Morrisey that is)

In fact, to be honest, I think the coucils have played a masterful game. In Dun Laoghaire the SWP and SF who practically "own" the campaign have played right into their hands at every turn. Even now I'm being told EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NON COLECTION - there is only the "will to fight in some areas"
In which case whats the point of a campaign at all ?????

To be honest its not a matter of who has the "majority view" on indymedia (whats that worth exactly!) its building a united Dublin wide campaign to resist non collection.
In this regard the campaign(s) have been an abject failures.

Anyway Janus - well done on presenting your view(which is a legitimate one) in a well argued and comradely fashion and there's mine!

Conor

by Joe Fri Oct 31, 2003 12:42

First of all I'd acknowledge that the nature of non-collection is designed to stir up tensions between people who have paid and those who have not. It's not like the water charges where physically stopping a disconnection did not lead to people down the street who had paid losing their water supply.

But lets look at the strategy actually followed in the city area rather then the SWP picture of that strategy. When non-collection was started in Fingal the Fingal reps (who happened to be SP members) assured the city campaign that they could deal with it and that it was not even necessary for city activists to go out in support. Some of us wanted to do so anyway but phone calls requesting locations of blockades were not returned. Obviously the leadership of the Fingal campaign made a serious error here but that's a story for another day.

What did happen in the city area were 'solidarity blockades'. This consisted of stopping trucks for a couple of hours, normally in the early morning. The SWP refused to support these blockades despite the fact that these trucks then did their normal run.

So the SWP and Janus's argument against solidarity blockades is based on a false premise - that they would result in bins not being collected. They didn't.

The first real disruption to the service came not from the city campaign but from the council when it started to implement non-collection in parts of the southside. In response to this the campaigns blockaded all the depots for two days resulting in no bins at all being collected. This seems to have brought further expansion of non-collection to a halt in the city area at least, for the moment.

What was the alternative (because we need an alternative).

We could have done nothing - this would have not only left those in the areas where non-collection was happening isolated, it would have meant non-payers elsewhere deciding we had been defeated and paying up. Just look at the triumphalism here from various council lackeys in the period between the defeat of the Fingal blockades + introduction of non-collection in the city and the depot blockades. And look at the way they vanished after the depot blockades.

We could have tried to bus activists into the areas where non-collection was happening and block individual trucks. This was what happened in Fingal and it allowed the Joe Duffy show to make hay from angry payers ringing in to say 'all this trouble is caused by outsiders'. It's also much easier to get someone in Cabra to go 1km or less to Grangegorman then it is to get them to go across the city to Ballsbridge.

The simple fact is that in some areas of the city the campaign is weak or non-existant. The council know this both from non-payment figures and from the fact that Finna Fail councillers have been lurking at the back of many local meetings or are simply aware that no such meeting has taken place in a given area.

So the council strategy in the city is openly one of 'salami tactics'. This is the idea that eating a salami in one mouthful is an impossible task. But cutting off and eating small pieces one after the other is quite possible.

They have made no secret that their plan is the introduction of non-collection area by area and unless you think they are idiots its no surprize that they pick weak areas first. By doing this they obviously hope to get non-payment down to a much lower percentage and thus isolate the strong areas from any public sympathy.

By the way the SWP claim that the blockades are alientaing bin workers in the city areas is bizarre. For obvious reasons I can't go into details as to why this is the case but almost anyone who has been on any blockade on the north side of the city would laugh at that suggestion. I will say the solidarity of the bin workers towards the blockaders has been great, and it has included brief wildcat strikes and the refusal to set people up for the cops.

Overall I'm not inclined to accept the SWP's excuse and would be rather cynical of what they are actually up to. All the more so because senior SWP members in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown have told acticists in areas where non-collection has started there that they are 'on their own'.

Janus however is pointing to a real enough problem, one that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand simply because the SWP are using is as an excuse. Is there a soloution to it, given that we can't simply wait for non-collection to start on our street.

One alternative has already been demonstrated. That is instead of trying to blockade the residential rubbish collections we blockade the city centre commercial rubbish collections. These are evening runs that take place after most if not all of the residential collections have taken place.

One of the two depots involved is Grangegorman and we have already succesfully blockaded evening runs from this depot twice. Being in the evening it also means its a lot easier for people to take part in them. And having a crowd of 60 to 120 doing a blockade reduces the ease of state intervention. On the first blockade the injunction was read out but no-one had their name taken, on the second they didn't even read it out. When they did want to bring a truck out to dismante a dangerous bonfire they approached the blockade and negotiated this with us, promising that it would not be used for anything else.

Of course such blockades need to be properly organised at more then one depot. The problem to date has been that other forces within the campaign have argued against and even sabotaged this happening. The details I'll save until after the campaign is over.

Blockading the commerical run has one obvious benefit, it does not piss off householders. A second though is that these runs are an important income source for the council. A third is that while the governement has proved happy to ignore rubbish piling up in Mulhuddurt it can't do the same if rubbish piles up in Grafton street. Commercial blockades can't win the campaign for us but properly planned and co-ordinated they are a way to massivly increase the pressure on the council.

In any case it's obvious that any further escalation of non-collection by the council will have to be met with general depot blockades. Otherwise its all over in terms of co-ordination and all that remains is a street by street fight as non-collection spreads from area to area. Janus if you have an alternative I for one would be very interested to hear it - maybe there is something no one has thought of yet.

by SWP=labour Fri Oct 31, 2003 13:02

The SWP have been actively trying to sabbotage blockades and action that they do not agree with when they are decided by a majority of those at meetings. At no public meeting that I have been at have the SWP won an argument against blockades.

They are the absolutly correct tactic. If it was not for the blockades that took place in Fingal in the first week, the bin tax campaign would have been all over at this stage.

All the SWP are interested in is trying to get votes for their candidates in the upcoming elections.

Genuine people in the campaing have been way to tolerant of the SWP, it's time to take the gloves off, get them out of the leadership and expose them for what they are.

by protester Fri Oct 31, 2003 13:05

What the fuck are the SWP on about the blockades not having support from bin workers? This is bollocks. I was at Collin's Ave depot yesterday and the bin men applauded and waved to the protesters as they left the depot. The bin men know that if the bin tax comes in fully it will be the first step towards privitisation and support the campaign.The SWP are completely out of touch. Maybe they should actually spend some time at the depot blockades instead of trying to wreck any community action they can.

by Brian Fri Oct 31, 2003 13:30

I'm glad you liked the article Janus. I tried to leave my own views out of it as much as possible and just report what was said at the meeting.

A wider points:

I completely disagree with the SWP's argument and your echo of it. It's very simple really. If we sit back in some strong areas then we gradually let the Councils crush non-payment in the rest of the city. That will have a hugely damaging effect on morale in even those bits of the city they initially stay out of. Then they will take on the strong areas one by one and destroy the campaign.

We are therefore left with two choices. We can do what the SWP and (to the extent that they are involved) SF argue for and follow the Council's game plan, slowly but inexorably lose but maybe pick up more Council seats. Alternatively we can fight on a city-wide basis and actually try to win.

There is no third option.

by Sweet Caroline Fri Oct 31, 2003 13:45

The SWP are sabotaging the anti bin tax camapign. They are not in the leadership because they have not done any serious work on the issue over the years and their flitting from issue to issue. NOw that the SP and others such as the ISN have put forward the correct tactic they are unhappy.

The SP's bin tax rally had 450-500 at it and people had to be turned away at the door. The SWP only mustered 55-60. That is confirmation that the SWP represent nothing in the workers movement. At no point did the SWP win the arguement about not having blockades, instead they have sabotaged the camapigns where the decision was made to blockade.

It now looks like the SWP are dropping all their talk about 'left unity' that was evident since the last general election. We're now seeing the old sectarian face of the SWP emerge. Some on the left are too tolerant of these people- they should be exposed and sidelined. Don't work with the SWP!

by E - SWP Fri Oct 31, 2003 14:51

Brian, I was at that meeting and at no time did you express your opinions on what was being said. You didn't indicate that you wanted to make a contribution to the meeting but were writing down everything that was discussed, or your interpretation of it. I’ve never seen a guy write so fast in my life, it was like watching someone in the Leaving Cert writing their hearts out to get that final question answered :)

You chose to post your disagreements with our thinking of where the campaign is at the moment here, that is your choice. No problems at all on that. But you could have just as easily stated your disagreements in front of the meeting and our members there. We could then have a better discussion between members of 2 parties involved in this campaign, do you not think? Or did you think it was pointless somehow? It was an open meeting, the meeting chair would not of ignored you if you had indicated or did you think the chair would do that on purpose?

In fact I was waiting for you to contribute because I know your opinions, especially when contrasted with your feelings as you expressed them in the activist meeting in the Goat pub (southside Dublin) the night before. Basically I was very surprised you didn’t as you are a leading activist within your party. We both know each other well anyway Brian.

I would do the same if I were to be at a SP meeting if I thought I could contribute something to the meetings discussion. Of course at the end of the day the decision was yours. Someone out there will definitely cut me down for saying that.

Of the issue of blockades is a tactic and shouldn’t be seen as a principle (I’ll be cut to bits for saying that, what the hell). I don’t want to repeat all the arguments back and forth over the last 2 months or so. Let’s not forgot the real strength of the many campaigns, the levels of non-payment across the city. I don’t mean to patronize anyone by saying that OK. Of course Fingal than to blockade first when non-collection was attempted there, what else could the Fingal campaign do? Of course they gave us all breathing space in those first few days to get ALL our acts together wherever the campaigns were based. We are ready to come out if non-collections are attempted in the areas that we are organising in, please don’t misunderstand me here. Some of us are fully prepared to be arrested etc, I cant because of the area I work in and neither can Brian because of his college studies. Each campaign looks at what the real situation is and they made decisions accordingly. That is all I can honestly say here based on what I have helped with in Dun-Laoighaire/Rathdown.

Yes I think the campaign organization has to maintained and strengthened in the areas that we are strong and more people (not just the Left in its many manifestations) have to be involved. I know people are going to be cynical to everything I am saying, seeing it as SWP spin etc.

That’s my feelings on the issue at the moment.

by blockader Fri Oct 31, 2003 14:56

Joe, I don't think that the Fingal campaign made a mistake in terms of what they asked for from activists elsewhere in the city.

They felt that the success or failure of blockades in Fingal would depend on the response of local people in their estates and not on how many activists could be brought in from elsewhere. The Fingal campaign managed to mount a ludicrous number blockades in the first few weeks. In retrospect the amount of blockades that were being mounted every single day is nothing short of incredible. And as someone said above if that hadn't happened then the issue could have been finished in a week. Bringing in some more hardcore activists from the other areas wouldn't have made much difference to that and nor could it have sustained that level of blockade activity indefinitely.

The Fingal campaign argued from the start that the most helpful thing that the other campaigns and in particular the city campaign could do was to spread the struggle by taking meaningful solidarity action in their own areas. That was true eight weeks ago and it remains true now.

That brings me on to something I completely agree with you on. One area can't win this battle on its own now any more than it could then. By appealing to a misplaced localism the SWP risk doing serious damage to the campaign's chances of actually winning. If Fingal couldn't win on its own we can be damn sure that Ringsend can't either!

If the SWP can only get fifty something to its bin tax rally then we can take it that they haven't been winning any arguments on this. They could still try their old meeting packing tricks and fuck things up that way. The stuff about delegate meetings mentioned in the report sounds ominous coming from them, although the idea isn't a terrible one in and of itself. If such meetings take place, what are the odds on a whole series of areas that have no campaign or a barely existing campaign appearing to "elect" SWP members to represent them?

by Brian Fri Oct 31, 2003 15:15

Hi E.

I have no doubt that I would have been let in by the chair. I didn't speak at the meeting because I honestly didn't think that there was much point in doing so under the circumstances, given the composition of the meeting. Perhaps I should have spoken and if the profile of the meeting had been more like that in the similar sized meeting in the Goat I would have done.

I was there to listen to what the SWP had to say when you had a platform to yourselves. I wrote down what speakers were saying because I wanted to make absolutely sure that I wouldn't misrepresent the arguments made. There can be a lot of half-truths about each other floating around the left sometimes and I didn't want to add to the confusion by mixing in my assumptions with my memories.

I don't think that the report I posted was particularly unfair, do you?

My views on what should be done are well known and publically expressed often enough. I don't think that Indymedia is a perfect forum for these kind of debates... but neither is a room containing most of the Dublin SWP and one member of the Socialist Party...

by E - SWP Fri Oct 31, 2003 15:49

..I didnt want this to drag on with 50+ contributions. I accept that you had been listening carefully to what was being said and chose not to speak. I accept that my attempt at contrasting your decision to speak at the meeting in the Goat and the SWP one the night afterwards was stretching the point a bit too much on reflection. They were not the same meetings and so a attempt at a direct parallel being the two is was mistaken by me somewhat.

Yes it was a fair enough representation of what we think coming from a comrade in a sister party based on the evidence that was at hand. I think we can hopefully leave it at that and talk face to face if we wish.

Regards

E

by fred - . Fri Oct 31, 2003 15:51

" Some of us wanted to do so anyway but phone calls requesting locations of blockades were not returned."

this is a little unfair, when the bin lorry blockades began we didn't actually know where they were. And I do remeber even on the first day of blockades 3 members of the ISN coming to a blockade in Lohunda, also I remeber a comrade from rathmines being there, who incidently was complained about on the Joe Duffy show for not being from the area. If phone calls weren't returned sorry but 8 trucks or more a day were being tracked with people driving round after them and it was a little messy. But people from other parts of the city did make it out.

by James Fri Oct 31, 2003 16:07

As Brian pointed out there is no contradiction between building community support and having blockades. They should be able to feed off each other.

Somebody has to be the first in an area to propose at a local meeting that blockades are an effective tactic and basically argue the case. Support may or may not be forthcoming, but you don’t know till you try. Waiting for the Councils to go on the offensive is reactive rather than proactive.

What is of limited effectiveness in my opinion, is isolated blockades. So if one small area blocks bin collection but the rest of the city is operating as normal then, the pressure on the Council is very limited, and the area has to put up with uncollected rubbish. Lots of pain, small gain. Residents are likely to see this too and may end up just paying as there is no reasonable prospect of victory while they are on their own.

However, co-ordinated blockades which prevent rubbish collection across the city does put the Council under pressure and are worth doing.

So we should be looking to co-ordinate disruption so that the Council can feel the pressure. To echo Joe, the commercial collection seems a good place to start. for the reasons he outlined. Also, it’d be practice at co-ordinating!!; if we can’t co-ordinate demos at the 4 or 5 depots, then it’ll be hard to do so in all the estates.

A simple start to co-ordinating protests – whether aimed at commercial or household collection - would be for the groups (including political parties) to proceed with agreed decisions. So if it is agreed by an activist meeting to picket at the four city depots, then we should all build for it, and not just pay lip service to it, as seems to have been the case for this week’s demos. And we should be reluctant change the form and day of the protest at short notice.

If we are to go to the communities with credibility we can’t call them out repeatedly for what are likely to be poorly attended protests (because activists haven’t built for them despite agreeing to them). Support will just melt away. As it is, momentum is slipping in my own area, I think, compared to September and early October when we were able to involve lots of people.

Better to build from the ground up and to co-ordinate area by area than to rely on a central campaign committee to make decisions which can appear arbitrary at times (i.e. protests called and cancelled by god knows who) and alienating. I suppose as anarchists we’d have our long-term goals as well as aiming for what would be a confidence boosting victory. It isn’t building support for elections or getting new members: it’s to increase the involvement of previously often isolated people in community politics. It’s hard to do this when orders appear to be coming down from on high.

by Anonymous Fri Oct 31, 2003 16:16

Congrats to Brian & E for trying to come to an understaning of eachothers viewpoints here.

Thanks too for the report Brian and for trying to come to an understanding of the position of the Swp.

by sean - SWP Fri Oct 31, 2003 17:54

I think it is unfair to say we have no grounding in working class communities, the Socialist Party uses obvious dirty tactics to gain membership, look at some of its members, like the crown from UCD, dictatorship as it is there and then look at their meetings, same guy every week talking at bin tax rallies.

We have taken a lot of shit lately unjustly, it is the SP who have hijacked this campaign from the rest of the left/

by barmitzvah Fri Oct 31, 2003 18:02

Can someone explain to me why privatisation of bin collection is a bad thing?

by George Fri Oct 31, 2003 18:04

Sean, could you please clarify a few things. What do you mean by 'the same guy speaking at bin tax rallies'? Who is this 'guy' that always at bin tax meetings! What do you mean by the 'crowd in ucd'. I think you learn a few lessons from the UCD SP members- in only a couple of years they play a leading role in a movement against fees and they win influence in the SU (something the SWSS never did in UCD)

You also accuse the SP of hijacking the camapign. In my local the SWP did no serious work on bin tax over the last number of years. Have you ever seriously gone door to door on the issue? have you built up the membership by going out into the estates? Have you done anything other then turn up to the odd bin tax meeting (the bigger ones usually) and sell the paper and sit at the top table. It's the SWP that are hijacking the bin tax camapign.

by Pearson68 - swp Fri Oct 31, 2003 19:12

George

How do you know the SWP DIDN'T GO round door to door to get members for the CASC, which was set up in December 1999 when DLR FIRST VOTED IN THESE CHARGES.

We did in Dun Laoire, Sallynoggin and Ballybrack asking people to pay £3-00 (SINCE Y2000). And we also made the point of working with the SP, ASK Lisa Maher. We also tried tried to work with both Lab and the Greens, (that's the United Front tactic , which I subscribe to) but ultimately they wouldn't support a campaign of non-payment.
I'm getting sick of this bickering amongst the left. I'll accept valid criticisms but not assumed truths.
FINALLY, IF PEOPLE JOIN the SP thru' this campaign, then I welcome that, it is not a threat to my politics. It is good for the Irish left in general. Lets look to Scotland!

Unite, stop the Fuss & Fight.

*I can only speak here from my own personal experience in this campaign, and therefore in a personal capacity.

Yours Fraternally
Mark

by bill Fri Oct 31, 2003 22:22

He's a troll stirring the pot.

by Anti war activist Fri Oct 31, 2003 23:41

This is quite an interesting thread to read with the Shannon anti war blockade looming. It seems that the SWP don't support that either. Perhaps they should just merge with the Labour Party; revolutionary rhetoric aside, they act just as conservatively as Rabbitte and co. Fair play to Joe Higgins and the Socialist Party for at least putting themselves in the firing line (and no, I'm not a member of the SP and I won't be joining them either!).

by Gemensam Sat Nov 01, 2003 02:34

"the Socialist Party uses obvious dirty tactics to gain membership, look at some of its members, like the crown [presume you mean crowd] from UCD"

What the hell are you talking about? Please make proper allegation instead of just throwing mud.

I am sure many many people could go into some detail about the antice the SWP have got up to in UCD over the past few years.

by defend public services Sat Nov 01, 2003 02:42

Privitisation will mean:
- Lay offs for bin men
- Attack on union rights for bin men, seen in refusal of Oxigen to recognise unions.
- Increased bin charges as in Sligo where they are now at €540 per year
- No waivers, again this has happened throughout the country
- Ineffeciencies as several companies collect waste, meaning the different bin days for each house on a street depending on their bin operator as well as ineffeciencies through having several depots. Basically, the bin service at the moment benefits from certain economies of scale and certain planning.
- No wish on behalf of private operator to encourage recycling, more waste for them means more profit.
-A small group of bandit business men will make a killing by getting a state owned asset that has been invested in and built up through public money

by Repeater Sat Nov 01, 2003 04:48

We can explain over and over why privatisation is a negative thing for society and for the workers most directly involved, but there will still be those who do not want to hear. They have bought into the "greed is good" ideology of privatisation as promoted by Thatcher in the eighties, even though they may publicly try to disassociate themselves from her.

by sean - swp Sat Nov 01, 2003 14:49

Bill I am a member of the SWP, dont just assume everything because it suits you. It is the SWP which does all the bin tax work, they do go door to door, they raise funds, we had a member in jail for gods sake for blocking the trucks. And the SWP hasnt done anything in UCD that brings it into disrepute unlike the SP which has sabatoged various campaigns of ours over the years hence their electoral success.

by Random Input Sat Nov 01, 2003 15:43

I really, really, really hope you are not a member of the SWP. As Alan Partridge once said, "I think you know you're wrong. I think you're shouting that out to have a bit of fun."

The SP's 'electoral success' as you call is down to sabotaging SWP campaigns? These would be the campiagns of the SWP in Fingal would they, where the SWP has about, um, 2 members?

One wonders if that's the offical line on the SP in the party now.

Come off it mate, quit trolling. It doesn't suit you.

by independent campaigner - non-party Sat Nov 01, 2003 16:47

"It is the SWP which does all the bin tax work, they do go door to door, they raise funds"

If I'm reading you correctly the SWP is doing door-to-door collections to raise funds, supposedly on behalf of the anti bintax campaign. So can they account for how much they have collected and can they show how that money has/is being spent?
Are they opposed to the blockades because that would mean they would have to spend less time collecting the money?

They certainly do NOT do "all the bin tax work", or even their fair share of it, or does paper selling count?

by sean - SWP - and proud Sat Nov 01, 2003 19:34

We dont need an offocial line to dislike the SP it comes naturally to me. Im sure the leaders have accounts of antibin tax money, personally I can account for all my paper sales this week.

If you guys are such hard workers why do you have no arguments against the SWP that could actually stand on two legs, idiots.

by Debate Coach Sat Nov 01, 2003 19:46

You issue a rebuttal, not a "rebuttle". Please carry on, it's very entertaining for Right of centre people like myself.

by E - SWP Sat Nov 01, 2003 21:42

..before this goes completely off the rails.

by sean - swp and proud! Sun Nov 02, 2003 01:34

E you act like you are one of them, shouldnt you show solidarity with your own, the Swp dont need a socialist bloc especially not with a cultish clique like the SP/

by sp member Sun Nov 02, 2003 02:53

looks like sean is a troll. sean you are right wing hack.

by Earth Citizen Sun Nov 02, 2003 15:20

The person posting here as Sean is not a member of any left-wing party, despite his claims to be a member of the SWP. It is quite likely that he is one of the same people who try to post holocaust denial stuff here.
He is just just a right-wing troll trying to exacerbate existing differences on the left.

by Joe - SWP Sun Nov 02, 2003 16:38

Sadly Sean is actually one of our members, he is only fifteen however and a bit of a internet freak. I am sorry for his actions but due to his tender years I am sure it can be excused.

Will have a word with him soon.

by SP member Sun Nov 02, 2003 17:22

If Sean is now a member of the SWP but is simply a bit of a gobshite I think we should accept the apology. But the whole thing raises serious questions about what the SWP tell their members regarding the true work in the bin tax campaign and the way in which they slander the SP to their new members. It is clear he is getting it from somewhere. Joe, could you please explain that?

by Anthony - IMC Editorial Team Sun Nov 02, 2003 17:43

Sean is VERY unlikely to be in the SWP. He has so far left two very abusive comments which were hidden for their abusive content. Just ignore anything he says.

by Joe - SWP Sun Nov 02, 2003 19:28

I'm not too sure why he has been told all of this or whether he is talking the usual banter between the SP and SWP a bit far. You know how people can be when surrounded by just their own members, I dont think he gets that we are joking.

by SWP member - SWP Sun Nov 02, 2003 20:23

Actually Sean is a young comrade of ours who has a bit of a loose mouth. I was told to come on here just to point out that although he is a little rough around the edges he is a nice guy and is only saying this to impress other members. He is 15 remember and as Joe said 'taking the banter a bit too far'.

by Eamonn C. - Indymedia Ireland Sun Nov 02, 2003 21:30

are impersonations by shitstirring troll who is sad enough to try to manufacture an argument amongst him(her)self. Go somewhere else and Get a fXXing life! Others please ignore.

by barmitzvah Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:04

Thanks "defend public services" for your reply. I have a few follow up questions below;

[and before I am 'flamed' I am a person who is trying to form an informed opinion by doing research]

- "Lay offs for bin men." This is the one I have most trouble with - how will this mean layoffs? If layoffs are inevitable, this must mean less people are required to do the work. Surely this means that currently it's being done inefficiently (what others may call a waste of public funds?).

- "Attack on union rights for bin men, seen in refusal of Oxigen to recognise unions." This seems more likely.

- "Increased bin charges as in Sligo where they are now at €540 per year." I'm not sure I understand. Does this mean they were subsidised up to privatisation?

- "No waivers, again this has happened throughout the country." Fair point. That is totally unacceptable.

- "Ineffeciencies as several companies collect waste, meaning the different bin days for each house on a street depending on their bin operator." Same as now!

"as well as ineffeciencies through having several depots." Same as now!

"Basically, the bin service at the moment benefits from certain economies of scale and certain planning." I have seen no evidence of this at the collection level.

- "No wish on behalf of private operator to encourage recycling, more waste for them means more profit." Surely you mean 're-use' rather than 'recycling'. In most privatised waste collection service I've looked into, they facilitate recycling (by collecting separated rubbush) - this means MORE business for them!

- "A small group of bandit business men will make a killing by getting a state owned asset that has been invested in and built up through public money." That's (presumably) a criticism of capitalism per se. Presumably these contracts would go to public tender, so everybody would have an equal bite of the cherry.

Thanks again for any input.

by pc Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:15

how did that thing go that i saw advertised (not by swp) about bringin all the things that are not recycled by the being centres to a rally or somthing ?

by defend public services Mon Nov 03, 2003 15:39

There will be lay offs for bin men. This is what happened in every other council area and will happen in Dublin I am sure. The bin service currently is not inefficient. Where the council will save money is by making the remaining bin men work incredibly harder for more or less the same pay. Again this is what happened in other areas. Any effeciencies that are gained will not go to provide better working conditions for workers or for a better environment or even for use in other services it will simply go to produce more profit for the bin company.

To answer your question re Sligo. The reason for the massive hike to over €500 per year is because the company that now runs the service want to make a handsome profit. There is no other explanation, bin collection that is publically owned is always cheaper.

On the ineffeciencies through privitisation. Currently there everyone gets their bin collected on the same street on the same day. This is not the case in many areas that have several private operators. This is ineffiecient as there are bin trucks that are driving down roads twice when only once is needed. AS for having too many depots. Currently there is a depot for every area, with 'competition' there will be several depots for the one area, again this is inefficient.

The bin service does benefit from economies of scale and planning as I have pointed out here. There are savings when there is one depot per area and the routes can be planned out efficiently. If there were privite firms in 'competition', there would be several depots for the same area and the bin routes could not be planned in an efficient way.


If the contracts are put out on public tender or not it will make no difference. Currently the service is there to collect bins under a private operator it will be there to make profit. To provide the profit for the capitalist there will have to be an increase in charges to pay for it. Secondly, it has been public funds that have built up the infastructure of the bin service, we have paid for the trucks, depot etc I can nearly guarentee it that the price the private operator pays will in no way reflect what has been put in by PAYE workers over the years. Remember Eircom?

by barmitzvah Tue Nov 04, 2003 15:38

Thanks "defend public services".

That's a fairly comprehensive and understandable reply. I'm not sure I agree with you on all points, but I am giving it some more thought. I appreciate you taking the time to flesh out the points you made in your first note.

Cheers,

barmitzvah