Labour’s ‘modest’ proposals… February 24, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
Unusual to see a Labour party seemingly a little coy about using a certain phrase in their election manifesto. What am I talking about?
See p.15…
Labour does not support further impositions of income tax on people on middle and modest incomes in the period 2012-2014.
Oddly, though, you’ll find this on p.29 where they call a spade an effing shovel.
These contracts would stipulate a minimum service to be offered nationwide, and a public service obligation, including a fee waiver scheme for low-income households.
However, licences would be flexible enough to allow for localised waste management needs and opportunities.
Mind you, by the wonders of Adobe Acrobat can I report that the word modest appears a fair few times. They like it. A lot. Modest houses, modest incomes, modest increases in excises, modest cost of work allowances… it’s all there…
Yes, modest.
Modest gains in election.
Modest requests to Enda, prefaced by “please, Sir”
Yes, Labour will do modest very well
And the problem with “modest” to describe some people’s incomes is what exactly?
Well La Mouche, I think it’s a case that it seems to indicate an aversion to use the term low-income or lower-income.
If one believes that there are middle incomes, lower incomes, higher incomes where precisely do ‘modest’ incomes fit in that schema? Is ‘modest’ squeezed in between lower and middle? Or is the truth that modest covers lower. Seems to me it does.
And describing them as such (as ‘modest’) takes – to my mind at least – some of the edge off the reality of what low incomes are like for many many people in this state and consequently seems to me to undermine conceptually the necessity to try to do something about it through various mechanisms.
I think you’re reaching.
Is ‘low income’ lower than ‘lower income’?
Why would the term ‘modest’ disguise the realities of coping on a limited income? Everyone knows their own budgeting pain – and no broad-brushstroke nomenclature is going to change that. I just don’t see any tricky aspect to the application of the terms.
Maybe Labour reckon that the income threshold that applies to income tax is higher than that which would apply to local services levy exemptions? For what it’s worth, I’d read ‘modest’ as floating above ‘low’, but maybe in the same territory as ‘lower’ – but who knows?
So basically you can’t define it any better than me?
Nope – but I’m not seeing anything devious in how Labour are using the terms.
Not really.
Labour is a self-defined social democratic party. The research literature on incomes is very very clear, the terms used are lower, middle, higher income and where that literature bleeds into social democratic political analyses modest doesn’t come into it.
I find that an interesting divergence.
I don’t recall suggesting it was devious, what I am suggesting is that it represents a softening of the language and perhaps is indicative of a shift from social democratic thinking.
Ah now – you said that it ‘undermined conceptually the necessity to try to do something about it’. That seems pretty devious to me – were it the case, which I don’t believe it is.
Well, I tend to have the belief that even where people take routes politically I disagree with it doesn’t mean they’re per se being devious. Nor is it as if they’re not open either. After all the LP is using this language in its manifesto.
What I’m suggesting [and I did say that it was 'to my mind at least'] is that the danger in such language is that because it’s softer it can potentially undermines the determination to do something about it. Dealing with modest incomes seems to me to be a different sort of endeavour to dealing with low incomes.
And again, let’s get back to the point here. You and I have different political perspectives, not wildly different, but sufficiently so and yet neither of us understand the term ‘modest’ whereas both of us understand immediately the terms ‘low’ or ‘lower’ income.
A solution for a problem that does not exist, in respect of the terms used?
Well – they use the term ‘modest’ in relation to income tax increase exemption – so that would run counter to the notion of ‘soft language’ hiding realities – surely more people would see themselves in ‘modest income’ gamut than ‘low income’?
I’m not sure we share an understanding of what ‘low’ and ‘lower’ mean in relation to income either – all three terms ‘should’ refer to income below the average, but after that it’s anyone’s guess – low, lower, or modest.
But that’s missing the point I’m making. It’s not that it’s ‘anyone’s guess’ as to what these terms mean, or my or your understanding. In terms of research in the area [as noted by anon-anon] below the terms have clarity because they’re built on a body of knowledge that locates them within certain parameters [and in political terms within a clear understanding of incomes research as expressed on the social democratic left by those like Polly Toynbee etc].
Why would the LP seek to shift away from that clarity in favour of something that is nebulous in the very specific case they use it here?
As I said originally, this seems coy to me.
Now, I can theorise with the best of them, perhaps it was as seen as moving away from a language with more hard-edged connotations towards one that appeals more to middle income earners. I genuinely don’t know.
I’m not suggesting it’s malign, what I’m suggesting is that it’s interesting. And I think given its appearance in a political document, and having considerable experience myself in assisting in drafting those sort of documents, I know how much effort and consideration goes into every word used in them.
It’s not a mistake, or an oversight, or something that was used with no clear intent.
“the terms have clarity because they’re built on a body of knowledge that locates them within certain parameters”
Really? What distinguishes ‘low-income’ from ‘lower-income’ in measurable parameters?
The statistical income data sources I’ve seen (wisely) avoid stratification terms, and simply refer to percentile or actual income figures – with a median or average for contextual purposes. If you employ the eurostat definition of ‘low-income’ as 60% of median income (and that’s not a universally agreed definition), that’s some clarity – but what’s ‘lower-income’?
In the context of income distribution in a given context the terms low and middle are clear. Lower tends to be used more colloquially about incomes below middle incomes. Can’t really see why there’s any great dispute about this.
And surely, there’s some disagreement about these matters (in terms of definition of low incomes), as of course there will be, but you’re getting away from the central point. “Modest” doesn’t figure in the literature. It’s not a technical term. And the use of it in the original document introduces an element of ambiguity – to what purpose I cannot determine.
It’s not usual but neither is it unheard of to use modest in relation to income for a person or family. It is unusual to use it in the context of income strata identification.
One is not described as coming from the modest class.
Modest may suggest that Labour sees (without indicating any devious intent)a blurring distinction of the those who’d have classified themselves as mid-stream middle class due to slippage into more modest means as privatisation takes hold while those of modest means can anticipate slippage into . . .?
Hopefully, they won’t come up with any more modest proposals too soon – though I shalln’t hold my breath.
Gilmore was on Today FM this morning, he was very modest.
I agree it’s an interesting choice of words. Its coyness probably suggests an appeal to déclassé pensioners or professionals, rather than the traditional working class or unskilled unemployed. Such individuals are ‘of modest means’ rather than shit broke – something like impoverished, but respectable spinsters in Jane Austen novels.
They are the party founded by Connolly. Their demands are modest, they only want the earth.