Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button Linkedin button

Skip to content

Friday, Feb 3rd 2012


A Missed Opportunity

Recently on South Belfast Diary I leaked the draft Section 8 of Labour’s 21st Century Commission, dealing with Party organisation in Northern Ireland. Since 2002, the Irish Labour Party has allowed membership in the North. We have actively participated in conferences and have had an NEC co-opted member, Mark Langhammer. More to the point, we have kept a branch going, despite being in the difficult position of not being permitted to stand in elections.

At the Wexford conference last November, we agreed to modify a resolution requesting that we should be able to stand candidates in local government elections only, as it had been made clear to us that it would not be passed. Instead, we agreed to participate in a Commission to look at the future of the Party in NI, running parallel to the 21st Century Commission which is looking at the overall future direction of the Party.

The Northern Ireland Commission has been at best lacklustre. Chaired by Ruairi Quinn, it has done very little except hold a meeting with the SDLP. Many of us suspected that it was a cosmetic exercise, and we have been proved right. The 21st Century Commission has now decided what should be done about NI, without any apparent input from the NI Commission. When this was raised with Eamon Gilmore, it was made clear that Northern members will not be permitted to expand their activities to include standing for election.

The draft paper does, however, stop short of making either of the two proposals that follow from its arguments:

  • When the SDLP was founded, Northern members were instructed to join. The paper should recommend returning to this position, and that separate membership of the Irish Labour Party will not be permitted in Northern Ireland.
  • Alternatively, given that the paper is heavy on the nation-building project, the most logical recommendation is that Labour and the SDLP should merge.

Of course either would be problematic, and it’s unlikely that the Fianna Fáil wing of the SDLP would agree to no. 2. But they reflect the reality of Labour’s position on Northern Ireland.

Section 8 Overview

The document begins with a bizarre few paragraphs, taking up a speech made by Mark Durkan to Labour’s 2006 conference, in which the well-known ‘cherish all the children equally’ line from the Proclamation is turned into an all-Ireland proposal for a covenant for children and young people, to be achieved by 2016. This section appears to be part of a broader covenant proposal as it refers to other chapters in the report. This strange introduction allows the authors to state firmly from the outset that Labour’s most important political relationship in NI is with the SDLP. All-Ireland policy is to be developed through a partitionist approach to political organisation.

Following a potted history of Northern Ireland and the founding of the SDLP which insults the intelligence, the paper’s most substantial section is based on the question: ‘Should the Irish Labour Party follow Fianna Fáil and consider organising in the North?’. The Commission seems unaware that Labour already has Northern members. The Commission’s view is that ‘Northern Ireland is not a fully normalised society’ (which I cannot deny) and that therefore the status quo should prevail (which does not necessarily follow).

But the killer argument here is that Irish Labour should not organise in NI even if the SDLP were to merge with Fianna Fáil. As Garibaldy points out, Labour is hoping to use some kind of unique PES mechanism to engineer a new party that would also allow dual membership of the Irish and British Labour Parties. Thoroughly confusing, but again the underlying message is clear - we are having nothing to do with political organisation in the North.

The document is obviously written by committee, so now another author comes in, I suspect, and thinks this has all been rather too negative. Having stated earlier that ‘we are not at all convinced that parties based in either Dublin or London have any real or significant contribution to make to Northern Ireland politics’, we are now told that ‘we all of us need to address rather than exacerbate the structural divisions within Northern Ireland.’ We need ‘a new accommodation, a new framework and a new form of words’, which is to be achieved by, er, working within the existing political framework and doing absolutely nothing to promote change. The overall message is that Labour will follow rather than lead in NI politics. That is why it is a missed opportunity.

Some Specific Points

‘We share the same philosophical views with the SDLP’

Is this true? Northern members see ourselves as a cross-community party and if we were in a position to designate in the Assembly, we would be very firmly in the ‘other’ camp. We are a secular party with strong ties to the trades unions, a position we believe to be shared by members in the South.

Although we recognise the historical oppression and suffering that was involved in the British colonisation of Ireland, we do not believe that a united Ireland is integral to a democratic socialist ideology at the present time, for two reasons. First, the principle of unity by consent is widely accepted amongst political parties on these islands and provides a mechanism for reunification should it be desired. Second, the choice available to Northern Ireland people today is to be part of one of two capitalist states, neither of which will intrinsically benefit the working class.

A move by the Irish Labour Party into Northern electoral politics, albeit only at local level, would have provided an opportunity to reflect on what Irish nationalism - and nationalism more generally - means in the 21st century context of globalisation, EU membership, UK devolution and the Good Friday Agreement, and in an era where many people’s identity is not determined exclusively by their place of birth.

Joint organisation and policy-making

The very odd mention of the children’s ‘covenant’ at the start of the paper does raise an important point about joint policy-making in the two jurisdictions. It is clear in post-GFA Ireland that no-one objects to a wide range of all-Ireland policies and that an all-Ireland approach makes sense economically, socially and culturally.

However, having indicated a wish to be involved in Northern policy, the paper proposes a partitionist solution, namely that this involvement should take place through a link with another party. The obvious alternative is to work with members of the same party on all-Ireland policy positions based on common value statements that can be operationalised differently in the two jurisdictions.

The hand of history

The paper provides an appalling thumbnail sketch of the start of the Troubles: ‘the civil rights movement, the Orange opposition, Stormont intransigence, the arrival of politically motivated violence and the imposition of direct rule from London’. Well, first, the civil rights movement was not initially about nationalism but about rights within NI, which the protestors wanted to gain from the British state. Presumably the offensive reference to ‘Orange’ opposition is shorthand for unionist or perhaps loyalist resistance. The opposition to the civil right movement was not restricted to members of the Orange Order but was more fundamental and widespread, and probably did a great deal of damage to Faulkner’s attempts to liberalise the NI state, which of course he lost - but the story of ‘Stormont intransigence’ is more complex than is presented here. No-one would argue with the tragedy of the arrival of politically motivated violence, but the ‘imposition’ of direct rule from London in 1972 was surely an acknowledgement in Westminster both that the Protestant-run state in NI could not be allowed to continue (for example, see Peter Rose’s book) and that closer control of the public order situation was required. We are also treated to a short, selective history of the SDLP, including the undoubted contributions of Paddy Devlin and Gerry Fitt but without adding that Devlin was expelled in 1977 and Fitt left in 1980, both claiming that the SDLP had ceased to be a socialist force. Surprisingly, this section says nothing about John Hume’s role in the peace process.

But what we need, and don’t get, is an analysis of the current position of the SDLP in NI politics. This omission allows the paper to completely avoid the question of the SDLP’s inability to represent socialists who are not Irish nationalists. In addition, the SDLP has no formal links with the trades unions and has been hinting at a merger with another party, which is not a PES/ SI member. These factors show the tensions within the SDLP between nationalism and socialism, which need to be acknowledged and addressed as part of any serious attempt to advocate the SDLP as the single, over-arching democratic socialist party for Northern Ireland.

The paper also needs to consider why the Labour Party has Northern members at all, which of course means reference to Democratic Left, North and South. There is no mention of the small but growing ‘third strand’ in NI politics and society, consisting of people who choose not to base their politics on territorial issues, and where Labour’s Northern members situate themselves. Indeed, the authors appear to be unaware of this.

Communal divisions, designation and ‘normal’ politics

Labour’s Northern members come from both nationalist and unionist backgrounds, and from elsewhere. What we have in common is that we are democratic socialists. We have seen the Northern Ireland Executive’s communal divisions fail to address the bread and butter issues that are of increasing concern to people at the present time, most recently through the Executive failing to meet for months due to the dispute overt the devolution of policing and justice powers. We recognise the complexity of Irish identity in the 21st century and, along with other ‘third strand’ parties such the Greens and Alliance, we see our contribution to NI politics as being to create new democratic spaces rather than to rehash the old, unproductive arguments and divisions.

The paper’s weak grasp of NI politics includes the assumption that designation is necessary for electoral activity at local level. Designation is only required in the Assembly, and we were not proposing to stand for the Assembly at this stage. The paper’s authors seem to be unaware that there is a third option for Assembly designation, as set out in Clause 6 of the Good Friday Agreement:

…members of the Assembly will register a designation of identity - nationalist, unionist or other…..

If Labour were to stand in Assembly elections, we would designate as ‘other’ - this is fundamental to our political philosophy: ‘part of both, excluded from neither’.

The paper is contradictory, as on the one hand it talks about the need to address structural divisions in NI but aligns itself firmly with one communal bloc. The most significant indication that Labour sees itself as having no role whatsoever in Northern electoral politics comes with the proposal that, should the SDLP merge with Fianna Fáil, a complicated system involving a separate party with optional additional membership of the British and Irish Labour Parties is proposed. Although an SDLP/ FF merger is now unlikely, the scenario is revealing. While it’s true that any democratic socialist party in NI needs good links with both parties, there is no reason why it can’t be done through membership of one and strong connections with the other.

The paper is correct in saying that NI is not ‘a fully normalised society’ and of course from this follows the fact that politics is also not ‘normalised’. However, we don’t actually know what ‘normal’ politics would look like in NI, and it would be wrong to assume that it would be structured like either England, Scotland, Wales or the Irish Republic. Politics in NI may evolve differently, and given the complexity of the territorial issue, cross-border political organising may become a feature. What we do know is that politics based on a divisive UK or Irish nationalist ideology is inadequate for dealing with the problems of the 21st century. Northern Ireland needs a party that will stand up for all working people as part of an international movement for workers’ rights - surely, Labour is that party.

What does the Party want?

Northern members have found, over the past two years or so, that grass roots members in the South have been sympathetic to an expansion into NI electoral politics. We have had resolutions of support passed by Labour Youth and Labour Women. We have always felt welcomed at conferences and, indeed, held a well attended and comradely fringe meeting at the Wexford conference where a very open debate was held.

The 21st Century Commission sent a questionnaire to all Party members including a question about organisation in the North. The results should have been included in the paper.

What next?

Irish Labour has turned firmly away from an all-Ireland political agenda, thus missing an opportunity to shape political events in Northern Ireland. The logic of the Commission’s position is that Labour should no longer allow membership in the North, unless as part of a longer term project to merge with the SDLP.

The question remains how all of Northern Ireland’ population can be given the opportunity to vote for a democratic socialist political party. The British Labour Party also allows membership but no electoral activity in the jurisdiction, and in my opinion it’s only a matter of time before they also refuse their members the chance to stand in elections. Both Labour Parties have put NI in the ‘too hard’ box, which means it’s up to those of us who live here to decide what to do next. For many, the answer will be ‘go home and watch TV’. But for others, 2009 requires much thought and discussion about the next steps.

Notes

With thanks to other members of the Northern Ireland Constituency Council, especially Mark Langhammer, Mary McMahon and David Morrison.

‘Not British or Irish’ Labour Party policy statement


Discussion

We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.

No comments so far

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required, will not be published)

Sins of the Father

Sins of the Father:

Tracing the Decisions

That Shaped the Irish Economy,

by Conor McCabe

from The History Press

Now Available as an e-Book.

Subscribe by Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



Irish Left Review on Facebook

Best of the Web

  • Ireland has one of the most attractive tax rates for fracking companies in the world

    Very important point made by Natural Gas Europe here (posted on Shell to Sea) about the licencing agreement around Shale Gas (Fracking) and needs to be understood in the context of the news today that Tamboran Resources initial exploration in  north Leitrim has found that they could ultimately reach 2.2 trillion cubic feet of gas, worth $55 billion at today’s prices. Meanwhile Pat Rabbitte has asked the EPA do an environmental study, but this is very, very unlikely to veer from the assessment of the European Commission consultancy study on licensing hydraulic fracturing which found that there is no need for specific new legislation governing the mining activity.

    Besides the environmental impact, the financial cost of both that gas line and the potential shale gas excavation has caused consternation. Currently, Ireland has one of the most attractive tax rates for companies in the world. Companies in Ireland are, in most cases, required to pay only 25 per cent corporation tax, a much lower rate than most other countries with possible shale gas reserves; Ireland also does not require companies to pay any royalties to the government on saleable gas. Tamboran, Lough Allen Natural Gas and Enegi may be required to pay between five and fifteen per cent over this rate, but, even at a higher rate, the gain for the government will be lower than for most other countries in comparable situations. Pundits and protestors alike say that the government is effectively giving away a valuable resource, owned by the Irish people, to outside companies, for very little in return.

    2 comments »
  • Conflict of interest is so deeply embedded in Ireland, no one seems to notice

    The cops were very swift to close down the demonstration in the NAMA building that  Unlock NAMA occupied on Saturday the 28th. They haven’t been as swift though to investigate Anglo Irish Bank. A big blow to that investigation is due, apparently, to the fact that the cop leading it went to work for Bank of Ireland. It is not unusual for people from the fraud squad to move into the private banking sector, we are told, just as we were told that it isn’t unusual for people to move from the regulators office or the Central Bank (when they were separate bodies) to the boards of private banks. Unlock NAMA revealed that the building they occupied was in a very bad state of repair. Add to that the difficulty in establishing that it was a NAMA building at all, considering that it was added to the foreclosure list incorrectly. This should open up discussion on what is happening to all the other NAMA buildings, at the very least. At the most there should be uproar about the massive stock of properties that NAMA controls the loans of which is being allowed to rot and devalue. These properties are being held on to simply to try and artificially hold the price on property and provide the means for future speculation.

    Senior garda fraud specialist retires to work for Bank of Ireland

    The senior garda detective who was in charge of the Anglo-Irish investigation for 18 months took early retirement at the end of last year and is now working with Bank of Ireland, it has emerged.

    Former detective superintendent Pat Collins, 52, was regarded as the Garda’s top expert in corporate fraud investigation. He spent much of his career in the Fraud Squad and before taking charge of the Anglo investigation he spent time on secondment with the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement working with its director, Paul Appleby.

    Former colleagues say his departure — on full pension after having served 30 years in the force — will be a major blow to the investigation.

    Coveney adviser’s patriotism stressed to secure special pay

    Elsewhere, Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney is in the news for asking for a €130,000 salary for his special advisor Fergal Leamy, a former chief executive of Greencore USA. The cap as we are well aware after all the breeches of it is €92,672. Leamy didn’t last long, despite Coveney pleading that he was desperate to do the state some service he left after four months. He got an offer from an equity firm in the London that he couldn’t refuse. However, the story also reveals that Simon  Coveney’s brother, Patrick Coveney is chief executive of Greencore. Of course Greencore has a long and controversial history, which Shane Ross referred to as a template for the worst excesses of corporate Ireland, a close rival to DCC.

    No comments »
  • Can We Still Write Big Question Sorts of Books? | David Graeber

    David Graeber and the model of his ‘popular’ yet scholarly book Debt: The First 5000 Years

    So: what was to be the model for a big questions sort of book, and how to write a book that would still be scholarly, but not academic?

    This is what I came up with:

    Of all the models I considered, the most amenable turned out to be the approach adopted by Marcel Mauss. This might seem odd. especially because Mauss never actually wrote a book; he’s mainly famous for a series of essays. Yet many of these essays-not just the Gift, but his essay on the person, techniques of the body (where he coins the term “habitus”), sacrifice and magic-really have had a profound effect both on all subsequent scholarship, and, to differing degrees, political and social debates ever since. Mauss had an uncanny ability to ask the right questions-often, questions he was the first to pose, and which have become mainstays of theoretical debate ever since. His was also an appealing model because Mauss was both a serious, committed activist (he was especially active in the French cooperative movement), and a scholar of remarkable erudition. His problem-and this, I suspect, is why he never did write a proper book, despite numerous attempts-was that he was also almost unimaginably disorganized, and therefore, terrible at exposition. I suspect if alive today he would have been quickly diagnosed with severe ADD.

    1 comment »
  • Irish ‘SOPA law’ another under the radar attack on digital rights by a craven government pandering far too easily to corporate interests

    Very strong and accurate piece from Karlin Lillington in the Irish Times today, making no bones about the motivations behind the changes in copyright law that Sean Sherlock and the Irish government are trying to sneak in. It’s odd at a time when the SOPA law in the US, which is similarly motivated to the Irish law, has just been dropped.

    FOR THREE governments in a row, “short-sighted” and “sneaky” seem to have become the relevant terms in operation when bringing in controversial, high-impact legislation on digital issues.

    In the past, from the government’s perspective, this approach has worked well in shoving in poorly drafted, unscrutinised law on the controversial area of data retention, giving the Republic one of the most severe, internationally criticised, anti-business retention regimes in the world.

    This time around, the Government is trying again to use secondary legislation - a statutory instrument requiring no discussion and no debate in the Oireachtas - to (supposedly) protect intellectual property for a narrow band of hard-lobbying entertainment industries.

    For despite what the ‘hard-lobbying entertainment industries’ might say internet piracy is not killing off its profits. That assumes for a start that the amount produced is static, which given the amount of ‘content’ flooding towards us each day is absurd.

    But more importantly, there is evidence (from numerous mainstream studies and reports) that industry claims about piracy decimating revenue, jobs and creativity are vastly overstated. A careful analysis of such claims by Julian Sanchez on Ars Technica ( iti.ms/wT8l02), picked up and further discussed by Forbesiti.ms/xQJXhg), indicates piracy has actually had only a minor impact on these industries.

    The record industry in the US, for example, has about double the new releases it had a decade ago, when piracy was barely on its radar. The film industry also has more releases now than in pre-piracy days and its most pirated movies are also those that made staggering box office profits. Sanchez cites evidence that the music industry is making back profits lost to piracy through “complementary purchases” such as concert tickets. And a recent report issued by a US anti-piracy lobby group rather farcically indicates its clients are doing quite well, thank you.

    3 comments »
  • Davos dilemma | Michael Roberts

    The majority of those at Davos think that Capitalism isn’t working, but don’t feel there is a need to change anything because its working rather well for them. It’s up to those not in the 1% then to change it.

    The strategists of capital are attending their annual jamboree in the snow playground of the super-rich in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Many of the top 0.1% of income earners are there. And this year the main theme is whether capitalism works and is fair.

    Capitalism is in crisis - and this time the word ‘crisis’ is not hyperbole. Even the 2600 attendees at Davos recognise that. According to a survey by the financial broadcaster, Bloomberg, almost 70% of those asked believed that the capitalist system is in trouble, with 32% saying it needs “radical reworking”. Less than 20% reckoned ‘free enterprise’ is working. Most Davos 0.1 percenters are really worried that this failure of capitalism to work could lead to ’social instability’ in one form or another.

    And more than half who were asked at Davos thought that inequality of income and wealth under capitalism was damaging economic growth. But only one in five wanted any urgent action on the issue! It seems that greed triumphs over economic logic - or should we say, class interest rules

    No comments »
  • The Promissory Notes | Tom McDonnell

    Economist Tom McDonnell of TASC provides a brief primer on IBRC promissory notes, which is available on Slideshare. Click here to view it in it’s own web page.

    No comments »
  • Michael Taft talks to Doug Henwood of Left Business Observer about the Irish Economy| 7th of January

    Michael Taft talks to Doug Henwood of Behind the News in a detailed 30 minute discussion about the Irish economy which was posted on the 7th of Jan. The second half of the show is given over to a discussion with Jodi Dean about Occupy Wall Street and ‘demands’. It’s also worth reading Jodi Dean’s article on Occupy Wall Street and the Left which was published today on Critical Legal Thinking.

    MP3 Link.

    [display_podcast]

    No comments »
  • What are bankers doing inside EU summits? | Corporate Europe Observatory

    Important information here on the extent of bank lobbies influence in the resolution of the Greek debt crisis, particularly when it comes to plans which require ‘private sector involvement’.

    At the Euro Summits in July and October 20111, crucial decisions “to save the Euro” and “to save Greece” were made. It was agreed to restructure Greek debts and banks were asked to accept a ‘haircut’ to their profits to avoid a Greek default and the risk that some banks might default as a result. In Summer 2011, the press was full of stories about the informal negotiations between EU leaders and the banks about the level of private sector involvement in restructuring Greece’s debts.

    The Institute of International Finance (IIF), a lobby group established in 1983 by the biggest banks and financial institutions in the world to deal with the question of sovereign debt2, became the EU’s interlocutor on the Greek debt issue. Its proposals -described as ”offers”- received red carpet treatment.

    No comments »
  • Is Ireland really the role model for austerity? | Stephen Kinsella | Cambridge Journal of Economics

    Abstract
    This paper describes the causes and consequences of Ireland’s economic crisis in the context of the policy solution implemented to contain that crisis: protracted fiscal austerity. I describe the causes of the recent crisis in Ireland and look at the logic of austerity with a simple model. I compare the current crisis to the crisis of the 1980s, when fiscal austerity was touted as the trigger for the Celtic Tiger. I discuss the measures implemented to date in the current crisis, tracing their effects on sectors of Ireland’s macroeconomy. I show that Ireland is not the role model for austerity policies.

    =======
    The full content of the January 2012 issue of the Cambridge Journal of Economics is available free online here. It is a special issue on the theme “Austerity: Making the same mistakes again - Or is this time different?”

    Contents
    Making the same mistakes again - Or is this time different?
    Lawrence King, Michael Kitson, Sue Konzelmann, and Frank Wilkinson

    Financial crisis and global imbalances: its labour market origins and the aftermath
    Pasquale Tridico

    Dangerous interconnectedness: economists’ conflicts of interest, ideology and financial crisis
    Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth and Gerald A. Epstein

    Commentary: Contradictions of austerity
    Alex Callinicos

    The great austerity war: what caused the US deficit crisis and who should pay to fix it?
    James Crotty

    The end of the UK’s liberal collectivist social model? The implications of the coalition government’s policy during the austerity crisis
    Damian Grimshaw and Jill Rubery

    Iceland’s rise, fall, stabilisation and beyond
    Robert H. Wade and Silla Sigurgeirsdottir

    Commentary: Dire consequences: the conservative recapture of America’s political narrative?
    David Coates

    A note on America’s 1920–21 depression as an argument for austerity
    Daniel Kuehn

    US government deficits and debt amid the great recession: what the evidence shows
    Robert Pollin

    Fiscal deficits, economic growth and government debt in the USA
    Lance Taylor, Christian R. Proaño, Laura de Carvalho, and Nelson Barbosa

    The tragedy of UK fiscal policy in the aftermath of the financial crisis
    Malcolm Sawyer

    Is Ireland really the role model for austerity?
    Stephen Kinsella

    The macroeconomic stabilisation effects of Social Security and 401(k) plans
    Teresa Ghilarducci, Joelle Saad-Lessler, and Eloy Fisher

    The basic paradigms of EU economic policy-making need to be changed
    Kazimierz Laski and Leon Podkaminer

    Building faith in a common currency: can the eurozone get beyond the Common Market logic?
    Pascal Petit

    The four fallacies of contemporary austerity policies: the lost Keynesian legacy
    Robert Boyer

    Russia: austerity and deficit reduction in historical and comparative perspective
    Vladimir Popov

    Commentary: Austerity and fraud under different structures of technology and resource abundance
    Jing Chen and James Galbraith

    No comments »
  • The Newsfakers | Patrick Cockburn

    I enjoyed this nuanced article by Patrick Cockburn about journalism, accuracy, modern media, blogging, black propaganda and the use of social media by authoritarian regimes and advanced capitalist ‘democratic’ ones too. It also reminded me of this excellent review of Net Delusion by Oliver Farry that we published a while back.

    “So technical advances have made it more difficult for governments to hide repression. But these developments have also made the work of the propagandist easier. Of course, people who run newspapers and radio and television stations are not fools. They know the dubious nature of much of the information they are conveying. The political elite in Washington and Europe was divided for and against the US invasion of Iraq, making it easier for individual journalists to dissent. But today there is an overwhelming consensus in the foreign media that the rebels are right and existing governments wrong. For institutions such as the BBC, highly unbalanced coverage becomes acceptable.

    Sadly, al-Jazeera, which has done so much to shatter state control of information in the Middle East since it was set up in 1996, has become the uncritical propaganda arm of the Libyan and Syrian rebels.”

    No comments »

Link Archives »

Authors