Ireland – No political home for advocates of a just society

“Greece is not Ireland” was a slogan raised by some of the more perspicacious demonstrators in Athens against their government’s austerity drive. It’s not just the absence of sunshine or a distinguished philosophical tradition that help you tell the difference between  the two. Contrast the response on the streets to broadly similar ruling class offensives.

Thanks to John for tipping me off to this piece in the Irish Times by Vincent Browne.

Labour and SF seek power in coalition with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, neither of which has a real interest in equality

THE SINN Féin website records that a motion at the party’s ardfheis last weekend, that Sinn Féin“will not, under any circumstances, enter into coalition or any other electoral pact with Fianna Fáil before, during or after a general election” was lost.

It records that another motion calling on Sinn Féin “not to go into power with other parties in government, such as Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, as this would be incompatible with our politics and would damage the party”, was passed with amendments.

In fact the substance of the motion was lost and a gobbledegook amendment was passed with predictable fudges, allowing the leadership more or less absolute discretion to do what they like, subject of course to endorsement by a special ardfheis.

The position, therefore, is that all the parties in the Dáil are willing to go into government with either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, knowing one or other of these parties will be the major party of government and will set the agenda for that government.

In the last 40 years, the Labour Party has gone into coalition government with Fine Gael on four occasions and once with Fianna Fáil. It is possible to argue that in each of these coalitions, some progress was made towards making this a more socially just and open society. There were significant increases in social welfare during some of these governments. There was reform of the laws governing the financing of elections and of political parties. A Freedom of Information Act was introduced. Other laws and initiatives on child care, the health services and education were introduced.

Also the very act of removing the party of government, Fianna Fáil, from office now and again had a regenerative effect.

But what effect has there been in terms of changing power structures in Irish society, in terms of a significant redistribution of wealth and income, in terms of making a major inroad into the scale of inequality here, or giving a large part of the population a sense of empowerment, of esteem, of being involved in all aspects of society? Damn all. Damn all because the lead party of government, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, had no interest in doing anything substantial on these issues.

They talk of incrementalism, how gradual improvement can edge us towards what Fine Gael once envisaged as a “just society”. We now know this is poppycock. It hasn’t happened over the 40 years and will not happen.

We are not talking of a Marxist revolution here, for that could not happen at present without a subversion of the will of the people. We are talking, however, about some major steps towards a more equal society, a society such as Denmark, which is very much more egalitarian and remains very prosperous and successful (even by conventional criteria).

We are talking about a society that would give priority to the regeneration of deprived areas within a few years, ie priority over roads, airports and everything else. We are talking about a significant shift in the distribution of income through tax and social welfare. We are talking about capping incomes in the public sector and in the private sector funded by the public purse (eg the banks) at, say, €150,000, and ensuring that nobody gets less than the equivalent of €20,000 for a single person, and heavy taxation on incomes in the private sector over €150,000.

We are talking about a society that would impose a single tier, publicly funded, health service (if people wanted private medicine they would be free to pay for it themselves, with no State subsidy). Ditto in education. And a publicly-funded pension scheme for all citizens, with no tax breaks for private pensions.

These are not revolutionary ideas that the Irish public would find abhorrent, although it would take a formidable effort of campaigning to counter the onslaught such a programme would invite from the vested interests. But we are wasting our time thinking this can come about in any government of which Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael is a part. I am not saying these parties are without principles or ideals, rather that they do not share the kind of ideals suggested here.

But Labour is gung-ho for another coalition. It wants power and that’s it. So too with Sinn Féin. So anybody who wants a significantly fairer society must look elsewhere. But where?

The fact is there is no alternative and the left-wing groups, organisations, small parties, the community groups that have been ravaged by the cuts and the cynicisms, the NGOs, all awaiting either a convulsion that will change the social order or a Messiah to lead them out of the desert, will wait in vain.

The only hope is that those who want a radically more just society get together now and form a left alliance, to start a campaign that may take 40 years to succeed. And they need to start now. But at least those 40 years wouldn’t be wasted.

How should we vote in the general election?

In restaurants a useful rule of thumb is that the more choices there are on the menu the worse is the cooking. Does the same apply to political choices at elections?

The new issue of Socialist Resistance is out next week. Our editorial calls for a vote for candidates who will maximise the left vote such as Respect, left Greens like Caroline Lucas, candidates of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) and acknowledges that in some areas there is no choice but to vote Labour.

As Gordon Brown clings on to the last available minute before risking a general election, it is becoming clear that despite the public anger against him, Blair, and New Labour, the widely-predicted Tory victory is no longer by any means a certainty.

The strident pronouncements by David Cameron and his public school buddies that working people have to face massive, immediate cuts as soon as the Tories are elected – and more recent reactionary Tory rumblings over marriage, immigration and of course scrapping inheritance tax for all but the super-rich – have helped to undermine Cameron’s carefully-constructed (albeit unlikely) image of the new Conservative Party as socially liberal, and instead reinforced memories of hard-faced attacks on public services under Thatcher.

The Tory campaign effort appears unwittingly to have reminded people that there is now a significant difference between the two parties which so recently appeared like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Tweedledum now clearly wants huge cuts and painful measures at once, while Tweedledee has been ineffectually trying to buy his way out of the crisis, and wants to impose the cuts more slowly over four years. Who in their right mind wants to vote for cuts now, if the cuts could be postponed?

Cameron’s setback and the increasing prospect of a hung parliament or even a narrow Labour win will have a political impact: Brown’s authority will be increased within the Labour Party as more MPs realise they may still be looking to him for promotion after the election, and fewer are inclined to voice criticisms.

And many voters – egged on especially by right wing union leaders who have already effectively pulled down the shutters on any campaigns critical of the government until after the election – will be more wary than ever of casting a vote which they may fear could accidentally allow Cameron and his cronies to gain ground.

So where should the left stand on voting? It’s clear that the narrow margin between the two main parties is not the fault of the left, but flows from the wretched policies of New Labour in government. Voting Labour against the Tories is right where there is no left alternative and as a short-term option, but the long-term task is to create a new, principled left wing alternative to Brown and New Labour, which will embrace a programme reflecting the needs and demands of the majority of society, not centred on the preservation of capitalism, the banking system, and imperialist alliances: a policy for the millions, not the millionaires.

Simply urging workers to ‘vote Labour’ is to effectively gag the political debate, and further postpone the necessary fight for something new and better.

The most developed and successful left challenge to Labour has come from Respect, which already has councillors in Birmingham and East London, and an MP, George Galloway. Respect will be standing in at least 10 parliamentary seats and over 100 local government seats in these elections.

Respect Party leader and Birmingham councillor Salma Yaqoob came a close second in the last general election, and seems well-placed again to challenge in Birmingham, with the Green Party having agreed to stand aside in her favour.

Even though these seats may be viewed by Labour as marginals, we call for a vote for Respect: and we also call for a vote for Respect in the seats it will be contesting in East London, Manchester and the North West Bradford and elsewhere.

In other constituencies we call for a vote for candidates who will maximise the left vote, where credible candidates stand opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, opposed to neoliberalism, cuts in public services and other anti-working class measures. In some areas this means supporting candidates of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC): in others the left vote should go to the few campaigning left wing Labour MPs (notably John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn), and in some areas for Green Party candidates where they run on platforms to the left of the Labour Party. In Scotland we call for a vote for the Scottish Socialist Party in those seats it is contesting.

We strongly support Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion where she has a real possibility of a breakthrough. Her election to Parliament, as is the case with the three Respect candidates who have a real possibility of wining, would be a victory for the whole of the left and progressive politics in Britain.

Of course in a number of areas the additional factor that cannot be ignored is the danger of the far-right, notably the BNP, exploiting the situation created by over a decade of New Labour failure.

We accept no responsibility for the social problems that have arisen and even worsened since 1997: but we are not neutral on the issue of the far-right. Even the worst New Labour hack is less of a threat to working class solidarity than a BNP electoral victory. So in any constituency where no established left wing candidate is already running against the far-right, the only sensible solution is to call for a vote for Labour.

In Scotland and in Wales, however, the issue is more straightforward: we support the SSP as our first preference in Scotland, and we call for a vote for Plaid Cymru, which has pushed the Welsh Assembly government to the left, against New Labour candidates.

Voting – and campaigning around elections – is a part of a much wider process that must take place if the chronic weakness of working class leadership and left politics is to be addressed. We might have hoped to be in a stronger position on this already: but some serious work in the next few months can hopefully strengthen the left as a political force in the longer term.

Facebook – where’s the moral panic?

There’s a randomness in the things that kick off a moral panic. Today the government is broadcasting its determination to be seen to do something about big scary dogs in the hope that the cynophobe vote will tilt the balance in a few marginals. What’s slightly surprising is the utter absence of the traditional baying for the blood of everyone associated with Facebook following yesterday’s conviction for murder of the paedophile Peter Chapman.

Even the Daily Mail’s headline only asks the reasonable question “Who’s your child talking to on Facebook tonight?” Being the Mail it doesn’t skimp on salacious detail and goes as far as to helpfully label one site a “paedophile’s paradise” just in case any of its readers want to investigate the matter in more depth. What none of the press coverage seems to demand in these cases of social networking sites being used by criminals to access victims is that they be shut down.

Normally the right wing press likes nothing better than making governments, especially Labour governments, rush through some piece of legislation to clamp down on the lower orders. This should be a perfect campaigning issue for them. Every computer in every child’s bedroom can, within seconds, become a door for every paedophile on the planet on account of Facebook and Bebo. Why isn’t the government doing something about it? That has the makings of a plausible press campaign.

What’s the difference between big scary dogs, asylum seekers and Facebook? Which of the three are right wing journalists most likely to use and which of the three do they want the state to lay off? Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why the lynch mob hasn’t been assembled for social networking sites. Despite the fact that they sometimes involve young people sending rude photos and perverts roaming freely, and so meet all the criteria for a bit of repressive prudery, they are being left alone to a remarkable degree. It’s nice to see self interest trumping authoritarian impulses.

Sensible advice for anyone with kids can be found here, here and here.

Counterfire – savvy new kid on the block

Counterfire, which went live today, has significantly raised the bar for the British left’s web presence. To take one trivial example it allows you to immediately share by e mail, export the pdf or, and this is the clever bit, hear any article on the site. The trick there though is to be patient and click only once unless you want to hear the same article being read two or three times  with a split second delay. How well used this will be is anyone’s guess but it does allow people with visual impairments access to online sources of information that may have previously not been available to them.

Established by ex members of the SWP including Lindsey German, John Rees, Clare Solomon and Elaine Graham-Leigh Counterfire describes itself as “a news and theory website from the movements, for the movements.” With an eye to symbolism it was launched on the 100th International Women’s Day and says it is edited by Ady Cousins and an elected editorial board. There is no obvious reference to anyone’s recent or long term political history. Neither is there any identification with any political current nor a hint that the site is representing the views of an organisation.

The first day’s content reflects the recent activity of its contributors, with a lot of coverage of war related issues such as Joe Glenton and an advert for a meeting on Islamophobia. Plugging a big gap it has more material on feminism than you find on most left sites with major features of Nina Power’s and Lindsey German’s recent meeting, an article on Inessa Armand and a report of an entertaining action against Tesco’s jimjam ban. You can find out about the rest of it by visiting the site rather than relying on me to describe it.

It has pulled together a talented team of writers but has understood that it also needs the technical knowledge to sustain a professional looking site with a lot of stimulating content. In a break with the tradition from which the contributors come it seems to be inviting comments. The moderation policy will be a test for the wisdom and patience of those tasked with administering it I suspect. The hardest part of that is likely to be allowing the free and easy attitude to comment and dissent that are features of living movements free rein while stopping idiots behaving true to form.

Analogies are always invidious but that’s not always a reason not to make them. Now that Socialist Unity is explicitly locating itself somewhere in the middle of a triangle formed by Gordon Brown, George Galloway and Ken Livingstone Counterfire has the potential to become the premier source of information and meeting place for those of an activist bent who don’t feel comfortable inside that triangle. Its commitment to theory from day one is also a pleasing rejection of the empiricism which has been the charm and the bane of the British left.

Here’s wishing the site well.

‘Feminism Today’ with Nina Power and Lindsey German

Thanks to Jane Kelly for sending me this report on a significant socialist feminist meeting.

The meeting on ‘Feminism Today’ with Nina Power and Lindsey German at Housmans’ bookshop (Saturday, March 6, to celebrate International Women’s Day) attracted a hundred strong audience of women, especially young women and a few men. It was a stimulating and lively meeting, with a sense of dynamism and energy I have not experienced in a women’s meeting since the days of Women for Socialism – an offshoot of the Socialist Movement – in the late 1980s. This meeting reinforces the observation that many women are becoming angry about their situation, especially in the face of a prolonged period of austerity.

Both speakers have had books published – German’s Material Girl: Women, Men and Work in 2007 and Power’s One Dimensional Woman in 2009 – and their thought-provoking introductions gave a taste of the contents, in particular the relationship between oppression, gender and class. Unfortunately there was not enough time to develop discussion of the role of the family in capitalist society. Nina Power made an interesting critique of what used to be called ‘cultural’ feminism, or lifestyle feminism, arguing that unless you analyse the position of women at work and what she calls the ‘feminisation’ of labour, you cannot start to understand the position of women in today’s society.

Lindsey German pointed out that, despite some pessimism at the state of the contemporary women’s movement and its interests – a tendency to individual solutions, self-empowerment, alongside a capitalist labour market which emphasised female eagerness to please, ‘perky-ness’ and a general commodification of sex, including among young girls – there have in fact been huge changes in the lives of women (in Britain) since the 1960s. Many of these changes are a direct result of the activities and battles by the women’s liberation movement (WLM) of the 1970s and 1980s. But, and it is a big but, many of the expectations raised by the second wave of the WLM have not been met. The most obvious is the question of equal pay, with women still earning only around 80% of the male wage, and for the millions of part-time women workers the situation is even worse.

 The introductions were followed by a wide-ranging and interesting discussion from the floor. It was noticeable that speakers for the most part had a socialist feminist framework, including the many young women present. This was especially inspiring to those socialist feminists like myself who have been active since the 1970s. The political level of discussion was high too, including on the other main debate that was about the hijab and the right of Muslim women to wear it. There was more or less a consensus on this among the women who spoke, though there were a couple of men who suggested that supporting this right to choose was a derogation of socialism. But this was a minority view and there were some witty and sharp responses to it such as the speaker who pointed out that how the viewer feels looking at Islamic dress is neither here nor there. Others pointed out that Christian religious dress codes, such as the demand that women wear a scarf in a church, a requirement until quite recently, were rarely objected to, including by men!

In my contribution I pointed out that this was also the 40^th anniversary of the first Women’s Liberation conference, held at Ruskin College, Oxford in 1970. Just as Lindsey pointed out, many of our objectives have not been met.

The demands of that conference were as follows:

· Equal Pay

· Equal education and job opportunities

· Free conception and abortion on demand

· 24 hour free nurseries

On equal pay women earn around 82% of male wage in full time work, but it is much worse if you compare hourly rates of women in part time work and men in full time work – a 40% gap. And large numbers of women work part-time because of child care commitments. Furthermore women concentrated in a segregated labour market in 10 or so service and caring occupations despite increased educational attainment at all levels. And childcare, an essential component of giving women choices about when, how and what to work at is very expensive and mostly in private hands etc. ‘Free nurseries’ is still a demand we need to fight for.

Some figures from the early 1990s show how women have been used as a reserve army of labour to push down wages generally and to push all workers – men and women – into temporary, part-time and poorly paid work. This is Power’s ‘feminisation’ of the workforce.

By the middle of the 1990s the composition of the labour force had changed. According to Labour Market Trends, March 1997, over 70 per cent of women between the ages of sixteen and fifty-nine were economically active at the start of 1996. Forty-four per cent were working part time, compared to 8 per cent of men. Of the 5.8 million people working part time, 82 per cent were women. However the 8 per cent of men working part time had doubled between 1986 and 1996, whereas the percentage of women working part time had only increased by one per cent. The figures for temporary work are even more striking: the number of women in temporary jobs increased by 23 per cent, while for men the figure was 74 per cent.

Lindsey German had produced a draft Manifesto for 21^st Century Feminism that was distributed at the meeting. Many people signed up for a proposed meeting to discuss it – date to be announced – and I look forward to more discussion on the issues facing women in the next period of capitalist crisis, and the activities and campaigns that will be necessary.

UNISON bureaucracy targets activists

DAWN RAIDS ON UNISON OFFICES!

Following the mitigation hearings Glenn Kelly (Bromley), Suzanne Muna ( TSA ), Onay Kasab (Greenwich) and Brian Debus (Hackney) have all been banned  from holding any office in Unison.

Early on 5th March UNISON officials turned up at the UNISON  offices of the Bromley, Greenwich and the Housing Association having given no notice; we are awaiting an update from Hackney. The officials have  attempted to confiscate computer hard drives and other resources, which include important documents on on-going personal cases.

The officials intend to run elections for new branch officers but as has happened in other branches they may well try to run the branches themselves

which has led to moribund UNISON branches.

The Four have conducted a determined and high profile campaign which has meant that it has taken nearly 3 years to get them banned from office. The mitigation hearings also concluded that the length of the bans will be reduced by between 1 and  2 years.

However, the morning’s action shows the vicious reality of the UNISON  leadership’s attacks on socialist activists within the union.

The four are urging supporters to phone or e-mail UNISON Head Office now to protest against the ban and the raids of the branch offices.

What we need you to do:

1. Let as many unison members as possible know what is happening

2. E-mail letters of protest to:

- UNISON General Secretary Dave Prentis: d.prentis@unison.co.uk

- UNISON London Region: greaterlondonregion@unison.co.uk

- UNISON Head Office:

3. Phone UNISON Head Office to express your disgust on 0845 355 0845

4. Pass a motion at your next meeting to be sent to Dave Prentis.

5. Funds are urgently needed for leaflets, publicity and legal costs. Cheques payable to: ‘Stop the Witch-Hunt’ and should be sent to: Defend the Four Campaign, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG.

6. Please let us know details of your protests – e-mail us at: info@stopthewitchhunt.org.uk.

Fourth International declares itself ecosocialist

Alan Thornett reports from the sixteenth world congress of the Fourth International (FI) which was held in Ostend Belgium in late February. There were over 200 delegates, observers and invited guests from around 40 countries. The International brings together revolutionary socialists from around the world and Socialist Resistance is its section in the British state.

It was the International’s most successful congress for some years, marking important steps forward at both the political and the organisational levels. A new Russian section was recognised and an expansion or consolidation of the forces of the FI was recorded in a number of countries from Japan to the Spanish state. The Labour Party Pakistan, an organisation with over 7,000 members, has declared itself in solidarity with the FI and played an important role.

There was a very positive mood at the congress. This was due, not least, to the fact that there were more young people than in previous years and more women. Both of these factors were reflected in the new International Committee which was elected at the end of the Congress with 40% women’s representation.

The Congress discussed a range of resolutions from the world political situation, the economic crisis, climate change, women and the crisis of humanity, LGBT rights, and the role and tasks of the FI itself. It also adopted resolutions on, Palestine, Human rights in Mexico, Peru, Sri Lanka, Haiti and on the importance upcoming conference on climate change in Cochabamba called by Evo Morales.

The single most significant decision was the adoption of the resolution on climate change. This is a comprehensive and detailed resolution which includes the decision to define the FI as an ecosocialist international. It is one of the most important programmatic resolutions adopted by the FI for many years and makes the FI the first of the Trotskyist international organisations to define itself as ecosocialist.

The driving force in the discussion on climate change was the delegates from the global south including the Latin American delegations — some of which had already defined their own sections as ecosocialist. The only sceptical voice in the discussion was a visitor from the French Organisation Lutte Ouvrière who argued that the climate change issue was a middle class fad.

Most impressive from a practical point of view was the Philippines section — the Revolutionary Workers Party-Mindanao. They not only talked about the impact of extreme weather events on the region caused by climate change but how they are seeking to create sustainable agriculture in the Chiapas-type zone they control. They are, for example, replacing Monsanto modified rice, which has had it power to germinate as seed destroyed, with traditional rice strains which the farmers can use as seed.

There was a high level of agreement on the world political situation and the economic crisis — in particular on the structural and dual economic and ecological nature of the crisis. There was also wide agreement on the war drive and the role of Obama’s USA which is increasingly displaying a continuity with George Bush’s project. The delegate from China explained in graphic detail how China was emerging as a new imperialist power with a gigantic labour force at its disposal — possibly representing a quarter of the world’s working class.

A text was agreed on the role and tasks of the Fourth International around the need to build anti-capitalist parties to provide a political voice for all those abandoned by social democracy which has now embraced neo-liberalism. Socialist Resistance was sceptical about the call for a future broader anti-capitalist international although the text nevertheless called for the building and strengthening of the FI in its present form as a revolutionary socialist international. Importantly this includes putting a new impetus behind the FI’s Institute for Research and Education (IIRE) in Amsterdam — which is planning future seminars on broad parties, ecosocialism and on job conversion in the car industry. There were also reports on the launching of two ‘regional’ extensions of the IIRE, one in Manila, which is already functioning and another which is being planned in Islamabad.

It’s neck and neck

If he weren’t a Tory you might be inclined to feel a bit sorry for David Cameron. On becoming party leader he immediately flew to the Arctic Circle to have his photo taken with some huskies and then he got a primary school child to design the new oak tree party logo. For a while it looked like the Conservatives were going to stroll into government with a thumping majority. Now it’s not so clear.

Recent events just go to show that a few cuddly photos and a crayon drawing can’t really change a party’s social base. Michael Ashcroft may be a perfectly legitimate tax dodging billionaire and who wouldn’t be a bit economical with the truth if it got you that once in a lifetime opportunity to wear a big red cape and upgrade from “Mr” to “Lord”? Cameron’s problem is that it does tend to remind people of the, probably grossly unfair, stereotype that to get ahead in the Tories you have to be a slightly corrupt, conniving pauper hater.

Not just that. By chucking millions of pounds at marginal seats Ashcroft and the Tories seemed to operate on the assumption that there is nothing in the slightest bit dubious about one billionaire tying to influence the result of a general election. Apparently he likes to play up his Dr Evil persona but at least Austin Powers’ nemesis was only in it for the money. Ashcroft’s motivation is probably ideological – making the world a better place for tax avoiding billionaires is a cause worth fighting for. Yet such is his disregard for any sort of democratic accountability that he didn’t even come clean with Cameron or William Hague. Perhaps he just didn’t want to add to their stress at this busy time.

In that alternative reality where Daily Mail writers dwell they think that all this hoo-ha is down to “the politics of envy”. What remains of the Labour supporting press is playing the issue up to incite tax payers making £18 000, £25 000 or £30 000 a year feel cross that a man who could, if he wanted to have given the £5.1 million to the Inland Revenue instead of the Tories. It’s a theory.

Unsavoury billionaires apart the other thing that seems to be doing some damage to the Tories is their “we want to nuke the public sector” message. For some reason that almost defied logic it had gained some traction. It doesn’t seem so popular anymore and Labour’s limited expansionist policy towards the economy has at least limited the damage to their electoral challenges.

So it’s going to be an interesting couple of months. It’s hard to pick up any surge of enthusiasm for Labour but they may not go down to the humiliating defeat that seemed inevitable fairly recently. It would be nice to see the Tories humiliated though.

Footnote – speaking at a meeting last week George Galloway speculated on what Respect would do if it had three MPs in a hung parliament. If memory serves he offered full support for a Labour government if it withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan and didn’t make public spending cuts. Failing that they would vote for each piece of legislation on a case by case basis.

What the readers think

The upcoming general election might be an important one but it’s hard to spot a wave of popular enthusiasm for much that’s on offer. Let’s suspend disbelief and pretend that this site’s readership is a typical cross section of the electorate and see what the polling evidence indicates about the outcome and magnificent variety of voting options. Cast your vote according to what you would suggest the broad masses should do.

Union members on hunger strike

Unemployment in the south of Ireland in February was 12.6 per cent. That’s one worker in five but it’s worse if you are young. One third of the labour force, between the age of 20 and 24, is now unemployed. The figures would be worse if it were not for emigration and government but it’s edging towards 1988’s 16.8 percent.

As this report from the Morning Star suggests, the absence of a serious response from the unions is forcing some workers to take extremely desperate measures.

A third trade unionist is set to join a hunger strike on Wednesday to press bosses at the Green Isle Foods factory in Naas, Ireland, to reinstate three colleagues who were unfairly dismissed.

Shop steward Jim Wyse is entering the third week on hunger strike and John Guinan, a former Offaly All-Ireland footballer, is in his second week.

The men, who are all members of the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU), have been on strike for six months over the unfair dismissals.

The hunger strikers took the momentous step after being on the picket line for six months – through one of the worst winters in a memory – and after the company rebuffed the efforts of the Labour Relations Commission, the National Implementation Body and the Labour Court to resolve the dispute.

The only independent body to examine the merits of the dispute is the Labour Court.

It found the dismissals to be unfair and recommended that the men be reinstated and fully reimbursed for lost wages or be paid a total of 160,000 euros (£145,000) in compensation for the loss of their jobs.

Irish Congress of Trade Unions president Jack O’Connor and general secretary David Begg both spoke at a rally in support of the Green Isle Foods workers and hunger strikers in Naas on Saturday.

The rally was organised by the Kildare Council of Trade Unions.

A number of opposition political leaders have expressed their support for the strikers.

Green Isle Foods is a division of the British conglomerate Northern Foods, which has a turnover of more than 1 billion euros (£900m) and recently declared that its annual profits were up 8.9 per cent to £53m.

Among its best-known brands are Goodfellas and San Marco pizzas and Green Isle vegetables.

It also produces a number of own-brand products for supermarket chains in Britain.