________________________________________________

ILW: I believe during your early years in the Labour Party you counted yourself among the Bevanites. What was it about Nye Bevan that influenced you, and could you tell us a little about how your political outlook has developed since those times?

Harry Barnes: Although I was only a schoolboy at the time, I had some awareness of the achievements of the post-war Labour Government in establishing a welfare state with a National Health Service, full employment and  a mixed economy that was replacing a pre-war exploitive free enterprise system by introducing elements of public ownership – although during the second world war forms of what was called “war socialism” had operated. This post-war legislation was particularly important for the coal mining community in which I lived. Nye Bevan played a key role in these developments in his position as Minister of Health. An argument then developed in the Labour Party between those who wished to consolidate what had been achieved and those who wished to move forward believing that unless this was done then capitalism would just find its way around what had then been done. It was the latter view as expressed by Bevan which appealed to me. I saw him as being both a democrat and a socialist; a combination which has always seemed to me to be essential.

I came, however, to feel that Bevan’s democratic views needed to be expanded upon. He essentially argued that the vote gave people democracy, so if parliament nationalised industries then that gave the people ultimate control. Each stage of the argument increasingly seemed to me to have weaknesses. Yet it needs to be appreciated that enfranchisement was a considerable development and a full franchise had only been established in the United Kingdom in 1928. But without ever becoming a syndicalist, by the time I joined the Labour Party in 1957 I felt that publicly owned industries should be subject to elements of both worker control and greater parliamentary surveillance. For I was also influenced by the ideas of writers such as GDH Cole, who had started out by seeking to marry together syndicalist and parliamentary ideas in his concept of Guild Socialism.

Massive changes have, of course, occurred since the late 1950s, including the influences of consumerism, the increasing speed of technological change, privatisation, globalisation and the break-up of closely knit communities. These changes make Bevanism dated in many ways. But what I draw from Bevan is that he did not favour dogmatic blueprints, yet   looked to further democracy, social equality and the public control of the commanding heights of the economy. So although the description is dated, I prefer to be seen as being in the Bevanite tradition rather than being designated as someone in the Bennite tradition. Some of my reasons for being critical of aspects of Bennism are expressed here.

ILW: In more general terms, do you feel that  there are intrinsic contradictions between social-democratic goals and capitalist forms of socio-economic organisation?

Harry Barnes: New Labour attempted  to combine moves towards social justice with the freedoms of a dynamic capitalist system. I never believed that this could function in any feasible way for long. Social equality, co-operation and participatory democracy require very different socio-economic arrangements. Unfortunately when Blair became leader, the Tribunite  “soft-left” which had come out of a more solid Bevanite tradition mainly sold out to New Labour. So I was driven into the small enclave of activism in the Socialist Campaign Group, although I often had disagreements with aspects of their generally perceived public stance. This was especially the case on Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Gerry Adams’ articles were published in “Campaign Group News” as if they were the Group’s policy, yet my perspective seeking to get the Catholic and Protestant working class to advance their common interests were relegated to a “Points of View” column as if I was the outsider.

The dilemma democratic socialists face in the modern world was well expressed by the late Royden Harrison. He said that the objective circumstances in the world for the establishment of socialism have never been better, but the subjective circumstances have never been worse. These helpful objective circumstances include rapid communications, the easy collating of data, the spread of technological skills, high level productive techniques and the ability of ranges of people to mix and intermingle. The harmful subjective circumstances are the interests and values which dominate too many people’s minds; including racism, sexism, acquisitiveness, extreme and competing value systems, plus feelings of group superiority. This does not make the move to democratic socialism an impossibility, but it does mean that there is no simple formula for its advance.

ILW: Ideological and tactical differences are well known between the so called ‘revolutionary’ and ‘social-democratic’ left – what is your view on these divides and how can people on the left best work towards left unity?

Harry Barnes: The revolutionary left seem to me to exhibit two main flaws. First, they believe we will  follow them if only they can get the chance to be heard, thereby allowing the scales to fall from our eyes. Secondly, real revolutions have to contend with the ghosts of Robespierre and Stalin. This is even a problem for the followers of Trotsky.

The revolutionary left criticize democratic socialists for comprise and sell-outs to capitalist forces. But as Lenin pointed out (but did not always practice) there is a clear distinction between a compromise forced upon socialists by objective circumstances and a sell-out. There is, however, a persistent need to check that the former isn’t leading to the latter.

However, It seems to me that the socialist revolutionary has the edge in clandestine struggles to overturn totalitarian dictatorships. Whilst the democratic socialist has the edge in regimes with established democratic institutions. What is needed after a revolutionary   turnover of an oppressive regime, is for socialists to be involved with those seeking to establish civil liberties and democracy; whilst in democratic systems (which all still have serious democratic failings) forms of revolutionary back-bone are needed by those mainstream groups who see themselves as being, at least, labourite.

As there is a need to tac and manoeuvre between revolutionary and reformist methods in changing circumstances it would be helpful if the people in both camps could engage in a civilised dialogue. The problem in joining together to do this is that one side will tend to seek to take over the running of any body they establish. But this does not rule out meeting for purposes of mutual political education. It is finding people from both sides who have a belief in the value of such an approach. From 1989, for instance, I developed a civilised relationship with the Workers’ Party, although I came to argue for the setting up of a Northern Ireland section of the Labour Party to which I belong.

 I, therefore, act as Political Education Officer for a Discussion group run by my local Labour Party. These are open not just for Labour Party members to attend and we attract numbers of ex-members and left-wingers who have never been in the Labour Party. This  practice also relates to the speakers we invite. Details can be found on our blog here.

ILW: Tony Benn makes much of the “power of industrialists and bankers to get their way” in the political realm, translating pure economic power into political success. What is your view on government/business relations and how do you think this relationship should be dealt with by society?

Harry Barnes: As long as industrialists and financial interests exercise economic power, Governments willneed to have dealings with them as part of the means of restraining their excesses and cutting back their areas of influence. Yet there was too great a readiness in Britain for New Labour Governments to become clients of such interests and to cut themselves off from countervailing forces such as the Trade Union Movement. This development was added to by the fact that Labour came to be dominated by career politicians who had entered politics as if it was only an alternative career avenue to the law, the city, the media, universities, banking and industry. There has been a major decline of representatives with a record of previous Labour Movement involvement. This does not mean that there were no shortcomings in these areas in the past. Many who emerged via the Trade Union Movement had at best what Marx called a “trade union consciousness” rather than a “socialist consciousness”. But the change has been far from an improvement. Labour needs representatives, at all levels, who see their role as serving their constituents and having the opportunity to further democratic socialist values.

ILW: It seems clear that in terms of austerity and bank bailouts, there is an ideological clash centred around the question, ‘who pays for the crisis?’. How can left-wing parties in power avoid implementing devastating austerity measures upon the masses, while simultaneously relying upon business to provide growth and investment? Can and should the costs of the crisis be primarily borne by business and finance?

Harry Barnes: The problem with left-wing parties trying to avoid austerity measures by getting business and financial institutions to carry the burden for the very problems they have created is two-fold. It can lead to a flight of capital and/or capital will claw back its new payments from the mass of the people via higher costs or cuts. The main advantage in pursuing this avenue, however, is that business and finance may come to be seen to share the blame for the further problems placed on people’s shoulders. This could impact on people’s views in the long term, but might have little impact on their immediate well-being.

To reduce the burden on the bulk of the people, cuts programmes could be slowed down in the hope that production and consumption does not collapse and there will be some feed back from the taxation revenues that are still raised.

A  wider, but time-consuming, improvement in conditions could result from getting international and multi-national institutions to act to restrain the freedoms of capitalist markets. Socialists and social democrats need to press for international regulations to be placed on the operations of financial institutions, businesses and banking.This isn’t a    socialist programme, but it is a modern day and co-ordinated version of Keynesianism. Proposals can be added to his pattern, such an the introduction of an international taxation system to draw down massive revenues arising from currency (and perhaps other) transactions. This revenue could then be used to tackle third world poverty in particular. This was initially known as the Tobin Tax, but has been re-christened “The Robin Hood Tax”. Gordon Brown now presses such proposals, following the international economic collapse he experienced as Prime Minister. This was a death bed conversion as  during his long role as Chancellor of the Exchequer he presided over the collapse of much of Britain’s manufacturing industry, gave freedoms for both finance capital and banking and then opposed the Tobin Tax – an issue I pressed upon him persistently. His new stance is, however, more helpful,and is now pursued by Ed Balls, Labour Shadow Chancellor.

If democratic socialists are honest about the reasons for the crisis, and go for the Keynesian type programme which is needed to pick us off the ground, but then seek to build a consensus to go beyond this limited approach, then on an international scale we could re-establish something of the Bevanite vision of the 1950s.

Climate change and a developing energy crisis are also problems which capitalism can not tackle and can only worsen. Democratic Socialist solutions for collective action needing to replace acquisitive individualism.

ILW: The Irish Labour Party have entered coalition government with the conservative Fine Gael party at a time of unprecedented economic crisis. Do you think this was the correct decision and can Labour play a progressive role in government given its position as junior coalition partner and the constraints placed upon our state by the EU and IMF?

 Harry Barnes: I feel that the Irish Labour Party should act in line with the position I have outlined above. It should seek to do the best it can to protect the well-being of the Irish people whilst pressing for international action which would prevent a flight of capital or further cuts by capital. Only if a clear deal had been struck with Fine Gael to do this would a coalition agreement begin to be acceptable. Even then major cuts still arise via the terms enforced by the EU and the IMF. Aspects of this could only begin to be considered if international arrangements were in hand to blame, restrain and firmly regulate the actions of international finance. But as no such deals have been done, Irish Labour should have remained in opposition pursuing the line I argued above. It could have then voted with Fine Gael when it nudged in Labour’s direction and (depending on the political consequences) have decided when to abstain on issues or vote against Fine Gael. Again honesty about the nature of the crisis and Irish Labour’s limited (but real) scope for action is important for the Irish people.

In “Towards Recovery – Programme for a national government 2011-2016”, the Irish Labour Party talks in grand terms of “a democratic revolution” having taken place at the General Election and it lists a wide range of measures it feels it can pursue. Although support for Credit Unions and a Jobs Fund are worthwhile, it is difficult to work out any vision of the future which the party is seeking to move towards. And presumably each item that doesn’t emerge or fails, will finally be blamed upon Fine Gael.

ILW: You have been an opponent of the privatisation of public utilities in Britain. Many state assets are set to be sold off here in Ireland in the coming years and regressive taxes like domestic water charges are set to in introduced. What are the most effective actions people can take in opposition to such measures?

Harry Barnes: Democratic Socialists should oppose moves towards both regressive taxation and the privatisation of public services. In current circumstances a particular defect in such moves is that it is extremely difficult to reverse them at a later stage, when alternative forms of progressive taxation will be argued against in the media as if they are general forms of tax increases and compensation is expected to be paid to take services back under public provisions. The needs in running existing public provisions is for greater worker and consumer controls, along with the development of a public service ethos which is even more fully lost under privatisation. Ideally Irish Labour and the Trade Union Movement need to mobilise to press this line. But being implicated in regressive coalition policies undermines the possibility of united action against these. The main sources that then remain for protests are likely to be trade unions and other voluntary bodies who show discontent. Also unrest amongst young people (as in Britain and across the Arab World) should also be mobilised. A cohort of current youth support can also have an impact on future politics as they move into middle and old age.

ILW: Here in Ireland, women are woefully underrepresented in both parliament and the cabinet. What do you think can be done to improve the situation?

 Harry Barnes: The task of gaining equality of esteem in society for women seems to me to be part of the task of moving in a democratic socialist direction with advances in co-operation, democratic participation and social equality shaping our actions. We need to work to see that this becomes the norm in the Labour Movement.

Apart from anti-discrimination legislation in areas such as access to employment, promotion, treatment and pay; I don’t see easy legislative means of establishing equality of esteem and behaviour between races, religious groups (alongside agnostics and atheists), tribes, classes, nationalities, the sexes and those with differing sexual orientations. I am not a strong advocate of measures of positive discrimination; although I recognise that it has been of value in creating a needed balance between Catholics and Protestants in the police force in Northern Ireland. I am worried, however, that when women reach parliamentary or cabinet positions and seem to have been assisted to do this via measures of positive discrimination, some may view this as not having been achieved on grounds of merit. It may, however, be that in certain cultural settings, positive discrimination for women will initially be needed to break a logjam. Perhaps this is particularly needed in nations where Catholicism is strong. But once such a measure has  served its initial purpose it should be abandoned, for in principle positive discrimination is still discrimination.  But I will watch current developments in Ireland to see if I should be less cautious.

 ILW: You completed your national service in Iraq in the 1950s and have had links with that country ever since. Iraq has a strong history of trade unionism. What’s your assessment of the present workers’ movement in Iraq in these hugely challenging times?    

Harry Barnes: It isn’t correct to say that I have had links with Iraq ever since I did my National Service there in 1955-56, but I certainly have taken an interest in its development since then. Yet I refused an invitation to visit Iraq during the period of Saddam Hussein’s regime as I felt I might be used by his people.

I was, however, impressed by the mass demonstration which took place on May Day in Baghdad in 1959 when almost 10% of the entire population of Iraq marched in favour of the establishment of democracy. Which unfortunately was never achieved. The Trade Union Movement which led the demonstration was later taken under State control by Saddam Hussein and those former activists who survived were obliged to operate in a clandestine way or flee into exile. Although these genuine trade unionists opposed the 2003 invasion, immediately it occurred they set up the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) of which I became on honorary member. The IFTU’s successor organisation are still hampered by the continuing operation of Saddam Hussein’s anti-Trade Union legislation. But they have strong international backing from the Trade Union Movement and especially from the British TUC. The anti-Trade Union legislation was, however, repealed in Iraqi Kurdistan, which I have visited to meet Trade Unionists from across the whole country . There is firm support from the Kurdistan Region for Trade Union activity in the rest of Iraq. Yet Trade Unions in areas such as Baghdad and Basra operate in difficult circumstances and are worthy of our support. But this has not prevented them recently from demonstrating against the lack of public services and for civil rights, with the Government of Iraq taking reprisals against them.

Given moves to free trade unionism in nations such as Egypt, genuine Arab Trade Unionism provides considerable hope for the future.

ILW: You have supported the recent military intervention in Libya. Can you clarify your reasons for this, as it is a divisive question on the left? Do you believe that Western forces are undertaking this mission for humanitarian reasons or strategic interests?

Harry Barnes: There has been no easy response to the situation in Libya. Either support or opposition to the United Nations resolution had its dangers. But I can’t see how anyone could take a neutral position.

The dangers of bombing is that it leads inevitably to civilian casualties, puts military power essentially in the hands of Western Nations who can have other then humanitarian agendas. Then if things go wrong they can veto a changed mandate from the United Nations.

But not to have acted to protect those involved in a revolution against Gaddafi would clearly have been to sit back and watch a blood bath. Furthermore, failure to act would have given the go-ahead for North African and Middle East dictators to use the most extreme methods against their own protestors. I recognise that some of this is happening in any case. But the logic of the situation is for the world community to seek to pressurise  and not to back the regimes in countries such as Bahrain and the Yemen. If Western Governments then talk with forked tongues on these matters, the Labour Movement should not.

As events for significant reforms sweep the Arab world, we can not absent ourselves from the struggle for fundamental human rights. Why I feel that the situation in Libya in 2011 differs fundamentally from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (which I strongly opposed) is explained here.

_________________________________________________________

Many thanks for taking our questions, Harry, and best wishes.

Labour’s 2011 election manifesto states that the party is against the introduction of domestic water charges, promising instead to invest in water infrastructure with a focus on minimising loss of treated water through leakage. Before, during, and even after the election this line was repeated by prominent party members.

A little under a year ago Joanna Tuffy said,

The Labour Party remains opposed to the reintroduction of domestic water charges and believes that the cost of providing an EU standard of water to every home in the state should be funded through a reformed tax system

The “reformed tax system” part refers to Labour’s commitment to the introduction of a higher rate of tax on earnings over 100,000. The idea being that domestic water provision be funded through a progressive tax system as opposed to a direct service charge, so that such a fundamental service be provided to every household regardless of financial means.

Echoing Tuffy’s sentiment Aodhán O’Riordáin, newly elected TD for Dublin North Central, said at the time,

I have real concerns that this [the introduction of water charges] will create significant hardship for thousands of families around the country.

Just a few weeks later (May 19, 2010) Eamon Gilmore contradicted both Tuffy and O’Riordáin,

We have to look at what the European rules are on it; we have to look at the cost of metering.

While Gilmore seemed to have lost that argument prior to the general election, the Fine Gael plan to install meters in every home and introduce water charges made it into the programme for government and is due to be implemented over the next five years.

If it looks regressive and smells regressive…
In 1996 the Federation of Dublin Anti-Water Charges Campaigns forced the abolition of water charges in Dublin.  A subsequent ESRI report predictably lamented this victory, concluding that the charges had been unpopular because they were not related to quantity (there was no metering) and the issue of how vulnerable households were to be dealt with was not properly addressed.

No doubt the present government would argue that the first issue will be addressed by their proposed system of charging which is based on use above a free allowance, and that the second will be addressed through the provision of waivers for certain vulnerable groups. Recent history regarding bin charges is instructive on these two specific points.

As with water, environmental arguments have been used disingenuously to justify bin charges. The pay-by-use model – whereby the householder pays an annual flat charge and an additional charge per bin collected – was supposed to result in lower overall charges for those who recycled. However, in many local authority areas those who put their bin out half as often as they did before the new model was introduced pay about the same, and often more, than they did previously because the annual standing charges keep increasing.

It is unclear how the free allowance of water will work. With ‘smart metering’ it is possible to have different allowances depending on the size of household, however there is no reason to believe that the size of the free allowance will not decrease just as the annual bin charges have increased.

Many councils introduced a waiver system when bin charges were first introduced. Over the years, however, council after council have either altered or scrapped the waivers, obliging those with less means to pay.  In the case of Dublin City Council, since 2010 if a household qualifies for a waiver only the standing charge is waived and the charge per bin collected must still be paid. For a large family the annual cost remains significant. These are the people who were told they’d pay nothing when bin charges were proposed. The waivers appear to have been a cynical stunt aimed at diluting public opposition to the new tax.

The impending attempt to reintroduce domestic water charges is likely to be met with a campaign of mass non-payment and fierce political pressure on the political parties pushing it. At least 19 opposition TDs are certain to oppose it; those of Sinn Féin and the United Left Alliance, and probably many more.  This will provide the campaign with a strong national voice.

A far wider section of society is likely to oppose the charges than did so in the mid 1990s, as the number of households in dire financial straits is much greater now than it was then. The injustice of pouring billions of public money into private banks and slapping regressive taxes on struggling households, while some committee “reviews” the Universal Social Charge, is unlikely to be missed by many.

Domestic water charges should be anathema to a social democrat. It is the ultimate regressive tax in that it places a far greater burden on the poor than on the rich. Instead of asking high earners to pay a higher rate of income tax Labour are hitting what Proinsias De Rossa called “our core constituency – low and middle income earners.” What Aodhán O’Riordáin said before he went into government is correct, “this will create significant hardship for thousands of families around the country.”

• H/T Irish Election Literature Blog for the images on this post.

Before the Labour party begins to undertake some of its most crucial decisions in government (particularly in the wake of forthcoming stress-tests results of Irish banks) it is worth revising the primary arguments given in favour of joining coalition government with Fine Gael. It is not the aim of this post to outline an exhaustive list of Labour’s suggested reasons for entering government, but rather to examine the underlying logic behind this decision, in order to illustrate an inherent contradiction with core social democratic objectives. To my mind, the overarching arguments put forward by the Labour party and their members for coalition government fall into two basic categories. First, there is the argument that Labour must step up to its national duty, put aside the immediate interests of the party and serve the citizens of Ireland. To abdicate its responsibility to govern, particularly in a time of crisis, would be shameful and unjustifiable. Secondly, there is the suggestion that Labour in government would act as a buffer against the extreme right wing agenda of Fine Gael. Labour would provide a more balanced, fair, and representative government, that can curb the excesses of a right-wing led government. These two arguments are by no means mutually exclusive, and within them, they include a number of ancillary considerations for joining government, which I hope to attend to. Nevertheless, I do believe they reflect the overarching logic behind the decision to enter coalition with Fine Gael, and it is precisely that logic I wish to question.

The first argument is represented adequately by Joan Burton’s statement to the Labour conference that ‘Power postponed is not an option’, and that refusing to join coalition is “akin to a sentry walking away from his or her post just at the high point of danger”. There is a commendable aspect to this line of reasoning, which ostensibly puts the national interest above the interests of the party. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to observe how one’s interpretation of political obligations corresponds so remarkably well with personal material interests, in terms of cabinet positions for an ageing group of top level Labour T.D’s. However, there is a more pressing question concerning the invocation of national interest; namely, what can Labour contribute to – indeed, what is their conception of – the national interest. Clearly, no party can claim that taking power at all costs is in the best interests of the country. Thus, it comes down to what Labour can offer in government in terms of concrete policies. This leads directly on to the second argument for government: that Labour will act as a balance against a right-wing government; a strong social democratic force as Proinsias De Rossa suggested; or, as Louise Hannon put it in the previous post, to stop Fine Gael from “pursuing centre right policies without restraint”.

However, on what central policy issue exactly is Labour at odds with Fine Gael? The two key economic issues that face this country is the fiscal crisis and the banking crisis, upon which, Labour and Fine Gael both have overarching agreement; namely, to implement the broad outlines of the intrinsically right-wing EU/IMF deal. Both parties accept the logic of fiscal austerity and the necessity to commit further taxpayer money into private bank recapitalisation programs, alleviating the speculative debt of key European financial firms. Thus, in what sense is Labour acting as a buffer against the policies of Fine Gael? It makes infinitely more sense to state that they are acting as a legitimising force for the policies of Fine Gael, by giving them parliamentary cover and public support. This effect was absolutely not lost among the majority in Fine Gael who preferred coalition government with Labour as opposed to governing alone and becoming rapidly unpopular and isolated. It is a wonder how it is so lost upon many Labour supporters.

Other similar arguments for government extend from the above reasoning. For instance, in the final days of the election, after Labour explicitly asked the electorate to vote for them as a balance to an overall-majority Fine Gael government, how could they reject coalition after receiving the requisite numbers to join Fine Gael? Agreed, but again, this is not just an argument for entering government, this is an argument for asking: why is the Labour party pursuing this policy? The answer to this question is essentially what was keenly observed by Ronan O Brien in the Sunday Business Post on the 6^th of March; namely, that “the truth – though not universally accepted – is that parties like Labour, representative of mainstream European social democracy, have as much – if not more – in common with parties of the centre as they do with other left-wing fringes”. Thus, Labour has more in common with parties such as Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, than they do with Sinn Fein or the United Left Alliance. Again, agreed; but this may surprise many Labour supporters who hold on to the idea that they are in government to resist the right wing agenda of Fine Gael.

More compelling arguments in favour of coalition are modest in their expectations. For instance, it has correctly been pointed out that Labour have succeeded in getting commitments to having no more social welfare cuts or that the social agenda (upon issues such as child benefits, children’s rights, gay marriage, etc.) of the Programme for Government is positive. This is a fair point but weak. First of all, the Programme for Government is a policy document littered with vague and contingent commitments. Secondly, consider the expected social implications of the two primary policies – banking and fiscal – outlined above and agreed to in the IMF/EU deal, in terms of poverty rates, drug abuse, domestic violence, suicide, social resources, employment rates, emigration etc. Trivially, politics (and in particular, political compromise) is about weighing up the balance of effects, and likely outcomes, of policies pursued. It is not enough to potentially attain a number of socially progressive initiatives, at the cost of potential large scale socio-economic destruction.

The underlying logic behind Labour’s choice to opt for coalition government is one that brings into question the nature of what the Labour party fundamentally stands for. It is my contention that the logic exposes a contradiction with core social democratic values because it reflects Labours basic commitment to a regressive, right-wing agenda contained in the fiscal austerity and banking bailout package which is encapsulated by the EU/IMF deal. This will exacerbate material inequalities, debilitate efforts to stimulate employment, and seriously damage essential public services/protections. Most Labour members/supporters do recognise this but suggest there is no alternative to the already agreed IMF/EU deal. This is a political disagreement which will be the subject of further posts. However, the crucial point to be made is that, irrespective of whether or not the deal can be broken, the fiscal and banking policy still represents Labours fundamental thinking, to which the party has never suggested otherwise. In this respect, they are not acting as a buffer against Fine Gael policies; they are acting as a political force which is consciously and willingly implementing such regressive measures. The essential question that defines this crisis – like all crises – is: who pays for it? To that question, Labour do not, unfortunately, give a satisfactory social democratic answer.

On Sunday 6th March 2011 the Irish Labour party took the historic decision to enter government with Fine Gael at a special delegate conference in UCD Belfield. I was there as a delegate.

For me it was a difficult decision. I had initially rejected the idea of trying to work with Fine Gael, when I considered what had happened to the Greens, and FF. We all know the shaky coalitions of the past. I didn’t want to see the party ravaged by the electorate at the next election because of the tough and painful decisions that will need to be taken and favoured staying out. My view was that by the next election Labour staying out, would not be tainted and they could look forward perhaps to being the largest party.

The down side of staying out would unfortunately be the sight of Fine Gael pursuing centre right policies without restraint. Their slash and burn policies would impact heavily on the less well off in terms of welfare cuts etc and the equality agenda would be completely non existent.

Added to this dilemma, the party had also asked the electorate in the last ten days of the campaign not to allow a Fine Gael government to have an overall majority. So for those two reasons I reluctantly voted for the programme for government.

However in my mind I was aware that the optics of this government needed to be completely different from the most recent past. As of today Thursday 10th they have started well. Ministers went to the Aras to receive their seals of office in an army minibus, and taking reduced salaries has to be a good start. Times have changed indeed, no lines of Mercedes waiting to enter the park. Honesty and openness needs to continue to prevail.

The programme for government has a large number of Labour party equality proposals contained within and it was interesting today at the UN Universal Periodic Review meeting that the voluntary organisations and NGOs had almost identical equality proposals, for the UN review body to consider in October.

Interesting times, but with another banking crisis on the way and Irish default coming down the tracks, any enhancement of equality measures will only be implemented on a cost neutral basis, so I shall await future measures based on that parameter.

On the day the 31st Dáil sits for the first time here are a few thoughts on what Labour achieved in the programme for government and what they may or may not achieve in bed coalition with Fine Gael. This is an exercise in trying to be somewhat impartial as I see much of this programme as nothing less than an attack on the majority – i.e. those who are entirely blameless for the crisis – and an endorsement of the failed FF/PD/Green policies.

Let me start by emphasising that what Fine Gael and Labour offered up in their respective manifestos did not differ substantially in many important areas. So when the various speakers at Labour’s special delegate conference proudly claimed that Labour’s handprints were all over the PFG they weren’t far off. The question is, will their ‘achievements’ in the programme limit the social and economic carnage to be unleashed by Fine Gael in the coming years? Only time will tell, of course. The document is suspiciously and annoyingly vague on many points, making it even harder than it would otherwise have been to be optimistic. But more on that in a minute.

The good
The constitutional convention is long overdue and is likely to be supported by most people. Commitments to increase the powers of investigation of Oireachtas committees, hold the children’s rights referendum, a ban on corporate donations to political parties, and a number of other reforms are welcome. The commitment that the convention will consider legislating for same-sex marriage is also welcome, and timely given the recent Red C poll which found that 73% of Irish people support it.

Restoring the Freedom of Information Act is undoubtedly a good thing, although it’s unclear whether or not it will apply to NAMA. Finally, it is probably a sign of how low the political establishment in Ireland have sunk that I file the following under ‘good’, but there you have it. The commitment to reverse the minimum wage cut and to stop cutting social welfare is welcome. That said if they think this will buy them some goodwill and stymie resistance to other measures I’d suggest they’ll be most disappointed.

The bad
Where to start? In a ‘split the difference’ compromise with Fine Gael it has been agreed to get rid of 25,000 public sector workers. This does not make sense on any level, will cost more than it saves, and can only have a seriously negative effect on public services. Labour have clearly shelved the idea of tax justice. No new income taxes – Labour’s manifesto had those earning over 100,000 paying more – but water charges will be introduced and a property tax considered. “The Labour Party should hang their heads in shame” says Seamus Healy TD as I write this. Quite.

Following the election Brendan Howlin stated that the cost of installing water meters in every home in the country would be prohibitive and that it would be far more sensible to invest that money in fixing our leaky water infrastructure. Now, it seems to be no longer a problem for him or his party. See how they did that?

A state-owned water utility company is to be established which will “take over responsibility from the separate local authorities for Ireland’s water infrastructure and drive new investment.” The main problem I see with this – and it’s certainly not the only problem – is that with a click of Enda’s fingers this new water company can be designated a “non-strategic state asset” and flogged off to profiteers.

There are also any number of Rumsfeldian known-unknowns in the PFG. For example, there’s no deadline for Seanad abolition and the appalling Universal Social Charge will merely be “reviewed.” Presumably the parties failed to agree on the latter and decided to kick it to touch. A compromise that is likely to come back to bite Labour. There will be a strategic investment bank but there’s no detail on when it will be established or what it might look like. The Irish Times described this as a “major Labour gain” but given the lack of specifics, will it ever see the light of day?

The ugly
The ugly reality, of course, is that Labour have accepted the status quo. Eamon Gilmore has said more than once that he will not reverse Fianna Fáil cuts despite his loud rhetorical opposition to them over the past couple of years. The PFG states that in order to “enhance international credibility” the “adjustments” set out in Fianna Fáil’s National Recovery Plan should be stuck to until the end of 2012. Or, as Fintan O’Toole put it yesterday, “the first two years of the existing fiscal strategy will continue, with no notion of what happens then.” This is the same National Recovery Plan that Gilmore described as an “instrument of surrender” by the way.

The vagueness of the programme is cynical in places. For example, €10 billion recapitalisation of banks is to be deferred until solvency stress tests are carried out,  but nobody thinks the stress tests will lead to anything other than demands for further recapitalisation. Another case of kicking to touch.

The section on healthcare is also vague, giving no real sense of how the new system would work for the patient, and how costs would be reduced and quality improved. Also, references to competing insurers brings the disastrous system in the US to mind, where costs for the patient have skyrocketed over the years.

Two TDs quoted James Connolly in the House today so to finish up I thought I too would indulge:

In the phraseology of politics, a party too indifferent to the sorrow and sufferings of humanity to raise its voice in protest, is a moderate, practical party; whilst a party totally indifferent to the personality of leaders, but hot with enthusiasm on every question affecting the well-being of the toiling masses, is an extreme, a dangerous party.

Moral – Don’t be ‘practical’ in politics. To be practical in that sense means that you have schooled yourself to think along the lines, and in the grooves those who rob you would desire you to think

Within academic literature, the Irish Party System is commonly referred to as a ‘two and a half’ party system; the ignominious ‘half’ denoting the Labour party, while Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael operate as the two major players. This situation is seen as a historical product of the extremely weak electoral success of the left within Ireland, which consistently records the lowest levels of left-wing voting in comparison with other European states. The lack of a strong left has, in turn, been accounted for due to a variety of reasons. The primary reason offered within academia is that Irish politics has been dominated by the nationalist divide (pro/anti treaty), as opposed to ideological class differences (left/right politics) which characterise so many European countries. The ‘Lipset/Rokkan’ theory posits that when voting rights were first introduced into European countries, the dominant cleavages within society at that time would be ‘frozen’ into place and operate as a persistent paradigm within which party systems would develop. Thus, in countries such as France and Britain, we see a classic right/left – Labour/Conservative divide. Not so in Ireland, where the salience of the nationalist issue within Irish society during the state’s formative years was critical to the shaping of the political landscape. In addition to this, the conservative-catholic character of Irish society meant that the left has traditionally been marginalised, while two ideologically similar, catch-all parties –Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael – have dominated the political landscape.

However, for a long time now, studies have shown that the Irish electorate considers socio-economic concerns (relating to unemployment, tax issues, economic growth, etc) as their primary concern, as opposed to the issue of Northern Ireland which ranks quite low on the list of voter priorities Thus, while accurate to a point, the above account does not seem to capture the modern day reality of the Irish Party System and indeed, modern Irish society, which, by most sociological accounts, seems to reflect relatively unsurprising class-based fault lines. Specifically however, the account does not consider the actions of the left itself – and in particular the actions of the Labour party, representative of the Social Democratic left – which have contributed to the continuing status quo within Irish politics. Put differently, the above account is a highly deterministic one, which places little emphasis on agency or concious human action. Like most deterministic accounts, it lends itself to a kind of fatalism, where humans feel there is little they can do to escape overarching structures and historical paths. In concrete terms, one often hears that Ireland is ‘inherently conservative’; ‘it has always been that way, there is little one can do to change it, so why bother’? However, human choices matter. The actions of political parties and their political alignments certainly matter, and these political choices bring us closer to understanding exactly why the weakness of the Irish left has been so persistent.

The proposition suggested here, is that it is precisely the actions of the Labour party which have contributed to the consistent weakness of the Irish left. This is because, instead of exposing the façade that is the Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael divide in Irish politics, the Labour party has always legitimised this structure by deciding to form coalition governments with Fine Gael (and even briefly, Fianna Fáil). By doing so, the Labour party have always reinforced the status quo; namely, that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael should not do business with each other in order to form a national government. This consistent trend – Labour doing business with one of the right wing parties, usually Fine Gael – has been in play since the 1940’s, came up again in the 1970’s, and is by now a relatively permanent feature of the Irish Party System. The strategic logic behind entering coalition government for Labour is two-fold. First, it means the ousting of Fianna Fail from government. Secondly, it gives the labour party a rare chance to govern. Nevertheless, the long term costs are severe. First, the Labour party enters government from a position of weakness, i.e. it is the junior partner in coalition with a right-wing majority party. Secondly, they eschew the opportunity to build a strong left opposition in the Dáil, which refuses to have any dealings with the two major conservative parties of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and thus, attempt to create a permanent realignment within the Irish Party System. Of course, the ultimate prospect would be for Labour to force Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to enter government together, considering the ideological similarity of these two parties. This could conceivably lead to the Labour party being out of government for a considerable time. However, the potential to re-develop the Irish Party System upon right/left lines would be significant. Instead, Labour’s choice has always been to seize the opportunity for power immediately and reject the effort to nurture a broad-based left wing opposition against the two major parties. The underlying reasons for this choice are a matter of considerable debate and will be the subject of later postings. Nevertheless, the consequence of such a choice is a significant contribution to the persistence of an overarching, conservative-dominated, right wing character to the Irish political system.