We Won't Pay Campaign reply to Mitchell McLaughlin

by Ummm Wed Apr 04, 2007 14:21

Did mr mulcahy first approach SF and seek clarity on the issue or did he run straight to the press for some cheap publicity??????????????????

by John McQuillan Wed Apr 04, 2007 14:28

Why are the We Won't Pay campaign deviding those opposed to water Charges - this just appears as chaep shots at politicla parties who are opposed to water charges.

Are the We wont pay campaign genuinely interested in ending water charges or is it a front for some group.

Mr mulcahy clearly doesn't know much about politics - you clearly don't do business through the press and what does he think the hundreds of thousands of people who voted for the DUP are suddenly going to jump ship because a secretary of an unelected body 'exposed' them.

Firstly did he seek clarity from the 2 parties? If not, why not?

He should be winning support of the 2 largest parties rather than alienating.

I am anti water charges - but actions like this alienate We wont pay, mr mulchay has tarnished his name and is in danger of tarnishing We wont pay campaign.

My advice - elect a new secretary - who knows how to win a campaign - not just grab some cheap publicity.

by I'm with Garry Wed Apr 04, 2007 15:13

What madness! Mulcahy got 100% of the vote when he was put forward for the position of Secretary of the campaign. Granted, it was an electorate of one, consisting of Peter Hadden and Peter Hadden's ego, but still, you can't argue with 100% support. Do you really think the electorate will have changed it's mind on the issue?

by Non payer Wed Apr 04, 2007 15:22

Gary Mulcahy was elected by the We Won't Pay Campaign conference. Instead of coming on here making pathetic comments and defending the DUP and Sinn Fein why don't you start campaigning against the charges. It is completely legitimate to expose the DUP and Sinn Fein in the media, maybe the type of politics you are involved is based on soft soaping the establishment parties but we aren't - people should know about their betrayals.

by John McQuillan Wed Apr 04, 2007 15:46

did Gary Mulcahy seek clarity from SF and the DUP????????

by Liam McKay Wed Apr 04, 2007 16:22

Nope.

by congress man Wed Apr 04, 2007 22:47

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaary Mulcahy has demonstrated yet again that the Socialist Party are publicity whores. Any Secretary who can turn 100,000 non payment pledges into a 500 maximum turnout at a rally should resign immediately. He staked everything on a massive turnout and without ICTU support probably would have got less than 100 for the great SP rally.
The SP clearly are an irrelevance and ICTU should now move ahead and put a coherent case against water charges to Peter Robinson and Conor Murphy.

by Seán Thu Apr 05, 2007 04:00

The SP crones in the "campaign" are playing with fire trying to target SF. The SP got an atrocious vote in the Assembly elections.

Most SF voters would vote for the DUP before the SP.

Knowing their tactics, the SP should be aware that they will come into trouble targeting SF.

by Madigan Thu Apr 05, 2007 15:33

Most SF voters WOULD vote DUP before voting SP. They probably did at the last election putting DUP as their next preference after SF. The simple fact being SF or DUP are basically green Tory or Orange Tory. So anyone with any kind of socialist/left centered leaning will find no comfort in these parties.

by Metralion Thu Apr 05, 2007 16:47

Youre a right wally if you believe that. Very few SF people transferred SP but if you think they transferred to the DUP you are a complete eejit.

by Seán Fri Apr 06, 2007 03:14

Agreed. I was only exaggerating about SF voters transferring to the SP. But they will not- en masse- transfer to the Trotyskyites either.

The Trotskyites are in trouble in Dublin. It looks like Joe Higgins and Clare 'Gutter' Daly will not get a seat.

by madigan Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:35

I wasn't serious about the transfering of votes. I was making the point re both parties are right of centre. This will become apparent when the assembly gets up and running and the working classes have the pleasure of being shafted by local politicians instead of direct rule ministers.

by madigan Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:35

I wasn't serious about the transfering of votes. I was making the point re both parties are right of centre. This will become apparent when the assembly gets up and running and the working classes have the pleasure of being shafted by local politicians instead of direct rule ministers.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Sat Apr 07, 2007 14:16

A reminder of what Adams said to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce in 2004

On PPP's and PFI's

"Well, we are against them. Having said that, Martin McGuinness, as Education Minister, faced with the reality that he would either have no schools or an involvement in a qualified way with private finance, went for it. So I suppose you could argue that that is the emergence of pragmatic politics."

On local charges

"Sinn Fein councillors in Sligo rather than seeing the service go entirely over to privatisation... then went for a more pragmatic approach. The same thing has happened in Monaghan. Our position is against it. But in terms of the actual practicalities of working out these matters...the party made compromises on it."

by Joe Higgins Sat Apr 07, 2007 14:32

You are in the ball today doheochai .