Report on the Ireland Institute Lecture on the EU and Imperialism April 23, 2010
Posted by Garibaldy in European Union.15 comments
Thanks to LeftAtTheCross for this report on the lecture on the EU and its global ambitions held by the Ireland Institute as part of a series of lectures on imperialism in the 21st century. I think his points raise some interesting questions about the left’s attitude to what imperialism actually is, and what its relationship to Ireland might be.
There was a decent crowd at this event last night, maybe 40 people. The subject was EU neo-imperialism. In particular Kevin McCrorry’s talk was very detailed and over-ran somewhat, to be cut short by Deirdre Uí Bhrógáin of the CPI who was chairing the meeting (to the annoyance of many of the audience).
EDIT: I have received an email from someone else present who pointed out that Kevin McCorry was not asked to stop but responded to a remark about the need to leave time for questions by unexpectedly stopping straight away rather than him being cut off by the chair.
The big question for me however, which wasn’t addressed, is what is the alternative to the EU? Leave aside the neo-imperialistic ambitions of the founding members (the ex-colonial powers) for a minute, and how their agenda has driven the development of the EU. I wouldn’t argue against that for a second, but it is a distraction from another underlying argument.
One of the arguments made last night was that Europe cannot exist as a state because there is no common European people, no European nation. I simply don’t buy that argument, that a state must be founded on a nation. The USSR survived as a state for quite a while, and dealt with its nationalities issue reasonably successfully (whatever about the differing opinions of Lenin and Stalin about how it should have been handled). The Ottoman empire, the Habsburg empire are other examples. Again, leave aside the inherent nagatives we associate with the word “empire” for a second.
It seems that the only alternative being offered is some cosy notion of “nation states” or the evils of multi-ethnic “super states”, with the underlying assumption that the latter is just a guise whereby one dominant nation state fools its smaller neighbours into accepting its hegemony. A continuation of the historic empire building dynamic by different methods if you like, the domination of some nations over other nations.
But so what? It is the emphasis on the “nation” which jars.
Whether people, citizens of whatever form of state, are oppressed by transnational capitalism (last night’s subject) or by the local national bourgeoisie (as Conor McCabe has highligted in many of his posts here and on ILR) somehow seems to be ignored in the analysis. Is it a stagist thing maybe?
An interesting meeting all the same. The organisers asked that people who attended the meeting might publicise the series of lectures and encourage other to come along to the next event.
This week from the Irish Election Literature Blog… April 23, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.1 comment so far
Again many thanks to AK for the latest crop (is that the right term?) of documents he’s uncovered…
A mixed bag this week.
The undoubted highlight of the week a 1954 Connolly Association Pamphlet by Desmond Greaves entitled ‘Father Michael O’Flanagan -Republican Priest’
A support The Hunger Strikers Sticker
A ‘Dublin North Transport Newsletter’ from Clare Daly of The Socialist Party in 2007
Continuing the Transport theme… A pamphlet against the proposed Port Tunnel from The Dublin Central Labour Party in (I think) 1999
Catherine Murphy asks voters to ‘Bookmark your issues’ in 2007
and… finally it couldn’t be, could it?
The Northern Ireland Leaders’ Debate April 22, 2010
Posted by Garibaldy in UK General Election 2010.19 comments
Northern Ireland gets a leaders’ debate of its very own (not sure if that link will work in the south, and it lasts for 30 days). And, as was inevitable, it was a poor imitation of the one across the water – and timed, for reasons I’ll never understand, to clash with the last half hour of the Sky British leaders debate. Unlike the British debates, there were adverts in this one, which obivously had a detrimental effect on the debate as a whole. This isn’t a detailed description of the debate like we had for the British one last week, just some random responses.
And, apart from laughing at Adams’ “check out our leadership” line and wondering if Robinson realised he was going off message when saying that at the last election the DUP was given a mandate to negotiate for the people of Northern Ireland (the people of NI is supposed to include non-unionists now Peter; it’s not 1974 or 1985 any more), my first major response was to wonder what the hell Margaret Ritchie was doing reading out her one minute spiel as to why the audience of first-time voters should vote for her party. Ritchie has made a name for herself standing up clearly, whether it was over funding to loyalists or over the election pacts. However, how on earth are we supposed to take seriously a leader who can’t even outline the very basics of why she should get support for only 60 seconds? At this point, I imagine there was quite a lot of forehead slapping going on among SDLP members wondering why they hadn’t voted for Mc Donnell. If there wasn’t, there certainly should have been.
The question of abstentionism came up. Adams gave a robust defence of abstentionism, a question that might come up more should there be a hung parliament. He raised the issue of nationality (although he referred to England rather than Britain), and the oath of allegiance as arguments against it. He also launched a well-planned attack on the attendance rate of the SDLP MPs, and arguing that they had already sold themselves in the event of a hung parliament anyway by saying they would vote with Labour. His argument in short was that the NI MPs had next to no influence, and that instead increasing devolved powers was where it’s at. Robinson strongly stated that a hung parliament would be an opportunity for NI MPs to secure a deal for NI. Ritchie argued it was vital to be in Westminister to fight cuts and for NI’s economic and business interests. Reg Empey was keen not to have a hung parliament, like Tories generally, and suggested that it offered oppunities for nationalists in NI, Wales and Scotland to weaken the union.
The Fermanagh/South Tyrone pact, and the issue of pacts in general came up. Both unionists were openly in favour, and Robinson clearly hopes for some sort of deal for future assembly elections. Ritchie maintained her strong opposition, but on the grounds of representation rather than saying they were sectarian. Adams accused Ritchie of ignoring his requests for a meeting (she accused him of a “mistruth”) and argued that there was nothing wrong with pacts, but said that his objection to the Fermanagh/South Tyrone pact was that its midwife was the Orange Order. That may or may not be true (I’m not sure that it is) but it was certainly the most effective line to give to his target constituency. From my own point of view, the discussions of the pact reflected an extremely significant problem dealing with sectarianism. Either people pretend it is much less of a problem than it actually is, or they implicitly – and sometimes explicitly – suggest it is a problem that themmuns have. While this attitude continues, the anti-sectarian struggle will be an extremely difficult one, and anyone who looked at the proposals on a shared future from the two largest parties can see that it is liable to be a major problem for a long time. KeithBelfast, who secured post-debate interviews with each of the leaders ( Reg, Peter, Margaret and Gerry ), asked Empey outright about sectarianism and the electoral pact, and, clearly uncomfortable, he wriggled without answering the question.
Empey at a serious go at the Family Robinson over expenses, both regarding expensive pens and the land deal. Robinson pointed out that he personally had been cleared on the expenses issue. His defence on the piece of land he got for £5 from Fred Fraser in order to help another developer was quite weak, although he stuck to his line that he hadn’t been helped financially. Robinson got questioned on the issues of corruption regarding his family, and then Gerry Adams was asked by the chair about his brother. He instead addressed the question asked from the audience by talking about the average industrial wage and an absence of personal expenses among his MPs. On his brother, he pointed out that people had been entirely sympathetic to his situation. And that was that. Instead, Dougal then asked about membership of the Provos, and about him questioning the health of Deloures Price and Brendan Hughes when they said that he had been in it. Adams maintained that he was never in it, never asked to join, and pointed out his involvement in politics stemmed from 1964 and 1965. Empey told him that no-one believed him, but then said it was time to move on, talking about the dissidents, and he returned to the land deal issue. And, as with nationalism, it is the infra-unionist battle that the leaders were most interested in.
Peter Robinson had a decent performance. He kept his temper in check when his integrity was questioned, citing the legal opinions that had cleared him, and the fact that they had been accepted by Martin McGuinness and UTV’s own political correspondent as clearing him. Empey I think did well. He scored points against Robinson. Adams had a very strong performance, there is no doubt. He was well briefed on the SDLP’s vulnerabilities, landed a punch with the point about an SDLP MLA on an MOD-funded trip to Afghanistan, and handled the difficult questions about his own issues with aplomb. A clear difference from the leadership debate in the south at the last general election there. He is much more attuned to northern politics, and a northern audience. Ritchie was frankly dreadful. Having started off reading things out, she then continued to do it for pretty much every question. You could see the typed sheets on her desk. She came across as a serious lightweight, if that’s not a contradiction in terms.
Overall, then, I have to say I found it a bit rubbish. Adams clearly did best, then probably Empey and Robinson. Ritchie was the clear loser. In 2001, a disastrous performance in a debate at the old Crumlin Road Courthouse made the outgoing 77-year old North Belfast Ulster Unionist MP Cecil Walker look old, tired, and shambolic. He dropped from first place to fourth in the election. While Ritchie’s performance was nothing as bad, I would think hers is the next most distastrous television performance I’ve seen by a politician in NI.
The calm before the storm… April 22, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.8 comments
There’s a point in the current Backroom column in the Sunday Business Post which I very much agree with.
We maybe enjoying a quiet year in Irish politics, at least by recent standards.
There are no elections scheduled, no referendums and we may get by with just the one budget. Having come through Lisbon, Nama and its budgetary hurdles, the government looks more stable than it did six months ago. Without wanting to tempt fate (or perhaps wanting to), the prospect of an election has diminished considerably.
If the last two Dáils can be used as a benchmark- both ran for their full five years – we are only a bit more than halfway through the life of the 30th Dáil. Nonetheless, this benchmark will bring no respite for the backroom teams, for whom all eyes will be focused on 2012.
It certainly feels as if the political environment has settled down again after two years of near chaos and often daily mayhem. That there are no truly significant events on the horizon other than the Budget (and that is still eight or so months away) is a blessing to the Government, and a problem for the opposition. For the latter to shine they need something to gain traction on. Process led issues aren’t quite good enough.
That we’ll go all the way to 2012. Well, now. There’s optimism for you. Still, if we make it to this time next year, yes, I think the chances for doing so will be high enough. But… who knows whether the Green Party will get itchy feet and want to walk as a gesture of belated independence? The problem for them is that they need time, time to demonstrate that participation has been worth it. Stephen Collins is always advocating the withdrawal from Government line as a credible electoral measure, but I’m pretty sceptical of its efficacy.
As to the opposition, their situation is a neat inverse of that of the Green Party.
Their great fear, of course, will be that an economic recovery will make Fianna Fáil competitive by 2012.Gilmore, in particular, has been careful not to fall into the ‘negativity’ trap. In his new year radio appearance on RTE, he was positively upbeat about the economy’s prospects and has been continuously sensitive to the charge of playing politics with the economy.
I’m not so sure. It would be foolish to ever count Fianna Fáil out, but, Backroom him or her self points to a couple of small flaws in any resurgence plan that Cowen et al may have.
Let’s assume for the moment, though, that Lenihan is right. It is not difficult to guess the Fianna Fáil election narrative: we took the hard decisions, we faced down the vested interests and the trade unions and we have put this country on the road to recovery following the worst global recession in 80 years.
To be honest, it’s pretty threadbare. Fianna Fáil’s complicity in causing the recession will probably be enough to sweep the party from power.
And that’s the thing. It is pretty threadbare. Few even in FF would genuinely believe that righting a ship they were in large measure responsible for tipping over is sufficient to grant them the keys to the kingdom again. And it is all too noticeable how FF Ministers avoid accepting any responsibility for the recent past. That won’t wash. That said hard to disagree with the following:
It is an issue that Labour will take particularly seriously. The party knows that a recovery in Fianna Fáil support – and everybody believes some recovery will come – may well be at the expense of Labour’s high poll ratings. It also realises that the party is squeezed in contests in which Fine Gael is credible enough to challenge Fianna Fáil directly.
And one way or another it seems unlikely that there won’t be some strengthening of FF support. Not above 30, I’d suspect, but pushing towards that figure. No wonder the LP is so keen to reach out to FF voters. To remain in the game they must get 15 per cent at a minimum and preferably more again.
I’ve argued previously that it might well, in terms of simple power – and seats at the cabinet table, make more sense for a strengthened Labour Party to go into coalition with a weakened Fianna Fáil, albeit only if the latter had fewer numbers than the LP. That seems unlikely to happen, at least at the moment, and in any case it might be necessary to do deals with other parties to make up numbers, something I doubt the LP would countenance (albeit they might consider how the WP prospered during the FG/LP coalitions of the 1980s, and again how DL prospered during the FF/LP coalition of the early 1990s). But truth is that that door, even were it available, would be hugely difficult even in simple terms of the optics of giving FF another four or five years in power.
Incidentally, just for the record these generalised analyses sit somewhat detached from my own political preferences. I know what I’d like, but I also know that is highly unlikely to occur. But that said I don’t think it’s a pointless exercise to work through what combinations may happen. It’s an harmless diversion for me, and… the political shape of the next ten years will be dictated by government formation, just as the shape of the last ten years were. And while it is true that centre and centre right tropes dominate I suspect that, had for example FF and the LP been in coalition since 1997 there would have been some distinctive (and perhaps in some limited areas substantive) differences in terms of many policies, policies which directly impact upon workers, as well as impacts on the viability of the further left in all its forms which might have found the terrain a little more congenial given that the LP was in government. So weighing up government composition is important.
But then politics, and left politics in particular, has always been multi-stranded. We campaign where we can and we keep an eye on the bigger picture.
Understanding 1916: A day of talks to mark the 94th Anniversary of the Rising – Saturday 24th April April 22, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.9 comments
Red Mole and John Lennon redux April 22, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in The Left.18 comments
We’ve had a request as to whether anyone know who took, or owns copyright of, this photograph here of John Lennon with a copy of Red Mole… Anyone able to help out? Replies to the usual email on the right hand side…
Missing zeros April 21, 2010
Posted by Tomboktu in Uncategorized.11 comments
I saw this on the Irish Times’s breaking news web page this evening:
Funding aims to tackle social exclusion
Funding of more than €120,000 was today announced to aid community and voluntary organisations promote awareness of poverty and social exclusion.
The funding is being provided to 43 groups to mark European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, which aims to give a voice to people experiencing poverty and challenge the idea that tackling poverty is a cost to society.
EC director in Ireland, Martin Territt, said: “The guiding principle of the year is to give voice to the concerns of people who have to live with poverty and social exclusion, and to inspire every European citizen and other stakeholders to engage with these important issues.”
Announcing the funding, Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Éamon Ó Cuív said the initiatives being provided with grants include sporting activities, local radio broadcasting campaigns, seminars, art and photographic exhibitions, and education and information schemes.
“These activities will involve people experiencing poverty and will, for wider society, raise awareness of the European Year and poverty and social exclusion issues.”
Among the organisations receiving funding are the Irish Wheelchair Association, Cork Centre for Independent Living, Mental Health Ireland, Kildare Town Youth Project, Kerry Travellers Development Project and Moville Family Resource Centre.
More than 580 applications for funding were received from organisations throughout the country.
Which of the following applies:
(A) A whole €120,000. For 43 organisations. Yeah, that’ll help solve the problem of social exclusion.
(B) Did the Times forget some zeros?
[Hint: http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2010/Pages/pr210410.aspx]
Does the Minister not have any shame, issuing a press release for that paltry scheme?
Water, Water Everywhere. Water Charges Anyway. April 21, 2010
Posted by Garibaldy in Ireland.62 comments
The Irish Times two days ago reported that the Dublin government was two weeks away from introducing proposals to institute the double tax of domestic water charges via water meters installed in every home in the state. In an attempt to cover up one of the most unjust and regressive forms of possible taxation, John Gormley, Green Party Minister for the Environment was wheeled out to put an environmental spin on things.
“I think everybody who understands the environment … they know that this is an absolute necessity,” he said. “You just can’t go putting your head in the sand on these issues any longer. Water is a precious resource.
“All the evidence shows that when you actually charge for water people conserve it, people use it wisely.”
Unlike public money of course, which rather than being carefully preserved, should be poured down the drains built by greedy bankers and reckless property speculators. Not even the coalition is stupid enough to think that they can get away with this without fatally damaging whatever slim hopes they have of recovery in time for the next election, and so the charges are being suspended until after June 2012. Trying to con the public regarding water charges in the political interests of the administration is of course familiar to people in Northern Ireland, where the restoration of devolution under the combined leadersip of the DUP and PSF was considerably sweetened by the suspension of water charges. As with the south, however, it is only a matter of time before they are introduced. Neither of the big two parties in NI is opposed to water charges on principle – the shift to discussions about how best to soften the blow for working people etc demonstates that – and I expect that, probably shortly after the next Assembly elections when it won’t affect their vote, that they will introduce them and blame them on cutbacks dictated by whatever government is in London at the time, albeit in the face of bitter opposition. Public opposition was a major reason for their suspenions, but as we have seen in the last week, when it comes to elections in NI, social and economic issues are quickly forgotten once the cry against themmuns is raised, and I think that as soon as they feel they can get away with it without serious electoral risk, the NI Executive will introduce these charges, relying on the electorate’s short memory and sectarian impulses.
However, as noted by Look Left, in the south mobilisation for a broad-based campaign against water charges led by the left has begun. There is perhaps greater potential for success in the south, and let’s hope that this issue can become one around which all the anger over NAMA, the mishandling of the economy, the broken promises, and all the other failings of the current government can crystallise. It certainly has potential.
Meanwhile, nothing much happening back at the Seanad, but let’s talk about a Senator or rather who the Senator knows… April 21, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in back at the Seanad, Irish Politics.3 comments
…there was another interesting interview by Jason O’Toole in the Mail this last while which dealt with Fianna Fáil Senator Geraldine Feeney. Now Feeney has genuinely had a tough time of it with a husband who died at the age of 39. And more than one of us will feel some sympathy on a human level with the following:
I went through a phase of hating to go into functions, whether they were social or political functions, on my own. ‘I don’t think, whether you’re a man or a woman, it’s comfortable going into a gathering on your own and I just had to get my head around it. ‘It’s difficult insofar as I’m a very fun type of a person; I like to be out, I have a nice social life and I go to a lot of events and it’s nice to have somebody to bring with you, and it’s nice to walk in with somebody and it’s nice to walk out with somebody.
The political content is intriguing seeing as it allows us a little window into the rather closed world of the innermost circle of Fianna Fáil at this point in time.
As one of the most unpopular taoisigh in living memory, Brian Cowen has faced a barrage of negativity, not just about his Government’s policies, but also about some personal issues. Geraldine insists that any personal criticism —such as comments about his appearance or suggestions that he’s a heavy drinker — doesn’t affect the Taoiseach because he ‘has a way of shaking things off’.
It doesn’t look though as if it’s going to get any easier for him.
Still, he’s presented as quite a saintly figure… even – arguably – more than saintly…
‘The media will always pick on somebody. Brian Cowen to me certainly doesn’t have any baggage; there is nothing in his past that you could fault him on. He’s a true statesman. ‘But if times were different for us economically, if we didn’t have a global downturn, Brian Cowen certainly would be viewed in a much different light. ‘I have no hesitation in saying to you, it’s country first and party political stuff after that. Nothing will take his eye off the ball when it comes to his country.’ And, as someone who has known Brian Cowen since his childhood, Geraldine maintains that the speculation about him being a heavy drinker is complete rubbish. ‘I would be very hurt by it because the Brian Cowen I know is a very normal man; he enjoys a few drinks with good friends and I think that’s a very normal attribute in a person. ‘He’s a good man for spinning a yarn, telling a joke, a good all-rounder. I think Brian Cowen is a shy man and I think that’s a nice trait. Also, Brian Cowen is a very modest man.’
No doubt. And beyond the ‘country first’ what of the ‘political stuff’?
Geraldine, who is on the national executive of Fianna Fáil, also insists that the rumours of division in the party over Brian Cowen’s leadership style are ‘hyped up’. She continues: ‘It’s only two people. I won’t even say a handful of people. I have to say to you that 98 per cent of the parliamentary party voiced that loyalty to him last week. Brian Cowen is a consensus leader; he doesn’t stop anybody talking. ‘He said: “I don’t expect you all to like me or love me, but I do expect respect because I give each one of you respect”.’
Okay. Meanwhile, what of the other ‘political stuff’?
As Fianna Fáil Seanad spokesman for health and children, Geraldine says that ‘it’s not on’ that patients have to spend endless hours on trolleys waiting for medical attention and she believes that the HSE needs to be revamped. ‘It was to be the saviour of all, but it hasn’t worked that way. There has to be a major change in the running of the HSE. ‘I don’t believe it’s right to have one CEO and that’s no criticism of Professor Drumm, I support him and applaud him. ‘It’s too big for any one man to see over; I think there has to be at least two or three people at the same level as Professor Drumm; say maybe one person looking after hospitals and another person looking after budgets. ‘It can’t all be left to one person. It has to be revamped.’
Hmmmm…
What of this?
…when she addressed the Ryan and Murphy reports in Seanad debates. She says: ‘It was a cover-up by State and the Church. Shame on us. What did we do to (Bishop) Eamon Casey? A man that was doing what comes naturally to people, we banished him to the darkest South America and he was never to come home; and even still he’s silenced. ‘Yet children, the most vulnerable of children, were suffering at the hands of these clerics.’ Does she believe that the Department Of Education and even former taoisigh are culpable in this cover up? ‘Absolutely, there was cover-up everywhere. More than the Department Of Education, the Department Of Justice. ‘I would say that De Valera knew about it back in the Thirties and Forties. I would say (former Archbishop) John Charles McQuaid knew about it. I would say they all knew about it, but didn’t know what to do about it.’
Hmmmm… redux.
The Archbishop Of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, recently caused controversy when he suggested that the Catholic Church in Ireland had lost all credibility. Would she agree with this or was his criticism too strong? ‘I would go that strong. I think the Church has lost a lot of credibility,’ she states, but adds that she believes Archbishop Diarmuid Martin ‘is a very good man’ who is ‘battling against the tide’ and ‘has to be supported’.
Continents shake. Glaciers shift. The Church is in crisis. All is in turmoil. And Fianna Fáil are in polling decline. Who knows what will happen next?
More on Labour… April 21, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.14 comments
A very useful piece by Pat Leahy in the Sunday Business Post at the weekend on the fortunes of Labour, and seeing as it’s a Labour themed week here on the CLR let’s address some of his thoughts. Now granted much of the useful material is from the data that he let’s slip in the course of the piece.
He notes that:
At 17 per cent in a string of tracking polls going back six months, Labour has increased its support by nearly three quarters since the last election.
With much justification, the party anticipates gaining several seats at the next election, followed by participation in government. The mood of party delegates in Galway this weekend reflects this upbeat feeling.
But he also recognises that:
But for all the popularity of Gilmore and the favourable comparisons between the Labour leader and Enda Kenny, Fine Gael is doing twice as well as Labour in picking up disaffected former Fianna Fáil voters.
Data from the last three Sunday Business Post/Red C monthly tracking polls shows that, while Labour is winning the support of, on average, 10 per cent of those who voted for Fianna Fáil in 2007, Fine Gael is attracting 21 per cent of them.
Leahy breaks it down as follows:
That means that, of Fianna Fáil’s 41 per cent of the vote in 2007, just 4 per cent is now in Labour’s column (while 8 per cent has gone to Fine Gael).
Running the three data sets together gives a pretty big sample over a fairly short period of time, so these numbers are an accurate picture of where the former Fianna Fáil vote is going. For all the success of Gilmore’s Dáil performances, and his high personal ratings, this is an underwhelming result.
That’s sort of correct, albeit Labour has also pulled in votes from elsewhere on the political spectrum, and at various times has picked up more votes from Fianna Fáil, although they have shifted back towards FF. One could also say that for a party that at the last election was in or around 10% to near double its poll ratings for a protracted period is in and of itself a significant achievement.
He’s a little too gloomy when he writes that:
These are the voters who will decide the next election, and Labour is not winning enough of them. Remember that, last year, Labour underperformed its high pre-election poll ratings when the votes in the local and European elections were counted.
One could posit that the intense competition at local level, and the nature of European campaigns mean that near inevitably Labour would lose some support. It’s not clear that the conditions of a General Election campaign would replicate them.
Still, note this:
The party is strong in Dublin – an average of 26 per cent in the last three polls – but curiously weak among young people, for whom Sinn Féin are the radicals of choice. Admittedly, young people tend not to vote in great numbers, but that can change. In the last US presidential election, over two million more young voters turned out than in 2004; they preferred Barack Obama to John McCain by a margin of 70-30.
Is that truly so surprising that Sinn Féin might be ahead amongst younger people? Labour has a rather gray profile. That stat about SF is intriguing too. That could be important to that party as an election rolls around.
Still, perhaps most telling are his thoughts on the very nature of Labour…
Bold new policies are not without risk, of course. Like the two big conservative parties, Labour too is a coalition.
Middle-class and working class, traditional trade unionists and liberal professionals, strong rural organisations and metropolitan elites – Labour comprises elements of all these. And, like all coalitions, finding common policy positions can be problematic.
Isn’t that a remarkable analysis? I’m not suggesting he’s wrong, indeed I suspect he’s far from incorrect even if he overeggs the pudding as regards ‘metropolitan elites’ etc… But isn’t it fascinating that he believes that the nature of the LP is so variegated that it could feasibly be presented in the context of his analysis, fairly or unfairly, as a rather more left wing, but not hugely so, version of the ‘two big conservative parties’.
Coming from a WP/DL background it’s curious to me how unideological the LP is. I don’t mean that in a glib sense where all is chapter and verse and a fetishistic reiteration of tropes, and I’m certainly not discounting the fact that Labour has strong roots in labour and the unions. But it seems from my perspective, however excellent many of those I know and admire in it, to be oddly rootless and vague as to its position which is why its current stance on, for example, the public sector protests or Eamon Gilmore’s speech seem strangely detached.
As one Labour handler mused last week, crime is always a difficult issue for the party.
Some of its members are to the right of Attila the Hun on crime; others are similarly positioned on the left. Working class community activists sit beside the Labour lawyers.
Not quite sure what he’s saying in that last sentence, but in my experience some working class community activists of my acquaintance would be profoundly hard line on crime. But perhaps the explanation for the detachment is really very simple…
‘‘When you’ve been out of government as long as we have,” said one old party hand, ‘‘and it looks like you’re headed there, you don’t want to say or do anything that would risk that.”
