Who Are Direct Democracy Ireland?

Who are Direct Democracy Ireland (DDI), this seemingly grand party who claim to represent all people regardless of their political beliefs?  What are DDI's policies?  Why are they so afraid to state a position on any topic?  It is believed that they are a nationalist anti-left party attempting to create division among working class people.  They do not state their ideologies because they fear to do so. How do they accumulate their funds? -  which appear significant for such a small and recent group.  They have links with the UKIP and the Christian Solidarity Party - a party which cannot muster a single member to be elected at local level in Ireland such is their irrelevance.  I believe DDI is a political front for Christians who oppose a woman's right to choose - is that democratic?  We gain just a glimpse of DDI bigotry from their representative Ben Gilroy:

'- If you are a RICH banker you get a bailout

- If you are POOR you get a handout

- If you are in the MIDDLE you get left out and wiped out.'

This is  a direct attack on the working class in Ireland - those who have been hit hardest and sacrificed most during this recession.  Evidence converse to the DDI claim regarding 'handouts' is ubiquitous.  Their assertion of creating a transformation from the current 'political system... to one of direct democracy' seems all very well, but is not backed up with any meaningful policy - What difference would simply changing how we vote ultimately affect the current economic climate? - we are still subject to a financial capitalist dictatorship.  DDI make no such declaration about economics, or their position on it, or anything else.

Instead, DDI have burrowed their way into the circles of credible political campaigns which are justifiably protesting government policy.  DDI are exploiting the need for an alternative party which exists; they do this by leeching on the achievements of others within those campaigns to build a support of citizens tired and disillusioned with the current political climate.  They make romantic reference to 'founding fathers of the Irish free state' in an attempt to appeal to the sentiments of Irish people. It is hot air.

Once again, there is an different, wholly more democratic option - one which is built on sound social, economic and political theory, and strengthened continuously by its consistent analysis and criticism of itself and the world around it - socialism.  It is this idea which has striven tirelessly for the rights of people all over the world.  The battles which have been won did not come without struggle and can be easily reversed; the war has not yet concluded.  This struggle is not based on any false, misguided and divisive notions such as religion, race, nation or gender as other political ideas are, but on scientific and historical analysis of the system in which we live - and it has identified class-conflict within a backward  and oppressive capitalist paradigm as the obstacle to democracy and progress.

"I detest it when people think Marxism is some sort of intellectual exercise: we interpret things, we understand, we are more clever. Marxism is about action" ~Tony Cliff

Read more about DDI right-wing policy here.

 

ULA Must Clarify Their Stance Regarding Mick Wallace

At the time of writing this, the ULA, remain the only members (Irish Times, the Journal) of the Technical Group in Dáil Eireann not to have requested Mick Wallace to stand down after he was found to be liable of un-declared VAT payments of approximately €1.4 million. I feel that this stance is detrimental to the campaigns that the ULA are involved in. 

The prolific debate about Mr. Wallace's future as TD is one with hypocrisy evident on both sides.  Fianna Fáil cannot be completely critical of Mr. Wallace without drawing-up reminders that they were recently one of the most corrupt parties in Ireland.  Fine Gael  are not guiltless in this regard either.

Also, from the perspective of some (journal comments), it may be difficult to understand the press' portrayal of this story as it would appear inconsistent with their portrayal of other similar stories which they report (or don't report) about corruption and alleged corruption in Irish politics.

The press' portrayal of this issue is not without its own apparent bias.  The Irish Independent, Ireland's most popular newspaper, has linked the story of Mick Wallace to the Campaign Against Water and Household Tax (CAWHT) for no obvious reason.  However, one might reasonably conclude the Independent's allusion to CAWHT in this instance might be to further the Irish Independent's own particular interests.  There is no relevance between the CAWHT and the tax dodging of individual Mick Wallace except for the fact that he happened to support that campaign.

That being said, have the press acted inappropriately by highlighting this story to the public?  I believe they have not.  Highlighting this kind of story is precisely the point of having a free media. 

So, we can see then that there are certain inconsistencies in the handling of this story by politicians, and mainstream media coverage may not be completely genuine. But it still remains that the ULA's position of not suggesting Mr. Wallace stand down places them too in a hypocritical position of their own.

The ULA have achieved this by failing to fully clarify their position about a TD who has been useful to their own interests, while simultaneously criticising the Government for not completely denouncing TD's who had also been found to have acted improperly in the past.

The Socialist Party's stated reason for not completely condemning Mr. Wallace was:

'...the Socialist Party has not joined the frenzied chorus in the media demanding Wallace’s immediate resignation.  In taking this position we believe we are reflecting the view of many ordinary people in Wexford and of those who voted for [Mick Wallace], who condemn what he did but who don’t believe it means he shouldn’t be a TD to represent their area... The media are not impartial observers. A substantial part of the media is owned by billionaires and millionaires who have a vested interested in pushing a right wing political agenda. No doubt Wallace provoked their ire when he opposed the bondholder bailout and opposed extra austerity measures such as the home tax and campaigned against the Austerity Treaty in the recent Referendum.' (Socialist Party Website)

By adding their voice to the "chorus" of politicians that have already stated that Wallace should stand down the Socialist Party would not significantly undermine the Wexford electorate any further - if at all.

Conversely, not making such a statement only serves to further highlight the Socialist Party and other ULA members as having some alliance with Mr. Wallace which prevents them from condemning his position outright.  Of course any such alliance is non-existent as Mr. Wallace is not a member of the socialist party and has no affiliation with ULA other than his mutual support of the CAWHT.

As we have seen above, the Socialist Party's position on this matter has more to do with their perception of the media's agenda in this situation.  Their assessment of the media's ulterior aims appears to distract them from the more pertinent issue at hand - that of accepting the continuance of a politician working in the Dáil whose position has been compromised by a serious injustice against the State. 

Blaming the media's coverage of previous events and shrouded agendas is seen as petty in this instance .  As long as the ULA's position regarding Wallace remains irresolute, it actually plays into the hands of anyone who would like to use Wallace as an instrument against the CAWHT or the ULA who have 'absolutely nothing to do with this in any sense whatsoever' (Joe Higgins). 

Worst of all for the ULA is that they are now perceived by some to be just like all the rest.  Fundamentally, public perception is what it boils down to.  Ever critical of Labour's failings to stand up for its convictions, the ULA is in danger of being seen to do the same. 

Ultimately, if the ULA feel they are acting on principle, the outcome of their hesitant actions regarding Mr. Wallace are the same to most people; that is, to some, their principles may just appear like excuses.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE:
Since writing this, Joe Higgins (Leader of Socialist Party) has released a statement about his opinion on the Mick Wallace controversy. 

Crypt Sphinx has also written a response to this blog here.