And on Jim’s comments about the ultra lefts from Cork, I have to stop myself becoming annoyed. I am not an ultra left. Alan might consider himself one but we have very different politics. No doubt I am on the left of the project but I think there are many more like me – judging by the response I got from individuals I think there are many who are sympathetic to the need to fight for socialism now.

I attended the Jobs workshop and the one on the ULA and Northern Ireland. I agree that some of the SWP new members were a bit animated but it wasn’t withourt provocation. Their anger was directed at a man who attended the forum with the intent to disrupt. He had attempted to address the opening session unsuccessfully and spoke at the Jobs workshop. In essence he stated we should all join the Labour Party, that social democracy has brought prosperity to all of Europe and that emigration is to be welcomed as a lifetime opportunity to experience the world. A member of the SWP was angry because his brother had been forced to emigrate hence the shouting. If I had attended a Labour Party forum and insisted on speaking about the failure of the LP to offer an alternative to right wing policies of FG I would be ejected immediately.

I have to disagree, the intro from the SP speaker to the Jobs workshop was a very good introduction (most likely targetted at newcomers to the ULA or Left politics) and the proposals presented by Emmet (SP) from a sub committee of the ULA on Jobs were practical short term realistic ideas. Everyone attending the workshop was informed by Emmet that the poroposals weren’t finalised and any contributions were welcomed that would strengthen the ULA Jobs plan.

As for the chair, he wasn’t a member of the SWP but of TASC and was appointed at the meeting. He was a little nervous and deserves thanks for volunteering and he did attempt to involve Terrence MacDonagh in the debate but he didn’t take it up.

The workshop on the North was a bit heated at times and as for timing I thought it should have been in the morning as it was possibly the most devisive of all the workshops. The SP outlined their position clearly which could be summarised as a fear that what constitutes the left in NI is ‘too green’ and would be considered a barrier to working class unity.

The first plenary was interesting and the question of the degree of emphasis to place on an openly ‘socialist’ programme is something I think the ULA will have to tackle soon, as it’s a potential stumbling block. Could the ULA come apart over this point? There seems to be a SWP/WUAG v. SP/Bree division, to me at least. Anyway, it’s still early days. As struggles evolve the necessity of foregrounding ‘socialism’ will be clearer.

I thought Alan’s contribution at the first plenary was sensible and well made.

Finally, attended the trade union workshop. Nothing spectacularly new. But thought it was interesting that there was a contribution from a member of the IBOA. Also, holding two simultaneous workshops in the main theatre was a bad idea, particularly as the one on the upper tier sounded like a rowdy affair and often drowned out speakers at the TU workshop.

Overall, a success; a couple more small steps forward. Enough to overcome the inevitable steps backwards.

I attended the ‘radical plan for jobs workshop’ which was very disappointing in my opinion.

I expected proposals to be more concrete. I thougth this was a realistic asumption given the title of the workshop. The two speakers weren’t so bad but the points and nature of the debate when it went to the floor followed on more from James O’Tooles piece ( which was good itself ) in to an abstract and frequently banal discussion on the nature of struggle/socialism/the labour party – i.e. way off topic. I tried to put in myself with points about the construction industry/schools but was ignored. I found the chair was little better than useless and bent the agenda to his mates to his left hand side – and to the frequent personal appeals from them. One guy from you identified himself as a SWP member from Ballyfermermot was very openly aggressive and abusive to a speaker he disagreed with on one occassion the chair (his mate) did nothing.

Terrence MacDonagh was there – he could have given some meaningful input but he was not invited to.

I was at ‘The alternative to the housing Crisis’ one later. It was better but agan I found myself ignored. It seemed this one had several strands to it – one was homelessness, one was access to social housing and final was the housing market where repossessions and problems mortgages. It was flipping around too much to deal throughly with each. To be honest there are three or four workshops that could come out of that topic alone. I did find that there was a bit of a la carte socialism to be found here in the views as expressed though.

I don’t agree at all that the Socialist Party were “too forthright” in pressing for a socialist programme to be adopted. There are disagreements on a whole range of issues in the ULA, as well as substantial and important agreements. Part of coming together involves discussing and debating those disagreements in a fraternal way, and it is better that people are forthright and clear about their opinions. The Socialist Party understands that it is unlikely that the ULA as a whole will be convinced of all of our views in the near future and it is not presenting ultimatums in that regard. It does however think that it is important to present its case and to push for the ULA to adopt as radical and left wing a programme as it can be convinced to do.

There will be pressure on the ULA, as a small but real force in national politics, to moderate its views. There are also forces in the ULA (chiefly, but perhaps not only, the SWP) which want the ULA to be less radical in programme, a view that they are entirely within their rights to hold. This last part was obliquely referenced in Eddie, Joan and Dermot’s article when they talk about the importance in their view of not watering down or ignoring the existing programme, and in particular not doing so to accommodate politicians who don’t agree with us.

By and large, I thought that most points of view, on all sides of the debates, were reasonably and fraternally expressed. The discussion on Northern Ireland was perhaps a partial exception, with some rather intemperate contributions. The main thing which came from that discussion, in my view, was a reinforcement of the Socialist Party speaker’s view that there simply is not enough political agreement amongst the various forces on the Northern left to simply expand the ULA there in the near future. I can only confess to being somewhat confused about the point of view of people who feel so strongly that the Socialist Party are completely wrong about Northern politics that they feel the need to barrack Socialist Party speakers at what was generally a very well mannered event and yet at the same time want a political alliance with the Socialist Party in the North! You can have one point of view or the other, but the combination is bizarre in the extreme.