The Cedar Lounge Revolution

A strange conference that. Odd to see familiar faces pop into view every once in a while. Look, look, De Rossa wandered by, there was Michael D. Higgins… and so on and so forth. The fact that it wasn’t televised was interesting. Somehow it had less presence and perhaps unsurprisingly that lack of presence was evident on the internet.

Which is a pity, because some fascinating events took place over the weekend.

First up was the adoption of the “Red Flag” as their anthem. Mark Hennessy reported that:

On Saturday, Labour delegates in Wexford, to much acclaim, adopted the anthem of the working class, The Red Flag, written by Irishman Jim Connell in London in 1889, as the party’s song.

Former British prime minister Tony Blair hated it and managed until 2003 to keep it off his conference agenda, fearing it did not chime with the New Labour creed.

From now on, the Irish Labour Party will sing the first verse and chorus of the anthem, which has been sung from Red Square to Havana, at the end of conferences:

It’s only a small thing really. Gestural in fact. But after months of reading in the media about how the Labour Party must ‘change’ in some unspecified fashion this was oddly heartening.But, ironically, Hennessy’s crack about ‘Red Square to Havana’ is actually far too limiting and the point that the British Labour Party used it should indicate that it has a wider appeal than some might like to think.

Still, not quite sure of the addendum to Motion 90 which dealt with The Red Flag and stated:

Addendum :

Conference further notes that next year will be the 10th Anniversary of the unveiling of the Jim Connell Memorial with a festival of music; at which Bill Bragg has been invited to sing.

Perhaps Bill(y) Bragg(?) will lead them in a stirring rendition.

I’ve already noted how the conflict between democratic socialism and social democrat is largely – although not entirely – cosmetic and that parties of the left should easily be able to encompass those poles. So it was with a certain degree of relief that I read that:

….delegates rejected a call led by former leader Ruairí Quinn for Labour to redefine itself as a “social democratic party”, rather than “democratic socialist”, as it currently does.

Saying that he had “no trouble in describing myself as a socialist”, Dublin South East TD Mr Quinn said “democratic socialism” offered “an outmoded image” to younger voters.

Opposing him, party president Michael D Higgins said social democracy is “interpreted differently” in different countries, and is often used by right-wing parties.

“Democratic socialism avoids abuses of socialism. We are not stuck in any mode. But we believe that there is a new world to be made,” the Galway West TD told the conference.

Indeed. I can add no more to that.

But Stephen Collins in the Irish Times can.

Adopting The Red Flag as the party anthem and retaining the phrase “democratic socialist” in the party’s constitution rather than “social democrat” were a bit self-indulgent.

I wonder about that term ’self-indulgent’. I suspect that those small gestures might actually shore up a bit of left support that the party has been leaking for a while now (then again, I often wonder about Stephen Collins and his ‘advice’). The media love a good narrative, whether true or not, and the narrative this year is that Labour is in some unlikely sense a standard bearer of the very worst aspects of traditional style socialism… Oh yes. Or, for those of us who know Labour a little better, oh no. The thesis is so absurd, so telling in terms of the lack of any serious political knowledge, understanding and analysis on the part of those who make it that I find it unsurprising that we’ve all largely fled to blogs to get our info. As for the electorate at large, I doubt they care one bit about the Red Flag, or democratic socialism as long as they see unified, disciplined and coherent political groups representing the plurality of their opinions.

On to Willie Penrose and the Unions. I worry about this. I truly do. Collins reports about:

…the reaction to the fiery speech by the general president of Siptu, Jack O’Connor, who had advocated going into government with Fianna Fáil after the election. O’Connor spoke on Saturday of the danger to the future of social partnership posed by the increasing use of agency workers.

Fine, responded Westmeath TD Willie Penrose, the Labour Party would be putting forward a motion on the issue in the Dáil but, in return, it wanted to see a bit of loyalty from trade union leaders.

He pointedly said that some of those leaders should stop being so “palsy-walsy” with Bertie Ahern, doing deals with him when it suited them. Penrose brought the house down, receiving sustained applause from the floor. Eamon Gilmore reinforced the point yesterday by referring to the closeness between some union leaders and the Government.

Well. Again I’m not so sure. I really really hope this wasn’t an ersatz Clause 4 moment (now that the social democrat/democratic socialist issue has been put to bed). The relationships between unions and party are complex, and rendered more so by the fact that the larger portion of the unionised don’t actually vote for Labour primarily. That latter point makes the position of union leaders much more difficult and predicates against them being simple cheerleaders for the party.

To my mind, for what it’s worth, the party should think long and hard about that before complaining about the stance the unions take one way or another. As for criticising the unions for dealing with the Government, that’s fine as far as it goes, but it’s also important to consider that Labour had at least some small potential to also enter government both prior to and directly after the election and chose to shirk it. The strategy that Labour adopted of fighting the election with Fine Gael was, quite frankly, disastrous and many many voices, including the unions spoke out against it well before the election. So perhaps a softer cough from Labour on this and other matters might be more appropriate, whatever about ‘bringing the house down’ inside a conference when it’s beyond those four walls that really matter.

Some of the motions were of particular interest, to me at least.

Motion 79 was passed unanimously which…

directs the NEC to appoint a special commission, representative of the NILF, the PLP and the NEC, together with Party members with specialist knowledge and expertise:

1. to invite and receive submissions on and to consider the future role and organisation of the Party in connection with Northern Ireland and its internal affairs, and for that purpose to meet with relevant parties, trade unions and other interest groups;
2. to explore the potential to participate in elections there, and
3. to report its conclusions in sufficient time to enable the recommendations of the NEC, including any proposals to amend the Party Constitution, to be debated at the next following Party Conference.

Good stuff. It’s all the rage this casting of the eyes northwards…

All manner of interesting questions are contained in Motion 89 (passed unanimously)…

Conference resolves that the Labour Party must transform Irish society by implementing socialist policies, and asks the Party to develop an economic framework that would support these. The aim of these policies would be to eliminate poverty, to give our citizens equal access to health, education and housing, to develop our economy, to achieve prosperity for all and in doing this bring forward a society that is genuinely inclusive for all citizens through a Labour led government.

Proposing Branch : Rathmines – (Dublin South East)

Not quite the nationalisation of the top 100 companies. Still. Getting there. Maybe.

So, cutting to the chase, what treats are we offered by Gilmore in his big (TM) speech? First up, important to acknowledge that he had suffered the loss of his mother only a short number of days previously.

What we got was the ‘New Purpose’. I’m not in love with that phrase, I can tell you now. It’s not Miriam Lord’s not entirely funny idea that it was a ‘porpoise’ although that’s bad enough. It just doesn’t resonate.

Still, beyond the Purpose we got personal vision…

Me? I believe that every person is equal. It is as simple as that.

That’s what makes me a democrat.

That’s why I am a socialist.

And why I belong to a social democratic party.

This basic idea that people are equal, and should be free to pursue their potential, in a society where we look out for each other, is what distinguishes the politics of the Labour Party.

That’s why we insist on equal treatment for the sick, fairness at work, respect and tolerance between people of whatever gender, religion, sexuality or race. Labour always puts people first.

broader vision…

Sometimes I hear people say that it is hard to understand what Labour stands for. Or even ask if Labour is relevant at all to modern Ireland.

Relevant to modern Ireland? Labour made Ireland modern. Rights and freedoms, which we all now take for granted, were won by the Labour Party and its allies, often in the face of bitter conservative opposition. Many of those who pontificate now about Ireland’s modernity were those who bitterly opposed each modernising step.

It was Labour who gave women the right to the same pay for doing the same jobs as men; Labour which brought in the laws which protect our rights at work; Labour which introduced the legislation on equality, on standards in public life and freedom of information; Labour that freed separated people from the dogmas of the past and allowed them remarry if they so wish.

It was Labour that made it legal to buy a packet of condoms. And we are still modernising Ireland. Our Civil Unions Bill is a simple measure of equality that can and should be supported by all parties in the Dáil. Shame on those who didn’t.

A lash at Fianna Fáil (from one Eamon to another…)…

I see the Minister for Education is getting more interested in history. At taxpayers’ expense she has sent books about Eamon de Valera to every school in the country.

I grew up in a house and family that respected de Valera, and I can tell the Minister a few things about history.

Eamon de Valera would never have taken fistfuls of cash in a suitcase.

Seán Lemass, if he had the money they now have, would never have tolerated the inefficiency and waste in the health service.

And Jack Lynch would never have turned his back on Shannon.

A bit more on vision…

Ireland needs a New Purpose – we need to get a sense of national direction and aspiration. A common cause, to inspire the allegiance and the imagination of the New Ireland.

We need a vision for our country, and its place in the new expanded Europe and increasingly globalised world, over the next two or even three decades. Building on the New Republic. Moving Ireland onto the next stage of our progress, the next phase of our country’s history. A New Purpose for the new Ireland.

A Kinnock-like drift back to the personal

Thirty-five years ago, I was the first ever in my family to go to university.

Back then going to college was a unique privilege. Now it is a necessity, because it is education that drives a knowledge economy. And it is education that makes us free to live full lives in the new society.

Some curious sentence construction…

Nearly 60 years ago, in the bad times of the 1940s, If Noel Browne could build big hospitals and cure TB, nearly 60 years ago, in the bad old days of the 1940s, then surely in rich modern Ireland, it is not too much to expect that a woman can get a cancer test on time, be able to rely on the result, and then get whatever treatment she needs without having to join a queue which threatens her life.

Some sensible pro-enterprise rhetoric that didn’t sell the pass…

Future prosperity,for all, will be built on an enterprising, creative economy, but it cannot be built on a narrow free market ideology. There will be no New Economy without individual flair, but neither will we prosper without collective effort. We must reward innovation, but we will not, indeed can not build the New Economy on poverty or gross inequality.

Our new purpose is to make Ireland a leader in the New Economy. The Celtic Tiger doesn’t have to end in tears. It can be better even than it is, if we plan for the future. That future lies in Irish firms being able to appropriate ideas, commercialise them, and turn them into world leading products.

But the young researcher tonight, with a new idea needs more than just encouragement to turn innovation to commerce. She needs start up capital. So we need a shift in policy and in culture, away from providing
tax-incentives for low-risk speculation in property towards the higher-risk investment in start ups that will create jobs in the decades to come.

Our purpose is to build the new economy, and to be a voice for enterprise, business and aspiration.

That means investing more in education, research and innovation. We need to take Irish education to new heights.

the future…

Our purpose is to end poverty.

Healthcare is at the heart of our new purpose.

Our purpose over the next two decades is to create a better future for this planet.

Community-building is our purpose.

And to finish a selection of curiously truncated sentences…

This then is Labour’s New Purpose.

To build the New Economy.

Universal third-level education.

Ending poverty at home and abroad.

Halting climate change.

A health service that cures.

Stronger, fairer neighbourly communities.

This is our vision of Ireland, and of our place in the world.

It’s far from awful. It’s okay. It sounds better than it scans. And yet, for the life of me, I see little here – bar the call to end poverty – that wouldn’t slot as well into a Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael Ard Fhéis. Or as Cian says on Irish Election… “Gilmore used his speech to outline that Labour’s new position politics is not all that radically different from its old one”.

Is this truly what democratic socialists or social democrats on this island can call the essence of their project? Is this the strong reaffirmation of their values? On a broad level, yes. More or less. But on the micro, I’m not entirely convinced. And perhaps that is because while visions are great, although visions with clarity are better, it would be nice to have a bit of detail thrown into the mix. There is little here about the economy. Nothing at all about what happens is the economy sinks. No sense that Labour – as a Labour party – is ready to work with like-minded others across the political spectrum. No words about the fact that one element of the progressive political camp upped sticks and left for government. Little enough about that government.

Perhaps that is a tad unfair. Perhaps the big vision is the important thing. Perhaps even beginning to push Labour out from under the shadow of Fine Gael is in and of itself enough. But perhaps it’s not. Perhaps in this day and age we demand more, more detail, more clarity, more of the ramifications of a Labour government. We are four and a half years away from an election. Probably. But to be convinced, as distinct from somewhat swayed, is what is necessary.

Gilmore is actually pretty good. Indeed one section of the speech that was better than pretty good was the following:

This party that has led so much change in Ireland, must now have the courage to change itself. At every level of our organization, we need to do better.

I will lead this party to the best of my abilities. But, I don’t rule the Labour Party, I serve it. When I said earlier that I believe every person is equal,
I apply that principle to the Labour Party as well. This party belongs to all of us, and we must, all of us, take responsibility for where the party
is going.

My job is to steer, and sometimes to point, from the vantage point
I have as leader. And here’s what we need to do.

When you came into the hall this evening, there was a membership application form on your seat. Everyone of us knows somebody whom we think could be, should be, or once said they wished to be, a member of the Labour Party. But we have never got around to asking them to join. Let’s do it now. Tomorrow. And when that person comes to a party meeting, welcome them, so they don’t go away feeling excluded and not part of the circle. If your branch is not meeting, then it needs to be
re-organised, or maybe we need to put in place new units of organisation which meet the needs of the way we live our busy lives today.

And when, over the coming months, we meet with fellow members to discuss the selection of candidates for the local elections,
let’s pick the best candidates. In particular, we need more women and more young people to be selected. And if the best candidate is not among our present membership, then lets look to like-minded people who share our values and are not yet members of the party.

And when we have picked the candidate, lets get out there to ensure that he or she is elected at the next local elections, which are now just 19 months away. So lets be on the doors and in the communities and organizing the meetings and the campaigns. Lets be a Party, not which polls and preaches, but which listens and responds.

It’s organisational stuff, but it’s important. It’s refreshingly ego-free. And while another idea he raised of taking a journey across the country to ‘relearn’ Ireland is somewhat chilling, well, why not?

If anyone can do it for Labour and in Labour I think he can. But there’s much more to do.

And it’s odd to find myself actually agreeing with the IT editorial – bar the bit about ‘rebranding’…

The task of rebuilding and re-branding the Labour Party will not be easy, even though opinion polls have indicated an increase in public support. A change of leadership, along with a commitment to a go-it-alone strategy, encouraged the conference to look forward, rather than back, and recriminations were kept to a minimum. Lively debate helped to dispel a miasma arising from a poor general election. And there was a reaffirmation of core values. In spite of that, the impression lingered of a party uncertain of success that is seeking a clear political direction and distinctive policies that will reconnect with voters.

The centre is crowded in this country. But Labour remains a potent force on the centre left. If it can accentuate that ‘left’ even in a language that resonates with both its past and the contemporary then it might well find itself doing better.

But, old questions will continue to be raised. Even today there was a piece in the Irish Times about how Gilmore was leaving the question of an election pact open. He is quoted as saying that…

“I don’t know when the next general election is going to be. I don’t know the circumstances it will be called in. I am not going to get into the business of how that election is going to be fought at the time.”

Ruling out any renewal of the “Mullingar accord” with Fine Gael, the Labour leader said there would be no alliances with other parties “for the foreseeable future”.

Pressed on the issue, Mr Gilmore said: “For the foreseeable future. You are trying to ask me a question about the next general election. I don’t know when it is going to be. I am not going to write the script now for what I might say on the eve of the election.”

He added that he did not want his remarks to be interpreted that there would be an eve-of-poll alliance.

Which is interesting, particularly placed in context with another statement that there

…would be “no repeat” of the pre-election deal between his predecessor, Pat Rabbitte, and Fine Gael leader, Enda Kenny.

Labour is in an unenviable position. Plus ca change… At least they have a leader who seems aware of that.