Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button Linkedin button

Skip to content

Wednesday, Feb 8th 2012


To be or to have… Labour and coalition

I’ve read a couple of different pieces about the prospects for government amongst various potential parties and combined they allow for some useful insights into how the Irish political landscape may be developing.

Yesterday Fintan O’Toole had an impassioned column on his thoughts as to why Labour should wait… in other words to eschew entering coalition with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael.

Has to be said, I’m not a huge fan of O’Tooles writing across the last decade or so but the crisis is bringing out the best in him. Not least when he characterises:

The Labour Party [as] the political equivalent of a mountain rescue team, or a cuddly Saint Bernard with a flask of reviving brandy around its neck.

He continues:

The scale of Fianna Fáil’s current crisis may be unprecedented, but twice in the last 30 years one of the catch-all Civil War parties has been in terrible trouble. In 1992, Fianna Fáil, under Albert Reynolds, had its worst general election result since 1927, with its share of the vote falling below 40 per cent. Fianna Fáil lost 10 seats. The party was almost as shocked, disoriented and at sea as it is now.

As Reynolds’s press secretary Seán Duignan noted, “we were on a roll, downhill”. To the amazement of most voters, it was Dick Spring’s resurgent Labour that threw itself in the way to stop that downhill momentum. Fianna Fáil was given the transfusion that always sustains life in politics - power. The moment was lost. The system survived.

And then for equal measure:

Ten years later, the moment came again, this time with Fine Gael. In the 2002 general election, Michael Noonan led his party to outright disaster. Fine Gael got just 19 per cent of the vote and lost 23 seats. It ended up with just three seats in Dublin, fewer than the Greens. A large chunk of its front bench (including Alan Shatter, Alan Dukes, Nora Owen and Jim Mitchell) was wiped out. In panic, the demoralised rump elected one of the few experienced TDs left standing - the unconvincing Enda Kenny - as its leader. Fine Gael was moribund.

Again, Labour took a deep breath, stood over the prone body of a wounded beast, and delivered the kiss of life. It accepted, with astonishing alacrity, the notion that the resurrection of Fine Gael was the only way to provide an alternative government. Pat Rabbitte, with the Mullingar Accord, gave Enda Kenny the credibility he otherwise lacked by dressing him up in the ill-fitting clothes of a would-be taoiseach. Labour’s position as a half-party, an eternal make-weight, was reinforced.

And concludes:

Fine Gael returned from the dead, gaining 20 seats in the 2007 election. Labour paid the price in stasis and irrelevance.

I’m not so sure about all this, though. Now it’s not that I entirely disagree with the overall analysis that in both instances Labour assisted its larger rivals at a point where they were in deep deep trouble. I think that both of those instances point to occasions where the Labour Party could have caved out a more distinctive niche for itself by refusing to enter coalition (despite my belief that the 1992 government was actually one of our better ones, not least because Fianna Fáil, so pleased simply to be in government and hugely focussed on the Peace Process, rolled over like a happy puppy and allowed Labour to run the show much as it saw fit which led to some significant reforms slipping through).

But. For there is a but. I’m not certain that Labour had the capability or was in a position to stamp the life out of either of those rivals in the way that O’Toole seems to imply.

I think that at best we could have seen a diminished Fine Gael or a diminished Fianna Fáil. But probably not both and not necessarily to the advantage of Labour. Firstly it seems that both of the larger parties have core votes. We can see that Fianna Fáil are currently in or around 25%. A vote share that could see them win 40 plus seats at the worst. Fine Gael probably has something similar. But Labour has never gone above 33, and that was on 19% in 1992 - a figure that it is remarkably close to today.

What is interesting is that the two larger parties don’t appear - so far - to see serious transfers of votes between them, but instead they drift to the proxy of Labour, dependent upon circumstance. And that drift while by no means minimal doesn’t ever (at least to date) seem to be sufficient to put Labour in an entirely commanding position.

In fairness O’Toole does recognise this. But there is a further implication. Even if one accepts his analysis (and I’m certainly in favour of Labour avoiding entanglements with centre-right parties) the very best we might see is a shakeout where instead of the famous “two and a half” party system we have a three party system with power ebbing and flowing between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour in more or less equal amounts.

And yet, is that really feasible? Is Labour on the ground anywhere close to having the sort of presence that Fianna Fáil has? Or, for that matter, Fine Gael? Look at the local government seats to see a more accurate read on the relative strengths of the parties and we see a marked disparity. In 2004, in what was a shockingly bad year for Fianna Fáil, they gained 542 seats (down 129). Fine Gael had 468 (up 32) and the Labour Party had 188 (up 18) - worth noting that Sinn Féin gained 125, effectively doubling their representation from 62. So, Labour remains mired on the second rung with Sinn Féin a ways behind - although news reaches me that polling for a certain party has indicated a not so great level of support for SF on the ground.

Of course there are many reasons for this. Simple history has allowed Fianna Fáíl, and to a lesser extent Fine Gael, to store up political capital in councils. Power has brought significant advantages (although as Vincent Browne recently pointed out Labour has been in power for more years that Fine Gael in the last three decades).

But, a party needs the sort of a base and the networks engendered by significant numbers of council seats in order to build Dáil seats, and more importantly to retain them. And for proof of that look at how those TDs who have even one or two councillors on the ground tend to do better at elections - they act as proxies.

Anyhow, to return to the central point, O’Toole may well be correct that Labour can act to shore up its support and become one of the three major players. But the idea that it can of itself remove one of the other two parties seems to be untenable. This has clear implications for government formation. If the current situation stabilises, a big if it has to be said, then Labour must attempt to gain parity with one or other of the parties because the only way in which a government with a majority Labour complexion is going to work is if it can gain around or about as many (or, happy day, more) TDs than its potential partner. Only with that level of representation in a coalition government could Labour put its stamp on it - and this is not to ignore the point that there would be considerable horse-trading and compromise in any event diluting the force of the Labour message.

But… and there’s that word again. A caveat. As can be seen it’s a remarkable achievement where a party which has become integral to government formation across the history of this state should somehow have left so little impact. Again, consider Browne’s words. For much of the last 30 years Labour was in pole position. I don’t mean this in some lazy, knock Labour way, but perhaps to underscore a point O’Toole makes when he argues that Labour has always seen its purpose in a sense to be ‘responsible’.

For all sorts of historical and cultural reasons, going right back to the early years of the State, Labour has bought in to the idea that it must facilitate the formation of a government or face the shame of being labelled as a self-indulgent party of protest.

And, as importantly:

The whole basis of Labour’s self-imposed duty to form governments is the notion that a coalition between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is inconceivable. To accept this proposition is to endorse the belief that the tribal and dynastic divisions between the two big parties are more important than policy and ideology. So long as that idea is taken for granted, Labour itself will always be marginal. It will always end up colluding in its own marginal status.

I’m not as certain about the second part of that analysis. I don’t think a coalition between FF and FG is inconceivable, but, it might requires some remarkable events to happen. And it hasn’t happened yet. On the other hand I think he’s spot on about the issue of government formation as a part of the Labour psyche.

But the approach O’Toole proposes would lead to a further step, but it is so unlikely as to be almost pointless to raise. That is a Labour Party which refuses to enter government thereby forcing either a minority government of the centre-right, a coalition of the two centre-right parties or another election. Thing is a Labour Party that is large enough to force those sort of outcomes would seem to be unlikely to wish to put itself to the electoral sword - a dynamic which in part explains the machinations of 1992. The minority government option would be barely more stable. And there still appears to be little enthusiasm between the other parties to coalesce. I don’t agree with the sort of thinking that has led to FG/Labour coalitions time after time, but given how even a ‘good’ day for Labour could lead to such complexities, it is easy to see the rationalisations for same.

Anyhow, all this links tangentially to issues raised by an article in the Sunday Times which muses upon the Enda Kenny leadership where they argued:

In November, with widespread anger among the public following a hugely unpopular budget, another TNS/mrbi poll showed a collapse in the government’s support. Fianna Fail was down 15 points to 27% and Fine Gael was the main beneficiaries, up 11 points to 34%.

Yet Kenny’s own approval rating dropped to 33%. Questions about Kenny’s leadership will not go away. In February, 86% of voters said they were unhappy with the Fianna Fail-Green coalition and more than half wanted a general election immediately.

Great news for Fine Gael? Not really. The party’s support fell two points from November and Kenny’s own support was down three points to 30%, just six points higher than Cowen.

Labour was up 10 points to 24% and Gilmore’s approval rating was 44%, making him the most popular party leader.

In the most recent Red C poll in March, with the government showing signs of tackling the economic crisis, Fianna Fail’s support increased to 28%, just three points behind Fine Gael. The only good news for Kenny was the five-point fall in support for Labour.

The analysis behind the figures above is interesting. Note that there is an expectation that the FG vote would increase above 34% and that not to do so was in some sense a ‘failure’.

But you know, this doesn’t make any sense at all. For Fine Gael to have gained 30% plus of the vote is pretty impressive in and of itself. Yet for Fine Gael to hit the higher percentiles it would have to pull votes directly from Fianna Fáil. There’s always a danger in Irish politics of overestimating the power of the Civil War to shape the overall context, but, there’s also a danger of underestimating the subsequent relations between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to generate a remarkable degree of antipathy considering the two parties share much the same political terrain (as an aside, one of the most interesting things I heard recently from someone within the Green Party was the thought that in essence on planning issues the two largest parties remain near-indistinguishable - that might be right, or that might be wrong, but as a piece of political triangulation it tells us much about the position the GP attempts to take).

In other words the idea that Fine Gael could get 40% plus seems highly highly unlikely. Consider that in 1982 at the height of Garret FitzGeralds popularity Fine Gael managed 39.2% of the vote… at a time when crucially the Labour Party was at 9.4%. And unless I’m mistaken that was the best vote Fine Gael has ever had in terms of percentages.

Where would those votes come from other than through the wholesale evisceration of Labour. Because they certainly aren’t going to come from Fianna Fáil. And that’s something that’s worth remembering. And just as it would be difficult to remove Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael from the body politic in the way that O’Toole appears to suggest, so it would be also difficult, if less so, to remove Labour which is what Fine Gael would need to do in order to see vote share climb higher again. And for those who look back at the 1982 figure and consider Kenny as ‘underachieving’, well, they should note that at that time there was no significant presence to the left or right of Labour which itself was weak. Now voter choice is much greater and in the context of that Kenny has managed to do remarkably well. Perhaps as well, short of a catastrophic collapse in the Fianna Fáil vote, as anyone could humanly do.

Often people point to the case of the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party as a case in hand, the wholesale disintegration of a political machine. But that comparison does not provide any degree of comfort to me.

For while it is true that the Progressive Conservative Party as an entity disintegrated at the 1993 election, going from 169 seats to 2 although intriguingly retaining 16% of the popular vote (still a crushing 26.9% drop from its previous position), 52 seats went to the Reform party of Preston Manning, an arguably more conservative party which ultimately became one of the constituent elements of the present-day ruling Conservative Party of Canada. And the percentile that went to Reform? Well, we can’t do a direct swap of votes, but since that party saw its vote increase by almost 17% it is reasonable to suggest that we can still see upwards of 30% of the vote staying with the ‘right’. And the rest? Dissipated towards the Liberal Party.

Actually in that respect Canada is not entirely dissimilar to the Republic, with two large centre right parties vying for power and a smaller left presence of the New Democratic Party. And what of the NDP in the 1993 context? How did it fare? Well, as ever the news for the left is less than great. The split towards the Liberals did it no favours at all with the loss of all but 9 of its previous 43 seats and a decline of 13.5% in its vote falling to a mere 6%. Today the NDP remains about and around that figure with 37 seats.

There’s no reason for that pattern to repeat itself. Yet it does provide a cautionary tale about how examples of party collapse need to be located within the general context. And it underlines the reality that there is no reason in the competitive environment that we currently inhabit to believe that the Left must of necessity make great gains or that the Left, even in the shape of the Labour Party, will be the obvious and self-evident alternative either in the short or medium term.

Which again points to the reality that one might see a three party structure develop, one with a broad equality between the three parties and with Sinn Féin and the Green Party and other leftish elements still extant. But that, feeble as it may seem, might yet constitute the best possible outcome at this point in time. As ever it’s about broadening the field of battle.

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

  • The Greek debt workout will establish a benchmark for sovereign debt haircuts across the Eurozone

    I tried to reduce the size of this quote, but I kept on leaving important stuff out. The whole article is a must read, particular the point made earlier that the negotiations being finalised now between the ECB and private bond holders will ‘establish benchmark terms for other struggling Euro sovereigns as well. Thus, it is possible that the valuation of sovereign debt across all Euro nations will be established in relatively short order’. Anyway, this article by a couple of ‘humble investors’ provides plenty of clarity.

    We have not reached the end of history. Mankind evolves, as does capitalism and its many brands. But not that much. An objective look at our modern economic ecosystem shows clearly one unified global banking system that is actually made stronger by predictable, publicly aired tensions among competing political and economic theorists and practitioners. As long as lawmakers and we, the people that must obey them, continue quarrelling among ourselves, those that control money are free to do as they like. When the people revolt against the symbols of political power (storm the Bastille, storm the winter palace), then the people succeed in forcing those that control money to alter the political structure. Only when lawmakers take steps to limit bank system access to the nation’s resources by indenturing the factors of production (dumping tea overboard, storming the Eccles Building), can the nation’s capital shift back to the people.

    Today we have an oligopoly of central banks issuing the world’s baseless currencies and, by having successfully promoted substantial household and sovereign debt assumption, can now dictate resource allocation and fiscal policy terms. Against this power there is fragmentation - (mostly) democratically elected officials overseeing republics of generally obedient populations. Lenin knew; “by continuing the process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens”. John Maynard Keynes himself agreed: “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose”.

    We argue that indebted governments have ceded that power to banking systems without conscience or public accountability. If the global banking system has ultimate power over how global wealth is perceived, (as it does), and it is the only institution powerful enough to keep indebted governments in control of their societies, (which it is), then the only reasonable strategy for an independent investor is to think like a Rothschild. Don’t fight the Fed - bet on it.

    No comments »
  • Protest at cuts in small rural schools Dublin, 1st February 2012

    Hundreds of teachers, parents and school children came from all over Ireland to protest at Minister Ruairí Quinn’s proposed cuts to small schools in Dublin when the Dáil was debating the bill.

    No comments »
  • 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 »

Link Archives »

Authors