Right of centre Independents and their ‘alliance[s]‘… January 26, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.trackback
So, David McWilliams has wisely ruled out being an election candidate. As the Irish Times noted:
Last week, it was reported that Mr McWilliams was giving serious consideration to contesting the general election in Dún Laoghaire as an Independent candidate under an umbrella movement expected to be known as the “New Ireland Movement”.
This followed his attendance along with about 25 people at a meeting in Greystones. At the meeting were two people who had worked on Barack Obama’s campaign.
The ‘New Ireland Movement’. Hmmm. Barack Obama’s campaign. Hmmmmmm. Two people… Ah give me a break.
On a not dissimilar tangent there’s a report in today’s paper which quotes Thomas Clare, independent candidate in Louth, as saying that:
“The speculation is that if this technical group of Independents can reach over 20 elected TDs that they can then be in position to form a government with Enda Kenny”.
And who are these Independents?
…the grouping included “influential” people who want to create jobs and support enterprise. Mr Clare said high-profile business and economics figures would be among the candidates in the grouping, of which he was part. He said the group was believed to include Senator Shane Ross, running in Dublin South as an Independent candidate.
And:
The grouping would be “centre-right in terms of jobs and economic policy”and “would think there could be a good public sector if there was a strong private sector,” he said.
Very interesting, I think most of us will agree, but I’m told by those as would know (ie close to one of those purportedly part of that ‘grouping’) that this is entirely incorrect and that no such grouping exists or is in the process of formation.
Go searching for ‘Ross’ and ‘Independent Alliance’ and you’ll find this here from January 17th…
from Independent candidate in Cork South Central, David McCarthy.
The start of a new week and the start of a new movement.
Today I announced the beginnings of a new movement, the Independent Alliance for Change, that aims to affect real and meaningful change to the political system through co-operation between Independent voices throughout the country.
Senator Shane Ross is the most recent, and high profile, Independent to announce he will stand I am sure he will be followed by others.
I am hoping to bring these voices together to call in one voice for real changes, the public are consistently showing a strong preference for Independent candidates of 12 to 14 per cent in recent polls.
If we can show ourselves to be a credible alternative then we will tip the balance in the next Dáil.
And here’s another release from McCarthy…
David McCarthy, who is standing as an Independent in Cork South Central, announced a new movement today, the “Independent Alliance for Change”. McCarthy announced his candidacy last week and is running on a platform of political and public service reform. He has since been joined by fellow independent candidates in Cork East, Cork North-Central and Cork South-West. Saturday night also saw Senator Shane Ross declare his intention to run in Dublin South. All these candidates are standing on a similar platform.
McCarthy said, “This initiative will see Independent candidates stand in their own constituencies on their own policy platform. There will be no party structure. We will have a shared vision about the central platform of political reform, but will not be forced to toe the line by a centralised organisation.
You’ve got to love the way Shane Ross is included in the above. And this, perhaps is where Clare picked up on it.
McCarthy has had a colourful political career…
I have been involved in politics for many years working as campaign manager for Kathy Sinnot’s 2002 General Election bid as well as stints as regional organiser for Fine Gael in Dublin and Munster. More recently I was Séan Kelly’s campaign manager in his successful European campaign and have most recently worked as regional director with Senator David Norris’s Presidential campaign.
This was picked up by Cactus Flower on Political World five or six days ago… and indeed IELB has posted up the leaflet McCarthy is using on the Irish Election Literature Blog.
And here is the current list of those in the Independent Alliance for Change.
So, let’s mark that down to some judicious kite-flying and perhaps is indicative of efforts to align with Ross in order to grab some of the attention going his way.
In fairness go to Ross’s site and you’ll read the following comment…
Several like-minded independents are set to stand in other constituencies. If elected, I plan to join with them to change the entire political system to end the culture of cronyism, to break the circle of powerful people ruling our country and to liberate those citizens who are now suffering high taxes, negative equity, unemployment and cuts in childrens’ allowances as a result of their policies.
It is time for an end to tribal politics.
So in some respects he may have brought this on himself.
The curious thing is that had such an effort been made, as distinct from talked about, during the past twelve months then it’s possible that we might well be looking at a significant crop of right of centre Independents. But I’ll come back to that in a moment.
As it is, now?
.
I’ve been totting up who I think might make it back into the Dáíl from the current crop of Independents on offer. Of those on the centre-right the only definite would seem to be Lowry, perhaps followed by Grealish and the progeny of JH-R. And…er… that’s it.
Of current candidates, Clare apart, who have we got so far? Shane Ross.
Ross has a chance, a good one some say, but Dublin South is going to be a strange constituency in the wake of the various events of the last few years so I wouldn’t bet on any definite outcome. But say, for the sake of argument, he did make it.
That’s four.
Seventeen short of the 20 Clare proposes.
As ever though logistical issues abound. Candidates have to be chosen, supporters corralled, campaigns fought. That’s not easy even at the best of times. Tony Gregory et al could attest to how long it took to make it to councillor status let alone TD.
Though… there is the ghost of the Progressive Democrats. Look at the formerly PD councillors reelected as Independents at the last local elections, a significant number as it happens. They could have provided the kernel for a PD redux party whose natural coalition partners would indeed have been FG following the implosion of FF. But, it hasn’t happened.
Because it’s much easier said than done. For example, slag off the ULA and the left Independent candidates all one likes for being rag-tag, but the reality is that the component parts have been campaigning highly successfully for years. The arrival of People Before Profit councillors is one of the most unremarked and under analysed aspects of the last local elections. And those components have been uniquely focussed on the General Election. Look at Joe Higgins whose run for Europe was in large part merely a trial run for retaking a TDs seat. Look at Seamus Healy who has been working away consistently in the years since 2007 as an Independent leftist.
Which is not to say no right-leaning Independents will be elected… but if I am sceptical that the ULA will get more than three or four seats on a good day, then I simply cannot see how one could see other right Independents arriving in such numbers that they could reach a total figure of 20. Throw in for the sake of argument Mattie McGrath or Joe Behan? Doesn’t seem like a good fit to be honest, not least because Behan strikes me as a man on a journey back to FF after the election – assuming he stands.
I mentioned earlier in the week about the candidacy of Hospital candidates. And without question we will see a varied bunch contest the election, but if there are 20 Independents in total I’ll be amazed [to be honest I can think of only one Independent that will at this point be definitely returned, that being Lowry. All others will have a fight on their hands to a greater or lesser extent].
Of course, there’s another interesting aspect to this and that is that Clare may inadvertently articulate the voice of a strand which isn’t quite FG, but is happy to support FG and is clearly keen not to have Labour Party participation in government. One could be glib and say, what difference would that make really, but it speaks of a certain concern amongst some circles as to how the LP, however marginally, will deflect FG.
This isn’t an illusion. There’s no end of people who want ‘firm government’ and so on. And they’ll be most vociferous in demanding it over the next month or so. The means by which such government is arrived at is an open question. Suitable Independents might serve perfectly as proxies. Just they may have to do their homework before saying it too publicly.
It is amusing the way these right-independent alliances keep sort of half-conscripting Ross.
I don’t think at this stage that there’s much chance of a significant new right wing formation emerging in time to have an impact in the election, whether post-PD, celebrity economist, or post-Libertas in focus. Time is just too short and there’s no machine in place. They’d have to run entirely on money and media hype, which is a big risk.
That said, I think that there could be a lot of independents elected, and their politics will be extremely varied. There couple be the likes of Catherine Murphy or Catherine Connolly towards the left, the likes of Ross and Lowry on the right, plus the Mattie McGrath style FF “rebels”, plus hospitals candidates, and a seemingly random one or two who nobody outside of their constituency has ever heard of.
There are two countervailing tendencies effecting the chances of smaller parties and independents. There’s a strong anti-government sentiment, which benefits us all. And there will be a pro-alternative government sentiment, a falling in behind the parties placed to “get them out”, of as yet indeterminate strength.
It’s a good thing for the left (and for SF and for independents of all stripes) that the anti-government mood hasn’t as of yet shown much sign of solidifying behind the government in waiting. But in my view, there will probably be at least something of a shift in that direction as polling day nears. The question is how much of a shift.
Interesting thought. I wonder will that happen re solidifying behind government.
BTW did you see the report from Carlow of a poll that seemed to indicate a halving of the FF vote from the last election but Don’t knows up around 20%.
I’d be very surprised if we don’t see a radicalisation on the rightward fringe of Irish poltiics, very soon. If the ideological left become a significant force (as distinct from what you might call the “office-seeking” left in the Labour Party), there is bound to be a reaction.
The Irish right has never had what you would call a coherent ideology, and most right-wingers would probably still flee the label “right-wing” even at this point. But if a relatively significant, or at least attention-grabbing, far left appeared in the Dail, it would probably encourage some unity among these diffuse social conservative/Poujadist style currents running under the surface. This is one to watch, methinks.
See David McCarthy’s comment below-to paraphrase, “I’m not right-wing, me”. Watch for when people will take the label, in the way Joe Higgins or Boyd BArrett happily refer to themselves as men of the Left. Then things will have really changed.
It’s a hobbyhorse of mine (hey, what’s the internet for?)but you haven’t mentioned the hugely disproportionate access to/sympathy from the media these candidates will enjoy.
It goes without saying in Ross’s case, but anyone that shows the following characteristics can expect substantial and sympathetic coverage: big on public sector ‘reform’, pro ‘enterprise’, no association with previous governments, good on tv.
All the polcors (Sheahan, Coleman, Collins etc) share these views and I expect Shane Ross and co to be taken at their own estimation, without having their motives properly queried. There’s a job for Vincent Browne, maybe.
Which no doubt explains why some of them are jumping on that bandwagon. It’s a great point.
Oh, if you like that, you’ll just love this thread on Crooked Timber:
Daragh McDowell (nephew of you-know-who): “[y]ou forget that Fintan O’Toole is effectively the political editor and sets much of its tone [of the Irish Times”.
Just re the media and sympathy – this afternoon, on Drivetime, Alison O’Connor remarked that it was nice to have something positive to say about FF for a change, and Mary Wilson agreed with her…..like why is it ‘nice’ to have something nice to say about them, exactly?
Now stick SF, the ULA or even Labour in that sentence and try and imagine it.
Urghhh…
FWIW, I think that such a formation could actually play into LP/Gilmore’s hands. The increase in SF/ULA support, at the expense at least in part of LP, has seen FG pull ahead of FG in the polls (at least, more consistently), making Kenny more likely to become Taoiseach.
However, deeper polling by RedC has shown that FG’s support is, apparently, the softest of all the parties, with only 18% definite supporters (among 35% currently giving them the mark). This is despite being between 30-36% in all RedC polls for about 2.5 years, which given the collapse of the FF vote in that time, and the ups and down of LP, suggests that this ‘soft’ FG vote is to their ex-PD-leaning right. An alliance like this would take votes, and one presumes, seats from FG above all parties, and it’s hard to see them win too many seats that would otherwise have fallen to LP.
Ultimately, they could be the force that makes Gilmore Taoiseach, simply by knocking FG back.
Interesting analysis. Would that it were so.
What did you make of the Carlow/Kilkenny poll today? I’m not convinced entirely by the methodology but intriguing stuff nonetheless.
has seen FG pull ahead of FG in the polls
That’s the battle to watch in this election alright: my money’s on FG
Also see “use of PS to distinguish public sector from private sector”.
I’d take that bet!
Pat Leahy (or Declan Kiberd) on the Dunphy show at the weekend, were making the point that where previous governments did deals with Independents it was for purely local interests. Healy Rae could have his new road etc,
However with this bunch it would be a deal on ideological grounds.
Paul Sommerville is another I would tip for a seat. I wouldn’t rule out ex PD Victor Boyhan in Dun Laoghaire either if he were to align himself with Ross/Sommerville.
From the list of Independents that are standing so far the only other ex PD was Eddie Fitzpatrick in Laois Offaly
Discussions where candidates are separated out into clear categories of right and left always leave me a bit puzzled at the criteria being employed.
In recent months my understanding of the plurality amongst posters here was that all of parties except SF and the ULA are on the right, because they have convened the consensus to cut. That said, there appears to an unwillingness to follow that logic to the end with regard to Labour, whose supporters are regularly addressed here as if they would constitute a potential audience. Then there is the fact that they were the only party who opposed the bank guarantee since the beginning…
To get back to my original point, i don’t really grasp the criteria employed to position people on the right left axis. For example, with regard to the public service I am in favour of cuts on a progressive basis for those on salaries over 40,000 and against any reduction in pay for those under that. I also believe that reductions in public sector spending are as certain as the sun rising tomorrow and would like to influence what gets reduced.
With regard to the IMF-EU deal, is there a ‘left’ position on that? Repudiation of the linkage between private bank debt and sovereign debt is supported by several of the economist who are being branded right-wing. Does the dividing line emerge only thereafter, once repudiation has occurred and the issue is how to (a) finance the state infrastructure (b) create meaningful employment opportunities, where the left favours higher taxation, state intervention and redistribution, and the right looks to private sector growth?
What is the left’s relationship with the state and the market these days, as understood by people on this site?
I understand these are absurdly basic questions, but it all seems clear as mud to me.
See my comment below for some element of an answer to your points…
would think there could be a good public sector if there was a strong private sector
What, exactly, does this mean? Anyone?
From the article about the Carlow Kilkenny poll in the Kilkenny People
“Conor MacLiam of the United Socialist Party (USP)”
…which name, coincidentally, I actually know as of last night (it popped up in the above Crooked Timber thread, in the context of McDowell the Younger being an asshole).
Jesus, what obnoxious comments.
He is a case study in cognitive dissonance. Remarkable.
Have been keeping an eye on them myself, here are a few other names of candidates – Donnelly in Wicklow and McCarthy in Cork South Central. There is someone in Ballyfermott/Dublin South Central also who’s name escapes m
Is it Gerry Kelly the Direct Democracy Ireland candidate?
http://www.directdemocracyireland.org/gerrykelly
They also have candidates in Dublin North Central, Cork South West and Dun Laoghaire
Hi David Mc Carthy candidate in Cork South Central here I just wanted to clarify that I am not centre right. I am a frustrated citizen who is running for public office for the first time because I want to try and make a difference for my son! I would describe myself as socially left and economically right (and that is only because the current situation requires a pragmatic approach) so you can make up your own mind as to where I sit on the political sphere!
so centre right then aye?
David welcome on board but as Nick has already commented you are not saying anything that the vast majority of politicians in all western democracies (LEFT or RIGHT)are not already saying. I am liberal, multiculturalism is great, I love gays etc but those bloody trade unions and their unreasonable demands on behalf of those annoying working class people, it is for the market to decide.
It is the classic Blair trick – neo liberalism wrapped up with a bit of right on politically correct posturing.
If all (left or right) politicians are saying the same thing, then surely you’ve everyone pegged for right, even if they’re, eh, left. At which point the label becomes pointless.
I’d be quite happy to limit the levels of public sector pay in a scenario where the national kitty has nothing left in it, and there’s little argument that some are overpaid. I don’t see that this has anything to do with those on excessive salaries in the private sector – where we can choose to contribute to that income/excess, or not, and it really has no bearing on the core problem. Would I increase taxation to build the kitty back up? – Sure I would, but there will still be overpaid people in the public sector. If that makes me ‘right wing’ in someone else’s parlance, then that’s grand, but I won’t be paying too much heed to it – it’s angels on the head of a pin territory.
That’s a very interesting point you raise.
Am I right wing because I think that it was correct to bring in the pension levy on civil and public servants and said so at the time and subsequently?
No.
There are issues relating to the micro which allow for flexibility in approach. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that on technical issues the position will change, and sometimes they’ll be as part of a left wing approach, and sometimes they won’t.
Re Public sector pay – I’ve never been utterly devoted to the principle that PS workers have to have high low or medium salaries, because I think the work and context is different to most private sector jobs and that that means it should be treated differently. Hence I was against benchmarking from the off.
In truth though I don’t give a rashers about PS conditions as long as they’re reasonably good. Not exalted and definitely not low end. Just reasonably good. Frankly I’m with Bartley on a flatter wage profile in the PS with the extremes of high and low brought closer together but supplemented by good job security. The expectation of someone choosing between the private or public sectors would then be of over a lifetime better security but potentially lower wages in the public and less security but potentially higher wages (across a working lifetime) in the private sector. All this public and private underpinned by a good single universal pension across public and private and strong welfare supports for those in the private sector [and by the way these are transitional demands...].
My major bone of contention with lowering PS wages is that to bring them down any further strikes me as deflationary in the context of an economy that surely doesn’t need any more deflation.
And as you know it’s not simply about public sector pay, and never has been.
There are clear defining issues between left and right.
If one seeks to reduce the public sphere, through the abolition of semi-state agencies let alone the semi-states, that is a right of centre position – because the left prioritises the public sphere as a social good.
If one seeks to prioritise cuts over taxation that too is a right of centre position not merely because again the public sphere suffers but because the evidence shows that cuts impact upon those with least, that to cut distorts or does away with universalism etc, etc.
If one wants to do away with universalism of provision, whether education, or health or whatever, or seek to block its introduction then that too is a right of centre position. Again for the reasons above. The left of centre believes that universalism is a key component of a more equal and just society and the evidence on the redistributive and egalitarian outcomes of universalism are compelling.
If one seeks a deflationary approach when the consensus on the left of centre is strongly against deflationary approaches, not least because they are based on aspects of the above, then that too is right of centre. Of course some on the left might dissent [by the way, TASC don't, Michael Taft doesn't, Conor McCabe doesn't], but that’s the overwhelming opinion and therefore the onus is on the individual to explain how a deflationary strategy will retain or optimise the outcomes sought above as regards social provision, universalism, an active state etc.
These are just a few examples of the defining lines between right of centre and left of centre approaches, and all these are long before we hit the Marxist left approaches.
In other words these aren’t labels at all. They’re differences of approach, and intent, built upon solid ideological distinctions that inform socio-economic and socio-political policies.
So if someone like the good candidate above tells me that he’s socially left wing and economically right wing, he’s pretty much right wing, not least given that economics is the central focus of left wing ideology from Marxism outward.
Re choice on private sector salaries I think that’s a little overly reductionist. It’s not simply a decision as to you as an individual choosing to purchase goods or services which consequently increase profits and therefore further consequently bump up wages in a given company – the history of boards agreeing bonuses to non-efficient private sector employees/other Board members is far too fresh to substantiate that as the primary dynamic for wage inflation at the higher end. Indeed this country is filled with examples of certain ‘professions’ which have managed to oversee egregious wages with no relationship at all to levels of use – the legal profession is merely the most obvious, but all of us can point to one example or another.
So the autonomy of the individual user/purchaser/consumer is limited in terms of its traction on this issue, and as we’ve seen even campaigns which bring together larger groups of disgruntled consumers, or even more pointedly shareholders have demonstrated time and again that corporate power in the private sector as regards remuneration is often very very detached from any serious oversight or influence whether actual or moral.
There’s another point which is that private sector remuneration actually does have a direct bearing on low levels of state revenue given relatively low taxation rates at the higher end in this state across the past decade, or the ability of those in very high income brackets to evade taxation through reliefs, etc.
The core reason why the left of centre considers that a problem is that it increases inequities inside the society, something the left is intrinsically against. And while taxation may well provide one mechanism to claw back some of those monies many leftists would argue that it is insufficient – particularly in the wake of the past few years.
And as I’ve noted before, you can bet that the right doesn’t make the mistake of believing that this is simply ‘labels’. The contribution to the Pension Green Paper from the insurance and pensions industry was a profoundly ideological and right ideological one arguing that universal pension provision was injurious to -and I paraphrase – personal freedom, etc, etc… the phrases being imported wholesale from right wing US economic policy thinking.
Fine words for the vast majority of us who only have the state pension to look forward to because we’ve never been paid enough during our working lives.
If corporate interests aren’t going to fold up their tent as regards the distinctions between right and left I don’t see why I as a leftist should. Or should pretend that they don’t mean something.
Or take yourself, you strike me as being on the centre left. But it might be interesting to parse out where you stand say on the welfare state… more, less, same as is, in terms of provision and the answer might position where you stand on the centre left.
“because the left prioritises the public sphere as a social good.”
That’s grand, but sometimes the public sphere is advanced by a bit of pruning, and the social good of over-paying some to avoid deflation works no more in the public sector for me, than it does in the private sector. If the best place to allocate a limited source of funds is in continuing to prop up artificial wages for some, then something rotten has happened the strategy of said approach. Trickle down economnics didn’t convince me under Ronnie, and it still doesn’t – even if it’s a nice public sector academic spreading the money around. IMO you spend money directly on the most socially benefitial activities, and on the basis of what you can afford.
As to my attitude to the welfare state – well, I’d love to benefit from a continetal social democratic style model of social provision, and the tax burden that entails.
But the obvious problem there is that yet again you seem to reduce public sphere/provision to the issue of public sector wages.
Not at all. I’d expand certain areas, rationalise/reduce others, pay some PS employees more, some less, and all according to what the war chest allowed. The room for manouver is pretty damn constrained a the moment however, so priority would be to reduce the worst of waste – and where better to start than the overpaid?
But that presupposes that at this point the PS is overpaid. The consensus as far as I can see amongst right of centre economists seems to be that this is true now only at for some mid range wages and more true of higher salaries (It was also notable that the IMF/ECB had no problem with Croke Park).
But let’s go back to your trickle down point.
Those are two entirely different situations between Reagan style economics and preventing deflation.
Reaganomics, in that instance, was about a relatively small number of wealthy peoples wealth trickling down. That’s not the same as the much larger cohort of PS workers in this state who pay out on a vast array of much more ordinary expenditures. Indeed that was precisely the argument that the left and others had against Reagans thinking, that the wealthy didn’t spend that money on more everyday items [and still is if you've been following the recent debate in the US over the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy which Republicans in Congress were so uneager to see done away with].
But there are a multitude of other problems. Let’s take an obvious example. Many of those have mortgages. Cut their wages below a certain level and the number of defaults go up in the state with all the problems that ensue from that. And so on.
By the way you’ve not really defined a left position. For example, someone on the centre right who completely disagrees with the welfare state could as easily as you say ‘you spend money directly on the most socially benefitial activities, and on the basis of what you can afford.’
So at what point does it become a left position, at least in your view?
Firstly, obviously not all the public sector are over-paid (or no more than those in the private sector), and those that are certainly don’t warrant ongoing subsidy on grounds of fighting deflation – there’s far better mechanisms of redistributing that money that would be of greater social benefit, and presumably help fight deflation at the same time.
As to where I’d consider left of centre begins (and again, I’m not convinced the lable really matters a toss)? It’d be determined on an acknowledgment of social as well as individual responsibilty, and the support of state mechanisms to enable such social responsibilities. That means ‘big’ government and a comprehensive welfare and state sector – but not necessarily an all-encompassing one. The Canadian or Dutch health systems seem to me, to be just as effective (or more so) on social and efficiency grounds as the NHS – just with less direct state employment. So I’d be quite happy to include many supposed ‘sell-out’ party platforms in the ‘left’ camp, whereas many here seem determined to paint them as capitalist running dogs or neo-liberals in disguise.
I’m still not to be entirely clear as to whether you’re still suggesting that trickle-down is the equivalent of the multiplier?
Re the rest, you’d probably not be surprised to hear that I don’t actually disagree with much of what you’re saying.
I also agree that there are strong arguments for stopping certain provisions in favour of others as long as in general terms those receiving them aren’t put at a financial disadvantage.
I’m also in favour of being able to redirect public sector workers from one area to another dependent upon need [I don't mean geographically, except in extremis].
Mind you there’s no need to paint people as using that rhetoric re capitalist running dogs… there are valid critiques of health services and whatever from the left which thankfully don’t sound as if tehy were written by our old friends in the CPI-ML.
But to be honest I think and by the way this isn’t a criticism that you tend more to the centre than the left on health provision – that said there’s a caveat to my thinking which is that non-statist means of providing health and other services outside private enterprise, ie co-ops etc are I think a valid way forward too, but a level of social ownership is important to me.
I’m not saying over-paying public servants on the basis of avoiding deflation is exactly the same as Reaganomics trickle-down theory, but there’s an assumed ‘eventually you’ll thank us’ dynamic to both that I don’t buy.
I wouldn’t argue that I’m anything but a watery centrist shade of ‘left’ btw – I subscribe to pragmatism over ideology, and always will – thus banishing myself from any purist’s gameplan.
Yes, but post IMF/ECB intervention the evidence for ‘overpaying’ seems much less than it was – and certainly now very very scant at medium to lower grades. I’m not certain if you were one of those who commented way back that were the IMF to come in they would impose much worse on the public sector, but that was a sentiment much abroad amongst the commentariat. And yet they’re here and nothing at all. If this chicken was truly ripe for plucking – and my God what a passive lot the PS workers are, much like the rest of the population – I think it would have been…er… plucked.
And if that is correct and overpayment isn’t an issue, or at least is one that is restricted, then the problem is that unlike trickle down there is good empirical evidence that the multiplier exists. So your own feelings on this, as regards ‘eventually you’ll thank us’ are perhaps irrelevant to whether something operates effectively a certain level or not.
The other thought I’d raise is that being left of the centre and preferring social ownership of one form or another in various areas is hardly purist. It’s been a tenet of the social democratic left for the entirety of the 20th century and remains so in various states – so much so that even in the UK the outright privatisation of the NHS has been something the Conservatives haven’t dared to propose.
I would describe myself as socially left and economically right
Well, there’s one I’ve never heard before.
Luke Ming Flanagan in Roscommon is supposed to have a chance. Centre right but soft on soft drugs?
David McCarthy? Exclamatory!
@PrettyinPink and David McCarthy:
There are as many definitions of what’s right and what’s left as there are people to define it. Here are a couple of my personal litmus tests:
if you talk about limits to public sector salaries without advocating corresponding limits in the private sector—you’re right (wing). If you advocate the free interplay of market forces without allowing organised labour to be one of those forces— ditto.