Fighting with one hand tied behind your back… ICTU vs IBEC October 22, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics.27 comments
Reading the discussion between Paul Sweeney of ICTU and David Croughan of IBEC is a dispiriting experience. Dispiriting because Croughan articulates the current deflationary orthodoxy, in this instance the necessity for public sector wage cuts as some means of achieving ‘fairness and effectivity’ while Sweeney puts up the counterargument. There’s little enough heat, it’s all ‘in sorrow more than anger’ but by the same token there’s little enough light either Croughan is able to make a very questionable statement that lies at the heart of his thesis pass almost entirely unchecked.
Croughan argues, not unsurprisingly, that,
The central problem has been the decline in competitiveness caused by the squeezing out of the traded goods and services sector by an overheated construction industry, which bid up wage rates and other costs. We are now 15 per cent less competitive in relation to our trading partners than we were in 2000. This position needs urgent redress. In a single currency, a loss of competitiveness cannot be countered by devaluation; costs, including labour costs, must fall.
This will be a most interesting process to see. Hitherto the media have been delighted to point to prices falling – ‘Rip-off Ireland’ etc. But if wages fall in tandem then the impact of price falls is diminished or even reversed.
Croughan argues also that:
There is a clear choice between jobs and pay. There have been enough job losses. It is grossly unfair and obviously ineffective to allow Irish pay rates to put more people out of work. That is why pay rises before 2011 are unrealistic.
This is an interesting one too. Is he arguing for a freeze or cuts. There’s a degree of ambiguity here between ‘labour costs’ and ‘no pay rises’. Worth probing I’d have thought. And indeed the stated IBEC position is that:
“Proposals published in June for the suspension of the private sector pay terms of the national agreement need to be formalised by IBEC and ICTU. This will give clear direction to the State dispute resolution bodies such as the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court, which should recognise the new norms. Clearly the agreement of a year ago is inappropriate and the honest course is for all to accept these new realities.”
And then… the fetishistic talisman of the public finances… for if we rub the talisman, vigorously, then all will be well… nevermind that the actual impact of say a 5% wage cut will be… well, you can read it here.
The reality is that tax revenue, which is solely reliant on our ability to successfully trade goods and services at home and abroad, is insufficient to pay for current public expenditure levels.
No dispute there.
Despite April’s Supplementary Budget, which outlined the corrective action needed to reduce the borrowing requirement to less than 11 per cent of GDP, the most recent exchequer returns point to the deficit rising to an unsustainable 12 per cent. This will result in an even higher cost of servicing the debt, which is already set to rise from €3.9 billion in 2008 to €11.2 billion by 2013. Attempts to improve the situation by excessive tax increases will only make matters worse by stifling growth and adding even more to the burden of those trying to compete in a competitive world.
Hmmm… Some dispute there, but that’s another days work.
Anyhow, he continues…
Both the private and public sectors are in a similar position: the private sector must contain costs to survive and grow businesses and employment; the public sector must contain costs within the limits of tax revenue to avoid crippling taxation or unsustainably high debt levels. The burden of adjustment must therefore be borne by both public and private sectors.
And then we get to the heart of the argument.
Ibec has carried out extensive survey work this year on a sample of over 500 companies employing close to 90,000 employees. On average the total pay bill in private sector companies has decreased by 11 per cent in 2009. Of course, this has not been uniform across all sectors; those companies facing the most difficulties cut the most. Of the 56 per cent of companies that had reduced their pay bill, the average reduction was 21 per cent.
Anyone see the omission? Well, let him continue for a second.
Private companies have achieved these pay reductions in a variety of ways. Aside from wage reductions, some employees have accepted pay reductions by forfeiting shift premiums; others have worked unpaid overtime; others have agreed to taking one or two days a month of unpaid leave. This has not only reduced pay levels but has also increased productivity.
Fantastic. But it’s also cut peoples wages significantly.
A large number of companies indicated further pay reductions were needed in 2010. While not all private sector employees have experienced pay cuts, those working in businesses most affected by the recession have accepted substantial pay reductions of the order of 12 per cent to protect their jobs.
Okay, a further omission – no?
What is the figure for the number of companies that have seen wages cut out of the 500? What he gives us is data pointing to ‘on average…total pay bill… decreased by 11 percent in 2009 (btw, 2009 isn’t over yet so one wonders whether we should treat that with some degree of caution). And that 56 per cent figure… What is the provenance of that?
He doesn’t say… curious – eh?
I can point you here…
Or, computer, browser and keyboard operating in tandem, I can go to FINFACTS from last month here and read a slightly different outline of the situation.
A new IBEC survey of 508 companies, which together employ over 86,000 employees, shows that the majority of Irish enterprises had pay freezes and reductions in staff numbers in 2009. Just over 20% of employers have implemented pay reductions. The IBEC Business Sentiment Survey (Q3) was carried out between 17-29 August 2009.
Now maybe this seems like semantics, but it truly isn’t. For it is one thing to argue that 56 per cent of the private sector has ‘reduced their wage bill’, but quite another to say that just over 20% had implemented pay reductions.
The raw data is even more revealing.
More than half of companies (56%) have reduced their pay bill over the past 12 months by an average of 21%.
• Pay freezes (59%) and reduced numbers employed (55%) have been put in place in 2009
• Recruitment freezes (59%) and retraining of existing staff (45%) are among the most likely actions by employers in the next three months.
• A reduction in permanent staff is expected in 28% of companies and is under consideration in a further 42%.
• For 2010, half (48%) expect their pay bill to remain the same and one third (33%) expect it to decrease. The average expected decrease is 14%.
• A reduction in temporary numbers is expected in 32% of companies with 29% considering doing so.
• Short-time working is expected in 22% of companies, with a further 45% considering implementation.
• 31% of businesses intend to eliminate bonus payments and a further 29% intend reducing such payments.
Now a wage freeze is no fun, but that’s what is being experienced in the public sector as well, and an overtime ban and a recruitment embargo (even if we put aside all else such as pension levies), and lest the issue of incremental pay be thrown in I would be amazed if that isn’t subject to a freeze or reworking at the upcoming Budget.
Let’s put this a different way. Of the 508 companies IBEC approached, and we have no sense of how self-selecting that process was, 46% were clearly increasing the wage bill. Some 80% saw wages remain the same or increase (and this at a time when we are told inflation has dropped 6/5%, albeit 4% of that is mortgage related) and 41% continue to recruit. Hmmm… not quite so exciting is it?
Note too the ‘expected’s’ and ‘under considerations’ etc. Because if one looks at the data the glass is more than half full for one of the most severe economic situations we’ve experienced in the past fifty or so years, I’d have thought, and by quite some way. And already the economic forecasts are considerably brighter than they have been.
So, to Paul Sweeney.
What are his thoughts on these matters? Well, I agree with him as regards the utility or otherwise of wage cuts…
ECONOMY-WIDE CUTS in wages will reduce sales, throw people out of jobs and close firms. It will be deflationary and will delay the recovery. It will reduce tax revenue to the Government and require increased public spending on job supports.
Indeed Michael Taft has noted how this very policy continues to undermine the Government’s own plans for recovery forcing it to greater and greater breaches of its own stated economic plans as regards deficit control.
But to the issue of wage cuts…
Secondly, earnings, wages and salaries in the private sector have not fallen in recent times. They have risen, the latest data show.
Okay. Er… what data?
Nope, we’re moving onto thirdly…
Thirdly, and this is rarely acknowledged by the wage-cuts chorus, Irish earnings, wage rates and salaries are still below those in most competitor countries, according to published comparative data. More importantly, the total cost of employing a worker in Ireland is well below that of most competitor countries (22nd down a long list of the rich countries according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2007). I acknowledge that the rise in the value of the euro has reduced our position since then.
And, indeed, fourthly…
It is generally not known that Ireland’s productivity remains one of the highest in the world, in spite of recent slow growth. The last OECD survey put us at second highest in the world after Norway and ahead of the US in 2006. However, our position is boosted by transfer pricing by multinationals companies (MNCs). But even adjusting for this, we are still one of the top performers.
Which is great, but really, we need to see some sort of defence against the earlier statements by Croughan. Now in fairness to Sweeney I presume that his piece was written not as a response but as a companion piece and therefore he did not get access to the text of Croughan’s article. But that said it is no secret as to what line of attack IBEC are taking and it is necessary when dealing with IBEC – even at arms length, as here – to address their discussions.
And also in fairness he does touch upon the issue once more.
Where total earnings are being adjusted downwards in individual firms in the private sector, it is mainly through reduced hours, new ways of working, reduced bonuses, etc. Yet unions are agreeing to reductions in the basic wage rate where the firms or jobs are at serious risk. However, as stated above, private sector earnings are not falling nationally. And Irish exports are doing well compared to those of many countries, which is instructive in this debate on competitiveness.
And while absolutely correct that’s not really sufficient, particularly in a debate where figures are thrown about by the contesting parties – there is an overriding necessity to be clear and to be responsive.
This may be an unlovely comparison, but the last twenty years saw political parties recognising the necessity to issue rebuttals on specific assertions. That that devolved on occasion into a ‘he says, she says’ process doesn’t take away from the reality that on occasion it was central to shaping political arguments. I note that IBEC, ISME and the SFA are past masters of shaping releases on these very matters on a continual basis. There’s some good stuff on the ICTU site, but… it needs further shaping. Because what we’re engaged in here is a conflict between two very distinct worldviews. That those who hold them on both sides are for the most part sincere in their beliefs does not matter a bit in terms of how crucial it is that our world-view is put across cogently.
Here we see a perfect opportunity to undercut the IBEC contention using IBEC’s own figures.
We have to move beyond mention of the OECD, MNCs’ and the EU15, important as all those are. If the central contention, indeed the central justification of Croughan’s article is that private sector wage cuts are the engine that must consequently drive both public sector wage cuts and as importantly other private sector wage cuts – for the exemplary aspect of this on employers in the private sector is a serious problem, and I know of a number of instances first hand where profitable companies are demanding workers take wage cuts that the company finances simply do not justify on any level – then that is the point that must be dealt with.
I’ve said it before, if I were going back to third level, political economy would be where I’d be focusing. But that boat sailed a quarter of a century ago precisely this weekend so there’s little point in crying over the past. On the other hand such egregious statements seemingly of fact require a more, well, combative response. They really do, for read this comment beneath the post…
You need not bother trying to launch some sort of preemptive strike on Honohan because at this stage the ICTU “speak” is like something straight out of Animal Farm. It is totally and shamelessly disconnected from any sense of reality. I am not worried about where ICTU are coming from but I can see plainly that your members are being led by people who do not inhabit the real world at all and to think that you are paying for this type of advice? Unbelievable!
Mr. Sweeney said, “Secondly, earnings, wages and salaries in the private sector have not fallen in recent times. They have risen, the latest data show.”
All I will say is what data? Did you ever hear the expression GIGO garbage in garbage out? Data from what planet? Is the moon really made of cheese and have you listened to the dogs in the street lately? Go to any pub, any pub in the country and listen to people drowning their sorrows about their wages being decimated and their jobs being destroyed?
ICTU need to get some real economic advisors or better still book some sessions with reality therapists these people are pretty good, I can recommend them!
And while I may disagree with the sentiment and the approach expressed in that comment, and consider that the economic equivalent of MOPE is bonkers, there’s no question that to counter it requires an approach that is willing to fight IBEC on the ground that it selects for itself. Time for that instant rebuttal unit to get going…
Dublin Port Workers – Strike has ended. MTL accepts Labour Court recommendations. October 21, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Workers Rights.add a comment
Statement from Port workers campaign:
To all supporters and contacts
After 110 days the strike has ended. Late Yesterday evening MTL accepted the Labour Court recommendation.
( The details of the recommendation are available at the official website below- as per the recommendation there are still matters to be resolved , in negotiation or through binding arbitration )
This represents a major victory for the workers , who’s dedication and commitment during this long and difficult dispute was inspiring , and they have set a powerful example for other workers in struggle. Considering the attitude of MTL/Peel , their anti union reputation and history ,plus the unlimited resources at their disposal it is all the more significant that they have backed down.
The campaign by supporters was crucial to this successful outcome. This support came from the local communitys, political groups , other workers and trade unionists. The role played by the ITF was a major factor in bringing about this successful outcome , which includes the international solidarity, from across Europe, from Australia and also the U.S.
The workers have asked that their sincere graditude be expressed to everybody for their support , and that they know they “COULDN’T HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT YOU”.
Further updates will be issued when available- keep checking the website, and messages of support, sorry- CONGRATULATIONS to the workers are the order of the day.
The indiscreet complacency of the bourgeoisie: A review of Stephen Kinsella’s Ireland in 2050: How we will be living. October 21, 2009
Posted by guestposter in Culture, Economy, Irish Politics, The Left, Uncategorized.43 comments
By D.J.P. O’Kane
A former Taoiseach of this state was fond of remarking that we did not live in an economy, that what we lived in was a society. What we live in is – of course – both an economy and a society, and this presents certain problems for anyone who wants to predict the future of the 26 counties. The social, cultural and economic structures in the Republic of Ireland interact with each other in a variety of complex ways; and these structures are in turn inextricably linked with a vast array of global networks of social, cultural and economic exchange. These networks are all, in turn, part of a human ecological relationship with the planet, and all these factors combine to make predictions about the future difficult, to put it mildly.
Stephen Kinsella’s Ireland in 2050 is an attempt at predicting Ireland’s future. Despite the evidence that the wheels have well and truly come off the Irish economy, Kinsella believes that ‘Ireland is in forward motion’, and that his book will convince us of the ways in which he thinks ‘we’re headed as a country’. I think Ireland’s future may well resemble the picture he paints of ‘how we will be living’ in 2050, but I am not persuaded that this will be a good thing.
After an opening chapter where he evokes the anxieties of post-Celtic Tiger Ireland, Kinsella goes on to discuss Ireland’s place in the global economy. He counsels a continued orientation to the outside world, and especially to the United States, which he believes will continue to be a major trading partner and source of investment (he considers a successful Chinese bid for world hegemony unlikely). This is followed by chapters that try to trace the future evolution of the Irish family, Irish patterns of work and leisure, education, the likely consequences of environmental change, energy policy, health care, government and the probable persistence of social inequality. Each of these topics would be deserving of a volume, or several volumes, in their own right – but as they all strongly influence each other it’s not a bad idea to consider them within the boundaries of one work.
By 2050, Kinsella is convinced, a ‘divorce bomb’ will have gone off in Irish society (his source for this appears to be the questionable conservatives at the Iona Institute). An aging population will be putting severe stress on a highly unequal health care system and the pensions system. Dublin in 2050 will be the same size as Los Angeles, and the social integration of youth born and raised in alienating suburban sprawl will be a high priority. Transport will be car-based, and electronic surveillance will make toll roads far more prevalent than they are now (incredibly, public transport gets one derisive line; ‘If you don’t want to pay, stay at home and do something more fun than sitting in traffic, or get to where you want to go by bike, train, magic carpet, or whatever’). We will work in creative industries, and the education system will have to change to accommodate this – with the Leaving Certificate in its present form being the first candidate for the chop (though I have to say I didn’t see much discussion of the innovative industries a creative Ireland might produce). The Irish model of low taxes will persist, as will its consequences – poor public services and structural social exclusion. Agriculture will forced to change radically, as a warming world makes things very different in the Irish countryside. Water charges will be inevitable from 2015 onwards, as pressure from an expanding Dublin makes the present system of water supply untenable (Ireland’s water supply is experiencing problems already, but there are good reasons for thinking that privatisation and water charges are not the tools for dealing with this problem: but that’s a whole other post).
Between now and 2050, Irish society is likely to be stressed by new challenges from within and without, and the consequences of those challenges will be unpredictable. What we can predict, however, is that an effective response to those challenges will require more than just toll-roads and water charges. In his chapter on social inequality, Kinsella acknowledges the superior outcomes (economic and social) enjoyed by relatively more equal societies, but rules them out for Ireland. Not only is he adamant that he is not a socialist, but he is also of the opinion that ‘Ireland will not choose to reduce inequality by increasing taxes on the wealthy and increasing public service provision, because we have never done so in the past’. We do a lot of things now that we did not do in our parents’ or our grandparents’ time: we’ll be doing a lot of things in 2050 that previous generations could never have dreamed of (it’s revealing that Kinsella barely mentions the new immigrant communities that have helped transform Irish society over the past decade). A reversal of present social and political priorities is by no means inevitable, but it can’t be ruled out either.
Even though I found Kinsella’s book consistently wrong-headed, naïve, question-begging and tendentious, I think he does deserve some credit for at least trying to think beyond the present crisis. I disagreed with almost all of his book, but I think it deserves greater consideration than I can give it in the space of this review. I’ll close this review with a quote from Ireland in 2050 which sums up the central problem of Kinsella’s viewpoint:
Ireland’s development over the last forty years, though striking (both in how we failed to develop in 1970 – 1987, and how quickly we developed thereafter), hasn’t changed us all that much. The influence of the Catholic church is much diminished. We drink more Cappucinos and owe more money per person, and we travel more. But fundamentally, today we are the same. We’ll be fundamentally the same in forty years.
Will we? Have we really not changed fundamentally since 1970? And if we don’t change fundamentally between now and 2050, can we avoid disasters of all kinds, economic, environmental, and social?
STEPHEN KINSELLA’S IRELAND IN 2050: HOW WE WILL BE LIVING, DUBLIN, LIBERTIES PRESS, 2009.
The SNP Acts to Protect Public Housing October 20, 2009
Posted by Garibaldy in British Politics.4 comments
Due not so much to popular demand, but to a demand, I’m reposting on the CLR this post from Monday on Garibaldy Blog.
I’m impressed. Very impressed. Scottish Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said that in Scotland the right to buy council houses has “had its day”.
She said: “We’re building record numbers of houses, but our ambition to substantially increase the supply of homes for rent will be frustrated if we sell them off under the right to buy.
“That is why I believe that the right to buy has had its day.”
She said the reforms to right to buy, first introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, would safeguard up to 18,000 houses, providing rented homes for those who most needed them.
Given the fact that in many respects the engine of huge parts of the economy and in many respects politics of the UK (and for that matter the Republic) over the last two decades or so has been shifting housing stock from public to private ownership, and the associated building boom of private housing, this is a brave, and much-needed move by the SNP. Although it no longer carries the political dangers that it would have in the past, it still is a move motivated by a more communitarian vision of politics than that which has dominated British politics since Thatcher took over.
Public housing goes to all sorts of important issues about the type of society we want – the role of the state and public responsibility, environmental protection (ask anyone whose new house is on a flood plain about this), the motor of economic development and others. The brand new housing estates in the south of Ireland with literally no-one living in them are indicative of the problem of having the construction of new homes as the engine of your economy, never mind the impact of so-called toxic assets worldwide on the economy and the taxpayer, although again it is hard to find a better example than the Republic’s NAMA of the idiocy involved. Much of the debt people labour under is driven by the issue of home ownership, and property speculation.
NICRA raised the slogan not just of one man one vote, but also one family one house. It’s long been my opinion that the drive to have one person one house introduced under Thatcher is environmentally and socially unsustainable. Not only that, but I think that it will be necessary in future to adopt a more continental model of people living in flats rather than houses. As a WP member once said to me, where would you build large factories in west Belfast now – the space isn’t there; it’s all been given over to houses. The need for social housing is all the greater because of the increase in immigration – part of the reason for the increase in racism in Britain has been perceived competition for increasingly scarce public housing.
Given these circumstances, I think that the SNP position is a major step forward, and one which I hope to see extended elsewhere. They deserve a lot of credit. A good job.
Another Book on Trotsky Reviewed October 20, 2009
Posted by Garibaldy in History, Trotskyism.4 comments
Following on from the thread on Robert Service’s biography, I thought I’d draw people’s attention to Mick Hall’s review of Bertrand Patenaude’s book on Trotsky’s last years.
Men of the People October 20, 2009
Posted by Garibaldy in Capitalism, Music.2 comments
Just because they don’t like paying tax on their enormous income and are annoyed by the herd’s ressentiment of the successful, doesn’t mean U2 aren’t still men of the people. For they have decided to grace 16 countries with the opportunity to watch live footage of their concert from the at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena this Sunday.
Manager Paul McGuinness said that, as the gig was already being filmed, it was “the perfect opportunity to extend the party beyond the stadium”.
I don’t know about you, but I’m touched to be offered this opportunity.
Leadership and consensus… October 20, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.49 comments
It’s a funny one politics. Actually, no, no it’s not. It’s a pain. There’s so much shadow boxing and messing around that it can sometimes be difficult to tell who is being serious in what they say and who is merely putting forward a facade, or worse saying what they think people will want to hear.
Take Enda Kenny’s latest intervention on the Seanad. For him there is no question about it… it must be abolished. I’m a little less sanguine about that idea than he is. There’s no question that the way in which the Seanad is constructed at present is problematic, but… I’m leery about removing any centers of opposition, however rhetorical, from within the system. There’s more than enough group think as it stands without the need for that to be neatly packaged in a unicameral parliament.
I also suspect that the Seanad could operate as a means of housing some form of North/South links in the short to medium term in a way that the Dáil simply could not at present. I accept entirely that’s a hypothetical, but it seems to me to be worth exploring.
And, I have to be honest, I sort of like the individuality that is thrown up by some areas of the Seanad. There are few enough independents in life, and politics, and it does no harm to allow for a few more. Do Ross and Norris add overly much to the life of the nation? Perhaps not, but they certainly don’t detract from it (and that’s one of the reasons I’m sorry that Ivana Bacik joined the Labour group. Fine on paper, but…). That said are they enough to justify the Seanad? Anyhow, perhaps thankfully, it’s not up to me and there’s certainly a groundswell for some form of change growing.
But the issue aside it’s more how Kenny has handled it.
On Saturday Mr Kenny announced he was committing the party to the abolition of the Seanad; to reducing the number of TDs by 20 or more; and to introducing a “list” system for electing some 20 Dáil deputies in a surprise move at the Fine Gael presidential dinner in Citywest, Dublin [small pedantic note, there was no full stop on the IT website after that sentence... dear oh dear oh dear...]
That must have had more than one spitting their – no doubt – fine soup across the table when they heard the news, for we read that:
The vast majority of Fine Gael Senators and TDs said they learned of the new policy only hours before with a number of them expressing shock and upset at the manner in which it was announced.
But Kenny is adamant that this could not have come as a surprise…
Mr Kenny said he first signalled the proposal at the Magill Summer School.
He said: “In July I made it perfectly clear that I was considering a real radical agenda in terms of the way in which we do politics in Ireland and I signalled that.”
Well yes. Or actually no. For the term ‘real radical agenda’ could encompass near anything. It’s a bit vague, isn’t it?
Not at all comes the response…
“I’ve taken a leaders initiative on this and that’s what leaders are for.”
Uh-oh.
“Leadership is about leading, change is always difficult and you could talk around it for months but this is something that I’ve considered very seriously.”
There’s no disputing that. Leadership is… well, leadery.. to coin a phrase. Just like change is… er… changery… But surely part of ‘leadership’ is bringing people with you. You know, like the people who have just been given their time stamped P45s.
And they’re not entirely gruntled. No indeed…
Fine Gael senator John Paul Phelan said he was opposed to the decision.
Mr Phelan said he was “shocked” by the development.
Who wouldn’t be… Kenny tells us that:
…he would put the proposal before the people in a referendum within 12 months of his party being in government.
“I think it’s outgrown its usefulness. I’ve tried very hard to justify its usefulness over a period, when you peel away the layers and look at what it does its legislative function has faded,” he added.
“What I want is a situation where we have a stronger democracy, a more accountable Dáil more powerful committees where the public can see their politicians do the job for which they were elected.”
Now, me being a cynical sort of person wonders about that last. Does Taoiseach Kenny, a title I have little enough, although some residual, doubt that he will rejoice in at some time over the next 2.5 years – although after ths piece of work.., really want to have ‘stronger democracy’, ‘more accountable Dáil’, ‘more powerful committees’, you know, committees filled with FF politicians doing the job for which they were elected? No doubt on paper he does, but the reality?
There’s more than a little of the aspirational to this debate. No government, however well intentioned, wishes to see its programme diverted or delayed by committees. Particularly committees with members of the opposition able to strike commanding poses or take credit. So, we’ll see about that.
Meanwhile back to Senator Phelan…
“There had not been any debate within the party since we had the last discussion on reforming the Seanad. It’s a bit of a bolt from the blue.”
A number of TDs, speaking on the basis of anonymity, also said it was their impression that the development was a “knee-jerk” response to the perception that Mr Kenny had been outflanked by Labour leader Eamon Gilmore in dealing with the situation of former ceann comhairle John O’Donoghue.
Meanwhile this wheeze may not be so great as it might have seemed when first dreamt up. As Harry McGee reports:
If Kenny and key party strategists hoped it would light a political tinderbox, their wish was granted. The problem is that those who seem to have been severely singed by the heat of the conflagration are not the Opposition, but the party’s own Senators. The polite, and decidedly modest, ripple of applause that greeted the announcement was telling.
And one wonders if within FG there is a certain attachment to the institution. After all:
…the first iteration [of the Seanad] was created by Fine Gael’s forbears Cumann na nGaedhael in 1922. The only major restructuring was effected by de Valera’s constitutional changes in 1937. The institution has been criticised for its anomalous indirect voting system and the innate injustice of the university panels, which extends the franchise only to graduates of TCD and the NUI. The Upper House, it is widely accepted, lacks powers and has been accused of being irrelevant. The need for a comparatively small country like Ireland to have a bicameral parliament has also been questioned. In all, there are 220 Senators and TDs, roughly the same number as the Netherlands, a country with a population three times greater than that of Ireland.
Again with the democracy argument, but in truth I’ve never felt that the number of TDs and Senators, which remains within the limits of the 1937 Constitution is a serious problem. And whether the Dutch example is so great is a question for others. Worth noting that that too has a bicameral parliament, a House of Representatives with 150 members and a 75 seat Senate. That the Netherlands is arguably a more homogenous society packed into a much smaller geographic space is also worth considering. That it is constitutionally stable in a way that this state on this island is not is a further thought. But either way, we can see how these notions break down a little once they’re prodded.
But that again is a different discussion.
Why this sudden flurry of activity on the part of Kenny? Well, the motivation for that isn’t hard to gauge. The last two weeks have been good for the government in the way that the last year wasn’t. Whatever view one takes on such matters it is clear that there has been a stabilisation and that looks set to continue to the Budget. And his ‘hurry hurry, must do something’ approach suddenly seems a little inappropriate.
But in that context the opportunities for the opposition, and perhaps most notably for Kenny, to generate political heat are limited. But heat he must generate because otherwise…
And what of the paper of record?
Leadership, Mr Kenny rightly says, is about leading. Leadership is also about carefully preparing the political ground to ensure success. The best case for abolishing the Seanad is where reform – having been tried – is seen to have failed. Reform of the Seanad has not succeeded, simply because it never has been tried. Mr Kenny was willing to propose reform seven months ago. He was unwise to change his mind and reverse positions – from reformist to abolitionist – so quickly.
Seems about right.
From the Irish Examiner… The Lost Revolution on tour. October 19, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish History.2 comments
What a lovely photo of the Senator.
Brian will also be speaking before the History Society
in TCD on Wednesday night at 7p.m. Details yet to arrive.
Chutzpah? Nah, it’s worse than that. October 19, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.7 comments
There’s not a lot to say about this… “Afterwards, Charlie got into the car and said, ‘ ‘You’re going to get your plan, Bertie, but he’s going to get the credit’
Irish Left Archive: “TUC Hands off Ireland!” Revolutionary Communist Tendency (UK) – later the Revolutionary Communist Party, c.1981 October 19, 2009
Posted by irishonlineleftarchive in Irish Left Online Document Archive, Revolutionary Communist Tendency (UK).26 comments
This document from the Revolutionary Communist Tendency (UK) is perhaps worthy of particular consideration as an example of Irish related material from the UK, and not merely for its content but also for the fact that the RCT eventually underwent a transformation into the Revolutionary Communist Party which later birthed the contrarians of Spiked. Although the RCP was infamous for its policy positions, and Living Marxism later still for its, one often unnoticed aspect of their platform – at least subsequently – was a very strong identification with Irish independence. This document here can be viewed within that context and while its overall purpose is one that is linked to UK internal politics, and particularly that of the left and the TUC, it is in its analysis of Ireland that it is of most relevance to the Archive.
Very briefly this takes a line that ‘the official labour movement has failed to support eh demands for political status of republican prisoners of war in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland… yet the British TUC interferes in the affairs of the Irish people through the Better Life for All Campaign and the call for a Bill of Rights. TUC Irish policy is simply a cover for its complicity in British repression throughout the Irish War’
Worse again, from the RCT perspective, the TUC refused to endorse the Smash the Prevention of Terrorism Act Campaign “TUC Hands off Ireland!” conference, and had actively barring trades councils from participating in it.
Inside the document takes a strongly pro-Republican movement viewpoint couched in the language of class struggle (and note a message from IRSP prisoners to the Conference)…
Anybody who has read and thought about the conflict in ireland, or visited Belfast or Derry, knows that the two main adversaries in this war are the republican movement and the British State, and yet the media always present ‘the troubles’ as a sectarian feud between Catholics and Protestants. The first peculiarity of the Irish War, therefore is that its real character as a national liberation struggle is always obscured and denied in Britain.
And the pamphlet argues that ‘what is so special about the Irish War that its existence has to be denied… the answer is simple. The War in Ireland is an immediate and mortal threat to the British ruling class’.
Intriguingly, bar a reference to the RUC and the UDR – referenced as the ‘local paramilitary forces’ – there is no mention of political Unionism.
Also included with the leaflet was a reproduction of Legal Rights for Those Detained issued by Fr. Denis Faul which you can find in jpg form at the foot of this post.
Those of us who have followed the RCP and its metamorphosis into that exotic entity known as Spiked, will recognise that a faint echo of this line has survived their refashioning as contrarians and libertarians, indeed look no further than here for evidence of same…
The Left Archive is interested in material that relates to Ireland from any left source and whether that material is printed in Ireland or outside of Ireland.
