That new left formation? February 26, 2015
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Economy, Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
All the talk of a new left slate that would either work with or in parallel with Sinn Féin is very interesting and it’s heartening to see some of the unions actually pushing towards a more functional involvement. Moreover it makes sense, even if there are odd contradictions. For example, it’s hard to determine whether this is meant to be a big tent project that encompasses SF and Inds and some small parties, or the latter working in parallel to SF. I’ve heard and read both being posited as potential approaches. Hard too to see all those forces lashed up in a sort of Syriza redux formation – not least because some of their Greek referents were outside Syriza and ran against, or in competition, to it. Still the local is everything, so perhaps there’s space there for flexibility.
The Phoenix piece on this, under the guise of a profile of Pearse Doherty, this last week admits that ‘A SF dominated Left Alliance government may turn out to be a chimera and a political proposal too far’. And it’s difficult too to quite get the measure of where the proposal is coming from. Is it from SF, or is it from elements of the left of SF? I’ve heard people argue from various perspectives that it is one or the other. Or is it that some of the unions are functioning as a bridge?
Shane Fitzcarraldo’s comment reproduced on the CLR last week gives a good outline of one rationale behind this, though the following really caught my attention:
A slate of the left-of-Sinn Fein which could agree key principles (abolish Irish Water, water and property taxes, repeal the 8th Amendment, for a wealth tax, end the tax haven regime in its totality, opposition to the sectarian Good Friday Agreement carve-up in the North, etc.), but would give supporting votes to a Sinn Féin minority government which ruled out coalition with the right and had a programme for government that broke with neoliberalism, would be a once-in-a-century earthquake in Irish political life.
There’s two clear problematic aspects there. First is it entirely clear that SF would seek to repeal the 8th? Secondly is it tenable that SF would be in ‘opposition to the sectarian Good Friday Agreement carve-up in the North’. The rest is pretty much boilerplate stuff that I suspect with some finessing SF wouldn’t find much of an issue with.
On the other hand. On the other hand. Given all the positioning on the centre right in relation to potential formations and alliances it makes sense for there to be some effort on the left to pull forces together, and even in the short term there may be a significant utility to this in terms of increasing transfers. I hate to bring up a certain three letter acronym, but the ULA served a purpose in generating an excitement and energy around the then potential left candidates. So perhaps we’re looking at a much more constrained ULA redux, with or without SF’s explicit imprimatur.
And it is, of course, possible that the idea – again with some somewhat more progressive unions working as a catalyst – has occurred to all involved more or less simultaneously.
As to the overall idea? The Phoenix suggests that it can only work with FF as a constituent element, which on the numbers makes sense but surely would be too much for some of those involved. ‘On a rough calculation that sees FF with 35 seats, SF 30, Left Independents 10 and the LP perhaps 10’. And argues that that would have the necessary 80 plus seats for government.
Who would the left Independents be? No mention of RBB, but Collins, Daly, Healy, someone they call Gallagher, McGrath, O”Sullivan, Pringle, Wallace and a couple more from a new intake post-election. If all those went in so I suspect would Murphy and Halligan, and possibly even Donnelly.
So many problems though. Would the LP sign up? Would some of those on the Ind side want to work in tandem with others or with FF? Or with SF? Or vice versa – the FF ranks aren’t exactly a hotbed of left Republicanism, are they?
And would those represented by Fitzcarraldo agree to what was not exactly a government ‘ruling out coalition with the right’, or one likely to ‘break with neoliberalism’, at least not much.
Still, it’s an idea.
The Cedar Lounge Revolution 
If I’m reading it right, that comment from Shane is talking about repeal of the 8th and opposition to the GFA set-up as points that would distinguish an alliance of forces to the left of Sinn Féin, not point where SF and the radical left would be in agreement.
LikeLike
You’re right, I misread it.
LikeLike
There is no prospect of Sinn Fein in government without Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. All the rest of the speculation, whether from Phoenix or from the minority of union bureaucrats who are transferring their affections to SF, is just hot air.
LikeLike
But will SF serve as the mudguard, or will it be FF/FG? In either case, the pressure on SF to decide that their left-populist talk was all just talk will be strong. The only way they might be kept away (or at least partially away) from doing the dirty Labour style would be if they were facing some kind of electoral pressure to their left. So maybe some kind of left slate, yes – but definitely no lash-up.
Another thing: what would count as a “break with neoliberalism”? And how long is a piece of string? Any grouping hoping to put pressure on SF would have to have a very clear, precisely defined set of propositions concerning what would or would not count as a “break with neoliberalism”.
LikeLike
Thanks MarkP for the excellent synopsis of the OP. 🙂
I think that makes a lot of sense Dr. X re the pressure on SF. And anything at all that persuades them that govt is a bad idea – even from simple self-preservation – in tandem with FF et al is good in my book including a slate to their left.
That’s also an excellent question re what represents a break with neoliberalism. Or what is achievable.
LikeLike
I wasn’t disagreeing with you, WbS. Just expressing a certain amount of exasperation with the people who keep talking up the possibility of some unspecified lash up between Sinn Fein and unspecified forces on an unspecified basis with unspecified goals.
Some of it is coming from SF partisans (like their PR department at Phoenix), hoping to drag some odds and ends in behind their party while marginalising the actual left. Some of it seems to be coming from the less right wing end of the union bureaucracy, hoping to make themselves into political players while the Labour/Jack O’Connor axis burns. And some of it comes from well meaning leftists, enthused by SYRIZA and imagining that it can simply be recreated in an entirely different context out of entirely different forces simply by wielding a mixture of superglue, blind optimism and unity-babble. All of it is lamentably vague.
LikeLike
After the election there should be between 10 and 20 left TDs independent or otherwise elected. The SP have clearly stated that they will not enter government until they have a majority. I would assume that some perhaps the majority of the others would be willing to think about entering government. If that Mayday conference provides a platform they have agreed on and perhaps Sinn Fein have agreed on why wouldn’t they enter government as the major partner with Fianna Fail, especially as Fianna Fail will concede a lot to get back into government buildings?
The only alternative government according to current polling is FF/FG, I would suspect that would be quite a rightwing pro austerity anti working class government. From a strategic perspective, if you’re into the electoral thing, there is a shift coming in Europe and a number of left parties or anti austerity coalitions on the verge of power. If the left abstain after the election and allow a straight right government to power how will that play out here and across Europe? Ireland under FF/FG would certainly provide no succour or support to Greece, Spain or anyone else for that matter. Thinking about 5 years of a FF/FG government doesn’t exactly cheer me up and after the hammering we’ve taken the last 7 years, people probably want a break.
Fianna Fail are utterly oppurtunist and can read the writing on the wall same as anyone they will happily coalesce with the left nationalists of SF and any left block for the ability to maintain their patronage machine, the only question really is will the left play with them and what’s the bottom line?
My money is on a rainbow coalition of FF and a some sort of left block containing Sinn Fein. That May conference may well write the program that’s brought to that table.
LikeLike
James, the Socialist Party doesn’t say it would never enter a government without a majority. It says it would never enter a government with capitalist parties. Now in practice a majority held by “workers parties” isn’t a much less distant prospect than one held by the SP on its own, but let’s be accurate.
As for the possibility of a “Sinn Fein bloc” involving SF and a few independents trailing in their wake emerging, that may well happen. The key question being what’s on offer to the independents in return for them sacrificing their independence. SF would certainly be willing to have a few camp followers about if it would help them present themselves to the gullible as a possible government. And also if it would help them further fudge the issue of coalition with FF – their laughable recent attempts to distinguish between an FF/SF coalition in which SF have a few more seats and one in which FF have a few more seats points in the direction in which they would like to head.
But your attempts to portray this as a “left bloc” rests on the assumption that some section of the actual left would be willing to make a bonfire of their own politics and go into government with Fianna Fáil and Sinn Fein. And nobody has yet adduced any evidence to suggest that anyone – even People Before Profit, probably the section of the left with the loosest grasp on principle – would be willing to do that.
Just to be clear, James, are you advocating an FF-SF-PBP-Ind government as some kind of step forward?
LikeLike
Wasn’t saying you were disagreeing, or indeed disagreeing with what you are saying, just a bit amused.
LikeLike
To answer your question first no I am not. I am at a disadvantage not knowing your identity, but as my name is on my post it isn’t hard to track me down or my political affiliation for that matter.
There is as you correctly assert no hard evidence of any alliance involving SF and assorted left independents emerging, only straws in the wind , rumours, whispers and speculation. It simply seems the logical outcome of contesting elections to secure power , unless of course it is simply to secure a platform or climb atop a dungheap to advocate for revolution (Lenin I think). The problem is that no left seat has been secured in the Dail on the votes of people who believed they were voting for revolution. So people have voted by and large for the left on the basis of what has been done and what platform has been put before them. I think if I voted for someone on that basis I’d expect that they would make some efforts to deliver and that is why I think the impetus will be on some TDs to take advantage of a possibility of making some gains for their voters. I suspect that’s what will happen and as I outlined above that’s how I think it will play out.
My use of the term “left block” isn’t as loaded as you think, merely convenient. For me left and revolutionary socialist are not interchangeable terms at all. The “bonfire of the politics” idea is interesting but what exactly is on the table is not clear, I suspect more than you would think and far less than any would hope, but maybe enough to tempt sufficient of the left (there that contested word again) indos in.
I would currently rank about 10 ind TDs amongst the left outside of your comrades but only in the broadest sense of the word.
By the way is the not entering government with capitalist parties just SP policy or CWI policy?
LikeLike
James, my affiliations are hardly a secret here! It was because I’m aware of your own affiliations that I asked if you were advocating an FF-SF-PBP-Ind government. Your arguments suggesting it as a possibility seemed to hint that you regarded it as not only possible but in some sense at least partially desirable. This would be somewhat surprising from an anarchist, but you never know until you check.
In answer to your question, not only is “no coalition with capitalist parties” a Socialist Party policy and also a CWI policy, it’s been the policy of just about every Trotskyist organisation in the world since the days of the Popular Front and before. Working class political independence is a core principle, much like opposition to socialism in one country, to the extent that it’s a defining feature. It’s not that it’s impossible for a Trotskyist organisation to abandon that principle, but doing so is a major departure which has always signalled a general shift in political outlook and in every case has led to both large rows and a split. Ten years as People Before Profit has undoubtedly reshaped the SWP’s politics, but it seems very unlikely that they have changed to that degree – particularly in a country where anti-coalitionism has been an important element of left wing thinking well beyond the Trotskyist and Marxist left for decades.
Essentially, I think that you are letting anarchist prejudices about electoral politics and it’s associated pressures get in the way of understanding the politics of other left wing forces as they understand themselves. It’s not that you are wrong about the existence of such pressures (including the pressure to be “useful” within the rules of the parliamentary game), it’s that you assume that everyone will respond to that pressure in the same way. The SWP going into an FF-SF government would be the single biggest departure from their own politics, theory and tradition that they’ve ever engaged in, by far.
The issue is different for various, ahem, “centre left” independents. For many of them there wouldn’t be any issues of principle involved, just the question of whether SF can offer them enough to make it worth their while to become junior members if an SF bloc. As such, it’s more likely at least if SF are willing to offer them something they want and if they make a calculation that it’s in their own electoral interests. Whether it will actually happen is hard to predict, given the varied nature of the independents involved, but it may well do so.
LikeLike
The Left should do all it can to make a FG/FF government happen, then take it down not become embroiled with the criminal conspiracy that is FF, and if SF want to back them up its only Frankistein returning to is ideological and financial creator.
LikeLike
There will be shag all difference between between FF/FG or FF/SF or FG/SF – it will be a government of the elites irrespective of whether any of the ‘left’ is involved.
LikeLike
Given the class make-up of SF’s membership and support, isn’t it a little glib and (dare I say) undialectical to lump SF in with FF and FG as a party of the elites? I’m not suggesting that you should have any illusions about SF’s senior leadership, but there needs to be serious analysis of the left’s tactical and strategic approach to its relationship with a movement that is about to achieve the greatest electoral success in the history of the state of a predominantly working class organisation. Whatever about the reliability of the anti-austerity politics of SF’s leadership, there can be little doubt that SF’s voters are overwhelmingly anti-austerity.
LikeLike
The coalition decision will not be made by the ranks of SF or the people who voted for them on the pretext of SF being austerity critical. The decision will be made by the leaðership who have engaged in a similar coalition in the North.
I am not suggesting that it is inevitable that SF will be in e next government – they may tactically opt out this time around. But it is inevitable at a certain point in time that SF will go into coalition – and from the perspective of the leadership it would suit them to have FF (or FG) as their partners.
The SF leadership will use all the same arguments that the LP leaders made for decades every time they went into coalition. SF will claim things will be different for them – but they will not. SF will want a ‘partner’ as an excuse for watering down their policies (in exactly the same way that the leaders of SYRIZA welcomed a deal with their coalition buddies). Once you commit to managing capitalism then capitalism will determine the policies to be implemented.
LikeLike
“SF will want a ‘partner’ as an excuse for watering down their policies (in exactly the same way that the leaders of SYRIZA welcomed a deal with their coalition buddies).”
JRG, whatever about SF, I think you’re completely misreading the situation in Greece, which is almost the exact opposite of what you say. If they had wanted an excuse for watering down their policies on the Memorandum, the logical thing to do would have been to form a coalition with To Potami. ANEL was a party that was right-wing but anti-Memorandum; that was their whole reason for existence in fact. This is what someone from Syriza’s left wing who opposed the coalition deal had to say about it:
“We don’t agree with making an alliance with ANEL. It isn’t mainly because ANEL is tied up with the Greek Orthodox Church or that it is a hard-line Greek nationalist party. All this is true, but the main problem is that the presence of ANEL inside a government of the left will be the transmission belt for the ruling class to put more pressure on the government. That’s why we opposed the agreement with ANEL from the beginning, and why you can be sure that we will be the first to push for kicking the ANEL founder, Panos Kammenos, out of the government when this becomes possible . . .
“I think that Tsipras made the agreement with the Independent Greeks because he wanted to form a government the next day after the elections. If he was obliged to move in the way we proposed—to wait for two weeks until the new session of parliament opened and seek a vote of tolerance for SYRIZA to govern alone—that would have meant the prime minister from New Democracy, Antonis Samaras, would have remained in place for two weeks, and been in a position to organize some very damaging things, like a bank run or closing some large enterprises in order to create a climate of panic. And that might have created the conditions for parliament not to accept the result of the elections. So I think that Tsipras moved so quickly because he was afraid that two weeks is a long and dangerous time in conditions like these. That’s why the discussion about ANEL is calmer inside Greece. Everybody knows that this is problem, but it is a problem we can confront. There are more dangerous threats for the left than ANEL’s presence in the government.”
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3871
And a similar take from another left critic of the Syriza leadership:
“It was a pragmatic choice, corresponding to the given constraints of the current moment. Syriza knew that it would face a very difficult situation, and it needed a majority in Parliament. Since the Greek Communist Party has for many years refused any sort of political coalition with Syriza, the only possible allies were on the Right or centre-Right. And Syriza was sure to avoid the trap of allying with To Potami. This party is totally a creature of the system. It presents itself as a ‘joker’, ready to participate in absolutely any governing coalition. Moreover, that is why foreign media constantly posed To Potami as an alternative, thinking that this party would force Syriza to make concessions.
“That is precisely what Syriza wanted to avoid, and that is why it chose to ally with a party that would not cause it any difficulties in its negotiations to get rid of the Memorandum. So if Syriza makes any retreats – as is the case at the moment – then it only has itself to blame. The whole media campaign against Syriza presenting ANEL as a far-Right and xenophobic party – speaking of a ‘Red-Brown’ coalition, like [the Le Monde journalist] Mr. Quatremer, for example – sought to punish Syriza for refusing to ally with To Potami and thus to conform to the system’s demands.”
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3901
So they can’t blame ANEL for their failure to get a better deal (if anything, the deal they came back with this week might cause problems for their coalition). As far as I can see, it’s much more a case of them overestimating their ability to exploit divisions among the various players on the other side of the table, and not being ready to use the ultimate threat of pulling out of the euro.
LikeLike
You got that right Red!
LikeLike
I think JRG is right about how SF would behave in government. My point is a different one: that, while SF may not be THE workers’ movement, it is most certainly a movement of workers. SF’s voters (and many of its members) would of necessity form the backbone of any successful mass movement of the left in Ireland. The left needs to find a way to take advantage of the fact that SF has created the largest ever concentration of working class voters in the history of the state, whether that is in the context of an ultimate sell-out by SF leadership or otherwise.
LikeLike
That’s a very good point re base of SF support.
LikeLike
With anything from 3 months to 14 months to an election, the prospect of a government governing from the left rather than the right is a genuine possibility. But it isn’t going to materialise on its own so someone has to begin talking to move it forward.
The reality is that the next election is not going to produce a government that is further to the left without SF. If some on the left are happy to sit on the margins and watch the continuous return of right of center governments, that’s fine but don’t expect not to be criticised for doing so. Given the chance of disrupting the historic trend of returning governments of the right, there is an argument (and more to be gained collectively), at least in the short term, for building a broad consensus instead of staying aloof from one. Fruitlessly burning off energy and political capital in squabbles about legitimacy among the left is a much-loved spectator sport for those on the right.
Regardless of what some people are saying here, SF won’t enter government with either FG or FF as senior partner and it definitely won’t go in as the mudguard. Similarly citing the north and GFA institutions as a parallel for anything here is (i) ignoring the very much less than ideal context in which ‘governance’ takes place in the north and (ii) assuming that that pressures driving SF participation solely come from the leadership rather than from the very real fears of grassroots communities for what the likes of the DUP are capable of doing if SF walked away. Those communities have long experience of that and dismissing what are supposed to be checks and balances to prevent that as a ‘sectarian carve-up’ suggests no understanding of the reasons for the design principles behind the GFA institutions – acknowledging what the design principles were and why they where there isn’t the same as condoning them.
I think the electoral maths may be some of the actual reasoning behind the talks at the minute. Regardless of how candidates get badged – the real issue (in purely electoral terms) is we currently will have a heavily dispersed left slate including a diversity of independents. As well as consuming time in internecine rivalries, this will inevitably lead to both slippage in transfers and the absence of a coherent political offering – the dominance of FG and FF revolved around substantial block votes (and gerrymandering constituencies to 3, 4 and 5 seats as it suited). If current opinions polls were reflected in an election, FG will trade at around mid-20s and FF around 20%, a far cry from both’s historic level of 40%+. If the electorate in a constituency is presented with a left slate of SF, AAA, PBP, like-minded independents etc with no clear direction as to who can project a role for themselves in forming a government the risk is:
(a) system justification will see them continue to simply vote FF-FG and even Lab due to some vague notion of stability and the devil they know,
(b) a lack of vote management even in terms of looking at candidate selection on that side of the slate never mind transfers etc and,
(c) that the evidence of an absence of communication and co-operation in coalescing a government around a left programme will result in an inability to effectively challenge the capacity of the centre right to dominate electoral politics regardless of whether that reflects the wishes of the people.
The potential success is in offering a structured electoral choice that might achieve the necessary seats on a constituency-by-constituency basis to return a majority. And its not hard to see how a political programme, including repeal of the 8th etc could be achieved.
Critically, the electorate’s evidential base for the effectiveness of a broad left coalition will have to be demonstrated from now until the general election (whenever that happens – could be as early this May if Irish Water falls as The Examiner insists). Over the same period the right, through the media and from FG-FF-Lab (who, as has been shown, will transfer well to each other) will continually promote the idea that a government of the left wouldn’t work. The best way to dismiss that propaganda will be in publicly demonstrating how the left can co-operate to deliver a left programme for government. This would also build confidence in supporting candidates promoting that programme government among the public who will be assaulted by continuous spin claiming the opposite.
Strategically there is a genuine opportunity here to agree a programme, a modus operandi and an electoral strategy. Agreeing the detail of tactics at constituency level would maximise the return in terms of seats. In mathematical terms, every piece of effective preparation that enhances the chances of returning 3 left candidates instead of 2 from a 5 seater etc will add up in the final Dail arithmetic. It would also provide a rallying point for some who would contribute time and energy to campaigns but don’t simply because they can’t decide who to work with. If we want to enthuse people and build momentum behind a government which a left wing programme it needs to emerge from somewhere and soon.
And this wasn’t meant to be a long post, but we could have an election sprung on us if Irish Water collapses in April and we may have missed the opportunity to create something worthwhile here.
LikeLike
“With anything from 3 months to 14 months to an election, the prospect of a government governing from the left rather than the right is a genuine possibility.”
The first sentence of your post is a fantasy. Nothing based on that premise is worth engaging with.
LikeLike
I was at the TU Repeal the 8th quiz in Teachers Club last night and a question came up asking where the name of this blog came from – we gave “a pub in Raheny” and got it right. So I dropped in afterwards – to see a post talking about a facebook status of mine! Surreal!
What I’m saying is any left intervention *has to* factor in how we use Sinn Fein’s 20-odd percent for maximum impact – but that equally must have precondition of Sinn Fein publicly and unconditionally ruling out coalition with the right well in advance.
Basically that means a united left bloc running independently of SF and being critical of it – but being publicly open about giving supporting votes from the outside to a SF minority government which would have a SYRIZA-esque programme with a confrontation with the debt and thus austerity, neoliberalism central. If they are the Irish SYRIZA, then let them justify to the water charges movement what about breaking with neoliberalism – in concrete terms – they have a problem with. It’s not abstract propagandism or issuing ultimatums as a means of denouncing or exposing SF. They are a bag of contradictions, and in the south an organisation in flux and *not* of the establishment(pick up a Sindo). Sinn Fein being elected on anything like a Thessaloniki Programme, adding to a destablisation of the ‘extreme centre’ in Europe would be an important victory internationally – that’s the best way, the only way, of leveraging that possibility into reality with what we have.
It can be tempting to join in the feel-good buzz and moralise the radical left into a coalition as if it was a direct transposition of the coming to power of SYRIZA in Greece – and minimise what that would mean in practice. If you can imagine a looser, less principled approach, a shared minimum programme – a de facto transfer pact – that will squeeze out the junior partner of the actual left, genuinely risking the actual left’s electoral presence as an on-going concern(why vote for ragbags making promises they can’t implement when SF can form government and are proposing the same things). And *then* for SF, seeing they could form a government with Fianna Fail, to dump us the day after the vote. For whatever its faults, our fractured radical left would be obliterated setting us back decades. Calls for a left government, broad left, the left, an Irish SYRIZA etc – cannot be mentioned without the programmatic content of what that means. When SF say a “left alliance” – how committed to it are they as a strategy and what are they actually proposing?
LikeLike
Would a broad ‘left’ pre-election platform make Sinn Fein more transfer friendly and increase the chances it could form a coalition with Fianna Fail as the junior partner?
LikeLike
we could risk leaving the field clear to this lot https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/is-this-the-dawn-of-a-new-independents-day-1.2123438
LikeLike