Log in

View Full Version : ULA blow-up: Legacy of sectarianism



bad ideas actualised by alcohol
1st March 2013, 07:13
ULA blow-up: Legacy of sectarianism

As the ULA stares into the abyss, Anne Mc Shane looks back at two years of cynical betrayal

Joe Higgins: always pretending
Just as the working class faces yet another onslaught on its living standards, the left in Ireland drops all pretence of seeking left unity and a single working class party.

It was the Socialist Party which finally pulled the plug on the United Left Alliance on January 26, with the announcement that it “had ended its membership”.1 It claimed its decision was due to the fact that “some in the ULA, including TDs, have moved away from a principled left position and have ditched the collaborative spirit”. This refers to the fact that other ULA parliamentarians had refused to caucus with SP TD Joe Higgins and instead had moved a bill to legislate for limited abortion rights with Mick Wallace, an independent TD. The announcement went on to bemoan as equally bad the failure of other groups in the alliance to oppose the “approach of supposedly being committed to a left project, but in practice contradicting that by organising a political alliance with others in the Dáil technical group who couldn’t at all be characterised as on the left”.

The SP tries to create the impression that it was in the forefront of the fight for united action and democracy within the ULA. This is very far from the truth. From the very outset the SP made clear that, as far as it was concerned, the ULA was to be a very limited project. I reported from the first public meeting in Cork how even after the breakthrough election of five ULA TDs in February 2011, comrade Higgins had “downplayed the support the ULA had attracted in terms of new forces” and its potential to become a working class party. Although his organisation was willing to enter into discussion, “we are not going to rush” into forming a party and certainly “we are not going to disperse our body of ideas” within the ULA.2

A couple of months later, we had an announcement from the ULA interim steering committee - made up of the SP, the People Before Profit Alliance (a largely Socialist Workers Party front), and the Workers and Unemployed Action Group (WUAG) - that a convention was to be held in June 2011, where “a broad range of policy areas will be discussed, as well as the steps necessary to launch the United Left Alliance as a party”.3 That event went from being a ‘convention’ to a ‘forum’ - featuring a large number of top-table speakers, limited debate and workshops - which left the steering committee firmly in control. Although there were calls for proper democracy and accountability from a large number of non-aligned members, both the SP and the SWP at that point made clear that they were not interested. I argued afterwards that it was “criminal” in circumstances where the working class was crying out for leadership that “neither of the two left groups wants to take the project forward to its next logical step”: the formation of a party.4

At the end of the year there had still been no progress. I noted that pledges to “create transparency and accountability” had “never been implemented” and urged immediate action.5 A conference due in January 2012 was put off by the steering committee to April. In the run-up to that event, continued sectarian divisions between the alliance’s two main components continued to dog the project. It appeared that the conference would be another talking shop, and many non-aligned members were leaving in disgust at the lack of democracy and the inactivity of branches.

When it came, the conference did not bring any changes. I reported that it “was particularly frustrating to hear Socialist Party comrades still justifying their refusal to consider anything like a democratic structure on ever more spurious grounds”. The SP refused “to budge on the current organisational arrangements, which consist of a mainly unelected national steering committee, and a membership which has no say”.6 No resolutions were allowed from branches, no votes taken and many members went away even more deeply demoralised. In contrast to the SP, it appeared that the SWP had shifted on the issue of democracy and called for the ULA to transform itself into a “membership organisation”, with leader Kieran Allen pledging that “his group would accept being in a minority if it lost the vote on a given question”. It was hard to know if this was just a manoeuvre to put pressure on the SP.

The events of the next few days would show that both groups were ditching the ULA. SP MEP Paul Murphy had made a call at the conference for a strong, united ULA campaign against the fiscal treaty in the coming referendum. But his organisation then launched its own campaign three days later, which did not even mention the ULA. The SWP’s People Before Profit Alliance followed suit the day after, again with no mention of the ULA. Finally there was a ULA poster campaign launch on May 3 2012, but it was a lukewarm event, with priority evidently given to the SP’s and SWP’s separate activities. The ULA was being undermined by its two main components just over a year after its formation.

Meanwhile there were growing tensions between the SP and Clare Daly TD, one of its long-time members, over her connections with Mick Wallace, an ex-property developer and maverick independent TD. There was intense media controversy over Wallace’s non-payment of taxes and pension contributions. This storm caused waves in the ULA, leading to the withdrawal of the WUAG and its TD, Seamus Healy, over the refusal of the SP to call for Wallace’s resignation (Healy was also upset over the sectarian membership drives of the SWP). Having refused to bend on this issue, the SP then turned the heat on Daly and demanded that she refuse to work with Wallace around abortion rights and the anti-household tax campaign. Further she was told not to sit next to him in the Dáil or be in any way associated with him. Daly refused and resigned from the SP in September. This signalled an even greater intensification of the SP’s campaign against her. It succeeded in having the ULA steering committee adopt a motion committing all TDs to disavow any political connection with Wallace. Again Daly rebelled and went on to share platforms with Wallace.

Things reached crisis point in December, when all TDs adopted a position at variance with that of the steering committee on abortion. In November the committee had adopted a pro-choice position, following a delegate council which had passed resolutions to that effect. After that meeting Daly, together with fellow TDs Joan Collins and Richard Boyd-Barrett, continued to push for legislation on the restricted grounds of danger to the life of the mother. Joe Higgins was prepared to demand abortion on grounds of health, but did not succeed in convincing the others and relations broke down. No-one seemed to consider that none of these policies was in line with the clearly expressed views of the membership.

The SP was outraged at Daly’s behaviour and argued that there “had been a wilful undermining of democracy in the ULA” which was “unacceptable”.7 The same December 14 statement announced that “we will be diminishing our participation in the ULA”. Just a few weeks later, on January 26 2013, the SP announced “with regret” its departure from the ULA - while, of course, assuring everyone of its absolute sincerity and “preparedness to work with others on the left in a respectful, democratic and principled fashion”.8 A list of grievances was trotted out, along with claims that the SP had been the only genuinely democratic force in the ULA, but now sadly had no choice except to leave because of the actions of others.

So instead of trying to join with others in forging a political alternative, the SP called for the Campaign Against the Household and Water Tax (CAHWT) to stand candidates in the forthcoming local elections. The SP has since been pushing this in the CAHWT, as it attempts to reinvigorate the campaign and cement its own leadership through various stunts, such as occupations of local council meetings. It also split the recent demonstration against austerity organised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in Cork by holding a separate rally at the end and pulling CAHWT away from the main event. The SP has now set up a new campaign for abortion, strictly on its own (SP)agenda - with limited rights on the grounds of health, not choice. It is on a very sectarian trajectory.

As for the SWP, it has not commented - although its TD, comrade Boyd-Barrett, issued a joint statement with Collins and Daly berating the SP for walking out. The SWP has been pushing the PBPA as an alternative to the ULA, while comrades Collins and Daly are about to launch a rival ‘unity’ initiative, to be called the United Left. Farcically, the one remaining full-timer in the ULA office continues to send out official announcements and press releases, but there is no mention of what is really going on.

Claims have been made that the United Left will be much better than what has gone before. But early indications give no room for optimism. Firstly the group will be based on ‘broad’, as opposed to revolutionary, politics (no surprise there). Indeed it seems that Collins and Daly want the new group’s platform to be even ‘broader’ than the minimalistic reformism of the ULA. And the structures do not appear to be very democratic, with TDs enjoying all the rights and little accountability. Some non-aligned members of the ULA have agreed to join, while others are far more dubious of its potential.

In the meantime, the economic crisis continues to impact on the working class. Over 100,000 marched in protest against austerity on February 9. Public sector workers are facing major cuts in wages, the removal of shift allowances and a longer working week, as the government seeks to slash another €1 billion from the public purse. Union members are discussing strike action and there is almost certainly going to be resistance.

But, thanks to the disgraceful sectarianism of the SP and SWP, there is no left to speak of. There is no organisation for our class to look to for leadership. Sinn Féin is making the most of the disarray by positioning itself on the soft left. This pro-Catholic party is portraying itself as a defender of women’s rights. Mary-Lou McDonald, one of its most prominent TDs, is using the Dáil as a platform to oppose government cuts, to demand justice for the Magdalene women and to call for limited abortion rights. Sinn Féin is the new ‘left’ opposition. This is a travesty. In the north of Ireland Sinn Féin has shown that it is committed to capitalism. In the south it has indicated willingness to enter into coalition with a revived Fianna Fáil, which is now riding high in the polls. A Fianna Fáil-Sinn Féin coalition government seems on the cards.

All of this is truly a ULA legacy to be proud of! Less than two years after the election of five working class TDs, and the promise that seemed to hold of a powerful and united workers’ party, even the limited cooperation between the sects has vanished into thin air. In reality, the SP never wanted the ULA to become a party and resisted all attempts to develop it in that direction. For its part, the SWP opportunistically tried to face both ways, sometimes pretending to want to see the alliance built, but in practice using it only as far as it could further the short-term aims of the SWP. Shame on these groups for wrecking an important opportunity to create something worthy of the working class.



Notes

1. www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1123-the-ula-the-fight-against-austerity-a-building-a-new-party-of-the-working-class.

2. ‘Now the left has TDs’, March 24 2011.

3. ‘Aiming for a party’, April 7 2011.

4. ‘Voodoo and left posturing’, June 30 2011.

5. ‘ULA must take itself seriously’, December 1 2011.

6. ‘Sectarian stumbling block’, May 3 2012.

7. www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1103-the-socialist-party-a-the-political-position-a-operation-of-the-ula.

8. www.socialistparty.net/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1123-the-ula-the-fight-against-austerity-a-building-a-new-party-of-the-working-class.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/951/ula-blow-up-legacy-of-sectarianism

IrishWorker
1st March 2013, 18:48
A loose parliamentary electoral alliance between the various Irish Trot sects was always going to amount to nothing.


IRSP Position On United Left Alliance
Posted on January 21, 2011
In the context of an onslaught on working class people involving a consensus for cuts among the establishment parties in a failing attempt to deal with capitalism’s latest collapse, a health service in crisis, continued unemployment and mass emigration particularly among young people, elements of the Irish left came together to form the ‘United Left Alliance’. The Irish Republican Socialist Party wishes to now put on record it’s position on the ULA. A core tenet of IRSP policy since our foundation, in the pursuit of our objective of a 32 County Democratic Socialist Republic, has been the formation of a Broad Front to combat the malign influences of imperialism and capitalism in Ireland as effectively as possible. The creation of such a front would in effect see the development of a unified struggle against all the baneful manifestations of capitalism and would begin the process of creating a mass revolutionary party (consistent calls for such a party have been made from some quarters of the Irish left, these are calls we would like to echo) capable of offering leadership and mobilising as many people as possible towards our goals. Unity and co-operation amongst the left has consistently been a facet of IRSP policy.

Two questions arise for the IRSP out of the formation of the ULA, the ideological question and the tactical question. Ideologically speaking, while the IRSP is not in full agreement with the programme of the ULA, we view it as also containing ideas of substantial merit. However, a major failing is that the programme itself, while mentioning several components of a socialist system, fails to explicitly state that it is the programme of an organisation which seeks to establish a revolutionary socialist state in Ireland. One can only speculate as to the reason for this, most probably fears about alienation of the mass of working people and potential constituent members, but this is something we fundamentally disagree with. There must be no ambiguity among socialists about what we stand for and this point leads us on to the tactical question which will be developed below. Also notable by it’s absence is any mention of the national aspect to the revolutionary socialist struggle in this country. It is the duty of Irish socialists to combat the undemocratic imposition of cutbacks in the North, challenge the overt sectarianism which has been entrenched in the very structures of the Northern state and work towards the ending of partition.

This latest crisis must not be met with a strategy based around electoral gains, such a strategy is akin to inviting failure to our doorstep. The biggest flaw with the ULA is that such a coalition is aimed at winning elections, not building the working class mass fightback or pointing the way towards workers’ power. This is one of the most fundamental issues that divides revolutionary socialists from reformist social democrats. It is the capacity of the working class for action that is most vital in changing society, not winning votes.

The IRSP’s position on electoralism is clear. We do not believe there is a parliamentary road to socialism and thus any electoral intervention must not be characterised by a refusal to put right-wing parties in power or the demand for what can realistically be judged as a more progressive policy platform than a conservative administration, but by the clear pursuit of revolutionary aims. Central to our revolutionary aims is the building of working class power, which will not be built by uniting a couple of sects espousing reformist rhetoric and reformist demands. The current system of political administration in Ireland, a reflection of our economic system, is fundamentally undemocratic and cannot possibly cater for the needs of the Irish people. Any electoral success must be used to spread revolutionary socialist ideas and to expose the stark limitations of the current system. Most especially this must be channeled towards mobilising working people to the streets, not demobilising them, or putting them under the influence of trade union bureaucrat mis-leaders. As Ta Power said, “There is no easy way to the Socialist Republic, no shortcuts”, and yet some far left parties have a foolish history of ditching much of their core political principles for short-term electoral gains.

During the crisis, all efforts must be made to correctly identify and articulate the true causes of the economic collapse, namely, the inherent contradictions at the heart of the capitalist system. Populism around individuals and popular media scapegoats may be useful in garnering some minor electoral support, but does little to properly educate or radicalise working people. Concentrating on the symptoms of Ireland’s economic forms rather than widening the confines of political discourse in Ireland and directly outlining the inherent flaws in capitalism and that we see socialism as the solution, is a road to nowhere. Leading on from the ideological decision to neglect to mention socialism in their programme, the strategy of the ULA will naturally also mirror this tepidness.

We recognise this is a minimum programme and each constituent member may pursue their own strategy, but that calls into question the whole premise of the ULA. Should socialists sign up to something that in practice would be reformist and firmly in the realms of social democracy? The answer should be an unequivocal ‘no’. This returns usto the issue of how this alliance is being built: not by the broader layers of working masses, but by two main sects out to enlarge their vote.

Having said this, if the intention behind this formation is to simply begin negotiations and set in place the foundations for what would be a mass revolutionary party which is unambiguous about it’s socialist revolutionary credentials, then it must be wholeheartedly welcomed. Integral to this must be broad-based talks that include all organizations of the revolutionary left, including those who recognise the importance of the national question.

The position of the IRSP at this juncture is that while the formation of the ULA is progressive in our view, with many outstanding local activists involved, the IRSP’s revolutionary outlook in relation to the subject of electoralism and the struggle for Irish sovereignty do not run parallel to the views of the ULA. In a personal capacity members of the IRSP may aid ULA campaigns in their locality but we hope at some point in the near future to take part in the building of a mass revolutionary party that unashamedly stands in the tradition of James Connolly and socialist republicanism and which will work towards the ending of exploitation, capitalism and imperialist occupation. The interests of individual sects must be put aside in the interests of working people and to this end we envisage the establishment of a mass revolutionary organisation as the only vehicle through which our goals can be achieved.

Ends.

http://www.irsp.ie/news/?p=248

Die Neue Zeit
3rd March 2013, 07:09
I wonder what the IRSP position is now on reorganizing the ULA, politicized solidarity networks like those of SYRIZA, and other related matters.

LewisQ
4th March 2013, 09:45
Really, DNZ, the IRSP is non-existent as a force within even the claustrophobically narrow confines of the Irish left, and entirely conflated with the actions of its former paramilitary wing by the general public (most of whom aren't aware that the organisation still exists). Éirígí have stolen their clothing somewhat as the most visible militant nationalist faction.

In other news, TDs Daly, Collins and a miscellaneous assemblage of unaffiliated members have formed the United Left, a faction within the United Left Alliance which aspires to organise as a political party for electoral purposes (still with me?)

Danielle Ni Dhighe
4th March 2013, 11:53
The ULA is reformist in orientation. Is that really what the working class needs, more reformists?

Danielle Ni Dhighe
4th March 2013, 12:00
Really, DNZ, the IRSP is non-existent as a force within even the claustrophobically narrow confines of the Irish left
Small, but hardly as "non-existent" as you claim.


Éirígí have stolen their clothing somewhat as the most visible militant nationalist faction.
So "militant" that it can't even unreservedly support a woman's right to choose, and kowtows to reactionary views.

Owl
4th March 2013, 14:47
The ULA is reformist in orientation. Is that really what the working class needs, more reformists?

Yes, far more than a likely violent revolution. :rolleyes: Nothing's perfect, but I'm sure the working class as a whole would prefer reformist groups - and the popular movements they can incite.

LewisQ
4th March 2013, 14:55
So "militant" that it can't even unreservedly support a woman's right to choose, and kowtows to reactionary views.

Well, Youth Defence is pretty militant in pursuit of its goals too. It's no reflection on éirígí's politics, which stink. National chauvinism always does.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol
4th March 2013, 18:12
Yes, far more than a likely violent revolution. :rolleyes: Nothing's perfect, but I'm sure the working class as a whole would prefer reformist groups - and the popular movements they can incite.

What popular movements that have made an actual change have these reformist groups incited? Because I can think of, well, none actually.
To think a radical change can be made inside bourgeois democracy, I'm not arguing against small reforms all together, is a direct attack against communism. Only a liberal would say such non-sense.

Danielle Ni Dhighe
5th March 2013, 00:09
Yes, far more than a likely violent revolution. :rolleyes: Nothing's perfect, but I'm sure the working class as a whole would prefer reformist groups - and the popular movements they can incite.
So what's your liberal eye-rolling self doing on RevLeft? Isn't there a liberal board where your anti-revolution views would be more at home?

Danielle Ni Dhighe
5th March 2013, 01:38
Well, Youth Defence is pretty militant in pursuit of its goals too.
Point taken. Still, éirígí claims to be a party of the left, but it seems to be pretty conservative on some social issues. Its position on abortion in 2013 is notably to the right of the IRSP's position in 1975.

IrishWorker
5th March 2013, 15:13
Really, DNZ, the IRSP is non-existent as a force within even the claustrophobically narrow confines of the Irish left, and entirely conflated with the actions of its former paramilitary wing by the general public (most of whom aren't aware that the organisation still exists). Éirígí have stolen their clothing somewhat as the most visible militant nationalist faction.

In other news, TDs Daly, Collins and a miscellaneous assemblage of unaffiliated members have formed the United Left, a faction within the United Left Alliance which aspires to organise as a political party for electoral purposes (still with me?)

Non-existent you say?

Here are some comrades at a Pro-Choice Ireland rally in Dublin last night. More lies exposed.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/541554_10200226834186886_1381541960_n.jpg

bad ideas actualised by alcohol
5th March 2013, 15:15
A picture of eight people proves that they are existent as a force?

IrishWorker
5th March 2013, 15:36
A picture of eight people proves that they are existent as a force?

Its not the entire IRSP in the pic mate its a Cumann of the IRSP from Tallaght in Dublin, one of many.

The revolutionary left in Ireland is in bad shape and will remain in a bad way while the reformist Trots are the dominant force.

Owl
5th March 2013, 19:40
What popular movements that have made an actual change have these reformist groups incited? Because I can think of, well, none actually.
To think a radical change can be made inside bourgeois democracy, I'm not arguing against small reforms all together, is a direct attack against communism. Only a liberal would say such non-sense.

Popular movements have produced countless small reforms, but not the kind of radical shift from capitalism we'd like. As a gradualist, I this just leads me to believe we need a more organized, more unified left. Something that all these smaller groups vying for revolution don't help.

And I'm a market democratic socialist. Plus a pinch of neo-Marxism. To equate me to a US liberal is... well, baseless.

Tim Cornelis
5th March 2013, 20:19
Popular movements have produced countless small reforms, but not the kind of radical shift from capitalism we'd like. As a gradualist, I this just leads me to believe we need a more organized, more unified left. Something that all these smaller groups vying for revolution don't help.

And I'm a market democratic socialist. Plus a pinch of neo-Marxism. To equate me to a US liberal is... well, baseless.

Marxists, from a materialist perspective, use liberalism far broader than is conventional by liberals themselves. We see liberalism as the democratic wing of capital, in a sense. Given your support for markets (which means capital), reformism, and democracy this would fit you.

Danielle Ni Dhighe
5th March 2013, 21:00
And I'm a market democratic socialist. Plus a pinch of neo-Marxism. To equate me to a US liberal is... well, baseless.
I didn't say anything about the US. See what Tim Cornelis said.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol
5th March 2013, 21:03
Popular movements have produced countless small reforms, but not the kind of radical shift from capitalism we'd like. As a gradualist, I this just leads me to believe we need a more organized, more unified left. Something that all these smaller groups vying for revolution don't help.

And I'm a market democratic socialist. Plus a pinch of neo-Marxism. To equate me to a US liberal is... well, baseless.

I'm not equating you to an US liberal, you are much worse for you try to cover you distortion of Marx and Marxism while saying you have a "pinch of neo-Marxism".

Owl
5th March 2013, 21:11
Marxists, from a materialist perspective, use liberalism far broader than is conventional by liberals themselves. We see liberalism as the democratic wing of capital, in a sense. Given your support for markets (which means capital), reformism, and democracy this would fit you.

Yes, as you read in that post, I'm all for a rich combination of capitalism and socialism. That's generally what market democratic socialism is.

Danielle Ni Dhighe
5th March 2013, 21:30
Yes, as you read in that post, I'm all for a rich combination of capitalism and socialism. That's generally what market democratic socialism is.
So, once again, what is a liberal doing on a revolutionary leftist website criticizing us for supporting revolution?

Owl
5th March 2013, 23:09
I'm not equating you to an US liberal, you are much worse for you try to cover you distortion of Marx and Marxism while saying you have a "pinch of neo-Marxism".

So you're mad that I'm not a fundamentalist? :lol:

Die Neue Zeit
6th March 2013, 03:07
Really, DNZ, the IRSP is non-existent as a force within even the claustrophobically narrow confines of the Irish left, and entirely conflated with the actions of its former paramilitary wing by the general public (most of whom aren't aware that the organisation still exists). Éirígí have stolen their clothing somewhat as the most visible militant nationalist faction.

In other news, TDs Daly, Collins and a miscellaneous assemblage of unaffiliated members have formed the United Left, a faction within the United Left Alliance which aspires to organise as a political party for electoral purposes (still with me?)

Yes, still with you, precisely because the article above was critical of said United Left initiative. Something on offer from independent ULA leftists is necessary, though.


What popular movements that have made an actual change have these reformist groups incited? Because I can think of, well, none actually.

To think a radical change can be made inside bourgeois democracy, I'm not arguing against small reforms all together, is a direct attack against communism. Only a liberal would say such non-sense.

Comrade, I think a distinction needs to be made between revolutionary change and radical change. The latter is more possible than one might think (but a liberal won't say that only class struggle can trigger this). Also, others might interpret "small reforms" as piecemeal, near-defensive measures, and that's not good.

leaveuskidsalone
6th March 2013, 09:46
Good riddance. I had a friend in the ULA and she was constantly updating me on all the in fights/sectarianism, egoism of ULA figureheads and constant debate on theory.

I dont ever see this country having an able left movement anytime soon, not until the European left has achieved something substantial anyways... Politics in this country is a mess

Q
7th March 2013, 19:52
Good riddance. I had a friend in the ULA and she was constantly updating me on all the in fights/sectarianism, egoism of ULA figureheads and constant debate on theory.

I dont ever see this country having an able left movement anytime soon, not until the European left has achieved something substantial anyways... Politics in this country is a mess

The left in much of Europe is in a suboptimal, if not dire, state too. Who is coming to the rescue then?

As no one from the ex-ULA has replied so far I'll comment as a fellow, rank-and-file, CWI member (the Irish SP being one of the constituent parts of the ULA and the Irish CWI section): I think it is a tragedy that this turned out the way it did. As the article in the OP notes, there was no priority on building the ULA as a party, so it remained and stagnated as a mere electoral alliance. Pretty much what TUSC is in the UK (http://www.revleft.com/vb/tusc-let-s-t179223/index.html), also a formation without a future if things are set to go the way they are going presently...

JollyRedGiant
8th March 2013, 19:34
As a member of the CWI in Ireland I will give a brief reply -

1. The article by Anne McShane in the Weekly Worker is a sectarian rant against the Socialist Party.

2. The Socialist Party initated the ULA and 100% committed to building it as a new left party

3. From day one the Socialist Party stated that if was not interested in assisting the creation of a left formation that was a simple regroupment of the existing left.

4. From day one the Socialist Party argued that the only way the ULA could develop was by recruiting new fresh layers of activists who did not have any previous political involvement.

5. While the ULA initally had some electoral success and attracted some decent numbers to public meetings - very few (i.e. a few dozen) new activists joined.

6. The ULA became nothing more than a talk-shop for a wide and colourful range of left independents who had been hanging around the fringes of the left for years (and in some cases decades).

7. In recent times two of the four parliamentary representatives of the ULA (Joan collins and Clare Daly) took it upon themselves to ignore the decisions of the ULA Steering Committee and engage in political alliances with right-wing parliamentarians (including a tax dodging former property developer) rather than work with the other ULA representatives.

8. Th Socialist Party discussed what possibilites were left for the development of the ULA and came to the conclusion that the ULA had run its course and decided to withdraw.

9. The Socialist Party were open and honest about its views of the ULA and acted according to its convictions - those remaining (and there are very few of them) blamed the Socialist Party for being realistic about the possibilities for the ULA when they would have preferred that the Socialist Party engage in a charade.

10. The Socialist Party will continue to work with left wing activists as and when the opportunity arises and is currently engaged in a major political battle over the imposition by the government of a Home Tax.