Appendix: Socialist Party Statement - June 2005

The Bin Tax struggle and the city campaign – what next?

The stand against the bin tax has been completely vindicated. The charges have increased relentlessly but serious recycling facilities have still not been provided.

The autumn of 2003 represented the high mark in the fight against the bin tax to date. While the opposition to the tax is still widespread, the confidence of people and the levels of non-payment have diminished after non-collection was imposed in Fingal and later in South Dublin. The city council area has been affected by these setbacks. Notwithstanding the difficulties, the Socialist Party believes it is important that campaigns in the city continue to fight the council every inch of the way.

The conservatism shown by a section of the leadership in the city campaign at the height of the battle in 2003 has unfortunately re-surfaced this year. At the same time, incorrect opinions regarding the Socialist Party’s attitude to the bin tax, to protests, to legal challenges and the legal bills have also been raised at campaign meetings. We would like to clarify our view on some issues, on the stage the campaign is at and what should be done now.

The issue of fighting non-collection needs to be addressed

The policy of non-collection is stalled at the moment but non-collection and the threat of it remains the key weapon that the council has to attack non-payment and undoubtedly it will recommence at some point.

Earlier in the year, organised protests took place in East Wall and the Liberties when non-collection started in January. The campaign in the Liberties, including Socialist Party members, organised resistance for three weeks. While the council was forced to collect the rubbish for a period they also flooded the area with free tags. After a number of weeks of resistance people in the area felt compelled to either place their untagged bags or tag their bags, reflecting their view that the campaign overall didn’t have the power to force the council to retreat.

Without resistance there is no campaign

The type of resistance organised in East Wall and the Liberties was the correct response to non-collection. Even putting the bags into the back of the truck involved some disputes with the council and the police. Our bottom line was to try to mobilise as many people as possible, because the crucial point is the greater the numbers, the less the council or the police can intervene! Disruption in other local areas should have been organised to coincide with the resistance in East Wall and the Liberties in order to impact on the council. That lesson should now be registered for the future battles against non--collection.

While the circumstances are difficult, the Socialist Party believes that all the remaining campaigns must also be prepared to encourage active resistance in the communities against non-collection and that must be backed up by solidarity action in all areas.

Some campaign officers and members of the steering committee are not of that view and even argued to limit the activity taking place in February. On the basis that there was talk of a legal case on the right of residents to put their bags into bin trucks, they insisted in early February that the Liberties campaign give an undertaking that they would not put bags into the back of the bin truck if the police were present. The Liberties Campaign or the Socialist Party were not going to be reckless but were certainly not going to place a limit in advance on what action residents may take (in the middle of a struggle and regardless of the numbers mobilised) against non-collection in favour of a possible legal case!

The need for purposeful protests and activities – focus on local areas key

Around the same time there was some controversy because the Socialist Party opposed the calling of an anti bin tax demonstration for 26 February. The Socialist Party’s opposition was not a reflection of any pull back from the issue as some argued, we based our position on what was in the best interests of the campaign. For months, members of the SWP had been arguing the ridiculous notion that a central demonstration could re-ignite the campaign in all the four council areas and thousands could be mobilised. Others argued in favour and insisted that an attendance of 3,000 could be achieved.

We believed that it was irresponsible to call a central march when the mood was weak, as a small march would have a bad effect. Given that none of the campaigns, nor any other group had the power or ability to affect the general mood, the calling of such a demonstration was a mistake. In that context, while the Socialist Party participated in the march, we could not publicly endorse it.

The demonstration was called on a false basis. In reality, it was an alternative to the more important work of trying to seriously prepare the local areas for the possibility for non-collection, which at the time could have been extended quickly by the city council.

The Socialist Party’s view was that co-ordinated local protests would be a better way of getting people back into activity and preparing to resist non-collection. Good local protests in a number of areas, with perhaps some disruption of traffic, could have had an impact on the council and would have put the campaign on a better basis to build towards a central demonstration at a later stage. Unfortunately the 26th in general confirmed our view, while the march took place the attendance was way off the targets, activists saw it as small (600 or so) and it didn’t serve to boost the campaign.

No basis to say workers should pay more tax

In the build up to the demonstration Cllr. Joan Collins was interviewed on RTE Radio 1. During that interview Joan said that the bin tax should be abolished even if that meant an increase in income tax! Undoubtedly many opposed to the bin tax will have been shocked. If such a position was adopted the whole basis of the campaign would be undermined. In the context that the whole taxation system is unfair and biased in favour of big business, the campaigns must not accept the establishment’s lie that resources are scarce and should continue to oppose any increase in the tax burden on the PAYE sector. To counter pose the scrapping of the bin tax for an increase in income tax was wrong and raising it as a prospect flew in the face of current developments, given that the establishment sees local taxes as an essential step towards their goal of the privatisation of services.

The council’s policy of non-collection earlier this year knocked the city campaign back but the difficulties are made worse when leaders of the campaign undermine the need for struggle and the key demands of the movement. Such retreats must be stopped.

Legal ruling an important but limited victory

The court victory regarding the charges levied for 2001 and 2002 is a very welcome boost given the lack of justice that the system has given the campaign. Its impact is limited in that the charges still exist - what it does is to reduce people’s arrears of a tax that we believe they shouldn’t have to pay in the first place. However if the mess it creates relating to overcharging and the invalidation of the bills the council has issued gives the campaigns a breathing space to build, then that will be welcomed by activists.

Dating back to the battle against the Water Charges, the Socialist Party’s position has always been to use the courts when appropriate. Just as it was with the Water Charges, we need to be clear there is no legal route to defeating the Bin Tax. That can only be done if active resistance is built in the communities.

However it was correct to legally challenge the charges on the specifics of the council’s own waste management plan as the indications were that it had a better basis than previous challenges. It illustrates very well the benefit of having good legal representation and how the courts can sometimes be used as an auxiliary to the main struggle. Legal charges are exorbitant and prohibitive, that’s why legal action should never be rushed into. However, the idea put forward by some that the city campaign has been over-charged does not stand up to investigation.

On the issue of legal costs

As Treasurer, Diarmuid Naessens took the responsibility to go through the bills with the legal company and found that all monies paid by the city campaign related only to legal action taken by members of that campaign. The reality is that the campaign could have been charged considerably more but wasn’t because of the good relationship that the legal team had developed with the organisers of the Anti Water Charges Campaign, particularly with Joe Higgins TD.

That means the idea or accusation that money from the city campaign had paid off the bills of other campaigns, particularly those where the Socialist Party had a strong involvement, are also false and we assume will not be repeated again.

No retreat from the campaign’s programme, struggle or democratic procedures

Notwithstanding the difficulties that exist, we believe these issues, particularly the question of how best to continue to fight to defend non-payment and defending the programme and demands of the campaign are important and needed to be clarified. Socialist Party members in the city campaign, as in all the other campaigns, have been serious and always committed to this issue and it is dishonest for some to say that we have walked away from the issue. However, we do have very serious differences with how some operate in the campaign.

The Socialist Party was represented at the campaign activists’ meeting that took place in March. That meeting agreed to stand down the steering committee, leaving it to the areas to choose who would represent them at future meetings. No change was made to the Officer Board at that meeting. However, when Diarmuid Naessens attended the meeting of the new steering committee in May he was surprised to find he had been removed as Treasurer, as the Officer Board had supposedly been scrapped! Joe Mooney was also surprised when he was subsequently told he was no longer Secretary!

The Socialist Party has operated honestly and in the best interests of this campaign and the struggle. Our members have been present when the struggle was difficult, whenever serious issues needed to be addressed or when purposeful activities were taking place. We have put forward the truth as we see it about the difficulties in the campaign but have consistently tried to point to the ways the campaign can be taken forward.

When, where and who took the decision to remove the Socialist Party from the Officer Board of the campaign has not been explained. That such a manoeuvre took place without due process or notice (no serious attempt was made before or after to communicate with Diarmuid Naessens) is disgraceful and puts those responsible at odds with the basic democratic procedures that are necessary in working class campaigns.

Resistance can make Bin Tax an issue again

We believe the bin tax is unpopular and that the Government itself is becoming more unpopular. There is considerable anger on many issues but it is not coming to the surface at this time. That will change and it is important that activists hold firm and try to fight the bin tax in the best way possible and defend the programme upon which the campaign was established.

The campaign still has a base in some important working class communities and the space that exists now should be used to try to convince those communities that the best way of fighting the council and the polices of the Government is to mobilise and actively resist the council and their policy of non-collection in a united fashion. Such a stand could make the bin tax a big issue again.

<-End of Document->