The Curse of High Expectations.

Watching the crowds cheering at Francoise Hollande’s election, I could not help wondering how long it would be before large numbers of his supporters (particularly his young ones) would be feeling disappointed and betrayed. Like Sarkozy and Chirac before, he has been elected on a platform of immeasurable unachievable nebulousness. Of course he will disappoint, as has Obama, Cameron and  Clegg.  Getting elected the way they do, they can do no other.

This is a factor that crosses the Western world which should worry us all. Electorates that are incapable or unwilling of understanding subtle, modest or technical political pledges have to be instead won over with emotive buttonpushing that leaves them ultimately unfulfilled, and so leaves an electorate feeling more cynical and bitter after each election, and more open to the heroin-like bigger better hit of left or right extremism, or religious fanaticism.

Ireland is no different. Every now and again, people lament the fact that there is “no one” to vote for. They call for a party that is sincere in its opposition to corruption, that advocates political reforms that put the community first, and that has nothing to do with the dodgy connections between business and politics in Ireland.

Then you tell them that there is such a party. Eyebrows jut up. It’s called the Green Party. Ugh! They say, and dismiss you with a wave of the hand, and there’s the funny thing right there. In the 2011 general election, the Irish electorate wiped out the one party that had been 100% clean on corruption, whose deputies had fought (in Trevor Sargent’s case, actually) in council chambers against corruption, and yet elected 20 Fianna Fail TDs. Go figure.

The Green Party is ready to reengage in the political system, but it needs to address its history and its actual purpose. Most of all, it has to deal with that perennial of Irish politics, The Curse of High Expectations. This is something that affects all Irish political parties when they enter government, and it can be particularly lethal to parties like the Greens and PDs with small core votes that rely on transfers from soft voters to win seats. In government, the Greens achieved certain policy objectives, but they failed to identify and meet the gut objectives that those soft Green voters were looking for to stay with the party. In particular, the party failed to shape, before its entry into government, the expectations of its voters. What would it specifically have to do to keep those voters on board. It’s extraordinary how Irish political parties never seem to give this much thought, especially when one considers how prone the Single Transferable Vote electoral system is to magnifying a drop in transfers into actual seat losses. Just look at how it worked with FF and Labour in 2011. Despite only a 1% vote difference, Labour got nearly twice as many seats as FF because Labour was transfer friendly whereas FF had the political equivalent of Herpes. STV is a fairweather friend voting system, which means that in the coming storm, Labour could be completely capsized.

Labour is heading in this direction, and seems unwilling to do anything about it. Like the Greens and PDs before them, they really need to look at the voting system and ask is this the best system for small ideological parties in a non-ideological country? Labour, like the Greens, needs to decide who it is for, what it must do specifically to keep those people onboard, and what voting system is the best for helping those voters deliver Labour TDs.    

An Occasional Guide to Irish Politics: The Thatcherite No Voter.

How would she vote on May 31st?

You don’t see him much in the media, because it doesn’t really suit. It’s much easier to have on one side the voices of economic orthodoxy, paying our debts, etc, and on the other side the Anti-Austerity Why Can’t Every Thing Be Nice left. Everybody knows where they stand, and to have a Ron Paul style slash big government by proxy type complicating the issue just doesn’t fit. The idea that there are Irish people who actually think that ever growing public spending might be a bad idea just does not compute in a political system that tries to pretend that there is no left or right in Irish politics. In fact, the idea that such an opinion could be voiced in Ireland is so offensive to some that they try to pretend that it is a fabrication of the Yes side.

But ask yourself this: if they could, how would the British Tories vote in this referendum? He is voting No because he is afraid that there could indeed be another bailout, funding the Croke Park Agreement and civil service increments. In his mind, a No vote will starve the public sector of funds from wherever, and throttle it down to size. The fact that he has Mary Lou, Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd Barrett to actually help him deliver that goal, well, that’s just delicious.

It’s like when Al Qaeda and Mitt Romney both agree that the gays should not have the same rights as, you know, real people. In politics, the strangest people can find themselves in bed together.

Interesting thoughts.

Wonk!

If you get a chance, check out www.publicpolicy.ie, the website of the Irish Fiscal Policy Research Centre, which is funded by Atlantic Philanthropies, and is a new thinktank dedicated to putting out thoughtful options on various public policy issues. 

Interesting stuff for the policy wonks amongst us. You know who you are. Yes, you with a copy of Prospect magazine secretly stuffed in the middle of GQ. I’m looking at you.   

Do normal people go into politics anymore?

I recently had lunch with someone not involved in politics who had been asked to consider running for a party. He refused, and was surprised at the reaction of non-political friends who encouraged him to run. What was interesting, and I’ve experienced it myself, is how non-political people’s view of going into politics differs radically from the reality. 

The first big difference is the cost. It amazes me the amount of people who believe that political parties actually fund candidates campaigns. When I ran myself, friends who helped me could not believe how much time was spent fundraising, having assumed that the party just picks up the tab. I know people still paying off overdrafts from campaigns fought a decade ago. I also know a person who refused to believe that campaign workers weren’t all paid by the party.

Secondly, they couldn’t believe how many party members who demand an input into candidate selection vanish when the campaign starts, leaving candidates for the most part with their own family and friends, often running a campaign with people who are not even supporters of the party. In “The West Wing”, you never saw Jed Bartlett sitting at his kitchen table pleading with friends to give him an hour on a Saturday afternoon to drop a leaflet in an estate, or settling to bring his still half-drunk brother from the night before to drop leaflets with the promise of a dirty fry.  

Finally, the sheer amount of time and physical door knocking required stuns non-political people. It always raises a smile amongst veterans when a new campaigner, when asked what they can do, suggests something like “I can help hone your message, spin, that kind of thing?”. This is one of the big jaw-droppers from people who believe that an election campaign is only a month long. That and the realisation that the most welcome contributor to a candidate is not the guy with the campaign politics degree from Harvard but the weirdo wafting of BO who religiously drops 1000 doors every Saturday.

The truth is, not only do normal people not get deeply involved in politics when they realise the sheer effort involved, and the disruption it will cause to their normal work and family life, a new generation of people are not getting involved because they…get this…are actually interested in discussing politics.

What’s that, you say? Surely people interested in politics should join a political party? Actually, no. Don’t. Because there isn’t time with all the above to actually discuss what a given party is for. A candidate who spends his time in a pub discussing political ideas will not get elected. Modern political parties are dominated not by the politically interested but the politically ambitious, people who do not want to do as much as want to be. To them, politics is not an aim but a tool.  

Recently, I mentioned to someone the idea of setting up an informal “Chatham House Rule” political debate club that would meet maybe once a month to debate a political issue. No party ding-dongs, just discussion about a given issue, maybe around a motion or policy paper. What surprised me was the amount of party political people whose eyes lit up with enthusiasm for the idea. Not as a forum to further their party interest, but somewhere where they could discuss political ideas that could not be raised in an actual political party.

Somewhere outside of their political activities where they could actually discuss politics, which says it all, really. 

Supposing Bertie HAD done the right thing…

Supposing Bertie had tried to do the right thing...

June 2007. Cowen, blaming Ahern, concedes defeat as Kenny opens negotiations with Rabbitte.

The Taoiseach, Brian Cowen TD, has conceded defeat after tallymen said that FF senator Cyprian Brady would narrowly fail to be elected to the last seat in Dublin Central. This result confirmed that Fianna Fail’s loss of five seats in the general election meant that it was now impossible for the party to attempt to cobble together a majority with the remaining PDs and independents.

Cowen launched a blistering attack on his predecessor, Bertie Ahern TD,  for his decision, following the 2002 general election, to restrict mortgage lending and tax breaks. He identified Ahern’s attempts to dampen down the property market as the key reason for Fianna Fail’s defeat in the general election. The decision to restrict lending was very badly received by first time buyers, who accused the government of treating them like children and not letting them borrow as much as they wished.

Ahern’s January 2003 RTE Prime Time interview, where he suggested that the banks and mortgage holders were piling debts upon themselves based on massively overvalued assets caused the Taoiseach to be savaged by the media, who attacked him (and not just in their weighty property supplements) of being alarmist and talking down the market. Ahern’s refusal to back down led to a gradual slow down and modest dip  in property values, and following heated rows in heated tents in Galway with party supporters, finance minister Charlie McCreevy announced his resignation, accusing Ahern of lacking courage.

The policy led to a substantial drop in employment in the construction industry, with unemployment leaping from 3.1% to 5.1%, and demands for the Taoiseach’s resignation by some FF backbenchers. Fianna Fail suffered heavy losses in middle class areas in the 2004 local and European elections, with Fine Gael trouncing FF with a clear call to reverse Ahern’s restrictions. Polls showed clearly that Ahern’s interference in the property market was deeply unpopular with middle class and aspiring middle class voters,  and in June 2006, following a sustained campaign in the media, Charlie McCreevey announced that he was challenging Bertie Ahern for the party leadership. Although he defeated Ahern in the vote, McCreevy was beaten in the subsequent leadership election by Brian Cowen, his successor as finance minister, who pointed out that he believed in the “traditional idea that the leader of Fianna Failer should be, you know, a member of Fianna Fail.” The new cabinet announced it was reversing Ahern’s restricting on lending and restoring the tax breaks to the building industry.

The incoming Fine Gael/Labour coalition has said that it does not believe the fact that the country is building over 80,000 housing units when Sweden, with double the population, is only building 12,000, to be a cause for concern.

In other news, the family of Capt. Edward Smith, the “mad” captain of the RMS Titanic who rammed an iceberg in 1912 and caused over a €100,000 pounds worth of damage to his own ship, have petitioned the British Government to clear the captain’s name. Smith, who died disgraced in 1950, always maintained that if he attempted to turn the ship away from the iceberg it could have been badly damaged along its hull in such a way as to sink the ship, a theory that modern engineers have recently begun to suggest has merit. For years, the phrase “To Smith Oneself” was a derogatory naval slogan to describe a foolish action taken by a person who claimed that they were attempting to avoid a greater catastrophe.

The former luxury liner continues to be one of the biggest tourist attractions in London, where it is moored.

Should the EU consider a continental Basic Income?

As Europe awaits results from both the French and Greek elections this weekend, it is probably fair to say that Europe is swinging if not left then towards a counter-austerity sentiment. In short, even people on the conventional centre-right, who accept the need for public spending to be brought under control (with a liontamer’s whip and chair in some cases) are now beginning to also accept that whilst applying a firm grip on spending is a great idea if the country in question is surrounded by economic “normal” countries, but if a whole region attempts to do it together it creates a giant suckhole that could pull everyone down together.

As if that is not problem enough, there are two further issues complicating things: the first is that Germany, which is benefitting greatly from its own reforms on the 1990s but also the European single market and the eurozone, is being asked to basically stump up the cash to resolve the issue of deflation in the Mediterranean.

Secondly, there is the danger that deflation in the PIGS will cause major public unrest and political extremism. What’s to be done?

Is it time to consider some form of European Basic Income or welfare payment, funded by Brussels, to ensure that no one slips totally beneath the waves whilst also injecting money in those economies? Such a scheme would allow for some stability in the PIGS whilst also demonstrating that the EU is not just for the rich. How would we fund such a thing? Well, a mixture of quantative easing by the ECB, direct funding by the Germans and perhaps an EU wide wealth tax of some description, or maybe an EU wide Tobin Tax?

What’s that, you say? O’Mahony proposing a wealth tax? I’m just thinking out loud here, but the key argument against the left raising taxes against the rich in a European country is that the people upon whom the tax is levied can move. But if the tax is levied on the whole EU, that’s a different kettle of fish, because leaving the EU means leaving a single market of 500 million consumers, not just a single state. It would also be hilarious to watch the Irish hard left in particular do political gymnastics as they tried to figure out what approach to take on a federal wealth tax.

Additional comments written later: It also occurs to me that a European Basic Income would address one issue that causes problems in nearly every member state, that of perceived welfare shopping. If every citizen could only receive the income amount that pertained in their home state, unless they had been living in another state for a number of years, would that not encourage non-working EU citizens to stay at home in their own member states, as there would be no benefit to travelling to another member state other than to work? Just a thought.

Is reality hiding under voters’s beds?

Wil E Coyote being bullied by gravity.

It is no secret that I occasionally recycle blog posts. I do this not out of laziness, but because of the fact that so much of Irish politics is the same repetitive old crap that has been in play since I participated in my first election campaign 21 years ago. Referendums on EU matters are a particularly acute source of political deja vu, with the usual declarations, nearly always by the No side of scaremongering and bullying by the Yes side.

Take this week’s declaration by Michael Noonan that, as finance minister, if he does not have access to more funds from the EU as a result of a No vote, he will not be able to spend as much on public services. He was told that he was bullying the Irish people by stating that.

Just think about it for a minute: Telling people that if we have less money we can buy less things. That is now classed as bullying. It’s like being accused of bullying someone by telling them that if they leap off a cliff, they will plunge to their doom.

But it does reveal an interesting thing about modern politics, how many voters are now averse to not just opposing political positions, but actually being informed of things they don’t like hearing. One of the more worrying aspects to this is that politicians have given up trying to inform or educate voters as to the reality of the relationship between taxes and spending, instead focusing on whatever key message will hold voter trust just long enough to get past polling day.

We now have a generation of leaders who disappoint almost from day one in office as a result, as Sinn Fein are now gearing up to do, because they do not confront voters with realistic expectations before they vote. The argument given is that you can’t win elections by being honest, and certainly recent Irish political history (look at the Green Party) would confirm that view. But what is remarkable is how Irish governments, actually in power, make almost no effort to bring voters around to their way of thinking, especially on public spending issues. No Irish government has ever engaged in a pro-active effort to convince Irish voters that spending cuts are the price of preventing even higher taxes, or that the combined demands of every special interest must be clearly identified in the public mind as higher taxes. What is more puzzling is that they are taking the kicking anyway, so why don’t they start to fight back? What exactly are they afraid of?

Two questions for the No side.

The issues upon which the Fiscal Treaty referendum will be decided seem to be solidifying around the question of access to future funding of public services. With that in mind, two questions for the No side occur to me:

1. If we accept that Sinn Fein have changed their view of the IMF from being absolute bastards to generous and decent lenders of last resort, does this mean that Sinn Fein will accept and support any new conditions required by the IMF for a post 2013 bailout?

2. Joe Higgins (to his credit) has suggested that the gap in spending be closed through increased taxation. He then, like every Irish politician, puts on his Progressive Democrat hat and pledges that the vast majority will not pay extra taxes, only the very wealthy. Does Joe believe that the very wealthy will sit quietly and pay the extra taxes required indefinitely? In other words, the only reason they are not paying more at present is because they were never asked?

Restaurant Review: Kitchen, South Anne Street, Dublin.

Don't stay out of the Kitchen.

I recently dined in Kitchen, on South Anne Street, on a menu that could, I suppose, be best described as Modern European. It was good, simple and tasty, and the Tart Tartin will kill you stone dead, but you’ll die happy. You can check out their details here.

Firstly, let me say that I arrived earlier than expected, and was enthusiastically encouraged to remain, order a drink, use the Wi-FI or read the paper. It’s nice to be not regarded as a nuisance in a restaurant, which isn’t always the case. I haven’t eaten in Kitchen before, but the location, a few doors up from my old favourite Gotham, is really handy.

The food was excellent, and the general surrounds were very pleasant. I mention that because despite Kitchen being quite small, they have resisted the temptation (pay attention here Gotham!) to pack tables so close to each other that you accidentally wander into other people’s conversations/adulterous affairs/plots to overthrow the government. Kitchen, on the other hand, allows that level of privacy to chat or meet with political cronies. Which is not what I was doing. Oh no.

I mentioned to someone in work that I was going there, and they said “they’re always selling”, which I only understood when I was there, in that the staff are very “would you like garlic bread with that? Another drink?” but funnily enough, I don’t mind that. It is, after all, a business (something which seems to always surprise Irish people. The same people, by the way, who marvel at US customer service when they do the same thing) and they only asked us at appropriate times, when we were ordering, or when drinks were empty. It’s not like we were being hovered over, being willed into finishing the last mouthful of wine so that it could be replenished.

Overall? I’ll be going back, so make of that what you will. 

Is it time for a new economic model?

On your Marx, get set...

It is fair to say that we live in a time of great economic turmoil and dissatisfaction, with many of the old accepted truths under question. At the heart of that debate must be the question of the current economic system of the west, and there are many on the left saying this too. However, they tend to propose solutions which have either been tried and failed, or indeed fail to take account of core factors in the human condition.

But supposing we were to seek a new economic model. What would be the principles at its core?

1. It is not unreasonable to state that at this stage of human development in the west we can eliminate poverty in a defined sense. We have the wealth to ensure a basic level of income, housing, healthcare and education for all of our people. No one need go hungry nor sleep rough if we as a society decided, assuming that we define poverty in a real material sense, as opposed to the theoretical gap between rich and poor.  

2. That must be seperated, however, from our consumerist wants, something we would have great difficulty in accepting. We could fund a right to healthcare, but not the right to an iPad, and spending more money on poverty reduction means less money for disposable consumerism.

3. We must also accept that capitalism, for all its flaws, has still proven to be the most effective way of encouraging innovation and wealth creation. It is no accident that very few of the products produced by genuinely communist countries (China is not one) have survived communism, although I do hear that a stripped out Trabant makes a fine micro-glass house for an allotment.

4. If we are to fund a poverty free society, we must recognise that wealth production requires that the overwhelming majority of the adult populace must contribute. We also have to accept that the idea of people ceasing to be productive potentially from age 50-55 is an arbitrary concept founded on a retirement date decided in the age of Bismarck. It is simply not viable in an age where medical advances (another product of capitalist innovation) makes the idea of living to 100 no  longer an outlandish concept. A society cannot have a large proportion of its population expecting to spend nearly half their adult lives being funded by the labours of others whilst they can still contribute to wealth creation. Retirement has to be more fluid and has to take account of increases in life expectancy and the quality of life of older people.

5. If capitalism is to survive, however, it must be with the consent of the great majority. This means that the great majority must feel that it works in the common good. This surely requires that an ordinary 40 hours a week worker has to be able to provide a reasonable life style for that effort. If this means that there must be wealth redistribution from the top, that is the price to be paid.

6. The creation of a permanent economic aristocracy of the mega wealthy is a threat to both democracy and capitalism itself, in that by sucking the finite resource of wealth away from the rest of society it calls into question the ability of capitalism to provide an acceptable living standard to the great majority, which could lead to dissatisfaction and eventual revolution.

7. This does not mean that we should follow the confiscatory policies of the hard left, because they advocate a short term solution which if followed will actually strangle the wealth creating abilities of the west. It should not be forgotten that the Iron Curtain was not built to stop westerners flooding to the communist states. The problem with the hard left is that they believe that wealth is a natural occurring phenomena, whereas capitalism believes, rightly, that wealth is created by the ingenuity of man, and requires that man be free to create and benefit from the fruits of his creation.

8. The key then, must be to balance the freedom to strive and create and benefit from that struggle with a level of regulation of permit the recycling of a proportion of that wealth back into society through redistribution. The question will be how one does that without stifling effort through punitive taxation? Estate Taxes, for example, have proven an effective means of doing so, in that they do not interfere with the wealth creation effort during the life of the creator. This does have to be balanced, on the one hand, with the maintaining of economically viable entities after their creator’s passing and also the very human desire to pass on wealth to one’s family.

9. Finally, a new ecomomic model must recognise that globalisation is a fact, and that the days of national sovreignty leading to control of the economic affairs of a state are now long passed,  and that if the west wishes to protect its values, it must be willing to ensure cooperation, integration and common policy amongst its components to a scale unimagined before. It also has to be recognised that for proper free market competition to work, a strong state with an anti-monopoly/cartel regulatory function is vital.