Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week Award December 13, 2009
Posted by Garibaldy in Media and Journalism.trackback
Our new feature continues this week. In third place, Eilis O’Hanlon
This is the atmosphere which is now being forged in Ireland, whereby hardworking small business people who have taken risks to try and do something for themselves and their families are treated like absentee landlords sponging off the blameless lower classes. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. It’s the middle classes in Ireland who pay the bills. Class envy never wrote a single dole cheque or funded a single operation.
In second place, John Drennan
Instead, a Government that always ditches the tough choices effectively dumped the McCarthy report, and whilst we did get public sector pay cuts, the incompetence of the Government and their trade union doppelgangers means that these have been secured at the expense of real public sector reform for a decade.
And this week’s winner, Marc Coleman on Brian Lenihan’s budget
Heroism is not an overstatement to describe the man’s achievement.
However, it’s also worth considering this quote from Brendan Keenan, who has gone off message in drawing attention to the elephant in the room, and the real reason we are in the state we are in.
Ireland’s present rating is “appropriate”, said the man from Moody’s — the biggest ratings agency. That is encouraging, and there were other nice comments about how Ireland was doing more than most, but it is not yet making our borrowing much cheaper.
If there is a reason for that, it is probably the banking crisis.
Behind the €20bn annual borrowing, and the €85bn debt, is that €54bn pledged to buy property loans from the banks.
The real ‘tough choices’ would have been to tackle the marauders who destroyed Anglo-Irish and rifled the other banks and building societies and go after the old friends of FF, the builders and developers. These comprised the gang who kept Fianna Fáil afloat for years. Not to mention the untouchable, high-earning judiciary. By targetting the vulnerable and the sick (even the blind, God help us) FF and the Greens in fact made the easy choice. Nowhere in the Budget did Lenihan explain what sanctions were being put in place against the rogue bankers and others who used financial institutions as their personal piggy-banks. Kow-towing to the money interests, kow-towing to the Church: meanwhile some bog-standard quare hawks of ‘independents’ prove themselves to be anybody’s, selling themselves shamelessly in provincial fashion like good-time gals at a cattle-market. Welcome to politics Irish-style.
I think the really depressing part Fred is that there is no selling involve. They genuinely believe this stuff.
Ah, Eilis is playing the old “Politics of Envy” cliche.
Coming soon…. the Indo questions whether the Reform acts were such a good idea: why should the poor have the vote when they give nothing in return?
Coming soon…. the Indo questions whether the Reform acts were such a good idea: why should the poor have the vote when they give nothing in return?
There was a guy with a blog in these parts a few years back (both he and it went by the name of “wulfbeorn”) who seriously suggested that only those who ‘create’ wealth (i.e. for themselves) should have the vote.
Strange character. Much given to writing crap like the stuff above and then deleting it the next day.
O’Hanlon’s piece is so typical of a complete misunderstanding about how economies work that it’s almost breath-taking that it would appear in any serious paper… we hear something similar in the old PS wages are ‘paid’ for by the private sector.
Garibaldy, a fantastic feature. I fear we’re going to see it every weekend though for quite some time.
In what respect is O’Hanlon’s piece “a complete misunderstanding about how economies work”, WbS?
Or, rather, what specifically sticks in mind?
The relationship between public and private sectors in an advanced economy isn’t reducible to one ‘paying’ for the other. Without a public sector that provides education, health, welfare etc inside an economy then the private sector – which is in all capitalist economies however unregulated unable to provide those services in full, or even close, in lieu of government – cannot operate. Complementary, not competitive or parasitic.
Addendum: Just thinking a little more about it, that’s why, for example I can see strong arguments for cheaper commercial rates for certain utilities… I’m much less sanguine about other reliefs for businesses and individuals which seem to me to cut across a societal need justification. But that’s a long discussion.
ah, yes I notice that now.
as for the addendum.,, yes, a long discussion!
A very long discussion… worth having some time though… Btw, sorry, on reading back my rsponse to you it comes over as a bit pompous. Definitely not the intention. Apologies.
Not at all, you are being overly critical of yourself
The Sunday Independent is owned by whatever political party is in the majority and heading up government. It toes whatever line is agreed upon over a decent lunch and a few cream sherries with the owner(s) of the Sindo and the heads of the party; we saw Cowen do it. Certain lines are drawn, certain points are stated which will be emphasised. The Sunday Independent is a glaring example of a State-owned press, it being understood that that ‘ownership’ is a two-way street. If the Sindo moguls are not happy with the way FF is running, for instance, they turn against them; every columnist who once supported them will attack them, acting under orders. For FF substitute any party in serious power. If you work for the Sindo it is understood that your private beliefs and political views are irrelevant. Some you may have to apologise for or denounce Harris-style. Joining the Sindo is a bit like joining the Army: you are guaranteed food enough to eat, a roof over your head, and a set of orders so that you don’t have to think.
That’s an interesting analysis Fred. I’ve worked with media groups myself, but not in this country and I found a very similar dynamic in terms of parking beliefs at the reception desk. That’s why I don’t generally take what journo’s etc say in print/news radio/television as a personal affront albeit I’m happy to critique what they say.
If you work for the Sindo it is understood that your private beliefs and political views are irrelevant.
Likewise the Sunday Times, which refused to accept any pro-Lisbon input from its contributors, first time round. And after it ( News International) moves its support to the Tories in the UK and they get elected, I predict a similar Faustian pact with FG here.
The man who worries me is Gene Kerrigan. His column in the Sindo is so out of step with the other 99/100ths of the paper, that he must be worried about tokenism.
Kerrigan’s role in the Sindo – like V.Browne in the SBP, or Fintan O’T in the IT – is to emulate the defeated barbarian chieftains who would be paraded through the streets of Rome to bolster the image of whoever happened to be Caesar at the time.
Any chance of them coming together in a united front to voice some co-ordinated progressive commentary?
Just thinking of Michael Taft’s recent call for a united approach by economists over on Irish Left Review http://www.irishleftreview.org/2009/12/11/anatomy-defeat-recession-diaries-december-11th/
It’s one thing having economic specialists come together with the substance of a good argument, but it’s another thing altogether reaching out to the general population with that message.
That’s a crucial point LeftAtTheCross… we can talk amongst ourselves, and that’s good, but talking and convincing others is better.
I think we also need a mid-to-senior ranking politician in Labour to emulate Costello in FG in the 1960s with the Just Society agenda.
Good point. Have you anyone in mind for that role?
Or does the general left-of-centre noise from The LP not drown out the contribution of any particular member?
Just thinking that it’s easier for someone to stand out in any party when they’re voicing something which is a radical departure from the general party line (e.g. Coveney with FG’s “New Era” proposal during the year), but less easy to be heard when there’s a choir of similar voices in the background.
Are Gilmore and Burton not voiciferous enough already? Or are they poor cummunicators? Or is the message wrong or insufficient (I mean in the context of The LP as it is, not as we might like it to be)?
What messages would you like to hear from The LP that you’re not hearing at present, or perhaps phrased differently what messages would be more effective in awakening the slumbering population from their FF-flavoured political apathy?
“Have you anyone in mind for that role?”
I don’t have, but I am wary of anybody taking on that mantle lightly. Eamon Gilmore has just got a fairly strong hand to do what he wants up to the next election via the mechanism of the 21st Century Commission.
In Germany, I recall Oskar Lafontaine was not successful in galvanising the SDP, and although I am no student of German politics, I am told that part of the difficulty was his charisma.
If somebody in the Irish Labour Party were to try that, they would need to be more than a policy wonk or somebody who has ideas about the big picture. And none of them strike me as having the communication skills that would be needed. (Which may just mean that this sought for “ideological leader” just hasn’t had the national profile where I might notice them.)
Replying to myself here.
Just read Fintan O’Toole’s article in today’s IT http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1215/1224260710702.html
Hadn’t realised that he’s chair of the advisory council for TASC.
Perhaps there’s more co-ordinated commentary going on than is generally realised?
Kerrigan’s role in the Sindo – like V.Browne in the SBP, or Fintan O’T in the IT – is to emulate the defeated barbarian chieftains who would be paraded through the streets of Rome to bolster the image of whoever happened to be Caesar at the time.
VB accused RTE last night of being a ‘right-wing broadcaster’.
He did, and also pointed out the unanimity of the newspapers in Ireland in following the TINA line, welcoming cuts and demonising the public sector. Without disagreement from his panel, which included not only Matt Cooper, but also Jim Power.
Matt Cooper indeed, when VB said Ireland had moved to the right asked ‘what do you mean, moved?’
LATC,
Gilmore communicates well: Burton (much) less so.
On where new voices from within the party are going to come from, I think we’ll need to wait till after the next election. At the moment, Labour are not just the oldest party in the state, but they have by far the oldest cadre of deputies among the main parties. I’m not claiming that old age leads – necessarily – to sclerosis of the brain, but contrast and compare with FF and FG: I would think that Labour may well have the only TDs that contested the ’73 election still active?
But….. if Labour do come back with even 10 extra deputies next time, these are likely to be young, and from what I’ve seen, quite able. The difficulty is of course, if they go into coalition and it ends badly, it’ll be another false dawn.
SoS: But….. if Labour do come back with even 10 extra deputies next time, these are likely to be young, and from what I’ve seen, quite able.
They may be able, but will they be willing? Of the 10 you mention, I’ve followed 2 of those most likely to make it to the next Dáil for Labour (one in my constituency, the other in the neighbouring constituency). Neither inspires any confidence that Labour will take a more left-ward track. Yeah, they’ll be socially liberal and a civil partnerships bill would not, for instance, raise any difficulties for them. However, one of them is a stalwart of the local – increasingly shrill – Chamber of Commerce and an ‘entrepreneur’; precisely, the kind of candidate Nua Labour seems to want on board but, equally, the kind of politician who’ll want to be a little kinder to workers and low and middle income earners (i.e. the bulk of voters) but not too much.
Both the individuals represent the paradox that is Labour and the Left here. Any substantive shift to the left in this polity is going to require a strong Labour party willing to go in that direction. The old guard don’t seem to have the desire, even though they have a largely open goal in front of them at present, while the pretenders are, sadly, for the most part keen to cultivate a Blairite, image long after the latter has lost credibility in Britain. I fear trying to persuade an unenthusiastic Labour to move left will be a waste of energry that could be better spent on other parties/groups.
In respect of sos’s comments I think it will be interesting to see the vote on Dublin City council next Monday for the budget. I’m expecting quite a few of those ‘young and able’ to line up and vote for a budget that will include the ending of the bin charge waiver for Dublin’s poor as flagged in the IT this morning.
I’d agree with what CMK has to say on expectations.
Can’t disagree with either of you really.
My reasons for remaining half- loyal to the possibility of a Labour that’s ‘new’ without beng ‘Nu’ goes something like this:
In order for the political order to change in this country in any progressive direction, one big thing has to happen: FF have to lose badly – twice. Losing the next election will hurt them, but as long as they can retreat into opposition in expectation of a triumphant return in the wake of a failed coalition, they are still alive. They’ve never lost two elections, and if they do, it’s really hard to know what’ll happen. As I keep arguing, they CAN become a third party, representing an old and rural rump, with their presence in the cities reduced to what Labour’s is now.
This is necessary in order that a centre left/ centre right axis is established here – Lab and FG in other words. To do this, they need to cooperate over two terms. It’s in the interests of both to do so, and, while such a government won’t represent much of an advance on the current one, it will at least not be so tied in to vested interests, and the Labour component will have some positive influence on budgetary policy.
Come the election of 2020, with FF flatlined on 30 odd seats, most west of the Shannon, with under half a dozen in Dublin, the two coalition partners can go at each other with definite ideological viewpoints. FF- under the leadership of Mary Hanifin?- desperate for power, will join whichever way the numbers add up.
Important in this, and here I would agree with CMK, is that other left parties retain a strong presence: Labour needs to feel threatened from the left – plus, if the numbers really did add up, there would be coalition prospects in that direction.
How to protect us from Blairism ? I’m not sure TBH – sometimes we appear to be 30-40 years behind Britain – we got a welfare state late and imperfectly, and, a Gilmore jibed, FF seem to have just discovered Thatcherism. So, even with Labour in opposition in the UK, and possibly moving a little to the left, Labour here might move the other way. Here, the importance of PR in keeping a presence to the left of Labour in the Dail might be important.
Also, of course, the economic course of the west over the next few years is likely to be less assured that predictions would indicate: we’re in for a long depression, either way, and what that does to a polity where most of those under 40 have no real, adult experience of long term recession is unguessable.
Good analysis. Particularly in terms of what a Lab/FG coalition can accomplish.
A lot to ponder there. Your last paragraph gets to the nub of the matter: the degree to which ‘politics’, as it is understood here by both Left, Right, Centre and all shades inbetween, will be radically restructured by the changes coming soon.
Yes, Labour should be pressed from the Left, and you’re dead right that PR makes far-left politics more viable here than across the water. Labour would be far better staking out a clear class based position and getting that 25%-30% of the electorate that should a position would imply, rather than trying to appeal to the middle class ‘floating voter’ and his/her preceived foibles and prejudices.
I’d love to see Labour being bold in that regard, but they seem determined to stick slightly left of the middle ground and let an historic opportunity pass. Sad.
The 25-30% of the electorate that should be Labour’s by right, though, is probably precisely composed of formerly floating ‘middle-class’ (with a health warning) voters, employed largely in the public service. I’ve told the story before here, and too much reliance on anecdote is bad analysis, but I was told, in all seriousness, and without either irony or regret, by a Labour student activist that they were now ‘a middle-class’ party. Nor has it been all that different in Britain (or at least in England) – the archtypal Labour voter has been a teacher rather than a miner for a generation now.
That’s another interesting point. The ‘middle-class’ perception, self-perception is very telling, isn’t it? And it’s also indicative of a certain perception abroad amongst PS workers.
SoS: no reply function for your message below. The 25-30% I was thinking of is not the aspirational middle classes of Gilmore’s advisers imaginations, but the cohort of people who have no hope of a future without some form of massive state social and economic investment; many of the latter, incidentally, middle class That is, the precise opposite of NAMA and the bail-outs. I’ve just finished reading Fintan O’Toole’s ‘Ship of Fools’ and it’s depressed me. Not just shennanigans of the banking-FF-property nexus over the past few decades that he details and which are well documented anyway, but the clear sense, in his conclusion, that we are seriously f**ked if NAMA proceeds. In that context Labour’s steadfast centrism is politically stupid. To paraphrase the arrogant asshole of the century: Labour are either radical or redundant.
Would it make sense for Lab to sit it out after the next general election and say the natural majority is a FF-FG combination and they are simply not into propping up a right-of centre party in government?
(I reckon it would need a lot of careful, stubborn consistent explanation, repeated endlessly, and signalled strongly and consistently by all Labour deputies and candidates before an election in order to make it work. That might be more difficult to achieve than securing the FF-FG coalition if Lab stood its ground!)
Makes sense to me, but I suspect that the professional politicians in the party would never buy that argument, there must be such a lust for power amongst them at this stage, and it would be easy for them to convince themselves that there’s never been a better time to make the necessary compromises to get their hands on the reins (or at least some of the reins) of power. In fairness it’s a genuinely hard call to make, given the short-termism that goes hand in hand with representative democracy, very difficult to take (let alone sell to the electorate) a long-term view over 5 years time or whatever. Can’t see it happening. Unfortunately.
I don’t think so:
1) Whether we like it or not, a majority of people voting for Labour will vote for them with the entirely reasonable expectation that they would go into government. Going ‘vote for us, but we’re staying out of government, even though if that means FF back in power in some alternative arrangement’ is not going to sell.
2) For the older guard in Labour, it’s getting to be their last chance in office: and the younger ones, too, will be impatient…..politicians want office: and you can’t blame them
3) An FG/FF coalition, especially with FG as the biggest partner just doesn’t seem possible – both sides have too much to lose, and local rivalries would come into it too. 2 elections down the line, with FF in chronic decline, maybe….
I like this chronic decline bit…. tell me more
[...] by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics. trackback Reading some of the thoughts from before Christmas here some issues struck me about Labour and Fine Gael in the current electoral climate – and some [...]