| All Articles |
| Articles By Author |
| Articles By Magazine |
| Articles By Subject |
| Full Text Search |
| Aubane Historical Society |
| The Heresiarch Website |
| Athol Books Online Sales |
| Athol Books Home Page |
| Archive Of Articles From Church & State |
| Archive Of Editorials From Church & State |
| Archive Of Articles From Irish Political Review |
| Archive Of Editorials From Irish Political Review |
| Belfast Historical & Educational Society |
| Athol Books Secure Online Sales |
| Irish Writer Desmond Fennell |
| The Bevin Society |
| David Morrison's Website |
Subscribe Securely To
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| From: Irish Political Review: Editorials |
| Date: June, 2014 |
| By: Editorial |
The Future of Labour |
The Future of Labour What contribution can the Labour Party make to the economic and social development of the country? That is the question the candidates for leader of the Labour Party must ask themselves. Going into the recent election the Labour Party presented itself as a defender of the social welfare budget against Fine Gael attacks. There is some truth in the claim, but the Government's insensitive handling of discretionary medical cards left the electorate unimpressed. Since Fine Gael has never claimed to be 'welfarist', it was always likely that the Junior Partner would suffer the most from the electorate's wrath. But the die was cast before the 2011 election. The threat of burning the senior bondholders and rejecting "Frankfurt's Way" has only credibility if leaving Europe and the Euro is contemplated. The former advisor to Michael McDowell, Cormac Lucey, spelt out the implications a few years ago in the Sunday Business Post. It would involve draconian cuts in public expenditure in order to achieve a balanced budget since credit would cease to be available. No individual or party of the Left was prepared to engage with these realities. But it was left to the Labour Party in government to demonstrate the emptiness of such rhetoric. Joan Burton, one of the candidates, has quipped that leading the Labour Party is more difficult than being President of the United States. After the disastrous local and European elections it would be churlish to deny her some sympathy, but it is not true! At least the new Labour leader will not be weighed down by the burden of expectation. Mere survival will be an achievement. A 15% vote in the next General Election would be seen as a Houdini-like recovery after the 7% in the recent elections, even if it would be less than the 19% it garnered in the 2011 General Election. Unlike Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and now Sinn Féin, Labour is under no pressure to please everyone. It now has an opportunity of sharpening its profile. In the process it should not be afraid of alienating a significant portion of the electorate (and even some of its members!). Remember, a mere 15% would be a spectacular recovery. As things stand, it is very difficult to find a reason to vote Labour. Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are unlikely to cut welfare as they struggle to win the working class vote. And the Labour Party does not hold the patent for the liberal agenda (if it ever did). All parties favour same sex marriage. Since the Labour Party, under Gilmore, was unwilling or unable to confront Europe; it should now make a virtue out of the necessity. About ten years ago Mary Harney brilliantly defined the political choice facing Ireland as being between "Boston and Berlin". Well, the Labour Party should declare itself to be unambiguously in favour of Berlin and opposed to the Anglo-Saxon agenda. Labour should not only say it, but mean it. The criterion of Boston or Berlin should determine all its policy positions. This would place Labour in the mainstream of the national tradition. Roger Casement saw independence as a means of re-connecting with continental Europe. James Connolly believed that the German social system was superior to the British. And what was true of 1914 is even more true today. In this regard the Labour Party should insist that a representative of the German State (preferably Angela Merkel) be present at the 1916 celebrations as a representative of our "gallant allies" in Europe. Social Partnership was introduced in this country following a conversation between the German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and Charles Haughey. The Labour Party should never be afraid to defend and deepen the institutions of Social Partnership in this country. If Social Partnership contributed to the boom, there is no doubt that the bursting of the property bubble was the main factor in the crash. Indeed, this could be said of the United States as well. Sub prime lending was credit extended to people who could not afford to own their own homes. Germany does not have booms and bust in her property market. Only 40% of German householders own their own homes compared to about 70% in this country. Unexpectedly, the issue of homelessness became an issue in the most recent elections. The Labour Party's response should have the following elements. Firstly, there should be an increased investment in public housing in conjunction with NAMA. Secondly, it should seek to abolish all tax reliefs and incentives for homeownership. There is no good social reason why homeownership should be encouraged. Thirdly, the private rental market should be tightly regulated. Such regulation would include rent controls, tenant rights and maintenance obligations. Also, pension funds should be encouraged to invest in residential property. There are far too many amateur landlords involved in the private rental sector. This policy would sharply distinguish the party from Fine Gael, which believes that residential property should be left to the whims of the market. Fourthly, the Labour Party should be defending property charges rather than blaming the Troika or the previous Government. There is an unanswerable economic and social case for property taxes. The Labour Party should be making that case. All of this is not to suggest that Labour should be passive in relation to Europe. Over 20 years ago Ireland made a significant contribution to a united Germany which was opposed by Thatcher. Mitterrand, Kohl and Delors realised that Ireland was no longer the feeble ally of Britain and was rewarded handsomely with billions from the Social Fund. Being pro-Europe means encouraging moves towards greater cooperation and integration, which are prerequisites for the survival of the Euro. It means opposing the "Atlanticist" tendency represented by Britain which sees uncontrolled expansion of Europe as a means towards undermining its internal political coherence. At the present time Labour faces in Sinn Féin a formidable opponent in a crowded political landscape. If it is to survive it must be daring and radical. Otherwise it will deserve to be consigned to unlamented oblivion. Anthony McIntyre vs. Boston College. Pat Walsh The Future Of Labour. Editorial Election Results. Editorial Shatter's West British Acts. Comment Gaybo's Little Skirmish At The GPO. John Morgan (Lt. Col. Retd.) The White Nigger Controversy Re-Emerges. John Martin 'Catastrophe'. Wilson John Haire (Review of Pat Walsh's 'Catholic Predicament In Northern Ireland', Vol. 1) Readers' Letters: France & Sanctions On Russia. Manus O'Riordan The Ukraine Crisis. Eamon Dyas Countdown. Wilson John Haire (Poem) Shorts from the Long Fellow (Private Versus Socialised Wealth; The Anglo Trial; Stimulus Package) Dunmanway And Reviews. Brendan Clifford Conspiracy Theories And The Elusive Crossley Tender. Manus O'Riordan (Some Collinses And Somervilles, Part 5) Does It Stack Up? Michael Stack (Gardaí And Drugs; Democracy And Voting) The Irish People Lose The Trust Of Labour In Government. Manus O'Riordan Why The Guilds Failed. Rev. George Clune. Mondragon, Part 30 |