The internet/social media, even traditional media, is very deceptive in terms of how a spotlight is pulled onto a certain area and focused on it. Hence all those calls for a PD MkII, or in its newer iteration a far right party.
The fact we haven’t had one is taken as indicative that we should have one. But that’s a curious way of looking at Irish politics. By the same logic we should have had a large social democratic party, and yet we never did, and while some talked of us having one I don’t recall there being much of a push in the commentariat for such a party.
So for class and other reasons the direction of travel is clear – politics to the right is embraced, seen as ’normal’, and if that politics tilts rightwards, that is quite natural, if at times unfortunate.
By contrast, politics to the left is seen as abnormal, and those smaller parties who do not fall in line with this dynamic, in terms of, say, coalition building which always supports the right, are ’not playing senior hurling’.
That elections have demonstrated an enduring, and arguably increasing, left vote is ignored. Even the simple reality that the Labour Party (to take just one example) has survived the predictions of its demise and seemingly radicalised its position on a number of areas is similarly ignored. That the Social Democrats can increase their poll rating into double digits is unremarked, though that’s no small achievement at a time when Sinn Féin is also increasing their poll rating. That the cumulative left vote, even of those three parties alone, outweighs that of the government parties similarly is of little interest to a commentariat that almost overwhelmingly trends right at all times.
It has been noted in comments how few openly left wing newspaper columnists there are and too often there’s a sort of confusion between liberal and left-wing in this area. Sure, there are liberal columnists, and a fair number of them but that liberalism tends, much of the time to be in social areas. Less evident is a willingness to address, let alone question, economic tropes.
Consider a quite remarkable fact that was put to me recently. Two Iona members have regular newspaper columns. Sure, one could argue that one of them is economically slightly more progressive than the other, but putting that aside, one would search in vain for their equivalent from a left wing background. Also worth noting that the confusion between liberal and left-wing (a confusion in part imported from elsewhere) has been quite expedient in terms of marginalising those whose focus is economically left-wing.
All this has an impact.
The near idiotic line that we have a left-wing government or that the governing parties are essentially ‘social democrat’ is trotted out as if it is an eternal truth, the fact that the state spends money somehow validating that idea. That this is the most facile of analyses is ignored, it’s apparently too complex to consider that how a state spends its money is as important and often more so than that it does so (and one need only look at the US for an example of massive military expenditures). For example, the situation in housing where grants and support for the private sector – an approach that has failed time and again, is chosen instead of placing the weight of the state behind house building directly. No leftist would argue that the former approach is left wing but somehow commentator after commentator in our media appears unapologetic about doing so.
Similarly with health, similarly with cost of living measures. The list continues.
Pat Leahy had his single transferable column on just this matter the other day where he wrote:
How many times have you heard or seen a news programme that follows this template: a story about failures in public services, supported by testimony from people of how they have been failed, and experts that point out the need for further State investment; Opposition TDs and interest groups amplifying the call for further spending; followed by a Minister insisting that the Government has actually spent lots but is committed to spending more.
Why does nobody ever say: Woah! Hold on! There are financial constraints here. We can’t have everything we want when we want it.
No: the solution is always: spend more public money.
And:
To reiterate a point repeatedly made here: if there is a shock to the public finances, the people hurt the most will be the most vulnerable, because they rely on the State most. The parties who purport to speak for their interests should be the ones most concerned at the precariousness of our fiscal and budgetary model. The opposite is the case.
But the responsibility for running stable, sustainable and resilient public finances is the Government’s.
Yes, it is important to understand the pressures on politicians. Yes, voters clamour for more spending. Yes, our political culture seems irretrievably short-termist. But ultimately, if it all goes pear-shaped, “they made me do it” is not a defence to anything.
Note how this is framed as voters ‘clamouring’ for more spending, seemingly unreasonably in their short-termism. What Leahy et al ignore is that this is a state with a history of chronic underinvestment in public services, infrastructure and other areas such as health, education and so on. Simply to catch up with our peers demands huge expenditures, not to mention (though tellingly he doesn’t) a significantly increased population which brings with it its own pressures on all the above. Remarkably, he talks about ‘how we can’t have everything we want when we want it’. But given that so little was afforded to citizens across those many decades, that’s a thin defence for a state which as he notes himself is vastly more wealthy than it has ever been. And it’s not just an aversion to expenditure.
There is this too from him:
There are practically never any calls in the Dáil for the Government to spend less: only to spend more. Almost the entirety of our political debate revolves around demanding that the Government spend more money.
On and on it goes, every day, every week: more spending is the only solution to every problem facing the country. Never reform; never a change in priorities; never getting more from existing spending. Just more, more, more.
What are the alternative ‘solutions’? Private sector interventions that as we have seen here and abroad appear designed to fleece the state? Not a good idea. Making do without? Really? In a complex society that needs stability and security for citizens given how much is given over to private interests? At root the argument seems to be one where those ingrates asking for more will only waste it. Not that we need – in order to provide some pretty basic elements of life: housing, health, education, welfare and yes, opportunity for work – a state that can and does spend money as necessary.
Notable also is how this framing places certain approaches outside the political norm. You want a state led construction company, you want nationalised health care, you think state education for all is a positive, you think rents should be regulated with the long term welfare of those who must pay rent in mind, you wish to maintain services under public control and ownership? Think again, that’s crazy talk. Spend-thrift madness, at best.
But don’t worry, our ‘centrist’, even left-of-centre Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties, will ensure all is well. And if they don’t, what matter if those further to the right enter the picture? After all, apparently that’s the real void in Irish politics, despite this being a state where there has – let us remind ourselves, never been a left-led, let alone entirely left-wing comprised, government. Where the closest was a patchy coalition led by our slightly more right of centre party with Labour and Democratic Left. Many of us were there at the time to see that. It was not the dawn of a socialist millennium. It was hardly distinguishable from governments that came before and governments that came after.
In a way this is an expedient line. The state is spending too much! The governing parties are governing like social democrats! That’s why the state is spending too much! There’s no difference between FG and FF and SF and the LP and SDs! Why bother voting for the latter three? Stop complaining! And on and on it goes.
Tue 17 Feb 2026
17:30 arrival for refreshments | 18:00–19:30 seminar
Collective Architecture, 13 Bath Street, Glasgow
Register now 
The Cedar Lounge Revolution 