The Dublin Central Local Elections and By-election Promotional Material – Mick Keegan of Labour… Part 5 of a continuing series. April 22, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Dublin Central Local Election and By-Election Promotional Material.5 comments
Another leaflet, this week our first from the Labour Party. It’s an impressive piece of work in terms of sheer size spread across two A4 pages front and back but folded in 3! It’s for Mick Keegan, aspirant Councillor for Cabra Glasnevin.
Joe, my old comrade from back in the day sent it through (for which many thanks – I wasn’t able to pick up the envelope until after Easter so apologies for the delay in posting it up). He makes one very interesting observation about the leaflet which I’ll leave people to work out for themselves.
Again, this concentrates entirely on the local with no hint of a national aspect other than the branding.
As ever I’ll gladly post up any literature from left and center-left candidates/parties as I get it or as it is sent to me… usual address see email on right hand column.
The unions and Libertas… redux… April 21, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, European Union, Irish Politics.17 comments
I feel ashamed that yesterday after the story had broken I wrote:
I don’t know. One doesn’t want to be unduly cynical but this seems to fit all too well into a pattern that has emerged over the last six months or so of stuff meant to happen which doesn’t, or goes wrong in some way, in some publicity garnering way…
Such cynicism does me no good. None at all.
Libertas said yesterday it had booked a room in Liberty Hall five weeks ago for the launch of the campaign of its Dublin candidate, Caroline Simons.
Although it is odd to read in the Irish Times the response from SIPTU.
However, Siptu informed the party yesterday that it could not use the room. Yesterday afternoon, Libertas switched the venue to the nearby Wynn’s Hotel for the launch. When contacted, Siptu cited two grounds for its refusal: the use of what it said was “subterfuge” when the booking of the room was made; and because it did not agree with its policies.
Which would be dreadful, wouldn’t it? That there was a disagreement on policy matters. But wait, what’s this about subterfuge?
The union said the room was booked by a person who was a Siptu shop steward, but who gave no indication that it would be used by Libertas for the launch of Ms Simons’s campaign.
If it had known the purpose of the meeting, permission would never have been granted. “We suspect that this was a stunt from the beginning,” said a spokesman.
Now let’s put that aside for a second. It sounds about right, but only the Chairman can tell us the correct story. Let’s consider the fact that the ebullient spokesperson for Libertas cannot refrain from wondering why, oh why, would SIPTU have problems with Libertas…
“This extraordinary and last-minute U-turn by the authorities at Liberty Hall raises very interesting questions. Caroline Simons spent a large portion of her career working with the trade union movement to secure equality for women. She adopted the same position on the Lisbon Treaty as an overwhelming majority of trade union members,” said Libertas spokesman John McGuirk.
Yeah. Well. Just because someone works with the unions doesn’t mean an absolute congruence of interests. Or indeed that SIPTU are beholden to her. Or that the positions taken by the majority of Union members are per se correct… consider their voting patterns over the years for the centre right.
As the indefatigable People Korps notes, this article in the Irish Times from last year, particularly the last sentence, makes for interesting reading.
THE ANTI-LISBON Treaty campaigner Declan Ganley has set up a “European political party” and an associated structure to raise money.
Yesterday the Companies Registration Office in Dublin acknowledged receipt of registration documents for The Libertas Party Ltd and the Libertas Foundation Ltd.
…
The memorandum documents for both of the new companies state that they are entitled to raise funds, carry on business, purchase property, accumulate capital, borrow and other activities, in pursuit of their principal objectives.
The companies are allowed pay interest at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent on loans received from directors or other members of the companies.
They are also empowered to “promote freedom of contact” and contribute funds to any body that resists interference in businesses by “any strike movement or organisation”.
Hmmmm… Odd that a political party with that view would want to launch a campaign in Liberty Hall. Isn’t it?
Odd indeed.
Joint statement of the Communist Party of Ireland and Communist Party of Britain concerning the Peace Process and other matters… April 18th 2009 April 21, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Northern Ireland, The North.6 comments
COMMUNIST PARTY OF IRELAND
JAMES CONNOLLY HOUSE, 43 East Essex Street, Temple Bar, Dublin 2
20th April 09
Joint statement of the Communist Party of Ireland and Communist Party of Britain April 18th 2009
The Communist Party of Ireland and the Communist Party of Britain held a bilateral meeting in Belfast on 18 April 2009. At the top of the agenda for both parties was closer co-operation in relation to strengthening the peace process and our response to the growing and deepening crisis of state-monopoly capitalism globally.
In relation to the peace process, both parties reaffirm their support for the Belfast and St Andrews Agreements as the only basis from which progress could be advanced and secured. Both parties see the full implementation of the Belfast Agreement as the only basis at present available from which to advance the legitimate and democratic demand for a united Ireland.
Both parties recognise that the return to military methods of struggle is and can only be a retreat into a cul-de-sac, inevitably resulting in death, suffering and further division and hinde rs the necessary political struggles that are required to secure and advance the social, economic and national-democratic aspirations of the Irish people. Both parties support the demand for the decommissioning of all Loyalist paramilitary weapons. The two parties share the belief that there is a need for further demilitarisation and for the removal from the north of Ireland of all British military personnel, including all British intelligence agencies.
Despite its weaknesses and shortcomings the Belfast Agreement represents the best framework and opportunity for developing and building cross-community reconciliation. The two parties recognise the important role of the trade union movement in this process. Both parties support the demand for the maximum economic, social and political co-operation between the two parts of Ireland and for the full implementation of the Belfast Agreement.
On the deepening crisis of monopoly capitalism, the two parties share a common understanding of the nature of the crisis. As well as sharing experiences of successes and difficulties in the present conditions, it is agreed that mobilising working-class forces in the defence of their wages and conditions as well as advancing their own class political demands is essential.
The two parties have a common understanding of the imperialist nature of the European Union and call for support for candidates in the forthcoming elections for the European Parliament who oppose further EU integration with its neo-liberal and milit arist agenda and who uphold the principles of democratic accountability and popular sovereignty. In Britain this means support for the “NO2EU – Yes to Democracy” platform.
In relation to the Lisbon Treaty, both parties condemn the decision of the Irish Government to abrogate the democratic decision of the Irish people in June 2008 to reject the treaty in a democratic vote. They call upon working people and other democratic forces to once again resoundingly reject this treaty and to rebuff the pressure from the EU Commission and other EU institutions to break their opposition to the ever-deepening EU integration promoted by those bodies.
The two parties share grave reservations about the approach of some communist parties in relation to the Party of the European Left as moving towards a political consensus for the acceptance of the European Union with its pro-big business, imperialist agenda. It is the feeling of both parties that this is not the best way forward for the working class of the EU member-states.
Both parties express their continuing solidarity with the Cuban Revolution and call for intensified action in support of Cuba, both material and political, for support for Cuba’s continuing efforts to rebuild after the hurricanes, and for support in the campaign to break the US blockade. Both acknowledge that the Cuban people and their revolution are in the front line of the struggle against imperialism and reaffirm their demand for the immediate and unconditional release of the Miami Five from their US prisons.
As well as solidarity with Cuba, both parties express their solidarity with and support for the continuing radical national-democratic transformations with an underlying anti-imperialist thrust now under way in a number of countries of Latin America.
Both parties condemn the imposition by the state of Israel of a form of apartheid on the people of Palestine. They call for an end to the acquiescence in this criminal policy by the Irish and British governments and the European Union and fully support the campaign for a boycott of Israeli goods, disinvestment from Israel and an end to all Irish and British institutional links with the repressive apparatus of the Israeli state..
We reaffirm our support for full reproductive rights for women throughout Ireland as well as in Britain, including the right to contraception and abortion.
The Communist Party of Ireland and the Communist Party of Britain call for greater solidarity and enhanced co-operation between all communist and workers’ parties at this time in leading the struggle against imperialism. Statement ends.
Eugene Mc Cartan
Communist Party of Ireland
Robert Griffith
Communist Party of Britain
Thanks to the CPI for this. The CLR is glad to host statements from left parties and groups. Just send them to worldbystorm [AT] eircom.net.
War without politics. War without end. War on everyone. Those RIRA statements. April 21, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Northern Ireland, The North, Uncategorized.12 comments
A good post on Sunday on Irish Times linked to the Sunday Tribune pieces on the Real IRA statements that weekend. And what statements they are. I’ve got to mention that Splintered Sunrise wrote a thought-provoking post yesterday that touches on some of the issues of this topic which made me hesitate in posting this because it addresses much the same area in a similar way, albeit from a different point of view. But I hope in that difference people will find something useful.
One of their most interesting features was the odd hesitancy as regards coming out and saying that they thought Martin McGuinness was a ‘legitimate’ target. Oh there’s much dancing around the issue with hints and veiled and not so veiled threats.
“Our struggle is against the British occupation forces and the administrative arm of the British government in Ireland – be they in the RUC/PSNI, the NIO [Northern Ireland Office], or the quislings in Stormont [the DUP-Sinn Féin Executive]. The same has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan: those who assist the occupier always condemn the occupied. However, seldom in such blatant or hysterical terms as we have witnessed recently.
Who, really, evades being included in this catalogue of ‘quislings’? Arguably any Irish civil servant or elected representative who ‘assists the occupier’ by recognising the legitimacy of the Assembly or working with it also will fit upon it. And it demonstrates the dangers of militarism without check. There is no broader hinterland that can influence RIRA or its like that the stark terms of their analysis will buckle in application to actual socio-political contexts.
“A former comrade [Martin McGuinness] has come full circle and, with a knight of the British realm [Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde] at his shoulder, he has labelled our gallant volunteers as traitors to justify his Redmondite stance and home rule politics.
And although they move close…
“Let us remind our former comrade of the nature and the actions of a traitor.
They then move slightly away, albeit making a very strong implication of intent:
Treachery is collaborating with the enemy, treachery is betraying your country. Let us give our one-time comrade an example. Denis Donaldson was a traitor and the leadership of the Provisional movement, under guidance from the British government, made provision for Donaldson to escape republican justice in the same manner as Freddie Scappaticci.
“It fell to the volunteers of Óglaigh na hÉireann to carry out the sentence and punishment demanded in our Army Orders and by the wider republican family. No traitor will escape justice regardless of time, rank or past actions. The republican movement has a long memory.
That they themselves have been conclusively proven to be almost completely infiltrated over the years is ignored completely.
“Recent years have seen the reorganisation and restructuring of Óglaigh na hÉireann. This is continuing and is constantly evolving and being refined to keep abreast of enemy developments in technology and modes of war. It is vital that volunteers educate themselves in such developments and take the necessary steps to safeguard themselves and their comrades.
But that they do not, or cannot, say outright publicly that McGuinness is in their eyes a ‘traitor’ is worth considering, because it suggests as with the rather muted attacks some weeks back, that they are still very very unsure as to how much support they have. Or that to do so publicly is still anathema in Republicanism (which is not to suggest that McGuinness is revered in the waters they are attempting to fish in, but loyalty is a funny thing and often even when one dislikes what a person stands for after some sort of change in view one can retain a residual liking for the person. That in itself is a force to be reckoned with).
Meanwhile there’s something rather simplistic about the analysis in the Tribune. For example we are informed that:
However much mainstream opinion, both nationalist and unionist, might revile Real IRA leaders, it’s a mistake to believe they’re stupid or insane. The Army Council representative’s words were chillingly ruthless. But they were well thought-out.
Well, perhaps in the sense that they were coherent sentences. But well thought out in a broader sense? Clearly Real IRA ‘leaders’ aren’t stupid or insane, but they’re far from providing a convincing rationale of their actions. Simplistic comes to mind again.
There were no mad-cap boasts that the Real IRA would “free Ireland” in a few years.
The organisation has a strategy in the short- to medium-term: to disrupt the normalisation of Northern Ireland and to draw the security forces back into an openly combative role.
It also aims, as the Provisionals once did, to destabilise any political settlement short of a united Ireland. While the Stormont Executive has shown remarkable unity so far, pressure on it will increase in the event of further killings or bombings and community tensions will rise.
That’s all very well, although one suspects it might take quite a lot for the events suggested in the final sentence to occur, but it sits uneasily with the RIRA’s own words on what they seek to achieve.
He [an RIRA member] will refer to Denis Donaldson’s murder and Massereene. But, most significantly, he will tell the crowd that the Real IRA’s strategy isn’t to return to a sustained campaign of violence, but to engage in “the tactical use of armed struggle” instead.
“The days of a campaign involving military operations every day, or every few days, are over,” says the Army Council representative. “We’re looking for high-profile targets, though we’ll obviously take advantage when other targets present themselves.
It’s hard to see how such a limited ‘campaign’ would have any serious traction, ‘high-profile targets’ or not. And they somewhat give the game away when they continue:
“No-one should be fooled into thinking Massereene was the only major operation Oglaigh na hEireann had planned recently. For every successful operation, numerous others are aborted at the last minute for various reasons.”
Was Massereene a ‘major’ operation? In contrast to the actions in the 1970s and 1980s this was an attack on an essentially soft target.
The spokesman claims the Real IRA aims for “unpredictability” in its attacks: “We will diversify our tactics. There will be operations against the RUC/PSNI and British military; firebombs; other commercial bombings; and a disruption to transport and the economy through bomb warnings and real devices – which costs the British exchequer considerably.”
But none of which are going to reap any dividends politically, although they suggest otherwise
“Actions by volunteers of Óglaigh na hÉireann in the last year have proved that the tactical use of armed struggle can, and does, bring results. As was witnessed in Antrim, British soldiers and the colonial police will continue to lose their lives as long as the issue of national sovereignty remains unresolved. Óglaigh na hÉireann will continue to strike at the British occupation forces wherever and whenever we decide.
So, the ‘results’ are the murder of British soldiers and a PSNI member? But that then indicates that ‘tactical use of armed struggle’ is it’s own ‘result’. Beyond that what political vision is there?
A party statement said: “We are constantly asked; what is your alternative? The answer depends on who is asking the question. To those who call us traitors (Martin McGuinness) we say; any alternative but yours.
“To those who call us anti democratic we say; let us negotiate without preconditions. To those republicans who genuinely seek an alternative we say; let us construct one together.
“We must be clear that the Good Friday Agreement represents a significant defeat for republicanism.”
The absurdity of these propositions are self-evident. Who do they represent other than themselves? They have no elected representatives, no political base near comparable with Sinn Féin in the 1980s and 1990s, let alone today. Why, and this is a central issue, should anyone negotiate with them? Because they are intrinsically anti-democratic in their approach not even bothering to go through the process of seeking legitimisation from the people. And why should they? Because they’re well aware that the people are unlikely to gift that legitimisation. Their only leverage is force of arms and in that they remain a pale shadow of the Provisional IRA.
And what of their thoughts in their main statement?
“History has shown us that compromise with the British on the issue of national sovereignty has always resulted in those who have compromised condemning those who continue to uphold and defend Irish sovereignty.
There are obvious problems there. The compromise with the British also necessitated a compromise by the British. There is no point in ignoring the fact that the GFA does dilute British sovereignty by allowing the Assembly to establish relationships on an all-island basis.That’s far from perfect but it introduces a discordant element that they simply don’t address.
And the self-referential aspect of the RIRA is hard to escape. Note that after detailing in a grimly forensic way the murder of Denis Donaldson they continue:
The Real IRA said it wanted to hunt down all ex-informers. Its “prime target” is British agent, Freddie Scappaticci, who formerly ran the Provisional IRA’s internal security and was responsible for the death and imprisonment of scores of republicans.
But who does this play to? The broader Republican community or is it a bid to build some sort of legitimacy amongst former activists? The latter would appear to be the case, which leads to the conclusion that RIRA seems to be fishing in a very small pond indeed and with little hope of success.
And it can’t escape from the limitations of the actuality of their actions as when:
The Army Council representative claimed that although several guns had been seized in police raids following Massereene, the two weapons used to kill the soldiers hadn’t been found.
Security experts were surprised the Massereene getaway car hadn’t been burned out. The Real IRA spokesman said: “The car was doused in petrol. It was ablaze when our volunteers left the scene. Because a window hadn’t been left open, the fire burned itself out.”
What an odd thing to publicise, other than perhaps to try to indicate that the representative knew what he was talking about. But if so it just points to a sort of slip-shod and amateurish approach by them.
I’m always loathe to make historical comparisons, but initially I wondered if RIRA and CIRA are moving towards something very slightly similar to Baader-Meinhof and other groups operating on the continent in the 1970s. Clearly dangerous, clearly able to mount armed actions, but… generally marginal to political debate. Which isn’t to say that urban terrorism had no effect on the West German state. It clearly did ushering in years where a security state response became evident.
The situation in the North is, naturally, more complex. Community divisions exist there which didn’t in West Germany. So perhaps the situation is more clearly analogous to that in the Basque country where a small armed group refuses to engage with the broader political dispensation. Again such comparisons are dubious, not least because unlike the Basque country these groups have no political representation at all. But the history of that area is such that it gives little hope to RIRA and CIRA that long lasting campaigns inevitably bring about the sort of political change they seek. If anything they point to the potential for transitional agreements with sufficient societal approval removing heat from a political conflict across decades.
And note, yet again, the glaring omission from their statements, any sense at all that they have to engage with Unionism. They don’t mention it once. Their fixation on firstly other Republicans and secondly the British prevents them from an appreciation that they share the island with a group that can implement its own ‘blocking’ strategy and that has across a century or more (indeed I mentioned this week that it took almost a decade from the implementation of the GFA for the broad mass of Unionism to accede to the Agreement… how on earth do RIRA think they can do better with their ‘tactical use of violence’ – and incidentally the sarcastic use of that term tells its own story as regards the depth of their analysis). But the other omission, which is even more striking in its way, is the South. There is the usual obeisance of unity, of course but little more than that. The analysis contains not a hint that they, the South, are anything other than a supporting cast – although that holds true of the Irish people as a whole. And there is no sense of the political engagements necessary to carry that Irish people. And again, why would there be? The comfortable certainties of armed struggle, struggle now almost explicitly for its own sake, are preferable to the actual task of confronting and engaging and compromising. Splintered Sunrise makes the entirely reasonable point that the dissidents appear to be hoping a strategy of tension will do the trick, but that he suspects the British won’t fall for that anytime soon. And I think he’s right.
But dissident Republicanism simply doesn’t care. As noted above… Insane? Not at all. Stupid? Not quite. But simplistic in their analysis and their approach. And entirely counter-productive.
Libertas and the unions… April 20, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, European Union, Irish Politics, Uncategorized.50 comments
Before:
LIBERTAS
PRESS NOTICE/PHOTOCALLFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 20th APRIL 2009
LIBERTAS CANDIDATE SIMONS TO LAUNCH CAMPAIGN FOR DUBLIN
Libertas European candidate for Dublin Caroline Simons will officially launch her campaign this evening at 6.30pm in the Connolly Room of Dublin’s Liberty hall. Ms. Simons will tell an expected crowd of over 100 supporters that she is “asking the people of Dublin for a job” and will discuss her ideas on the economic crisis, the future of Ireland in the European Union, and the importance and value of a vote for Libertas candidates.
A full transcript of Ms. Simons remarks will be made available this evening.
Ends
And after…
LIBERTAS PRESS NOTICE
20th APRIL 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CHANGE OF VENUE – CAROLINE SIMONS CAMPAIGN LAUNCH
Statement by Libertas:
“SIPTU have informed Libertas that Caroline Simons is not welcome to launch her campaign in Liberty Hall this evening, despite the fact that the venue had been booked for some weeks. As a consequence, the event will now take place in Wynne’s Hotel, Abbey St. Lower, at 6.30pm, followed by a reception.
This extraordinary and last-minute u-turn by the authorities at Liberty Hall raises very interesting questions. Caroline Simons spent a large portion of her career working with the trade union movement to secure equality for women. She has been an articulate and hard working defender of worker’s rights. She adopted the same position on the Lisbon Treaty as an overwhelming majority of Trade Union members.
SIPTU’s decision this evening should leave working people in no doubt that SIPTU, rather than representing the interests of its members, is primarily concerned with doing the bidding of its political masters”.
Ends
Dear, oh dear, oh dear…
Thanks to one of my usual sources for the heads up…
We’re screwed now. We really are… Paul Krugman is on our case about the banking crisis. April 20, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economics, Economy, Irish Politics.11 comments
Fair dues to CL for noticing this yesterday in the New York Times
under the heading: Erin Go Broke
It starts cheerily enough with:
“What,” asked my interlocutor, “is the worst-case outlook for the world economy?”
And then it’s down hill all the way from there…
It wasn’t until the next day that I came up with the right answer: America could turn Irish.
Gulp!
What’s so bad about that? Well, the Irish government now predicts that this year G.D.P. will fall more than 10 percent from its peak, crossing the line that is sometimes used to distinguish between a recession and a depression.
That doesn’t sound so good.
But there’s more to it than that: to satisfy nervous lenders, Ireland is being forced to raise taxes and slash government spending in the face of an economic slump — policies that will further deepen the slump.
Oh God. So, everything that many of the concerns articulated by some of us on the left (and in fairness elements of the centre and right) appears to be supported by Krugman’s analysis.
And it’s that closing off of policy options that I’m afraid might happen to the rest of us. The slogan “Erin go bragh,” usually translated as “Ireland forever,” [urgghhhh] is traditionally used as a declaration of Irish identity. But it could also, I fear, be read as a prediction for the world economy.
And he gets no more optimistic as he details how we are where we are…
How did Ireland get into its current bind? By being just like us, only more so. Like its near-namesake Iceland, Ireland jumped with both feet into the brave new world of unsupervised global markets. Last year the Heritage Foundation declared Ireland the third freest economy in the world, behind only Hong Kong and Singapore.
One part of the Irish economy that became especially free was the banking sector, which used its freedom to finance a monstrous housing bubble. Ireland became in effect a cool, snake-free version of coastal Florida.
Not a description I’d necessarily apply to us, but…
Then the bubble burst. The collapse of construction sent the economy into a tailspin, while plunging home prices left many people owing more than their houses were worth. The result, as in the United States, has been a rising tide of defaults and heavy losses for the banks.
And then he makes a central point. A point that, for all the hand-waving down at the Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post that our troubles stem from public expenditure problems rather than a financial crisis at the banks, cuts to the heart of a progressive analysis.
And the troubles of the banks are largely responsible for putting the Irish government in a policy straitjacket.
Let’s reiterate that. The banks are the driver of our current woes in the extreme form they now take. Remove the banks from the equation and while the next couple of years might be rough they wouldn’t see us taking the path the state is taking (and even there we still have a few choices remaining).
On the eve of the crisis Ireland seemed to be in good shape, fiscally speaking, with a balanced budget and a low level of public debt. But the government’s revenue — which had become strongly dependent on the housing boom — collapsed along with the bubble.
Bad… but worse was the fact that…
…even more important, the Irish government found itself having to take responsibility for the mistakes of private bankers. Last September Ireland moved to shore up confidence in its banks by offering a government guarantee on their liabilities — thereby putting taxpayers on the hook for potential losses of more than twice the country’s G.D.P., equivalent to $30 trillion for the United States.
Note that. It’s us taxpayers and citizens who are on the hook. Not the banks themselves. Not the government but us.
The combination of deficits and exposure to bank losses raised doubts about Ireland’s long-run solvency, reflected in a rising risk premium on Irish debt and warnings about possible downgrades from ratings agencies.
Hence the harsh new policies. Earlier this month the Irish government simultaneously announced a plan to purchase many of the banks’ bad assets — putting taxpayers even further on the hook — while raising taxes and cutting spending, to reassure lenders.
And this is where, and this is hardly news to any of us, this becomes most pernicious. Because for us to have to pay for the egregious mistakes of a financial sector run amok on the watch not merely of this Government but also almost all of our political class is an absolute disgrace.
And what of where we are now… what is Krugman’s analysis of that.
Is Ireland’s government doing the right thing? As I read the debate among Irish experts, there’s widespread criticism of the bank plan, with many of the country’s leading economists calling for temporary nationalization instead. (Ireland has already nationalized one major bank.) The arguments of these Irish economists are very similar to those of a number of American economists, myself included, about how to deal with our own banking mess.
Oh-oh.
But there isn’t much disagreement about the need for fiscal austerity. As far as responding to the recession goes, Ireland appears to be really, truly without options, other than to hope for an export-led recovery if and when the rest of the world bounces back.
Oh dear. That doesn’t sound good. Krugman appears to be saying there is no way out for us, and even the proposed one is built on an assumption that time alone will tell whether it is correct or not.
So what does all this say about those of us who aren’t Irish?
For now, the United States isn’t confined by an Irish-type fiscal straitjacket: the financial markets still consider U.S. government debt safer than anything else.
But we can’t assume that this will always be true. Unfortunately, we didn’t save for a rainy day: thanks to tax cuts and the war in Iraq, America came out of the “Bush boom” with a higher ratio of government debt to G.D.P. than it had going in. And if we push that ratio another 30 or 40 points higher — not out of the question if economic policy is mishandled over the next few years — we might start facing our own problems with the bond market.
Hold on a sec. Neither did we save for a rainy day, and for (give or take a war) precisely the same reason.
Not to put too fine a point on it, that’s one reason I’m so concerned about the Obama administration’s bank plan. If, as some of us fear, taxpayer funds end up providing windfalls to financial operators instead of fixing what needs to be fixed, we might not have the money to go back and do it right.
And a parting thought…
And the lesson of Ireland is that you really, really don’t want to put yourself in a position where you have to punish your economy in order to save your banks.
And we still give a moment’s credence to the fools who navigated us into this mess?
Meanwhile the Financial Times has an interesting piece on much the same topic :
Irish bank shares may have rallied since their lows in mid-March, but no one is quite sure why.
Sebastian Orsi, banks analyst with Merrion stockbrokers, says “the only certainty” is that shareholders will suffer further price dilution as a result of the government’s plan to set up a bad bank.
The announcement, which was made alongside this month’s emergency budget envisages a state-run national asset management agency that will take over the banks’ bad loans. This will result in large asset writedowns for the banks, leaving the government again having to step in to rebuild the banks’ capital with fresh equity.
Ireland was first out of the traps with its blanket guarantee of bank liabilities back in September, and is now setting up a bad bank, providing bonds to the banks in exchange for taking over their troubled loans.
Officials hope it will draw a line under Ireland’s banking crisis, “cleanse” the balance sheets of the banks and restore investor confidence in the sector.
But…
However, some remain unconvinced – last Friday, a group of senior Irish economists said the plan “represents only a partial solution to our banking problems and one that is unlikely to protect the taxpayer”.
The government estimates that €80bn (£70.7bn) to €90bn of property loans – at book – will be transferred.
It says the assets will be priced at an “appropriate” discount to book value, with the banks forced to crystallise losses to reflect the deterioration in the value of the properties that were provided as security. How big the exact discount should be is one issue concentrating minds in Dublin.
“The public will be appalled if the government pays over the odds for assets simply to keep insolvent banks in private hands,” says Joan Burton, finance spokesman for the Labour party.
Which is a very good point indeed, but the real meat of the piece to me is when we read:
In fact, the government walks a political tightrope, anxious not to be accused of bailing out the banks and developers, but also keen to keep its eye on the primary objective of the exercise, which is to ensure that banks return to lending to the real economy.
What possible incentive is there for that to happen? At the very least we’re going to see – no, wait, we’ve already seen – a much more rigorous approach to lending. And in the light of what has gone before who could blame that from happening. Problem is that the culprits, the banks, walk away essentially unchanged. Sure, we’ll see some new faces at the top, and no doubt some rhetoric about ‘social’ needs as regards lending being addressed. But… the prospect of returning to the status quo ante is a chimera and the sooner that is faced up to by the Government, as much as anyone else, the better.
And look at where this leads us:
In a recent note, Citigroup, the US bank, estimated that, with a 25 per cent discount, the resultant writedown would see Allied Irish Banks make a €7.9bn pre-tax loss this year, while Bank of Ireland’s pre-tax loss would be €5bn.
There is a clawback provision for the banks to be charged a levy, should the agency pay too much, resulting in a cash shortfall from the working out of the loans.
But if the government adopts what Mr Orsi calls “a friendly approach” and limits the upfront discount, the size of the bond issue needed to pay for the loans will be larger, and thus the addition to the national debt will be bigger.
The government’s National Treasury Management Agency, which oversees Irish debt issues and largely masterminded the idea of the assets management agency, says that if €50bn of bonds has to be issued to pay for the bank loans, Ireland’s debt, currently standing at about €54bn, would double.
And that means an essentially structural weakness at the heart of our economy for decades, if not indeed generations. It gets worse again:
Some analysts say the real problem is that no one knows what the banks’ loans are worth, as property transactions have virtually dried up.
Peter Bacon, the economist advising the NTMA on the bad bank scheme, says: “There is a market. In the residential sector, you have monthly indices telling you how house prices have fallen, to whatever level. We have the information about yields on commercial property moving out to 8 per cent.
“I think a lot of people are saying there’s no market, but really what they’re saying is they don’t like the answer the market is giving.”
Well, I don’t know. That sounds like a very pat answer indeed.
And Bacon is unchastened by the missive from the economists last week:
However, Mr Bacon says: “What would that do? It would change the name over the door, from private shareholder to government. The losses will still sit on the balance sheet.”
He says there would be no transparency to the process once the banks are nationalised, heightening public concerns about crony capitalism.
And importantly, Mr Bacon adds, by resisting the move to full state ownership and maintaining the banks’ quotation on the Dublin and London stock exchanges, “will provide taxpayers with an exit mechanism out of their ownership of banks”.
But how does that profit us as a society? Unless there is a clear return above and beyond stability in the financial system – something that in and of itself appears of diminishing utility given the stormsurges through the global economy in the past year or so which may return with greater force again as the second wave of the recession hits both here and abroad – and given the enormous liability that we’re being asked to assume the arguments for nationalisation appear, if not necessarily attractive at least necessary. And if part of the quid pro quo (such as it is) was to see the genesis of a proper state bank that operated to mitigate the perverse effects of the commercial financial industry. Well, that would be at least some small return.
Still, this may all be moot. The destination – whatever the Government hopes – may well inevitably be one which leads to outright nationalisation. That certainly seems to be Krugman’s view.
But as ever one wonders why the messing around?
The Left Archive: An Phoblacht/Republican News, Sinn Féin, June 1994 April 20, 2009
Posted by irishonlineleftarchive in Irish Left Online Document Archive, Sinn Féin.1 comment so far
Almost two years into the life of the Archive and the first An Phoblacht/Republican News to be posted up. And this from a very interesting time in the evolution of Sinn Féin. The edition was published at the height of the early stages of the Peace Process, and as the front page put it:
Delegates Will Decide.
Sinn Féin’s Ard Comhairle decided at a meeting on Wednesday, 29 June, to hold a national delegate conference within the next few weeks. The purpose of the conference is to reach a formal position on Sinn Féin’s attitude to the Downing Street Declaration.
Pat Doherty, Vice President of SF was quoted as saying that:
The Ard Comhairle will be seeking support from delegates for its view on how the peace process can be moved on. The issues that lie at the heart of the conflict must be adequately addressed. From SF’s perspective these are:
• That the Irish people as a whole have the right to self-determination;
• That the exercise of self-determination is a matter for agreement between the people of Ireland;
• That the consent and allegiance of unionists are essential ingredients if a lasting peace is to be established;
• That unionists cannot have a veto over constitutional change;
• That the British government must join the persuaders;
• That the London and Dublin governments have a major responsibility to secure political progress.
This is a fascinating insight into the duality of the Sinn Féin approach during this period. For on page 2 there is War News, which details “Belfast post damaged in rocket attack”, “Mortar Hits Mobile Patrol” and so on.
As regards the more clearly leftist elements we can turn to page 4 for “workers in struggle” which details “Management mess-ups behind Aer Lingus crisis” and “Thousands march in support of TEAM workers”. There is a fairly strong concentration on these sort of issues, including news that “Service charges set to strike across Dublin”.
The main editorial has a strangely contemporary ring to it. Under the heading “Crocodile tears for a fat cat” we read that:
The sight of Fine Gael, the PDs and their friends in the Dublin media getting themselves worked up about Peter Sutherland and the presidency of the EU Commission is a sure sign that the silly season is fast approaching.
The editorial continues to argue that ‘the whole thing is a travesty of democracy. The powers wielded by the president and his EU Commission are enormous. Not one of them is elected and they enjoy some of the most highly paid jobs in public administration in the world. They are in effect the government of the EU. No one who does not conform absolutely to the right-wing, monetarist policies that dominate the EU agenda would be allowed near even a lowly clerk’s job in the commission’.
And continues further:
But the demand for an “Irish Presidency” is absurd. Even if he personally would further the real interests of Ireland – and Sutherland definitely would not – he would be constrained by the Treaty of Rome, the Singe European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. Only a President devoted to the process of EU integration, erosion of national sovereignty and policies that have led to mass unemployment, will be considered.
Today the critique of the EU is couched in somewhat more ameliorative language.
Beside the editorial it is notable that there is a piece “Time for nationalists to hold their nerve”. The use of the term nationalist rather than Republican is interesting and perhaps speaks of a need to appeal to a broader constituency within the North. And on the centre pages there is the Report of the Sinn Féin Peace Commission: Charting a course to peace. This lists the summary conclusions of the Peace Commission, some of which make for interesting reading at this remove.
World View rather cursorily deals with international affairs, with a single large article on Guatemala. And other than that there is a fairly broad scope of news and articles.
It seems fair to say that this – unlike many of the documents in the Archive – has the feel of a newspaper. Perhaps the first document to have that quality since the heyday of the Irish People or the United Irishman. But then this is much less explicitly left wing than those other documents and much less clearly ideological.
This text and these files are a resource for use freely by anyone who wants to for whatever purpose – that’s the whole point of the Archive (well that and the discussions). But if you do happen to use them we’d really appreciate if you mentioned that you found them at the Irish Left Online Document Archive…
“Pain” and the economic crisis. No. 1. April 19, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economics, Economy, Irish Politics.8 comments
Reading the Sunday Business Post this afternoon I was struck by this:
The second option for Cowen, and one that he really should consider, is to manufacture a general election in the autumn. Labour’s rise has been noteworthy for its absence of credible proposals for pain.
Thus far, it has not fully dawned on the new middle and upper-middle class Labour supporters that they will be paying 48 per cent on the marginal income tax rate if Labour prevails.
Seems the definition of ‘pain’ only applies to the working class… or am I missing something.
A call for consensus from the Green Party… April 19, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.10 comments
Here’s something interesting… it’s a press statement from Dan Boyle issued today.
Ireland’s economic recovery requires political consensus
All parties should work together on bank crisis, says BoyleReaching political consensus on how Ireland resolves its banking crisis has become critical, the Green Party’s finance spokesperson Senator Dan Boyle said today. “Such a move is necessary to accelerate Ireland’s economic recovery, reassure the public that the money which the State is investing in the banking system is being spent wisely, and restore confidence to potential investors and the international financial markets, from whom we raise money,” he said.
Senator Boyle, who is the Party’s Chairman and MEP candidate for the South constituency, continued: “Getting confidence back into our banking sector is the biggest political and economic challenge facing the country. There are huge repercussions arising out of it and an agreed approach would strengthen the State’s hand.
“I believe that we politicians must work together to provide leadership and reassurance to taxpayers that the actions we are now taking are in the their interest. At a time when everybody is being asked to hand back more of their pay packet in taxes, it is far too easy for some politicians to promote popular but impossible ideas about what the government should do next. This is hampering our economic recovery.
“In February Fine Gael called for a ‘good bank/bad bank’ model and the Labour Party presented eight principles for bank reform. The steps that the Government has subsequently taken on bank reform address the majority of the concerns raised.
“It is the nature of the political system to downplay consensus and either find or invent differences from which confrontation can be drawn. This is a healthy part of the democratic process and in normal times it is to be welcomed, but right now it has become a major threat to our recovery.
“Opposition parties have made valuable contributions to the debate about how we should respond to the economic crisis. Now, as we move into the critical phase of deciding how our banks are going operate over the years ahead, I believe that it is time to deepen cooperation between all of the political parties.
“I will bring this suggestion to the Green Party’s parliamentary party this week to discuss it with my colleagues, and we will see where we can go from there,” Senator Boyle concluded.
Hmmm… I wonder what this means? Any thoughts?
Interesting too how the banking crisis has once more taken precedence over the public expenditure issue. Expect a fight-back from the usual suspects in the next week or so.
That Sunday Independent Poll… April 19, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.10 comments
Got to say I’m not overly impressed by the latest Sunday Independent poll. It’s was conducted on Friday by telephone with a sample of 500.
And the figures? Fianna Fáil on 23%, Fine Gael on 26%, Labour on 18%. The Green Party on 3%, Sinn Féin on 5% and Independents on 4%. They make great play of the SF number, apparently it’s up 3%.
What troubles me is the wild variation from other polls down in the single digits – which one presumes is an artifact of low sample numbers. The Irish Times and RedC polls have the Green Party and Sinn Féin on higher numbers over a considerable length of time and where is the extra 21% that isn’t accounted for once you add up the figures given? They do not tell us.
Which makes any analysis other that a cursory one of the larger parties pointless. Yep, Fianna Fáil is still down, and the Indo is only too willing to link this to the Budget. They also predict bad news ahead once the levies kick in next month and worse again for FF at the local and European elections.
Funny thing is I’m not so sure. Or rather I’m not so sure there will be the sort of meltdown that the Indo foresees. Not that it won’t be brutal for FF. But just not quite that brutal. I think a very interesting statistic which also seems to mirror other polls is the Labour figure at 18%. It’s not bad at all, but it should be better. I can’t help but think that in the 21% of the figures unaccounted for there’s a fair bit of the FF vote waiting to go home.
Although against that is the finding that:
The popularity of Labour leader Eamon Gilmore shows no signs of abating. Satisfaction with Mr Gilmore (65 per cent) is up seven points since January. He is now more popular than Mr cowen [sic - they really need a grammar check down the SI] and Mr Kenny combined. Satisfaction with the Fine Gael leader, Enda Kenny (33 per cent) is down two points.
So. Broad brush stroke at best. Roll on the next IT or RedC poll. Then – perhaps – it will be possible to make a more conclusive analysis.
