ELECTRIC CARS FOR THE WELL OFF BUT THE GREENS STILL OFFER THE LEFT A LESSON

If there are to be more electric cars, giving everyone the same incentive to buy is of absolutely no use to those who cannot afford a new car. The structure is set up so that the ones who benefit are the ones that already have advantages.

On the face of it, there’s nothing there for the left. Wrong! The Green approach has a lesson in strategy for the Left. It is a radical and transformative approach in that all policy and budgets are to be evaluated in terms of reducing carbon emissions. That is to say, they have an overall driving objective which determines all else. Clearly, a policy which copper fastens the structure of inequality or which makes the rich the agents of the move to electric cars would have no difficulty passing an evaluation based on carbon emissions.

It doesn’t have to be this way because all policy and budgets (including those aimed at reducing carbon emissions) could be subjected to a different driving objective, i.e. the same strategy but with a different core value would lead to a different outcome.

The basic idea for the left is to take up a radical and transformative position which is egalitarian, and – like the Greens with carbon reduction – make it a pre-condition for entering talks on the formation of government. It should be emphasised that this is entirely compatible with carbon reduction and in case there is any doubt, it could be made explicitly so.

There are a few such objectives and interestingly a Labour Party delegate conference unanimously adopted one: Labour formally decided to make programmatic reduction of inequality of income its transformative position. Details of that, and the overall argument for adopting transformative preconditions, together with a discussion of a second transformative condition to address the rise of SF can be found here: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2021/10/17/tiocfaidh-ar-reamhchoinnioll-the-irish-labour-party-and-government-formation/

It is likely that the Greens had studied how previous coalitions had strung the Labour Party along on policies and left them mired in “hard decisions” but without any transformative progress. They realised that the same would happen to them unless they made reduction of carbon emissions into a determinant of all government policies and budgetary decisions. That is what they’ve achieved and though they may suffer come the next election, their achievement is of enormous consequence.

Yes, it is at odds with leftist values but it offers the left a lesson in government formation. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the lesson has been so much as noticed. Indeed, the Leader of the Labour Party, Alan Kelly, in Nov. 2021 is reported to have said that the party would enter government after the next election on two conditions: that its core policies would be implemented and that it can trust the “moral compass of those who aspire to govern with us”. “Moral compass”, while it might sound fresh, is without meaning in this context. So, it’s back to election manifestos and policy trading with the virtual certainty of a familiar ending. There’ll be no transformative legacy and the old coalition debate (Get some policies implemented in coalition Vs stay out and wait for majority support.) can go on and on and on … just like 40 years ago.

TIOCFAIDH ÁR RÉAMHCHOINNÍOLL; THE IRISH LABOUR PARTY AND GOVERNMENT FORMATION

The question of participation in coalition government looms as ever over the Irish Labour Party. For many members it is a matter of identity and they’d be disconcerted without it. It has been thus for more than half a century. For all those decades it has been next to impossible to discuss, evaluate and learn because one or both sides tends to repudiate as dishonest anything that threatens their old, familiar row.

Labour’s coalition ambitions have always been to ameliorate the most objectionable policies of the larger party and to implement some Labour policies. Fundamentally, it is policies, always policies, trading in policies. At election time each party has their manifesto or policy menu and while media feed the news with changing “red-line issues/policies”, the thoughtful citizen knows that newsworthiness and reality are not the same, that policy negotiations will follow the election result.

It could of course be different if Labour learned from past experience and decided that there would be a precondition or two to be accepted before opening policy talks/negotiations.

**********

Moreover, it is relatively easy to set out the criteria which a precondition for talks on government must satisfy.

1. A precondition cannot concern mere policy. Remember that those who want to strike a deal will concede easily on policy – especially ones that will make them look good. They will be well aware of history, knowing that they will have years of government to frustrate or take credit for implementation and ensure that Labour emerges damaged from the period of government.

2. A precondition must involve a fundamental change.

3. A precondition must change public discourse, allowing Labour to set the new debate. It must push media coverage of government formation so that it returns again and again to the radical change demanded.

4. A precondition must run counter to the interests of the larger party seeking a deal.

5. A precondition must be programmatic and measurable over the lifetime of a government.

6. A precondition must offer citizens something concrete for which to vote. They must know that a precondition is not negotiable. Rather it is the door to negotiations, i.e. that negotiations on policy will begin after entry.

************

Interestingly, a Labour conference has already set a precondition that meets these criteria and which would drive FG, FF and likely SF nuts. It would certainly question them on how serious they are about getting into government.

Here’s the Conference Resolution proposed by Joanna Tuffy and unanimously adopted on April 23^rd 2017 which set down Labour’s precondition for entering talks on government:

“That Labour make measurable reduction of income inequality our basic objective. All policy proposals are then to be at least compatible with this objective and a year-on-year, measurable reduction in income inequality is to become a precondition for any talks on participation in government or on support for minority government. It is accepted that alterations in pay structures within the public service and/or within companies and organisations dependent on the state for finance or contracts may be implemented before more general changes in the wider economy.”

Lest there be any doubt, the contentious matter here is gross income, i.e. pay, bonus, benefits etc. That is to say, reducing income inequality in an organisation refers to narrowing the gap in payroll cost between the top earner and the bottom earner.

That decision had three components.

The first changed the position of the Labour Party not to anything revolutionary but nevertheless to the start of something very different and radical: the reduction of income inequality. Top to bottom pay differentials – indeed, multiples – stripped of layers of taxation talk could at last become a topic of public controversy. Why? Because Labour had made it salient, something necessarily considered when a new government is in the offing.

The second component addressed voters seeking dramatic change. It said to potential voters that if you are offended by glaring income inequality, Labour wants to begin reductions, that regardless of other compromises, without a commitment to have a year on year, measurable decrease in inequality of income, without a commitment to narrowing top-to-bottom pay differentials within organisations subject to state controls, there will be no talks on government formation.

The third component anticipated the whatabouters, the conservative messers, who always try to prevent change by claiming that each and every move is “unfair”, that the whole nasty structure from, say, 15,000 per annum to 300,000 per annum must be maintained because to change any part of it would be – as usual – “unfair”.

************

Unfortunately it’s likely that most people and even many Labour Party members will be surprised to discover that this is the Party’s position. How such a clear and basic decision was managed by well meaning staff and office holders so as to absorb it into existing practice/convention and thereby drain it of import is a case study in the conservative power of a bureau. It remains nevertheless a lucid conference decision.

************

The rise of SF makes the adoption of a second equally lucid precondition essential.

SF say that the Provo. IRA is gone and their intention now is merely to honour those who recently fought for independence just like previous IRAs. Therein, however, is their problem. Most armies and, it is certain, previous IRAs and their opponents committed atrocities which are quietly forgotten in order to portray the rest of their fight as heroic and honourable. That is not a course open to today’s SF because the Provo. IRA’s fight was largely carried by choosing to attack civilians. Bluntly, there were too many car bombs, proxy bombs, beatings, torture and civilian bodies to leave sufficient heroics that they might plausibly commemorate.

It must not happen that SF in government drag the republic into commemorating atrocities. Targeting civilians by bullet or public bomb is an unambiguous crime against humanity/war crime. Ireland would be shamed to become a nation that honoured car bombers.

If SF cannot put these horrors behind them, then the one way to commemorate is to mark the sites as places where Irish war crimes were committed. Where the sites are outside the jurisdiction of the state, it is likely that other governments would facilitate Ireland’s installation of discrete commemorative war-crimes plaques in their streets.

Labour can prompt enormous change by adopting a precondition for talks on government such as would make it impossible that honouring attacks on civilians could ever become a part of Irish civic life.

Here’s a first draft of a possible conference resolution:

That Labour now adopt a second precondition for opening talks on the formation of government: the founding of an independent Irish War Crimes Commission (Coimisiún um Choireanna Cogaidh na hÉireann) charged with the commemoration of atrocities committed by Irish combatants in Ireland or abroad. The Commission would report progress quarterly to the Dáil. The first report would present the wording (to include the explicit term “war crime”) to appear on commemorative plaques which will be installed at the sites of atrocities.

The objective is to make it difficult or well nigh impossible for a member of an Irish government to attend an event honouring anyone in any way associated with a state-recognised atrocity. Moreover, members of government would from time to time be called upon to unveil a plaque on the site of an atrocity.

Tiocfaidh ár réamhchoinníoll.

Pay attention or attention to pay: The Irish Labour Party may have changed public discourse on economic inequality

On Sunday morning April 23^rd 2017 Joanna Tuffy put a proposal to the Irish Labour Party Conference and it was adopted. If this decision is ignored, the Party can go on as before but if it is implemented, the Party will be changed.

Here’s the text:

“That Labour make measurable reduction of income inequality our basic objective. All policy proposals are then to be at least compatible with this objective and a year-on-year, measurable reduction in income inequality is to become a precondition for any talks on participation in government or on support for minority government. It is accepted that alterations in pay structures within the public service and/or within companies and organisations dependent on the state for finance or contracts may be implemented before more general changes in the wider economy.”

This conference decision has opened up a divide between Labour and all other Irish parties. It signals a refusal any longer to share their support for a meaningless “fairness” and to tolerate the restriction of equality to social concerns. It is a clear decision to move at last against the inequality that offends decent people day in, day out: the extraordinarily stable structure of income inequality – not the safely distant 1% but the gap between those on a minimum wage and those on high salaries.

The decision has three components.

The first changed the position of the Labour Party not to anything revolutionary but nevertheless to the start of something very different and radical: the reduction of income inequality. The reduction will at last become a topic of public controversy because this small party has made it its basic purpose and crucially has linked it to measurable change.

The second component addressed voting and the fraught question of coalition or support for a minority government. It says to potential voters that if you are offended by income inequality, Labour wants to begin reductions, that regardless of other compromises, without a commitment to have a year on year, measurable decrease in inequality of income, there will be no talks on government formation.

The third component is a matter of anticipating the whatabouters, the conservative messers who will try to prevent change by claiming that each and every move is “unfair”, that the whole nasty structure from, say, 15,000 per annum to 300,000 per annum must be maintained because to change any part of it would be – as usual – “unfair”.

So that’s it. It means change. Anyone who has been out talking to citizens knows that it is time to do this. There’s been obfuscation over the degree to which taxation is progressive and over the various methods of calculating inequality but it’s time to stop messing. The Labour Party’s basic aim is now the reduction of income inequality.

Thanks Joanna.

Whether it’s the Dáil or South Dublin Co. Council, economics is not the most compelling reason to rule out coalition between Labour and Sinn Féin

Joan Burton, Leader of the Labour Party, has responded to Sinn Féin’s overtures by ruling out a coalition. However, while her reasons for doing so are sound, they are not the most compelling. She says that she “would not jeopardise the country’s future in any way by seeing it going into the hands of Sinn Féin” but she is referring to SF economic policy.* That is of course a very good reason but there is something altogether more stark: the truly compelling reason the Labour Party or indeed anyone else must have nothing to do with SF is their human rights record, in particular their support for crimes against humanity.

Joan’s position is undermined, moreover, by the local government coalition of Labour, Sinn Féin and others at South Dublin County Council. The SF TD for Dublin South West, Seán Crowe, reckons that this alliance with the Labour Party has worked very well over the past few years and that, “There is a precedent there that we can work with Labour and others in an inclusive manner that can bring about change. South Dublin is a good example of that.” **

It is a glaring anomaly that Labour entering a coalition government to run the country requires the formal approval of party members, but a local government coalition can be agreed by cllrs. without so much as a discussion with members. After the 2014 local elections a party member objected on Facebook to involvement with SF. The last part of a Labour councillor’s reply was revealing, “In local government, the people are the focus. My community is what matters to me.” This is the hideous realm of the whitewash, a realm in which terms of decency (people, community) are used to cloak horror.

The Labour coalition with SF at SDCC is now in its second term. It has never received the formal approval of members in South Dublin. It is unconscionable that Labour has done a gratuitous deal with SF. It should never have started. It should end now.

_________________________________________________

*http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/burton-won-t-jeopardise-country-s-future-with-sinn-f%C3%A9in-deal-1.2455028

**http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-leaning-more-towards-coalition-with-labour-than-ff-1.2453529

An open letter to Brendan Howlin on the question of pacts and coalitions

Dear Brendan,

When it comes to Labour’s approach to the next general election, I disagree profoundly with you. However, let me be clear from the outset that in the next election I will vote Labour and then transfer to Fine Gael. I will do so for the reasons that you outlined in your Irish Times article.* It is very important not to risk what has been achieved. So, how then do I disagree with you? I disagree on a more fundamental level. I disagree with your political outlook – your view of Labour’s purpose in entering coalition. In brief and I don’t mean to offend, I find you unnecessarily liberal and insufficiently socialist.

You see three main reasons for Labour being part of a new government: i) that proportional to its strength in the next Dáil, Labour will push FG in a leftward direction mostly to do with tax relief and improving state services; ii) that Labour has a particular interest in increasing employment; and iii) that Labour will try to have the 8^th amendment to the constitution rescinded.

With the possible exception of i) these three are not specifically socialist and could be championed by any half decent liberal party. Indeed if the tax relief is given to middle earners as “middle” is currently understood and if income relativities within state employment remain unchanged, none of the three is specifically socialist.

Before looking at the three in a little detail it would be right to say why liberal as opposed to left ambitions are just not enough. The first reason is that we’re talking about the Labour Party and if it doesn’t have explicitly left ambitions, it has very little purpose. It becomes a caring liberal party among a number of liberal parties all of whom exist to advance liberal ambitions. Secondly, if Labour doesn’t offer left ambitions to the electorate, left voters have no one for whom to vote. No leftist would be attracted to FF or FG and no decent person would vote SF.** There is a group of small left parties but they offer no more than protest. Indeed their function in Ireland is to act as a lightning conductor for unhappiness and dissent.***

Turning now to your reasons for entering government, when Labour talks in clichéd terms about tax relief for low and middle earners, it sounds like every other party in the country. This is because “middle” is not to be taken literally. In Ireland and indeed in Britain “middle income” includes the majority of the rich.**** I can say this because I regard the top 10% of earners as rich and their inclusion within “middle income” as a distortion of public discourse.

When Labour talks about expanding state services without expressing an intention to change pay structures within state employment, the party again sounds like every other party. Worse than that, it expresses an intention to maintain the practice of becoming rich – entering that top decile – through public service. It also shows disdain for those who object to rich public servants along with ludicrous pensions and for those who take seriously the notion that apart from a good standard of living, being a public servant is not primarily about maximising income.

It is hard to be critical of a Labour Party minister being enthusiastic about job creation. Indeed in present circumstances it might be hard to be critical of anyone being enthusiastic about job creation. That’s the point: everyone is in favour of job creation. Liberals are very much in favour of job creation; they call it trickle-down economics. You and every party member know that that creates inequality and that it would be quite simply evasive to say that redistribution and/or labour law must wait until near-enough full employment is reached.

Having opposed Labour’s involvement in liberal objectives, it might seem strange that I would support your ambition to rescind the 8^th (“pro-life”) amendment to the constitution. Labour has, however, considerable history on this, being the one party right at the outset to refuse extreme Catholicism its demand to insert a ban on abortion into the constitution. Opposition to this and the sorry, cruel mess it created has been a feature of the Party’s recent history. That campaigning to delete the 8^th amendment might attract liberal voters is a bonus but fundamentally it is the moral thing to do.

This amendment then should be the one point of contact between liberal Ireland and the Labour Party, a shared ambition.

What then of your two other ambitions? They are liberal and could be decent. The problem is that in themselves they support, if not promote, economic inequality, specifically inequality of income.

Labour could turn firmly left by stating a modest ambition to reduce inequality of income. This would also drive a left-right wedge into Irish political discourse and at the same time give voters who dislike the existing structure of inequality something for which to vote.

What then of coalition? Few journalists seem to realise that Labour cannot enter coalition without the approval of a full delegate conference. Regardless of what happens by way of voting pacts or suggestions, if the numbers after an election suggest a coalition which includes Labour, there will be negotiations to reach an agreed programme for government. In other words, journalists are failing to emphasise that Labour is precluded by its own rules from doing other than campaigning alone.

However, it is no longer credible to ask for voter support for a whole raft of policies and say that implementation will be proportional to whatever numerical strength the party achieves at election. Voters need to know in advance that if Labour enters coalition something particular will happen no matter how many or few Labour TDs are returned.

We are therefore talking about preconditions. They have to be few and focussed – and this is crucial: they have to be divisive.

The liberal one is already chosen: a government supported referendum to remove the 8^th amendment from the constitution. Alone that’s neither sufficient nor leftist. The problem with the other ambitions, remember, was inequality. A second pre-condition should be a programmatic reduction – year on year over the lifetime of a government – of inequality of income.

There’s no reason to be side-tracked in controversy over measurement. Of course there is a number of measurements of inequality from which to choose but let’s not mess about; we all understand the basic objective.

The reduction demanded cannot be big or coalition could be refused by any liberal partner. Each year’s target for reduction will have to be modest. The point is to set Ireland on a radical new path to reduce inequality of income, to make the totality of government policy subject to this modest ambition, to place income inequality at the core of public discourse, to divide Irish society on the question of inequality and to give socialists and mild egalitarians something for which to vote.

Brendan, I’m not dismissive of this government’s achievement in restoring a liberal economy. I’m very aware of the threats to that progress. I’m not opposed to coalition; on the contrary I see it as the only route to leftward reforms. However, it’s time now to set out on that route: nothing revolutionary just a noticeable change in direction.

_______________________________________

* http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brendan-howlin-labour-and-fg-can-provide-state-with-vital-stability-1.2342504?fb_action_ids=10206995868311751&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=.Ve1SQV6jS3M.like

** This might seem merely provocative. That is not the intention and I will argue it at length in a later blog.

*** Lightning conductor is an apt metaphor because these parties function along with media, activists and advocate groups to attract and conduct dissent harmlessly to ground, and maintain the structure of inequality.

**** https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/middle-income-and-a-distortion-of-public-debate/

Syriza and the limits of left unity

An aspect of the rise and break-up of the Syriza administration remains largely unexamined: Syriza was an experiment in left unity. The proposition was that if all leftists united behind an agreed programme, a left government could be elected. Leaving aside the need to enter into coalition with a right wing, anti-austerity party, the unity approach seemed to deliver. However, Greece is now in worse shape than when Syriza and its right wing partners came to power and Syriza has split. This outcome was predictable, if not downright inevitable. There were two related flaws from the outset. Firstly, there was the untruth (a clumsy term but it covers belief, lie and fantasy) that a government could end austerity without negative consequences and secondly, there was the belief among leftists that unity could encompass those who were essentially uncompromising. It was clear from the outset that an end to “austerity” could not be achieved and because compromise would be out of the question for components of the alliance, it was to be expected that Syriza would split.

Syriza sought election by offering to confront Greece’s lenders and secure deliverance from onerous bail-out conditions. So far, so populist and citizens voted for it in numbers sufficient to make Syriza the largest party in parliament. The rest of the Syriza election programme seems to have been virtually ignored.

Shortly after the government was formed a different tune was heard and there were reasons to be optimistic. Confrontation was out; deals and compromise were in. The time seemed to be right for Greece to assume leadership of the growing support for a more Keynesian Europe.

It has never been fully explained how the optimism too quickly drained away in acrimony. Finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, was insistent that Greece wanted to pay her debts and yet the descent into nationalism and simple anti-austerity “principle” happened.* These months reversed a modest economic recovery and pushed reform of European fiscal policy off the agenda. Then after the farcical referendum and the subsequent bailout deal the chasm between left reform and left revolt became impossible to ignore.

That chasm is a problem on the left and it cannot be papered over; it makes left unity impossible. In recent decades most leftists have abandoned revolution in any meaningful sense of the word but they’ve also worked to keep their distance from what they deride as mere social democracy. In refusing to join with the century-old tradition of those socialists who work on reforms through the parliamentary structures of the liberal state, they create the paradox of wanting revolutionary change without a revolution.

The tendency to underestimate that refusal to cross to the other side of the Marxist tradition is at the root of left unity wishful thinking.

In Greece the ironically named Popular Unity has walked off to oppose Syriza. Their aim remains to end austerity by taking Greece out of the deal with creditors. They exhibit, however, what might be termed revolutionary honesty because they now talk of leaving the Euro if necessary and of rebuilding the country.

The Greek experiment with Left Unity may have done lasting damage to the very idea of Left government in that the economy was damaged without producing any real change and without pushing through left reforms.

——————————————————————————————-

* https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/its-not-plausible-that-the-publicly-expressed-argument-of-yanis-varoufakis-caused-this-crisis/

The purpose of the Irish Labour Party and the purpose of entering coalition government

The labour Party – my party – is in turmoil. Questions are being asked about leadership, management, a revised programme for government and more. However, now more than ever the most useful question that the Labour Party can ask of itself is what is its purpose? Many see its purpose as defending welfare payments, sometimes jokingly referred to as being the political wing of St. Vincent DePaul. In recent years it has become conventional to say that its purpose – like every other party in the state – is to create a fairer society. Since entering government its purpose has become the restoration the economy.

Defending welfare payments and restoring the economy are worthy objectives. “Fairness”, however, has become a weasel word. It has been emptied of meaning. Anyone at all can be comfortably in favour of fairness but essentially it is a conservative position because all significant change – particularly in wealth or income – can be described as unfair. https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/fairness-has-become-the-conservatives-shield/

It might have been expected that socialism would feature. It certainly is mentioned regularly and is a focus of rows usually of a very technical nature. Open, iconoclastic discussion is rare because of the dominance – across decades – of conflict over socialism versus social democracy. While many seem to enjoy this jousting, it hardly qualifies as a debate. Indeed the Labour Party’s on-line forum, a model of openness and freedom, had to impose a rule that forbade questioning a person’s socialism. The reason was simple and born out of long experience: it was realised that as soon as a person is subjected to the “you’re-not-a-real-socialist” routine he/she would become defensive and discussion would rush down the old, boggy cul de sac of socialism/social democracy.

Many on the left would say that socialism/social democracy is the only debate, that it is fundamental, and that it must be addressed before any progress can be made. Ok then, perhaps it is worth risking a short discussion but it is a risk; it risks losing the attention of many leftists and it risks attracting comments about betrayal, principles, heroes rolling in their graves and the other traditional trappings of socialism reduced to a “faith”.

Socialists who favour a revolution generally treat with disdain those who accept parliamentary democracy and would want to describe them all as Social Democrats. However, the majority of socialists are opposed to revolution and regard the term “social democrat” as an insult. In truth insult is often intended.

One tradition sees a parliamentary route to a socialist society. The idea is that reform would be piled upon reform until capitalism is effectively replaced. This is now seldom discussed among socialists. Indeed, the question of transition to socialism is avoided. Non-revolutionary socialists anxious to avoid being labelled “social democrat” are often unwilling to let go of the term “revolution”. In seeking to redefine revolution to suit their peaceful intent, the term is drained of its meaning. This becomes downright silly when talk turns to a “spiritual revolution”.

There are socialists who are serious about a parliamentary road to socialism. They argue the need for a party or union of parties to win a left majority. This party/alliance then would not need to compromise with a right wing party and could legislate capitalism out of existence. A less ambitious objective is more common: a list of broadly leftist reforms. Again this would be delivered by a left majority. The problem of course is that the left programme itself would be a compromise and that there would be no plan B in the case of failing to achieve a majority. Indeed a plan B could never be developed because avoiding coalition with conservatives and/or liberals is their raison d’être.

So, leaving aside revolution there seems to be two leftist options: a majority left government or a coalition with liberals or conservatives.

It is accepted by many on the left in Ireland that it is coalition with right wing parties that prevents the emergence of a left majority vote. It is said that if the Labour Party eschewed coalition or if the Labour Party disappeared altogether, sufficient numbers of Irish people would in a relatively short period change their political views and elect a socialist government. The problem with this approach is that there is no evidence to support it. It is a hope in spite of the evidence that a large majority of Irish voters prefer the right.

Another problem is that the left majority project is usually linked to left unity, i.e. bringing all or most of the left parties together on an agreed programme. That is to say, there is acceptance that it will be necessary to maximise support. Now, apart from the fact that these parties tend to despise one another, there is the question of excluding Labour, Labour’s members and crucially the sizeable Labour vote. Until recently it was assumed that Labour’s reliable 10% or so vote would transfer unproblematically to a new force on the left. More recently this vote has been dismissed as right wing and irrelevant to the project of building a left majority. The truth is that this large (by Irish left standards) and curiously reliable vote is unresearched, and no one knows much about it. However, it is reasonable to suggest that dumping or antagonising what is possibly the largest concentration of left votes is not a sensible way to start building towards a left majority.

Consider this scenario: The Labour Party has been destroyed and no longer exists. A left programme for government has been agreed by a group of left parties. All of these parties honour agreements not to oppose one another in an election. Labour’s traditional 10% support base moves to support the left grouping. Huge numbers of traditionally right wing voters are convinced to vote left. With all of these unlikely events coinciding, what could possibly go wrong? The obvious answer is that the outcome could still fall short – probably considerably short – of a majority.

If no one right wing party had achieved a majority, then the vexed question of coalition arises. Unless this is quickly dismissed the left grouping will very likely disintegrate. However, should it remain united or should a significant portion of it remain united, the whole or part will be confronted by coalition. Because it made no serious plans for this predictable eventuality, it will be in the situation that Labour frequently inhabits: confronted by coalition and with no clear notion what to do. In other words, a left grouping is likely to have worked to eliminate the Labour Party only to find that it has replaced the Labour Party.

It’s long past time the thoughtful elements within the Irish left stopped messing about and started making life difficult for political opponents and for those who do well out of the Irish structure of economic inequality. In other words, if it is not possible to achieve some structural change by way of coalition, it is time to abandon the parliamentary route. That means socialists becoming activists who would join pressure groups in that burgeoning area which accepts rule by a “political class” and progress as achieving favour at the expense of a rival group. Truth be told, many socialists and progressives have already gone there.

That’s a depressing prospect: socialists reduced to a role in managing the system while retaining the trappings of protest and anti-establishment. It’s time to stare coalition with a right wing party straight in the face. State the basic price of coalition as well as the areas of compromise and negotiation. The basic price would have to be modest in socialist terms but exorbitant in right wing terms.

It is highly unlikely that large numbers of anti-coalition socialists will look afresh at coalition. The anti-stance has been held for too long and has been concreted into a principle. That leaves the battered Labour Party. It is not averse to coalition but is very unsure of its purpose. The Labour Party needs to open up a clear space between it and the conservatives who believe that fairness and social justice are meaningful. It needs to state that the Party’s objective is a measurable reduction of inequality of income over each year of the lifetime of a government. For that gain the Labour Party should coalesce with the devil but should not coalesce with a saint for anything less.

The Labour Party and a socialist precondition for entering coalition talks

Regardless of the number of seats won, coalition will mean negotiation.

By definition, a precondition would not strengthen Labour’s hand in negotiation as it would have to be conceded before negotiations could begin. Indeed, it might – if one were not skillful – weaken the negotiating position in that something would already have been given and one’s antagonists/future partners would try constantly to bend negotiations in their favour by referring to it.

I’m not arguing for preconditions as such; I’m arguing for a tiny number – even one – of socialist preconditions. (My suggestion can be found here: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/labour-in-government-a-radical-but-modest-proposal-to-reduce-inequality/ )

There are a number of reasons for going down this path. Here are a few and in NO sense are they in order of importance:

i) The lie that the Labour Party is the same as every party or at least not particularly different to a humane liberal party, or – as even some of our own members allege – is not socialist at all, needs to be addressed. This can be done by laying down one or two fundamental demands/preconditions which a liberal party by virtue of its principles or ideology cannot concede without doing itself damage.

ii) It gives voters who are serious about changing the very direction of Irish development something for which to vote.

 iii) It puts a leftist demand right at the heart of public controversy in the run up to the election. (Without this the media will of necessity be attracted to liberal controversies like, say, abortion law.) 

iv) It delivers a basic return for coalition no matter how bad circumstances are or become.

v) It steals a march on the fantasists who need to injure Labour as the voice of Socialism. They know that they must undermine socialism as a contemporary hope and ambition so that their “religion” can be THE left. Their “project” necessarily is about defining socialism in terms of the unachievable or – similar, really – the 19th century.

Labour in government: a radical but modest proposal to reduce inequality

Paula Clancey of Tasc in a recent talk ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q05VebLgHfc ) made reference to a statistic, which is both appalling and attractive. It is attractive because it provides a measurable route to greater equality.

She says that in Ireland the disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 11!

How about this as we think about the fast approaching formation of the next Irish government ?

That the basic precondition for Labour Party participation in ANY coalition be a programme as follows:

End of year 1: The disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 10

End of year 2: The disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 9

End of year 3: The disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 8

End of year 4: The disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 7

I’d be more than happy if the Labour Party wanted to move further or faster but the proposal above has the attraction of being both radical and very modest.

Irish coalition government: the need for Labour to inspire

As the likelihood of Labour participation in government approaches certainty, old and divisive views resurface. We are back yet again to opposing coalition with liberals and conservatives. This time it is wrapped in a desire to make common cause with fringe leftists but this too has been seen before: remember the rise of the Workers Party. Let’s separate the two ( i. The question of coalition with FF or FG; and ii. the question of coalition with small leftist parties) and then finish with a proposal.

The question of coalition with FF or FG.

Yes, it is true that coalition has disappointed Irish socialists. Yes, it is true that coalition has underachieved. Yes, it is true that coalition did not significantly alter the structures of power and inequality in Ireland. BUT yes, it is also true that coalition is a tactic not a political perspective or even a programme. Two points need to be made. Firstly coalitions involving Labour have not been failures. Secondly, the extent to which they disappointed socialists may have been due to a lack of thought and imagination among socialists themselves.

The weakness of and danger to Labour in coalition has been the lack of a clear political ambition in preparing for coalition. The problem today on the left is the same as it was in the 70s/80s when Labour was tearing itself asunder over coalition: there is no coherent leftist objective. The best argument on offer is that leftist policies are more likely to restore the kind of prosperity which Ireland enjoyed before “the crisis”.

These arguments are compelling and deserve support. It is clear that familiar socialist approaches offer a better chance of recovery and have the added attraction that they give a degree of protection to the poor. The liberal arguments which stand against them are essentially daft and will not achieve the liberal goal of a prosperous society. In short, Labour retains its status as the political wing of St. Vincent DePaul and becomes the fount of Keynesian sense and decency. This is an honourable position but it is not enough.

Ok, following an extended period in which market fundamentalism became the religion of the chattering classes, it is relatively progressive to offer mildly distributive policies which will stimulate growth but – again and particularly in a time of unprecedented openness to ideas – it is not enough.

TASC’s open letter is an excellent example. It seeks to maintain and expand a functioning economy by way of avoiding cuts in public spending, and stimulating investment including public infrastructural projects. It calls for a measure of equality by way of taxing wealth and high income, and by way of fighting poverty/low income. Frankly, only a maniac would argue against this. It must be done but it is not enough for a party needing to be inspiring and unique. 

It is time to offer something imaginative, something progressive, a different social objective. This is a variation on Rosa’s view that the purpose of a socialist party is to advance the policy that no other party can: Let’s make increased equality and particularly greater equality of income the objective of all policies. In other words, unless a policy will SIGNIFICANTLY NARROW THE GAP between high and low incomes, let’s leave it to liberal or conservative parties.

Think about it. The reason for voting Labour and the price of coalition with Labour is real change: the measurable and significant flattening of income levels.

The question of coalition with small leftist parties.

There is a strange belief among some Labour members that small means socialist or at least in some sense progressive and that an alliance would somehow lead to a left of centre majority. This fantasy sits easily with a strong opposition to dealing with liberal and conservative parties and is encouraged by journalists who are essentially egalitarian but antipathetic to Labour. They are, however, aware that by far the largest bloc of progressive politics in Ireland is the Labour Party.

A basic problem is that even if there were a real meeting of minds within this group, the numbers don’t amount to anything like a majority.

There isn’t, however, a meeting of minds. Coalition with such groups is at least as daunting as with either FF or FG. The explicitly socialist groups dislike Labour and tend to cleave to doctrines and analysis which addresses earlier manifestations of capitalism than that which we now face. The media appearance of their arguments serves to deride socialism, making socialism appear silly and irrelevant. Other parties are simply not socialist or even predominantly leftist. They certainly have socialist members who have subordinated their leftist sentiments to another project, be it environmentalism or aggressive nationalism. Incidentally, the same could be said of members of the two major parties.

Radical or redundant

Forget fantasies about building a coalition of leftist splinters. Forget liberal and conservative policies and leave them to the parties to whom they belong. The sensible approach for Labour is to seek coalition NOT on the basis of anything like easily agreed policy but on the basis of policy that a liberal or conservative party could not possibly initiate.

A drive for greater equality and particularly equality of income would be popular and inspiring. In Britain even David Cameron is aware of public sentiment. He has called for a ceiling in public service pay of 20 times the lowest pay. Figures are up for debate but how about 10 times in the public sector, in companies in which the state has ownership and in companies awarded state contracts?