Gilmore Backing Off? November 16, 2009
Posted by Garibaldy in Irish Labour Party.trackback
More flesh on the bones of his plans from Eamon Gilmore yesterday, as reported in the Irish Independent. He seems to be backing off from the attitude reported previously.
But Mr Gilmore yesterday continued to stick to the line that his party wanted to reduce the €20bn public sector wage bill through changes in overtime, premium payments and changed work practices — rather than direct wage cuts.
“If you try to do it by unilaterally imposed cuts that are not negotiated with people, all you will end up with is industrial action, strife and conflict which is going to do even more damage to the country’s reputation,” he said.
Mr Gilmore also ruled out cutting or taxing child benefit payments. But he went on to outline other parts of his party’s cutbacks plan: a €750m cut in capital spending, a €1bn cut in tax reliefs for landlords and other groups, a third tax rate on individual incomes of over €100,000 and a carbon tax.
He told RTE’s ‘This Week’ that these measures were necessary because “Fianna Fail has had the country’s credit card for the past number of years and the bill has now come in for that credit card”.
I think I may have been closer to outlining Labour party policy in this area than the Sindo, which would not be an organ those blatherings should be seriously discussed on the left, other than as one takes an interest in zoology
Here’s a particularly egregious example of Glorious Sindovision:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/the-last-republican-1720362.html
(NB, you’ll need a strong stomach for that one).
Ahh, good old Jim Cusack and his crystal ball. Has he ever been right?
‘If you want a picture of the current generation of foot soldiers of the great republican tradition, think of the rioters in O’Connell Street at the ‘Love Ulster’ rally in Dublin. There were actually loads of them there, along with the non-political looters and purse snatchers from the north inner city.
However, like the Provos before them, these people evolve. Some aren’t scobies. Some are middle-class idealists drawn to the notion of blood sacrifice.’
This fucking wanker is actually paid money for this shit.
‘The campaign was highly unpopular at the time of the Derrylin murder, but a subsequent event, on New Year’s Day 1957, changed that and revived the fortunes of the IRA.’
What a difference a day makes eh? Derrylin was on 30 December, Brookeborough New Year’s Eve. Genius this guy Cusack.
Getting back to Gilmore, he is giving out very mixed messages these days. He seems to accept the need to cut €4bn from public spending, which, whatever way you look at it will hurt working class people. Labour have been the hurler on the ditch since the beginning of the economic crisis. They’ve criticised government cuts but haven’t said explicitly that they wouldn’t cut public services. Their position on the bank bailout was half-hearted. They supported the principle of saving the banks, but opposed the method. Clearly they don’t want to do anything that might spoil their chances of another coalition with Fine Gael – or whoever.
Gilmore: ‘I could face down unions’.
http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/16816022/?view=Standard
Labour are obviously clearing the decks for the continuation of confrontation with union members after the next election. Will SIPTU members still have to look at a giant ‘Vote Labour’ banner on Liberty Hall in 2012 and will they still have some of their subs being diverted into a political party as eager as any other to attack union members?
Labour should be free to tackle the unions if they wish, but they should not expect to be paid by union members to do so. SIPTU and other unions should cancel any donations to Labour immediately.
The property developers and bankers at least got value for money from Fianna Fail for their donations (NAMA, the bailouts) but workers are supposed to be grateful for a kick in the face for theirs…..
Problem is those union subs weren’t matched by many union votes in 2002 & 2007. Gilmore has to make the calculation as to whether he can rely on those PS votes that went to FF in previous times coming back “home” to Labour. The evidence from the locals and euros is that he can’t.
Joe, you’re conflating two separate entities in the post above. ‘Union members’ are not the same as ‘public sector workers’. Granted, the latter are far more likely to be union members than not; nonetheless it’s an important distinction in the context of this thread.
But when Gilmore states: I could face down the unions that doesn’t mean ‘I could face down the public sector’. His fire is directed as much at private sector union members as at those in the public sector. ‘Facing down’ could mean any number of things up to and including a full-scale Thatcher style effort to ‘break the unions’. Who knows what loony Blairite nonsense the decision making echelons of Labour Nua have assimilated over the past few years?
Old certainties are dissolving in the current whirlwind of resentments being stoked by the media. And new certainties are coming into place. Union members need, paradoxically, to take a more ‘commercial’ look at which political parties are being funded through their subs. A party that explicitly states it will confront unions should not expect to be funded by unions, who, after all, are organisations based on their members, not on the political sympathies of paid officials. Like unions in the UK (the CWU, for instance), Irish unions should break all funding links with political parties who adopt a confrontational attitude towards union members.
Given that business interests fund political parties on the implicit understanding that their interests will be taken into account, there is no reason why union members should fund parties that do not look after their interests.
@CMK
And new certainties are coming into place. Union members need, paradoxically, to take a more ‘commercial’ look at which political parties are being funded through their subs.
Well it appears that if unions do decide to buy their political influence, they’re going to have to dig a good bit deeper.
According to Gilmore on Newstalk this morning, the union subs account for a mere 2% of Labour party income.
And that for a party that I suspect is run on a relative shoe-string compared to FF.
That’s all fair enough Joe. But I’m sure they’d miss the big “Vote Labour” banner on Liberty Hall and I’m also pretty sure their GE candidates would miss the 2,000e cheques they get from SIPTU, to take one example.
Another thing they would need to consider would be the votes they pick up because they are endorsed by the unions. Using term “commerical” was a bit crude but I think the unions should be asking for a lot from Labour precisely as a result of the former’s election endorsements for the latter and the union subs.
There’s also the possibility that Gilmore could have been fibbing a bit?? I mean, he wouldn’t want to unduly frighten Newstalk’s listerners with tales of his party being substantially funded by the BIG, BAD UNIONS,would he?