Left Tribune Feb. 2012

THE LEFT TRIBUNE

Vo l . V I I , Is s u e 1 • P r o d u c e d b y L a b o u r Yo u t h • F e b. ‘ 1 2

Why and how we should be raising Taxes p3

Interview: Brendan Howlin on Reform p 8-9

Education: Third Level Fees p 10

Left Tribune

2

In this Issue: 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 10 10 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 16

Progressive Taxation Leaving Cert.

Third-Level Fees Labour’s Future Communicating Aspirations Unicameralism & Reform Interview: Brendan Howlin Unaccountability Fur Farming Medical Patents Trust in Government Remembering Jack Layton Palestine Syria Hungary Editorial: Going North Chairperson’s Message Action on X

@Labouryouth

3

Finance & the Economy: Cian

Brennan

Dublin

I would like to think that the latest budget has made the reasons for a preference of taxation over cuts pretty clear. Yes, the tax measures were regressive, but these were amongst the most regressive tax measures possible – and they were still better than many of the cuts that came with them. And yet, we still have €4,900,000,000 to cut from the budget. Next year. The year after will see even more severe cuts than was the case in this budget.

Of course, we could argue that there are plenty of easy cuts.

After all, the Sunday Independent tells us every week that there are plenty in the public sector who can bear the brunt of a raft of extra cuts. The fact, however, that this is the second successive government to not go after these easy cuts would tend to indicate to us that they may not be quite as easy as we expect. Already, we’re planning on reducing public service numbers by 6,000 this year – a cut that’s likely to create large unemployment, as although there are no redundancies there is a constant supply of new entrants to the labour force looking for jobs, and 6,000 less jobs in the public sector means 6,000 new entrants who cannot find employment. On top of that, we’re reducing payment to third party companies who do work for the government. And while this is welcome in some cases, in lots of others it will lead to companies being unable to continue operating, or force them to lay off workers.

And yes, it might be, and in fact probably is, possible to make some cuts to the pay of senior civil servants. Certainly, this Labour member wouldn’t object at all to seeing Croke Park reopened for those earning above seventy or eighty thousand Euro a year. We have to make nearly five billion Euro of cuts however. That’s not a number you can make up simply from cuts to the high paid.

It is worth noting that our current spending levels put us about average in the EU – unlike

progressive taxation needed to get ireland back on track

what you’d believe from the pages of the Sindo, we don’t have a massive bloated public sector – merely a normal sized one. Less than normal, in fact, once you take into account the fact that our government expenditure is currently bloated by recession and record unemployment.

Our tax take on the other hand, is incredibly low by European standards, at about 35% of GDP.

So, given that our tax take is lower than Europe, and our spend is about the same as Europe – only we’re suffering record unemployment, and many of our European neighbours are not – one has to question the belief that our public spending is necessarily unsustainable. Once you start to question that, the entire reasoning for spending cuts, rather than increased taxation, begins to unravel. If our public sector isn’t unsustainable, then the argument comes down to simple economics. Which is the better way of closing the deficit, while causing the least damage to both the economy, and Irish society?

Here, the evidence is very much against cuts. The previous case for cuts was based on intercountry studies – the IMF has however recently published a

to support a country currently undertaking public spending cuts. Ireland doesn’t have a central bank, and as such, this evidence doesn’t apply to Ireland. The ESRI, furthermore have come out with a study relating specifically to the Irish case – and they found that taxation has, in almost all cases, far greater effects on our deficit, and smaller effects on unemployment and emigration than spending cuts. In terms of

Once you start to question the belief that our public spending is unsustainable, the entire reasonsing for cuts, rather than increased taxation, begins to unravel. the harm, it’s also worth noting the massive jump in inequality that’s accompanied this , and previous sets of cuts. We’ve seen a two percentage point increase in the proportion of the population at risk of poverty since 2009 – noticeably itself not a time when the Irish economy was working in

The current ratio of taxes to cuts is desperately biased.

paper claiming that this evidence, that public spending cuts were less harmful to the economy than new taxes was based primarily on the intervention of central banks

overdrive – despite a drop in the level which marked the poverty threshold. Now, 16% of the Irish population are currently exist at risk of poverty, and, in a far more

damning indictment of Ireland, 19.5%, or almost one in five of Irish children are at risk of poverty – which makes something of a mockery of our constitutional commitment to cherish all the children of the state equally.

It’s worth noting as well, that progressive taxation is something Ireland has a large scope to introduce. Our rates of taxation on capital are only half the EU average. Our income tax levels are noticeably lower than many other states, and we could easily add a third bracket to our income tax system. Not only that, but increases in progressive taxation are likely to cause reasonably small decreases in economic demand, as those paying that taxes are likely to spend less of their income that those at the bottom of the pyramid. And even of the money they do spend, larger proportions of it are lost to the economy, by spending it on imports, or abroad. So the economic case is reasonably clear: progressive taxation causes less economic damage than cuts – and by its nature, it’s likely to lead to a reduction in inequality as well.

Those advocating for smaller government have a tendency to claim that they are simply practical politicians.

However, as far as I can see, a preference for cuts is the clearest sign of an ideological motivation you could ask for in a politician.

Cuts hut the poorest hardest.

Cuts destroy our future economic potential by reducing investment in our aging infrastructure And cuts damage domestic demand, and impede our economic recovery.

Moving away from cuts isn’t ideology – although it’s something the Labour Party should favour on that basis – It’s simply common sense.

Left Tribune

4

Education: Thatcherism and free education THE ONLY CREDIBLE OPTION the Leaving Cert. believes the examiner wants A graduate tax or loan scheme Chris Chris them answered, not only stifles can also have a negative effect on

Morash

NUIM

In an attempt to explain our current economic crises our leaders, commentators and journalists have blamed our banking system, tax system, politicians and our over-reliance on construction-related sectors.

Despite this very few people have thought of our education system, and especially the second level sector, as a key contributing factor to our current ‘difficulties’.

The points system which the majority of us know far too well is in essence a free-market system. You receive points based on your grades and these are used to gain entry your course, where the number of points needed is determined through the basic principles of supply and demand. Courses in which there is either low supply or high demand (or a combination of both) command high points.

This means that the system is competitive; each student is aware that the worse others do, the better you will do.

It is constantly drilled into people from the start of their five or six years of secondary education that this free market action is the fairest way of deciding entry to tertiary education. Thus, during their formative years, the leaders of tomorrow are told to look after themselves, only themselves, and to put everything else second (or just stop doing it, especially if, like volunteering, it takes up study time). It is far more likely that if during their formative years our leaders and bankers were thinking critically and ethically, analysing and playing an active role in society, then a more socially cohesive society would have emerged in recent times.

Learning to predict the poets on the English paper or questions in Irish, or the practice of answering questions in the way in which the candidate

creativity and innovation - something which every knowledge based economy needs - it discourages critical thinking. Perhaps if had we a generation of people who could critically think we would have looked at the fundamental flaws and inequalities behind our economic and political system.

The system as it currently stands is an education in playing the system.

Of course, our education system itself has in-built inequalities. Fee-paying schools and the system of grinds encourage the notion that money can buy a better result; the average price for a one-hour Secondary school grind is € 24.92 according to grinds.ie. Compare that to the current minimum wage of €8.65 an hour. At the same time, private schooling creates an elitist system where those who can afford private schools are insulated from the difficulties of the country. According to the Irish Times, an audit has alleged that certain fee-paying schools are cherry-picking applicants as they only had enrolment levels of 1% for children with special needs compared to 17% for nearby vocational schools. It is clear too that these schools pass on the assumptions of social status, or at least an inkling towards leadership, to private students whose state school comrades are at a disadvantage for not receiving. The alumni of these schools are then overrepresented in the ‘circles of power’. For instance, 40% of cabinet members have attended private schools compared to 7% of the entire population.

In short, while the education system was not the only a contributory factor to the current crisis, it is clear that the inequalities in our system as well as the lack of critical thinking must be addressed if we as a nation wish to ensure that an economic bubble based on greed and inequality never occurs again.

Murphy

DCU

With the 2012 budget announced, students who don't qualify for the grant will need to pay €2,250 per year as a contribution charge to attend college.More than 15,000 students took to the streets on November 16th, as did a delegation of Labour Youth members to oppose any increase in fees or cut in the grant, which unfortunately was ignored by this government. Is this upfront scheme fair on the students who pay? To fund third level education in Ireland students need to contribute something towards their education. Is this flat charge at the start of the year the best way to get students to contribute?

Considering recent figures show 96,000 families have mortgages in arrears, many of whom would like to see their children go onto third level education and many students rely solely on their parents income to pay for college, I would think not.

One argument put forward is that students can pay the €2,250 themselves through a part time job. A recent estimate shows a year in college costs €10,500 which includes rents, fees and living costs, it seems highly unfair to ask them pay another €250. According to the Higher Education Authority's website, 2011 saw 98,000 students attending universities and a further 60,000 attending Institutes of Technology. How can all of these obtain part time jobs? Should nearly 160,000 students enter Ireland’s labour market in the middle of a jobs crisis?

both students and the economy.

Any sort of loan scheme would require heavy investment from the government and take years to generate any sort of funding for higher education. This would also face competition from banks and most notably the credit union, both of which already offer competitive student loans.

That’s before we even broach the subject of Ireland’s cash flow crisis.

Next up: Fine Gael’s favoured graduate tax. This would hurt students and hurt Ireland. Rather than rewarding our most intelligent graduates, we would burden them with an extra tax. Not only is this unfair, but it begs the question of why we don’t just increase income tax! Like the loan scheme, it doesn't address the upfront issue of funding for third level education anyway.

As outlined in Labour Youth’s position paper, there are numerous alternatives to student contributions, graduate taxes and loan schemes. Through reexamining higher end wages, attracting more international students and introducing more progressive taxation, necessary funding can be achieved for our education. The more graduates we have in Ireland,the more entrepreneurs and indigenous companies we will have in the future, and the more skilled the workforce, the more foreign investment we will attract, not to mention indigenous growth it will spur. Investment in third level education will pay us back four-fold if we can maintain and improve the current standard.

This can only be done by opening up college to more school leavers and families, rather than turning them away with fees.

facebook.com/Labouryouth

5

Labour in Government: Rory

O’Neill

Deputy Editor

In March 2011, the Labour Party faced one of the most important decisions in its history. Following an historic showing in the General Election, producing the party’s strongest ever result, the choice was to enter in to coalition with Fine Gael or lead the opposition.

On one hand, government was in our grasp. This is naturally the goal for any political party.

However, how much could be achieved as the junior coalition partner to a numerically dominant Fine Gael, particularly when the parties are traditionally so polarized? Labour chose, despite opposition from Labour Youth and the left of the party, to enter in to a coalition and form a “national unity” government.

What were the goals of this coalition? The decision was made based on the assertions that Labour would hold Fine Gael in check and prevent a rightwing majority government, and that Labour policy permeated the Programme for Government.

These were ambitious claims.

Whether Labour could ever hold much sway over the much larger senior partner was in doubt.

Perhaps with strong, decisive leadership and inalienable conviction in Labour’s platform, it could be done. As for Labour policy in the Programme for Government, it was sparse. VAT hikes, water charges and €2 billion worth of privatization were promised. However, it was said that despite the obvious political risks of entering coalition as a junior partner, Labour had to do it; that the families struggling at the depths of Ireland’s socioeconomic structure couldn’t wait five years for Labour to build on their electoral gains.

A year on, and coalition has proven to be a difficult affair for Labour supporters.

The strong, decisive leadership Labour needed to contend with Fine Gael and assert our policy has been imperceptible. What of the pledge on third level fees?

What of protecting lower income families? The budget highlights the disparity between what Labour should be about and what the government is doing.

The VAT increase will inevitably

What’s to be Done?

Labour’s Future hit the poorest the hardest and there has been no increase in income tax for high earners.

“Red line” stances on issues such as fees have been quickly scuttled. Education is now being converted into a thing of privilege rather than a right, to be purchased by the moneyed.

Social welfare has been targeted.

Yet €700 million has been paid out to unsecured, unguaranteed bondholders in Anglo-Irish bank.

There are clear progressive alternatives to the government’s proposals? These include: wealth and property taxes, increases in income tax for high earners, further increases in capital gains and acquisition taxes and absolutely no payments to unguaranteed bondholders. But these are nowhere to be seen.

Instead, the government in which Labour allegedly wields significant influence has chosen to pursue the same failed policy course initiated by Fianna Fáil: Attack the lower earners, cut jobs and deflate the economy. There is very little left-wing about the government’s agenda. Worse is the fact that we now trail the nationalists in the polls, who are, regrettably, the stronger voice for the left-wing in Irish politics at the current time. Sinn Féin’s common sense pre-budget submission has exposed many the failures and inequality in government economic policy.

Labour’s weakness in government has resulted in a great sense of frustration for members who canvassed and campaigned for the party during the election. Upon examining government policy, here is a sense that their effort is going to waste. Why is there a consistent refusal to target wealth and the wealthy? Why is the burden

being carried by the workers who Labour supposedly represent?

A recent report from the Labour Party stated “That does not mean that we have abandoned the principle of fairness, but it may mean that we may not be able to prioritise it in the short term.” If we are not prioritising fairness, then what exactly are we prioritising?

What is Labour in government for if not to ensure fairness is kept at the forefront of policy? This is an admission that will no doubt create great discomfort amongst the membership as it becomes clear that what we consider the “core Labour values” are falling to the wayside.

So what is the future of the Labour Party? Lower earners will, if it has not already, lose all faith in us. How can it be any different?

We campaigned on a platform of Jobs, Fairness and Reform. We have enabled a budget which will shave off tens of thousands of jobs, fail to target the wealthy rather than the lower earners and in the end, deliver more of the same austerity medicine administered elsewhere.

So what is to be done? We are in need of decisive action.

We must regain the respect of those who followed us. Firstly, there is too ruthless a silencing of opposition to government policy. It is not acceptable that in the Labour Party, TDs who refuse to vote for the polar opposite of Labour values are expelled from the PLP and ostracised.

Opposition and healthy criticism, within the party, to the government is a positive thing, as it is currently all that is keeping traditional Labour party ideals alive in the Oireachtas. Labour Youth, should wholeheartedly support those who have refused to tow the government line.

However, this is of little use unless we propose alternatives and actively endeavour to push them to the fore. The left-wing of the Labour Party must constantly be proposing alternatives to Fine Gael policy. We must use our voice in coalition to give the working class the voice that it has been sorely lacking.

Secondly, those who have led us in to the coalition should account themselves to the party.

The membership has the right to an election on our leadership given what has transpired in government and what is at stake. The current leadership will be forever associated with the stigma of this coalition and must be changed if Labour is to rebuild its left-wing identity.

Finally, we must undertake a major ideological re-evaluation.

Socialism is dying in the Labour Party. This is not a process that began in March 2011, but has been a worrying trend to those on the left of the party for some time. Ireland has emerged from the crisis a smouldering ruin, eternal testament to the failures of neo-liberal capitalism. Labour must adapt to the severity of the problems facing the country, and offer radical reform that will transfer ownership of the economy and of Ireland’s future from bourgeois elites to the masses. We must bring this shift to the centre to a resounding halt. What is Labour if it is not left?

We must adopt a radically leftwing programme and restore our credentials as a socialist party.

If we do not undertake this reevaluation, then Labour will fade in to insignificance as another party of the centre. Only socialism can bring our party salvation from ruin, for only socialism can liberate the Irish people from what is a fundamentally broken capitalist system. Either we do it, or we will be overwhelmed on our left flank and Labour as we know it will cease to exist. It may survive in name, but it will not be a party of working people any longer. We must reject the reactionary, right-wing policy that we have been enabling in coalition and rebuild the socialist party that once was.

12

Left Tribune

Colm

Maguire

Editor

I’m not a fan of the words “junior” or “coalition.” The words “equal” and perhaps even “powersharing” might make me a bit happier, but they wouldn’t reflect the reality of the situation.

Many members of Labour Youth may have come out against the idea of coalition with Fine Gael - never mind the Programme for Government - but the focus shouldn’t cosntantly be on whether or not we should be in government.

We should be focused on what we are doing now we are where we are. Labour Youth has been strong on the fees issue, strongly against the recent V.A.T. increase and SNA cap in the budget, and members have worked on many other campaigns and lobbied on many issues since we began the term in government. So, perhaps Labour Youth’s contribution at the moment is the on-going proposal to rip up the Programme for Government and hope Fine Gael don’t notice, but it is a forwardthinking one. Something else we need to think about is the conduct of our Ministers, TDs and Senators in government, and the message their conduct conveys.

I wrote a piece for TeaandToast.ie not long after the PfG was agreed to, in which I suggested heavily that Labour members refer to this as a “National Government” in which we were “power-sharing.”

This I suggested because, as we all know, the Programme for Government heavily favours Fine Gael’s policy and ideology - as it necessarily would, with such a disparity of seats. However, the argument Labour put forward when it went in to government was that it was in the national interest to do so, that there was no stable or credible alternative, and that to shirk on the responsibility would be selfish and opportunistic; it being right to do so even if Labour principles were compromised.

I didn’t agree with that analysis. I thought that Labour going into government was a bad mistake because it gave Fine Gael license to be more

84-Seat Aspirations: Promoting Labour’s Vision severe than they would’ve had the gall to be on their own, with independents, or just relying reverse Tallaght strategy with Fianna Fáil or occasionally ourselves. Regardless of that, I thought we’d have to defend ourselves somehow: hence stressing that we’re in governent because of Fianna Fáil’s mess, and that as the second-largest party we probably wouldn’t be otherwise - things Eamon Gilmore also stressed in his speech on the nomination of the government.

It’s since become clear, however, that we cannot simply keep repeating the “national government/Fianna Fáil’s mess” mantra and hope the public will accept it. We can’t expect people to be mindful of the situation poor Labour were in after the election when they’re suffering by our hand now. The problem we have is that Labour and Fine Gael in government act as a united, albeit two-headed, beast. There’s very little Fine Gael analysis, there’s very little of Labour’s analysis, there’s just the government’s analysis. This is particularly significant, because we find ourselves, for the first time, being the second-largest party in the state, and we should be careful not to squander the opportunity that gives us to shape the debate.

It’s a trap that most junior coalition partners appear to fall into historically. Triumphant off the back of good election results and confident in their unique policy commitments to deliver something different, a smaller party reluctantly joins forces with a larger, more populist, one. They

quickly find that the public pay more attention to their betrayals than they do their necessarily few successes, and that their own ministers spend more time defending another parties policies than pushing their own forward. It’s no coincidence that only one junior coalition partner has ever survived an election to have a second successive term, and in that case, it was one which agreed with most of “government policy” at the time anyway.

The problem is that the presentation of a united front in government is a tradition engrained in the Westminster system of government - and even moreso in Ireland’s inflexible variation of it - developed for and suited to one-party government only. “Collective Responsibility” in its current form - whereby all members of the Government must read from the same hymm sheet or else resign - needs to be shelved. Our Ministers, TDs and Senators will have to start outlining “Labour’s Analysis” on things government is doing that we disagree with. Increasing V.A.T. was a compromise on a core policy - and for the sake of this example let us say it was a necessary one - but to have Eamon Gilmore be the government minister defending it in the Dáil on the night of the budget, deriding the opposition to the increase as not credible, was a betrayal of Labour’s responsibility to give a coherent social democratic analysis and promote alternative policies (o.k., so Fianna Fáil’s opposition really wasn’t credible, but others seemed to be reading from our

pre-election campaign adverts).

Similarly, to have Labour Ministers fly the kites for harsh conservative proposals in the run-up to the budget and to have no-one fly the kite on actually increasing rates of progressive taxation, reneges on the social responsibility we must assume ourselves to have to provide a coherent progressive analysis and shape the debate.

This isn’t a suggestion to deny responsibility at all while in government: Labour can’t simply take Ministerial positions and pretend we aren’t in power. The fact is, however, that the mantra of collective responsibility is there to legitimise a government’s majoritarian mandate by ensuring that it can express the purpose of that mandate as one. Multi-party governments do not need that legitimation, and grand coalitions especially don’t. The current government gets its legitimation from the coming together of two separate mandates, and rather than attempting to merge them into a compromise that may (but probably doesn’t) reflect the combined will of the voters, we should be able to take part in a national coalition to save the country without appearing to forget completely our prior opposition to many of its policies.

Yes, there obviously needs to be an agreement before going in to government. No, Labour ministers and Fine Gael ministers shouldn’t start challenging each other in the Dáil. But Labour ministers could offer something more meaty than “it’s in the programme for government” when asked about conservative government policy.

If anything we have to do this for the sake of the public debate and not just to protect ourselves - though the two may be interconnected.

Our next manifesto will be aspirational, but it will require prior promotion if it is to resonate with voters.

“Labour in government” needs to proactively promote the Labour Party’s vision for a social democratic Ireland would look like.

@Labouryouth

7

Political Reform: Conor Quirke

UCD

There is a paradox that lies at the heart of Irish politics. When politicians are elected by their local constituents, it is done mainly on the basis of what they will do for their local communities, but when they defend them or fight for special privileges for them over or against legislation brought in by the Dáil they are accused of localism or of not being in the national interest.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no time for politicians whose primary concern once they get to the Dáil is fixing potholes, but you must admit that is what they were voted in for. And this is where our paradox lies.

What we need is a national parliament that deals solely with national issues, and efficient and effective means of representation for local government and administration. To deal with the latter of these first, they are currently represented by the underpowered and underfunded county councils and for large towns by the almost wholly powerless and irrelevant town councils. This is not a problem unique to Ireland. Most countries feature a system of local government that has over the years seen its powers progressively reduced by central governments looking for greater control. In Germany, the Länder and Bundesrat have been gradually neutered, in France Sarkozy is looking to reduce the levels and powers of local government which date back to the French Revolution and in Ireland whatever powers County and town councils once had are being absorbed into a disinterested Ministry of the Environment.

Not only do the powers that County Councils once had need to be restored, they need to have more powers than they have ever had in the history of the State. Where is this power to come from? It will be devolved from the Dáil. This is the case already in a number of countries including Germany

Radical Reform and the Case for Unicameralism

(which admittedly has a federal system and suffers from the problems already mentioned) and in the Netherlands. The County Councils, who would have full-time members would be able to introduce concurrent legislation within the limits set down by national law, would have full administrative powers over health, education, public transport and policing within boundaries of minimum standards imposed from Leinster House, and revenue and expenditure autonomy to insure proper funding, including a return of the ability to levy domestic property rates. The County and City managers – unelected officials appointed from above who have unprecedented decision making powers over democratically elected representatives – should either be abolished or have their responsibilities drastically reduced.

The powers which currently are vested in the old County Councils, e.g. planning, local roads, sanitation and libraries should be given to District Councils which would be based around towns and their hinterlands or districts within cities (e.g. Ballyfermot, Swords etc.). Additionally, as happens in France each village should be represented by a Mayor and municipal council, who runs administration at the lowest level. With government being run on the principal of subsidiarity we could see the end of pot-hole fixing politicians being elected to the Dáil from their loyal fiefdoms.

The Jackie Healy-Rae’s of politics would go back to where they belong, dealing with local issues.

With the national parliament freed of those whose primary concerns are not in the national interest it is time to reform the legislative process.

Currently we have what is in effect a rubber stamp parliament; government approves legislation and the Oireachtas approves it.

As Oscar Wilde said, “Tradition is nothing but a collection

of bad habits,” and when we achieved independence from the British Empire we brought with us, warts and all, the vast majority of the traditions of the Westminster system into our fledgling executive, legislature, judiciary and civil service. It is the Westminster system that is responsible for many of the problems that afflict our political system, from the adversarial system of parliament, to domination of the cabinet and the Upper House. In Britain the Upper House was supposed to represent the aristocracy, so when it was brought over to a de facto republic that didn’t feature one, it lost this purpose.

The result: we’ve spent the past ninety years struggling to find a new purpose, or identify an existing one, and without much luck.

The Dáil as the supposed main legislative body in the State has the power to pass and amend legislation while the Seanad can merely hold it up. The majority of successful legislation is introduced by the Government and is merely approved by the highly partisan Dáil. In the Seanad where there is little chance of any change to the Bill and less vigorously enforced whip system as well as a large number of independents, these conditions combine to give an actual amount of decent debate on motions. What this leaves us with is two ineffectual houses. It would be better to get rid of the Seanad and to introduce radical reforms into the remaining house then to try and reform the Seanad to make up for the inadequacies of the Dáil. Some will claim that resorting to unicameralism will be a reduction in democracy.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index the five most democratic countries in the world as well as nine of the top twenty are unicameral. If they can achieve an effective parliament with just one chamber without the Government riding roughshod all over them, why can’t we?

For those who are unrepresented by the current parliamentary system there could be a series of parliamentary commissioners who would be appointed from legal experts and academics to represent minority groups such as immigrants and travellers, advising the Dáil on legislation and producing reports. This is similar to the original idea behind a so-called ‘Vocational’ Senator, but without the partisan elections, the full-time job debating bills in a house of Parliament, or the platform to prepare the way for a Dáil campaign.

On the point of radical reform of the Dáil we must start by throwing out the Westminster system. In the Western European system there is more emphasis on consensus decisions and committees are more important than the plenary sessions of parliament. Instead, here, committees produce findings which are then ignored. In the United States there are powerful Congressional Committees who can summon expert witnesses which all important legislation must go through before even being voted upon. Apparently they have those here as well, but they are whipped to the hilt, serving as little more than government-controlled “mini Dála”. In the US State of Nebraska not only is the legislature unicameral but it is also nonpartisan. The Senators do not sit according to party ranks in opposition, told what to do by front benches and having this enforced by party whips but make decisions issue by issue based on a member’s philosophy of government and ideology. Committees need to be given more and binding power, adversarial partisan ranks and the whip system need to be abolished and regulation on attendance of sessions of parliament and committees need to be introduced and stringently enforced if the Dáil is to be an effective and representative legislative body.

8

Left Tribune

Where Now for Political Reform?

According to President Higgins, the promise of the Republic remains unfulfilled. LT Editor Colm Maguire talks to Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin TD (right), about his plans to bring about a change to that Republic, and whether such change is really possible...

Colm

Maguire

Editor

Tell us a bit about the new department...

Both Fine Gael and Labour in the run-up to the election had reform of the public service in general as a huge issue. We determined that if we were to bring about a reforming the way public services were delivered to citizens we would need to have a Minister of cabinet rank who also controlled the money. That was a failure of the past: either it was controlled by the Minister of Finance who was holed up with fiscal issues, or it was driven by a Junior Minister who hadn’t got the authority or the might to drive change. So both of us had come to this conclusion. So that’s why we created the Dept. of Public Expenditure and Reform, to be in charge of expenditure and to bring about change.

So I’ve established within the dept. two reform divisions. One is public service reform, and the other is the political reform division, looking at governance.

We obviously hoped that we would get a referendum passed to allow Oireachtas committees to commit investigations, and there will be whistle-blowers’ legislation and a register of lobbyists. Anybody lobbying for any particular cause will have to be registered so the public knows who is influencing legislation. We have a Freedom of Information Act being set up to restore FOI laws, and then there’s the Constitutional Convention we’ll be having.

We’ve looked at the “We the People” model. We’re looking at having a structure that gives the public the buy-in that we need. I think there’s an awful lot of cynicism about politics and the political system generally. So, we

need to reconnect the political system with the electorate.

“The Labour proposals for the Constitution Convention include the 30 Oireachtas members [in a 90-member convention].

I’m just wondering if the government is set on putting Oireachtas members in. There’s no fear it would spark [public] cynicism?”

We want to set a structure that is independent of government, because it can’t be part of government. That was the Labour Party perspective on it and the government hasn’t made a decision. That will be something we do in the first quarter of next year: to shape and put in place a structure that will be independent of the political system. I have my own views as to how it should be made up and I’ll be bringing those to government. I know the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste also have strong views. Obviously though, the decisions have to link in with the political system, as any changes will have to be passed by the Oireachtas as well.

“Second Republic” have suggested that there be a referendum first, that would empower the convention, [as opposed to having its findings go through the Oireachtas].”

I can’t see the public giving a blank cheque to anybody. You can’t validate the decisionmaking if you don’t know what those decisions are. It wouldn’t be feasible, no one would vote for it. There could be a plebiscite to gain people’s view, but the specific proposals would have to be there for a referendum.

“Could you pass a new constituion? Surely if it’s just a

Yes/No question, every group “Can you see a convention reunder the sun will come out introducing a Seanad?” against something?”

Well, I don’t know, I thought Exactly: how the question’s the referendum on Oireachtas put will be part of the process. enquiries would be supported There might be individual votes overwhelmingly, as it was in on individual measures, which I the Oireachtas, so I wouldn’t be absolutely certain that the presume will have to happen.

I’ve been to forums that have Seanad would be abolished at discussed just that: do we need referendum in the first place.

[For that to happen] We a new constitution in Ireland or a reformed constitution? It have to make a coherent case. would be very hard to get a new In terms of the abolition of document, as you said, because the Seanad, I approached the all the disparate groups that question from an objective point would oppose different things of view. We have to ask, is it doing would probably form a blocking something that no other organ majority. The only way to do it is of the government can do, and to reform what’s there. Besides, my judgement is that no, it isn’t.

Bunreacht na hÉireann isn’t just The De Valera Model, that the written document, but also it was not to be party political, the case law that has developed it was to be the experts from over the last 80 years, which is society that were not politicians, important as well. They’re an hasn’t worked out like that: important part of the fabric of whether you’d need a chamber basic rights for citizens. You don’t of elders or something like that, want to wash away all that good I don’t know. jurisprudence.

Lots of people will say

In relation to individual that it isn’t working as is but referenda, there’s a number can be reformed, but nobody of things we’ve decided on has yet laid out a reform for the already. We’ve decided we’re Seanad that I find coherent. going to have a referendum on Sweden, Denmark and the abolition of the Seanad, and New Zealand all do very well with there’ll be a Children’s Rights one chamber. There’s checks and referendum had next year. balances in different ways, with a Bill of Rights, a Constitution,

facebook.com/Labouryouth an effective court system, and different types of citizens’ assemblies, that take the views of the public in different ways, not like a legislature that mirrors the Dáil.

If we don’t have [a Seanad] however, we’ll have to change the working of the Dáil. It’ll have to be a slower process – a more protracted committee stage for examining legislation, to ensure that there is a thorough teasing out of legislation. Perhaps we will have to outlaw the guillotining of debates for legislation, except in very exceptional circumstances.

Yes it’s true, the current system is not fit for purpose. Some modest changes have happened in the last few months: Tipperary, and Limerick are becoming one council each, but there need to be more far reaching reforms than that. Part of it is to have more real power at local level. I mean, with power comes responsibility [Ed: Almost a quote from Spiderman, but we’ll let him off ]. A lot of local authorities are very keen on the spending side of money but not so keen on actually generating it.

I think we do need to have a better distinction between central government and local “Do you think the nature of government: power needs to be the Dáil, being so adversarial demarcated so that people can between the government and make decisions as close to those opposition, needs to change?” that are impacted as possible.

“Are County Managers going to be losing their power?”

Well a long standing idea is that there’s a power imbalance at county level. Sometimes of course that is a useful shield for people: they don’t have to make decisions, they can leave it to the executive. Sometimes there’s a “‘We the Citizens’ found that genuine democratic deficit that there was support for regional needs to be addressed. government in Ireland. Would Government is a it be appropriate, in your Local fundamental part of government, view?” and if we can get it right, it’ll help We’ve some model of it in that we begin the process of restoring people’s confidence. They want have regional assemblies now. to see transparency in how “...but no ordinary citizens services are provided.

Besides, because we’re would know about them...” in this hole, borrowing €1.5 Yes, but my gut feeling looking at billion a month, we have to their work, is that a democratically have efficiencies and savings, elected assembly of, for instance unfortunately.

Well I believe in the party political system. It amuses me now that the independent group have a whip. Why would they have a whip, isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

I mean, you either have true independents, or you have a collective, and the collective now is so disparate – there are radical socialists on one end, all the way over to Shane Ross at the other.

I think the party system is required. First it’s a deliberative structure that has policy formation, and puts that policy the South-East, would see the to the people, and then is able to people from Wexford only ensure it gets its way. being interested in Wexford, the people of Tipperary would be “But there isn’t much debate only interested in Tipperary, the outside that. Very little Kilkenny people in Kilkenny. We happens in the public sphere don’t see the region in the same at present.” sense that we see the county – for whatever reason, maybe it’s We do need different models the GAA’s dominance – but we of public participation. If there are county focused. So where is an upside to the economic an amalgam of county councils collapse (and I’m not sure there might work, people just don’t is), it has made people more think in regional terms. focused on political systems and more politically aware. Now that “What about breaking our needs to be developed in a way councils down into smaller that allows for a continuation of district councils?” participation. We have to address the issue of cynicism, and realise Well I’m a believer in the French that our political systems are model of local government broken.

[Communes]; having a situation

“The elephant in the room when discussing any political reform is local government.

We currently have a system “designed for a 19th century rural people,” what’s going to change?”

planning or engineering.

So I don’t think the two of them are mutually exclusive.

You can have a large overarching body that has the scale to do things efficiently, with a local representative body that actually has a representational role and civic promotion. To make sure there is a sense of place, and [basic services] such as sanitation are looked after.

where people have an affinity with their local area, so they can say, “this is my area, my space.”

Even a small village in France is likely to have a Mayor and [a council] with civic functions. But the problem is you need to have real scale for things like proper

“Mentioning the hole we’re in… After the election, Enda Kenny called it a “democratic revolution”. Much of Labour’s chagrin with the previous government was how it treated the legislature, and how major decisions were rammed through. Now we’re in government, and its not all that different. Do you think there’s an inertia in the political reform agenda because of the economic position we find ourselves in?”

There is a problem. We need to empower the Dáil to hold the executive to account, but its hard in this, the oddest Dáil I’ve ever been in, because of the weak and disparate opposition. The largest opposition [FF] are discredited, they can’t any economic analysis having brought the country to ruin. Sinn Fein’s economic assessment is “Derbhy O’Gill” stuff: “we won’t pay our debts, but we’ll continue to borrow.”

9 Then you have the disparate socialist groups or Shane Ross just contrarian voices, essentially.

So there’s no coherent analysis that is separate from the government’s analysis, which is a weakness. We are also time-bound by the legislative programme the troika have set us. Often, we have to get legislation through at a pace we’d rather not, but we need to fulfil our obligations, and that requires debate to be curtailed.

That’s not good but that’s part of the price we’re paying for the loss of our economic sovereignty.

The sooner we get out of that the better. We can have a better structured Dáil – hopefully a unicameral one – with a good process of analysis and with good supports. I hope we can empower the research capacity of the Dáil and particularly the opposition, so they can adequately critique legislation-

“-and the Committees?”

Good committees will be the driver, but we need to train the media in as well. They’re only interested in the Dáil for circus value at the moment.

“Noel Dempsey came across a similar problem with his ‘committee weeks’ while he was Chief Whip.”

People aren’t interested in it because it’s complicated to go through the minutia of legislation, and there’s nothing that can be thrown onto the news.

But abuse, or calling someone a name, or a point of conflict between party leaders in the chamber - that’s usually what’s covered. That’s not good either for the image of parliament or for the understanding of the work of parliament – a large chunk of which is the minutia. There are people here who do very little either in bringing forward their own legislation or critiquing government legislation or government policy, but can gain the headlines with some vulgar act in the chamber. That shouldn’t be allowed to happen, and it’s what we need to change.

10

Left Tribune

Opinion: Mick

Reynolds

Leitrim

The capacity to elicit fault or blame for something is possibly the most natural human emotion we possess. Every major disaster, be it man made or natural, has and always will send people looking for answers as to why it has occurred. This can sometimes be termed scapegoating, usually used in the context of the blame being affixed to someone in a personified or individual instance. Now obviously there are some circumstances where this scapegoating can be unfair, such as that given to an international football manager or captain when their team fails at a tournament.

There is a natural inclination to look to the person at the top of the proverbial food chain when something goes wrong. In many cases it is the system which has failed, not the personality at the top. However in other cases it is too easy to look at the system and blame our problems on complex ideological and ephemeral concepts that we see as too multilayered to extrapolate from

Ánna

Ní Gleabháin Dublin In 2010 the Wildlife Bill was introduced and then passed by the nearly-gone Cowen government, thrusting a major animal welfare issue into the mainstream of public debate – not least because it almost toppled the government. In spite of Labour’s voting tactics that day, and despite that government’s brief extension of power, a victory was secured with the banning of the blood sport of Stag Hunting. The county still has a long way to go though, not least in the area of fur farming, which remains a legal and active industry in Ireland. Indeed, this is a much bigger issue of cruelty than Stag Hunting ever was.

A new Animal Welfare Bill has been in the works at the Department of Agriculture for some time and no statement has yet been made to confirm whether any change to the law regarding fur farming will be

UNACCOUNTABILITY: A MODERN PHENOMENON

the main personalities involved.

This leads me on to the central point, the idea that in the midst of the various financial crises that have marred the early years of this decade, there has been almost a complete failure of anyone to take account of the financial debacle we have been subjected to. However, perhaps equally telling and worryingly, there has not been a definitive reasoning found by any one for the question, the eternal question, “Who is to blame?”

In Ireland the answer seemed easy enough. Fianna Fail and the Greens were in charge for the period when the obligatory shit went down, so they were clearly the bad guys and as soon as they went from power everything would be rosy in the garden again. Ditto the Labour Party in the UK. However, when the skies didn’t immediately clear within a week, or, God save us, a hundred days of Fine Gael/ Labour government, the alarm bells began to ring again. Within

months, and with the spectre of Ahern, Cowan, and Coughlan out of the picture, it seems that people feel comfortable to proffer the Soldiers of Destiny with votes once again. The hounding of previous sacred cows such as Sean Fitzpatrick, Denis O’Brien, David Drumm, and Sean Quinn has offered some catharsis, but in terms of aiding our domestic deficit, never mind European recovery, it hasn’t mattered a jot.

As someone currently residing in the Border region, I have been sickened to my back teeth arguing that Quinn, a source of huge employment in Monaghan, Leitrim, and Cavan amongst other areas, has nevertheless been extremely reckless in his business practices over the years, and that he is largely to blame. Unfortunately, and as we have seen with the massive vote given to Sean Gallagher in the Presidential Election, local interests and the old cute hoorism of local politics still prevails.

So if localism and misguided loyalty is preventing accountability in Ireland, how come we haven’t been able to find a long term solution abroad? At the time of writing, the European Union equivalent of an all night cramming session has been taking place in Brussels.

However, as many college student knows, these don’t usually pay off, and the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy have done the equivalent of waffling for two hours in the hope of a pass grade and chanced doing three questions instead of the two required (Even if it is preferable to David Cameron not turning up to any tutorials during the year and not even submitting an exam paper). I remain firmly convinced there is a magic eight ball somewhere in the bowels of the European Parliament that is spun daily and with renewed desperation by Jose Manuel Barrosso, such is the grotesque mixing and matching of ideas

FUR FARMING IN IRELAND MUST BE BANNED included in the bill. In written answers on the subject, the Minister [Simon Coveny TD, FG] has repeatedly avoided giving an answer on whether he is committed to a ban on fur farming in the forthcoming Animal Welfare Bill, instead merely suggesting that the bill will be comprehensive.

There are currently five fur farms in this country rearing mink, red foxes and artic foxes. The farms focus mainly on the trade of Mink fur, exporting to other EU member states, Asia, North America and to other countries where the market demands for such trade. At the moment fur farming in Ireland contributes the not particularly large figure of around €5 million per year to the economy, and employs a handful of people.

Annually around 200,000 animals are killed across these

five farms in conditions many and yet, shockingly, fur farming would consider to be abusive, in Ireland continues without degrading and painful. intervention. It’s completely unacceptable for this barbarity The findings of a recent to continue. undercover investigation showed the mink being reared in cages Fur farming is banned in with a floor space equivalent Northern Ireland, Great Britain to two shoe boxes. This lack of and Austria while many other space can cause serious stress countries, such as Netherlands, for the semi-aquatic Mink and Croatia and Sweden, are phasing so fighting is a norm: wounds out this kind of farming. Other go untreated, hygiene is poor places such as Switzerland have and ill health is rife. The mink such strict regulations for fur are usually gassed to death by farms to adhere to that none are either carbon dioxide or carbon actually in existence. monoxide - up to fifty mink at a time are put in to a “killing Any animal kept in captivity by box.” This can and does result in humans should be allowed to a majority appearing dead but live and behave similarly to how being merely unconscious when it would in the wild. Fur farming they are being skinned. and the fur trade, therefore,

The artic foxes and should be outlawed on the red foxes are kept in similar grounds of cruelty to animals conditions but are instead killed and rights violations. by anal electrocution. This is a The new Animal Welfare horrifically painful way to die Bill being prepared by the

@Labouryouth that has plunged Europe deeper into crisis. It is telling that when the small fries of the European Union like ourselves, Greece, and Portugal got into fiscal difficulty, the proverbial top seeds of the EU adopted a scolding tone reminiscent of a Primary School teacher reprimanding a child in 4th class for not doing their sums. However, when France looked like going down the swanny, we were suddenly a comely Band of Brothers who all had to put our shoulders to the wheel in order to prevent Europe reverting to the days when it was divided amongst the sons of Charlemagne and Viking chiefs.

I’m aware it’s a pretty easy way out of this piece to say that no one is wholly responsible for the Decade of Crisis so far, but then again unaccountability was the central point. With such unaccountability comes a lack of leadership, inspiration, and ideas. It’s no one’s solution to find if it’s no ones fault, until someone steps up to provide that leadership. Maybe the promise of the Parti Socialiste will be able to provide some solutions if they dislodge Sarkozy from power, but if this crisis has thought us anything, it’s not to expect too much.

Deparment of Agriculture must include a ban on fur farming, this is a long overdue measure for a country that claims to be civilised.

The measure of a good society is how it treats the voiceless. It is time to change our weak animal welfare laws to ensure that these farms are no longer allowed to torture and exploit these wild animals.

11

ARE MEDICAL PATENTS GRINDING THE MARCH OF PROGRESS TO A HALT?

Dermot

Harnett

Trinity

It is the 17th Century. Thomas Wharton, bent over a human cadaver, gingerely cuts a small, whitish lump of flush from around the body’s larynxhad discovered the thyroid gland, for which we can all be grateful. We can also be grateful that he did not hold the lump of flesh aloft and proclaim a patent monopoly over any procedures involving it. Yet the molecular anatomy of the human body is now subject to such monopolies. There are genes in your body which, in effect, belong to other people.

Patent monopolies allow drug companies to charge profit margins of more than 1000% percent, except in places like India where, happily, they are often ignored. Right or not, they are the driving force behind the modern biotech industry.

The patent monopoly is, in effect, a relic of the middle ages.

Craftsmen could publish a patent guaranteeing them a monopoly, and so prevent valuable knowledge being hidden away in trade secrets. Yet there is little chance of trade secrets being kept in most modern applications - nobody would take a drug whose composition was a secret, and such a drug could easily be uncloaked by a chemist.

Nobody sat down and worked out the patent system, thinking “this is how we ought to fund bio medical research”, and yet it is often taken as an inevitability, or the only alternative to radical socialism.

That the development of new drugs should be rewarded is obvious, but our current system is a market distortion of the worse kind. As much as half of the money gained goes towards marketing and lobbying. Demand is created by sophisticated advertisement campaigns, producing a slow shift towards theories of illness which facilitate the prescription of medications.

This is a result of the massive information gap between drug companies and their customers. Doctors, inevitably, lack the complex scientific and

statistical knowledge to deal with pharmaceutical industries’ sophisticated marketing and manipulation of evidence.

Patients of course are even more helpless. Decisions about what drugs to use and their costs are made by sick people and their doctors: people who are desperate for a cure and often not particularly fussy about spending their money, no matter how long the odds of success are.

of an feeling, capitalist machine.

Little wonder that patients turn towards homeopathy or raki healing - at least there they can save money and support small business. As a consequence, the vast edifice of modern medicine in all it’s incredible efficacy is dismissed as propaganda.

Vaccinations are refused, and in our superstition disease becomes a judgement, visited on us by nature for our failure to eat only raw foods or align our souls Most damningly, the patent with the universe. system is failing to promote good research. The constant pressure Reform will be difficult. There is of stock market economics more than a little irony that the means that drug companies will USA, once famous for flaunting only pursue short term profit. foreign patent laws, is now the Basic research must be funded by epicenter of modern patent public bodies, who then sell their law. The international nature of research to private companies for a pittance. With safety trials The patent system taking so long, the profit motive is misdirected, prejudicing is failing to promote research towards duplicating existing drugs, or producing good research... drugs that are of little benefit, such as the “next generation” chasing profit of anti-psychotics. Research is chasing profit instead of driving instead of driving innovation. innovation...

Even where useful drugs are developed there is a bias towards those that treat chronic illnesses - witness the almost total the system will necessitate colack of research into antibiotics, operation between governments. and compare it to the research However the USA itself now has a into erectile dysfunction. Useful vested interested in co-operating research that does not lead to - if it cannot control the absurd a profit - for instance on the cost of medical treatment it will effects of vitamin supplements go bankrupt. Multiple solutions or polluted water - is neglected. are possible, governments could declare for instance, that all medical patents must be publicly The most subtle - but in my owned. It would then buy those opinion most serious - side which are worth purchasing from effect of patent monopoly in the industry and sell them at the modern world has been to market price. Purchase decisions discredit western medicine. The would consider expected “seratonin theory” of depression, benefit to patients, rather than it has been said, resembles expected profit, and by people concluding that lack of aspirin with sufficient background in the head causes headaches. knowledge make informed It’s persistence for decades, decisions. The pharmaceutical supported by the flimsiest of industry is already “too big to evidence, can only be attributed fail”, and almost too influential to to a medical establishment challenge. We look on in horror obsessed with pharmaceuticals. as across the atlantic, children With so much modern medicine younger than 10 are declared being geared towards selling “bi-polar” and have their pharmaceutical products that personalities medicated away. are often ineffective or even detrimental in their effects, These are visions of the future. patients inevitably become Our grasp of the truth is being disillusioned. Well meaning erroded by greed. Something intelligent doctors are seen, has to change. with some justification, as tools

12

Left Tribune

Colm

Maguire

Editor

As I wrote the title to this article, I thought, “that actually sounds really easy,” and it would be, in most other times or places, but not in Ireland in 2012. Oddly enough for a Politics & Philosophy student, I never had much time in college for justifying the state’s existence through theory.

Forgive me for sounding like the unfortunate result of Noam Chomsky and Rick Perry’s night best forgotten, but the state is a power structure, and a power structure will always exist, as long as there is a social structure.

Furthermore, it will always involve a form of tax and a form of justice, be it regulated, accountable, or just the occasional pillaging of a monastery. So why not make it the best it can be (that’s the Perry bit)?

To me, with liberal and egalitarian tendencies, that means building a state that upholds and enforces some basic rights (and is thus democratic), and uses its might to redistribute wealth and generally oversee the welfare of the nation.

Aside from the particularly socialist overtones, this is likely how most people in Western Europe view the complacent democracies in which they live; they aren’t terribly bothered about the precise justification for a democratic government having the power to tell the people what to do, but at least they have representatives to complain to and the de jure ability to oust them if necessary.

That said, there is an informal trust issue. I’m talking about is the quietly-made acknowledgement that elected officials do not completely detach governance from popular sentiment and reality in the term of office they are given. In my particular vernacular, it is “Enda’s Razor”: “don’t take the piss with power.”

If like in Italy in the 90s with the Mari Pulite scandal, it becomes increasingly clear that the current system doesn’t allow you to oust anyone; or if like in Ireland last year, it turns out that your government or international forces have brought the country to ruin, and are now embarking upon an economic plan that has no popular backing at all; then the informal agreement of trust (call it the Social Contract if you

The People’s Trust Must Not be Betrayed Again will) can be said to be broken, and it’s time to stop tolerating the system and break out of your civil shell.

I believe there are two major effects of public trust being breached so blatantly.

Firstly, opinion turns against the government, and they become almost certain to be destroyed at the next election, if elections can still be trusted to deliver this destruction. This happened in 2011 (ho ho ho).

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, public faith in “the system” will sink to a dangerous depth. We in the former opposition might like to call that a lazy reaction, one that blames “all the politicians” instead of identifying which politicians are to blame. There is no denying, however, that the system did fail: a government was elected in the normal manner in 2007, and went on to make a complete mockery of the supposedly democratic and accountable nature of the state.

There may be some amongst us who welcome the fallout from this; Labour Youth do highly value the need for political reform.

Whether or not the people who have lost confidence in the current system could regain some in a new system remains to be seen, but hopefully they’ll see something they trust when and if Labour in Government delivers on reform.

While we may be very satisfied with the first effect, and the beating Fianna Fáil were handed in the General Election, we should be very concerned as to the other effect: that public faith in the system has sank to a level that it will not recover from for quite some time. If it is ever to recover, our democracy will need to impress this time around, to regain the confidence of those who are alienated.

In short, the replacement government, also elected in the normal manner, will have to conduct themselves in government in a manner that respects the people and their will. This doesn’t mean Fine Gael and Labour sticking to their manifestoes like puritans to a bible, but it does mean that they will have to avoid breaking

Rogue’s Gallery: The people might be getting sick of exacting revenge on those they trusted with power.

“Enda’s Razor,” in order to prove that elections still can bring about a change of direction in Ireland.

The reason this may be difficult for the current government is that it doesn’t have complete sovereignty over its own affairs, and in theory it also has to chart a ‘middle’ path between two opposed party ideologies. Whether as a result of this, or perhaps just the immense egotism that goes with joining the most powerful executive in a western European parliamentary democracy, this government has already shown that it has the capability to detach its actions from its mandate with little justification.

A Government was elected in the normal manner (in 2007), and went on to make a complete mockery of the supposedly democratic and accountable nature of the State.

Citing “legal advice” as a reason for cancelling a much-trumped policy such as ending upwardonly rent reviews is fine, so long as the Attorney-General hasn’t advised in the past in favour of the policy. Similarly, contradicting a month-long student-oriented General Election campaign on the promise of a freeze in 3rd level fees, by serving those same

students with a fee increase 9 months later - in a way that barely dents the state’s defecit - breaks the trust. Decisions such as these - regardless of their ideological ideological significance - bring public trust ever closer to breaking point.

What breaking point is and means I do not know. It could be massive civil disobedience, as in Greece, or it could be another major realignment in the party system, to which Labour and/or Fine Gael may fall victim, such as after the Mani Pulite scandal. We probably won’t be seeing a “Celtic Spring” with the full trimmings of revolution, though.

What I think I can say with certainty is that if this government were to acquire the same image as the last one – a detached cabal, clinging to power and using it against the general will and general welfare – it would all but obliterate any faith in our public institutions, or deflect any lingering trust towards the “last mand standing,” Sínn Féin. This sounds dramatic, but we cannot afford to forget how angry people were before the last election, in particular those who had voted Fianna Fáil in the past. The same cannot be allowed to be said about Labour voters next time.

Labour must not allow itself to believe that the economic question is the only one facing government, or even one before which everything else must fold. For reasons that surpass ideology, we have to ensure that a second successive government doesn’t break the informal social contract with the people. Our economic recovery isn’t all that’s at stake.

facebook.com/Labouryouth

13

International News & Affairs: Peter

Kelleher

Dublin

"Hemingway called courage 'Grace under pressure'. Jack Layton's campaign did that definition one better." - Rex Murphy

Remembering Jack Layton (1950 - 2011) Conservative Minister). His own political career started with his election to Toronto City Council in 1982, with his time on both Toronto City Council and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto being notable for his opposition to the Toronto bid for the 1996 Summer Olympics.

There were other victories too, among them, a Left-led Toronto City Council (New Democrats and Independents) in 1988 and the creation of WindShare, a cooperative which operates a wind turbine in the city of Toronto.

Jack Layton, the sixth leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, died on the 22nd August 2011 from cancer. The news of his death caused grief across the entire political spectrum in Canada. During his life, and in particular the 2011 Canadian Federal Election, he convayed a message of hope similar to that Having run of the House of of President Obama.

Commons unsuccessfully in 1993 and 1997, he won the 2003 Born in Hudson, Quebec on 18th NDP leadership race and won a July 1950, Jack Layton already seat in the House of Commons in had his family history intertwined 2004 in the riding of Toronto— with that of the history of Danforth. In that election, he Canada. William Steeves (one raised the issues of homelessness of the Founders of Canada) was and electoral reform. Twice he his great-granduncle, Gilbert went to the verge of leading the Layton (a Union Nationale NDP into coalition government Minister in Quebec's provincial first with the Conservatives government) was his grandfather and the Bloc Québécois in 2004 and his father was Robert and again with the Liberals and Layton (a Federal Progressive Bloc Québécois in 2008. He also

Israel: Administrative Detention in the spotlight as Palestinian Detainee Continues hunger strike On January 1st, 2012, there were 307 Palestinians in “administrative detention” in Isreali prisons.

21 of them were members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, and one was Khader Adnan from the village of Arraba in the northern West Bank, who by then was entering his second week on hunger strike to protest administrative detention and the treatment of Palestinian prisoners.

At the time of writing Adnan remains in administrative division, strapped to an Israeli hospital bed, on day 63.

He has been called “Palestine’s Bobby Sands.” If he is to survive as long, then Israel’s

shaky deadline to save his life is Tuesday 21st February. Unlike Sands, there are no charges of actual wrong-doing against Adnan.

Bobby Sands died for prisoners’ rights, but Adnan is likely to die for the sake of basic freedoms of all Palestinians regarding arrest and detention. The Israeli Defence Forces consider Adnan a “security risk” to the region, and he is thus eligible to be held by the Israeli Military for an indefinite period. If parallels are to be drawn with Bobby Sands, then they also have to be drawn with a policy of internment.

While this man lies in a hospital bed – restrained despite realistically having lost the ability to walk – Israeli authorities are refusing pleas to release or charge him. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that Adnan is likely to receive a passive death sentence for the crime of being considered “a security risk”.

championed the case of US war resisters and childcare programs in his time as an MP. He would lead the NDP into four elections (2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011) gaining seats on each occasion.

The most successful being 2011 where the NDP would win 103 out of the 308 seats available, including 59 out of 75 seats in Quebec (in what was described as the Orange Crush).

Unfortunately, health problems began to surface. In February 2010, Jack Layton was diagnosed with prostate cancer. An illness which his father had recovered from, Jack Layton said calmly "This year, more than 25,000 Canadian men will be diagnosed with treatable prostate cancer and I have recently learned that I'm one of them." However, it would be a more serious cancer that would re-surface in August of this year from which he wouldn't recover. He was given a state funeral on the 25th - 27th August 2011.

Jack

Layton

inspired

people, including myself, in his campaigns and achievements.

Along with Tommy Douglas and Pierre Trudeau, he is among the top political leaders that Canada has ever had. In his final letter to Canadians, Jack Layton finished to by saying "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll many change the world."

Syria: rebellion continues as Conflict threatens to break into Sectarian Civil war The rebellion against the Assad regime continues – as does its brutal suppression and the whole-scale destruction of neighbourhoods in a ruthless campaign of collective punishment.

It is ever likelier that Bashir Assad’s tactics will eventually lead to his downfall, but the cost in lives will be immense. Now the conflict threatens to take on another turn as a large minority - Alawi Shia Muslims – who have been generally supportive of Assad in the past, begin to fear for their wellbeing in the aftermath of the conflict.

Whether realistic or fuelled by the regime’s fear mongering, the fear for Alawi Shias is that a new Syria would see them put to the mercy of a vengeful Sunni majority. According to Al-Jazeera, the tension caused has spread to Lebanon, where incidents of sectarian violence have taken place – the vicious circle being completed as tensions in Syria worsen in return.

Whether or not the intervention in Libya has proven that a model of Western intervention can be successful in such civil conflicts, there is a proven danger from another nearby conflict – the Iraq War – that such a long conflict can degenerate over time into an ethnic civil war.

Iraq is still victim to sectarian division, and its “post-war” civil war has devastated any chance of national reconciliation in the shortterm. For Syria its seems the likelihood of an all-out ethnic civil war is increasing as the regime continues to spread fear and division amongst the people.

14

Left Tribune

Hungary: Democracy under siege The new Hungarian Constitution is an essential example of tyranny by the majority. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has managed to do the unthinkable (with, at best, token opposition being the first reaction of European governments): dismantle a European democracy.

His government has spent the last few months defending the new constitution, brought in unilaterally courtesy of the two-thirds majority his coalition government has in the National Assembly. The majority technically allows them to do whatever they want with the constitution, and they appear to have done just that, declaring the end of the Hungarian

Republic in the process.

The distracted EU is being shown up in the entire episode, as the potential death of democracy in a member state doesn’t appear to be attracting the concerted wrath of the Union – rather, the European Commission is bringing a court case. The European Council, unusually, has been particularly silent on this issue.

Truly, desperate times for Hungary and Europe.

Resistance to the measure originated, of course, inside Hungary, where the main opposition MSZP is leading a campaign to restore the Hungarian Republic, all the while the

creeping atmosphere of one party authoritarianism builds around them. Internationally, ECOSY – Young European Socialists have led the charge to end the silence of the party that, for most intents and purposes, governs the EU and partners both Hungarian government parties, the EPP. The Socialists & Democrats group in the European Parliament have now taken up the cause as well, with a composite resolution being passed in the European Parliament with the support and co-authorship of the GUE/NGL and the Liberals. It remains to be seen of course, whether words can be turned into action, or action into success, either on the part of Hungarian civil society or the European Union itself.

Certainly diplomatic pressure is now increasing on Hungary, as well as the EPP, to reverse at least some of the changes being made to Hungary’s democracy.

Perhaps this entire incident will be resolved within the year, and serve as a wakeup call to Europe that the far-right must be tackled and democracy must be proactively defended. Perhaps more realistically though, the issue will go unresolved, and Hungary will continue its slide towards authoritarianism, proving that the EU – like the League of Nations before it – has failed in one of the key pillars of its raison d’Etre: to protect the rights of European citizens and the democratic nature of Europe.

Tribune Editorial:

Should labour be heading north?

An odd question to ask, perhaps, in the middle of all that is going on. It’s not as if Labour Youth doesn’t have enough to do without embarking on the complicated journey that would be organising a recruitment event in Queens or one of the four UU campuses (let alone any non-college branches).

Labour already has an organisation in Northern Ireland (The Northern Ireland Constituency Council), but it doesn’t field any candidates and the main party certainly doesn’t proactively address issues that affect those in the North.

This situation has to change: the Labour Party cannot afford to wait for Irish unification before organising on an all-island basis. Labour will have to organise properly in the North at some stage. Demographics can’t be ignored, and neither can voting behaviour – both of these show that the “catholic” population, with very few exceptions, votes for nationalist parties, and it is growing.

There will likely be a referendum on the sovereignty of Northern Ireland at some point in the next few decades, and the chances of unification are not as slim as conservative

instincts might suggest. Even if the possibilities were very small of unification, however, Labour should be preparing to go north to avoid electoral catastrophe should the unexpected ever come to fruition.

Either Labour plans to organise in the foreseeable future – rather than being caught off-guard if the prospect of Irish unity becomes a certainty – or it runs the risk of being left without an electoral base, or a record of representation of any kind, for a quarter of the population in a new state. Labour’s strategy in the North should be to organise irrespective of the immediate prospects of any sovereignty eferendum. Labour should “go North” on principle to represent, as a progressive voice, the people who might deign to trust us with their vote.

Whether we do it alone or as part of a regional alliance remains to be seen. Hopes that the SDLP and Labour could act together as sister parties who might one day merge are undermined by the SDLP’s consistency in courting the support of “all parties” in the Republic. Perhaps Labour isn’t republican enough for the SDLP, or perhaps the SDLP just isn’t

left enough for Labour. Some quarters of the party would prefer any move into the North to be “neutral” on the issue of unification anyway. Whatever the reason, a merger isn’t happening any time soon – it isn’t even a whispered suggestion at this stage.

An alternative regional alliance that might be a possibility is a joint organisation with the UK Labour Party. This would most definitely be a “neutral” party on the issue of unification. Whether or not that is a worthwhile strategy comes down to whether we think and accept that “Irish Labour” won’t be accepted by the unionist community. Even if the strategy is worthwhile, however, some might prefer an openly pro-unification stance for the sake of principle or in order not to cause controversy in the Republic.

To organise as the Irish Labour Party outside of any alliance would perhaps be the hardest, but also the least divisive, move. It would be one that requires awesome commitment – though we have many committed activists in the NICC – and whose goals would likely be the slowest of all the options to come to fruition.

There would likely be initial debate over Labour’s role and position in the context of the border, and it will be very difficult to break into the vote bases of the established parties there.

However, Labour has much to offer in its progressive outlook, and the North has much to offer Labour.

Going North might be divisive, and if we go it alone it will be a long fight without much reward in the short term. But not to go North, and to persistently avoid the issue of organisation there, leaves us open to a potential repeat of 1918 and many years on the back foot in a unified Ireland.

@Labouryouth

Last Word:

15

A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

A chomhrádaithe, I am glad to be offered the opportunity to give some thoughts for the first Left Tribune in my term as National Chair.

This publication is very important to Labour Youth – it is the mouthpiece of Labour Youth to a certain extent, and now more than ever Labour Youth needs to speak its mind.

Since last February, the government have embarked on a programme to get the country back on its feet. Labour Youth is obliged, however, to voice its concerns where policies and actions go against our principles of fairness and community.

Labour is doing some good in government: the minimum wage, secularisation of schools, and the ongoing programmes to help the unemployed find work. In future, we can look forward to free GP coverage being introduced and a reform of how our mental health services work.

But where the government is failing - and often in ways that many in Labour Youth were predicting - we have a duty to assess where, as a party, we are going. As the youth of the party, we have a particular part to play in this.

Labour Youth has been lobbying intensively on many issues since the National Youth Executive was elected in November. In this way we are giving young Labour Party members close access to our legislators and Ministers.

Buoyed as we are by Patrick Nulty’s election and also that of Michael D. Higgins, the Labour Party now finds itself with no elections of any kind for another two years, and a lot to discuss internally. As National Chair of Labour Youth, I hope that we can, through our events, campaigns and publications like this, add to the discussion and direction of the party.

Conor Ryan National Chairperson, Labour Youth

The Executive: Conor Ryan National Chairperson lychair@labour.ie

Luke Field Vice Chair & Campaigns lycampaigns@labour.ie

Aideen Carberry Recruitment Officer lyrecruitment@labour.ie

Noel Cullen National Secretary lysecretary@labour.ie

Deirdre Hosford Policy & Education Officer lyeducation@labour.ie

Colm Maguire Communications Officer colmgmaguire@gmail.com

Cian Moran International Officer lyinternational@labour.ie

Rory Geraghty National Youth & Development Officer youth@labour.ie

Volume VII - Issue 1 February 2012 Want to get involved in Labour Youth?

Email youth@labour.ie Want to submit an article?

colmgmaguire@ gmail.com Left Tribune Volunteers Editor:

Colm Maguire

Deputy Editor:

Rory O’Neill Contributors:

Cian Brennan Dermot Harnett Peter Kelleher Chris Morash Chris Murphy Ánna Ní Gleabháin Conor Quirke Mick Reynolds Conor Ryan With Thanks to: Rory Geraghty Special Thanks to: Brendan Howlin TD

16

Left Tribune

Sign this petition at http://chn.ge/zkLBnj

Dear Taoiseach, 20 years ago on February 17th 1992 a 14 year old girl, known as X, became the subject of a High Court injunction barring her from leaving the country. She was confined to Ireland to prevent her terminating her pregnancy, the result of a rape following years of sexual abuse at the hands of a neighbour.

Two weeks later following a huge outpouring of sympathy and horror from all sections of society and all corners of the nation the Supreme Court ruled that when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger, including from the risk of suicide, she has the right to an abortion here in Ireland. On that date the court directed that we must legislate to allow women exercise this right.

20 years later Irish women are still waiting for legislation to allow them access to abortion where their life is in danger.

Please show leadership on this issue and introduce legislation to give effect to the X case before the end of 2012 so that Irish women do not have to wait another 20 years to access life saving abortion.

Sincerely, Labour Youth