Posted by Jason O on Apr 25, 2012 in
Irish Politics Many years ago, when I was still active in politics, the concept of a Basic Income for every citizen was a very live issue. Interestingly, although it started out as a left wing concept, people on the right started to become interested in it as a means of getting better value from the social welfare budget. Indeed, many of those on the left who initially advocated it used to cool on the idea when they realised that if every citizen was granted a no-questions-asked universal payment, it would allow for the radical dismantling of the social welfare system, including very substantially reduced numbers of civil servants, as the need for policing and processing would be hugely reduced.
Of course, there were other issues. Even with huge savings made by abolishing most social welfare payments, and cutting the public sector pay bill, it would still require large amounts of taxation to fund it. Secondly, if every citizen were to receive it, including those in work, to ensure universal approval of it, and it were to be generous enough to fund a relatively decent lifestyle, what would stop large numbers of people just becoming layabouts and parasites living off the backs of others? I don’t know the answers, but as a concept it is worth further examination, and perhaps could be the bridge between right and left in terms of setting a minimum standard of living upon which no citizen shall fall beneath.
Posted by Jason O on Apr 25, 2012 in
Irish Politics Am doing Leviathan tonight with Andrea Pappin. See here for details. There’s a piece in TheJournal.ie by me here outlining some of the issues. It seems to have made some people drop the monocle from their eyes in shock.
There’s a repetitive nature to every Irish referendum on the EU. The Yes side, normally a centrist establishment, will make the usual “Yes to Jobs/Heart of Europe/Seat at the table/Send the right signal” arguments. The No side will run their standard “Vote No to change things you don’t like” position. But will a No vote change anything?
Quite possibly, but perhaps not in the way many on the No side suggest. Will a No vote mean that we will have no access to funds to plug our spending gap from the end of 2013? Again, possibly. The treaty says yes, but you can’t rule out the acrobatic legal suppleness of EU politicians. But let us suppose that it does rule out those funds. Then what?
Well, some months ago, I wrote that many former Yes campaigners were telling me privately that they were almost hoping for a No vote, because it would finally call the No side’s bluff in terms of cold hard cash to fund welfare and pensions. A No vote would lead to an emergency budget in 2013 that would be forced to finally implement the surgical amputation of a large part of our post World War Two social safety net and our public sector as a major employer in the state. This prospect has some on the economic far right rubbing their hands with glee, because not only will it be seen as not ideological but a fact of mathematics, but it will be irreversible. Think about it: We will be forced to close the spending gap through a mixture of massive spending cuts and to a lesser degree, through taxation. That means that in the future, if a left wing government wishes to reverse those cuts, it will have little choice but to raise taxation which is politically poisonous in what is essentially an economically libertarian country.
I am amazed that the hard left don’t see this. They will argue that the treaty will force cuts and tax rises by limiting borrowing anyway, which is true. But the difference is that EU funding will allow us to do it at our own pace, and make more pragmatic choices as the economy recovers. There will still be pain, but there will also be a controlled return to the bond markets and not the short, sharp heart attack of an instant balanced budget brought on through hubris on the hard left and to the secret delight of the economic far right.
Posted by Jason O on Apr 17, 2012 in
Irish Politics,
Not quite serious.
I have to PAY for all this stuff?
“I don’t want to pay for stuff! But I want stuff!” There’s a certain type of voter who comes into their own during referendums. First of all, indignation is the order of the day. They are pissed off with everyone, which given the state of things, is understandable. But scratch a little deeper, and you encounter the reality. Take the Fiscal Compact Treaty. They will give out yards about there being “no information”, despite the guides in newspapers and websites and leaflets put out by the Referendum Commission. Say that to them, of course, and you get ”I haven’t time to read all that!” Yet he still has opinions, based on some five minutes of some big mouth giving it loads on “Joe Duffy”. God forbid anyone should challenge his half-informed half-baked opinions, because he regards that as a breach of his human rights. When you correct him that No, Russia is NOT in the EU, he accuses you of being patronising because he has a RIGHT to believe that Russia is in the EU, and you are a member of the elite for disputing his right to believe that. It’s the same with taxes and government services. He bitches about not being able to afford to pay €2 a week for his Household Charge, but spends €10 a week on the lotto. He whines about how much tax he pays (always overstating the percentage because he doesn’t actually know how much he pays) and gripes about how everything from Doctor’s visits to the television licence should be free, paid magically by someone else.
But here’s the thing: it is not solely his fault. All his adult life he has had politicians tell him that all the things he says are right and correct. Of course he should get the fruit of the labours of others! Isn’t he entitled? After all, if everyone is telling him that his clothes are so fine, sure why would he believe that he was actually bollock naked?
Posted by Jason O on Apr 11, 2012 in
Irish Politics It’s a default statement that is never questioned, but what does it actually mean? After all, the top 0.5% of earners in Ireland in 2009 paid 18% of all income tax. In 2010, the top 5% paid 44% of income tax. How is that unfair? When you talk to people about it, the argument goes a funny way, because it emerges, in my experience, that the argument is not about what a fair share actually is, but about the fact that the rich are somehow rich through some form of trickery, and that admitting that hard work creates wealth is curiously un-Irish. But let’s be honest: there’s also the simple fact that it is not regarded as socially unacceptable in Ireland to be just plain openly jealous about other people being rich. When Richard Boyd Barrett speaks about the rich, he speaks about them as if they deserve to be punished, in short, for being rich and therefore wicked.
There is an argument that the rich should pay a higher proportion of their income because they have “spare money”. The problem with that is that “spare money” is a subjective idea. If Dennis O’Brien’s wealth plummets to €2-3 million, he no longer feels he’s rich, or has “spare money”. What about an unemployed guy living next to a civil servant who has just bought a 2011 Ford Focus? In his eyes, his neighbour is loaded, and should pay extra tax. After all, he can afford a brand new Ford Focus. Yet to a returned immigrant living in a bedsit, looking at his unemployed neighbour who has a house, he’s thinking how he would love to have the house the unemployed guy has. In short, to be as rich as him.
What we really mean when we talk about fairness is “Leave my money alone. Take that guy’s money instead!” If we are to really talk about fairness, let’s talk about what we really mean. Of course we should have a progressive tax system, and of course those of us who earn more than others should pay higher tax, but where does fairness end? I reckon it’s about 40% of gross income. After that, people, regardless of how wealthy they are, start to get antsy for the simple reason that they see a large chunk of their effort taken off them. It’s then compounded by the fact that those taxes are, in the eyes of many Irish people, misspent. Yet Richard Boyd Barrett wants those people to be the villains of the piece. For working?
The curious thing is that if the top 5% did leave, our income tax receipts would drop by 44%, forcing us to slash spending on the poorest in our society. What’s the hard left’s answer to that?
Posted by Jason O on Apr 11, 2012 in
Irish Politics
Bloody elites telling us who we can take in!
In recent times, it has become standard to hint that various elites are making decisions against the wills of the great majority of Irish people. Thinking about this, and using “elite” to mean a relatively small self-selecting group of people outside of prevailing mainstream opinion at the time, I have tried to compile a list of policies or actions forced by an elite on the Irish people.
1. The 1916 Rising. The ultimate example of an elite forcing its view upon the majority? Of course, the Irish people did ultimately endorse the view, but that was after the event. The men and women of the Rising believed that in later years, when they understood what they had done and why, the people would thank them, surely the ultimate elite defence?
2. Equal pay for women, a policy pushed primarily by the small Labour party against much grumbling from FF and FG, the parties who represented the great majority.
3. Sex discrimination legislation. People forget this, but there was once a time when it was acceptable for politicians to claim that letting women work was depriving “a good man” of a job, and that action was an injustice.
4. The availability of contraception.
5. The availability of divorce. Throughout the 1970s, even the Labour party was weary of touching this.
6. The abolition of articles two and three and the recognition of the right of the majority in the North of Ireland to decide their own future. When I was in the PDs, people in Ogra Fianna Fail used to attack us for being elitist West Brits particularly for this policy. Where are they now, eh?
7. Planning corruption in Ireland. Throughout the 1980s, the political establishment dismissed those concerned about planning irregularities in Dublin County Council as cranks and eccentrics who did not understand what “real” politics was about. Think they ever dreamed that Fianna Fail would one day move to expel its most successful leader since Dev?
8. And now we are onto same sex marriage, which we are told is an obsession of a metropolitan liberal elite. In the 1960s, when the Race Relations Act in the UK banned signs saying things like “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish”, we were told that this was the action of an out-of-touch liberal elite. Those critics are very quiet today.
9. The EEC, which was a project devised by a political elite over the heads of the French and German people who despised each other. Certainly, if the non-German peoples had their say, they would probably have devised a treaty not as close to the treaty of Rome, but that of Versailles. I wonder how that would have worked out?
10. Domestic violence and rape within marriage were once “family problems” to be ignored by society, with radical feminist liberals sticking their noses in, not “understanding” that this is the way ordinary people live.
In times past, an enlightened elite argued that dunking women to see if they were witches was ridiculous. Radical abolitionists tried to force their elitist views about property on the white slave owners of the United States. In South Africa, an out of touch liberal elite argued against apartheid. In the US, an out of touch Eastern liberal elite argued against the majority of voters in Alabama and Mississippi and elsewhere on segregation.
Guess what: the elite were right. They’re not always right. The supporters of Eugenics certainly weren’t. But just because an idea is not of the mainstream, that does not mean it is wrong.
Marc Coleman
I recently attended, and greatly enjoyed, a debate organised by Marc Coleman of Newstalk on behalf of the centre-right “National Forum” thinktank. The subject was the Fiscal Treaty, and the speakers were Brian Hayes TD, Minister of state at Finance, Eamon O Cuiv TD, Michael McDowell and Declan Ganley. A few observations:
Brian Hayes gave a pretty stock Vote Yes for Jobs/Send the right signals for FDI speech. Having said that, his speaking style was quite engaging, almost Blairite, and he did have the one killer line that the No campaign either avoid or struggle to engage with: What happens if we need a second bail out? He seemed on top of his brief, and along with Lucinda is beginning to emerge as one of the younger FGers worth watching.
Eamon O Cuiv is an odd fish that I can never quite work out. There seems to be a certain sincerity and thoughtfulness there, yet I can’t help thinking that he has never made a political sacrifice on a point of principle. His point seemed to be that we can blackmail Europe into giving us a deal on promissory notes and corporation tax. Curiously, he seemed to be against federalism but in favour of a federal EU banking regulator.
Declan Ganley was funny and very comfortable with the mantle of European Federalism. I’m not sure I agree with his stance on the FC, which seems to be to play chicken with the rest of Europe, and some aspects of his federalism would worry me, but he deserves credit for laying out a clear vision of the EU and its future direction. He also seems to have lost some of his more agressive style and it has done him good. Irish politics certainly gains from his participation.
Michael McDowell always reminds people when he speaks what we are missing from the Irish political scene. He’s a politican that likes ideas and discussing them, which is very refreshing compared to the “I’m calling for a full scale review” carry on that most Irish Pols offer. He strongly advocated a Yes vote, making the same “Who is going to pay?” argument that Brian Hayes made. He then attacked the concept of a United States of Europe on the grounds that there is no European demos. He made very valid points about the dangers an EU superstate without a real democratic anchor, but having listened, I’m still more with Ganley on this.
One other observation about the evening was the tone of the meeting. I spotted a lot of ex-PDs in the audience, and any mention of the Croke Park Agreement set off the crowd. Marc Coleman gave a pretty fiesty centre-right speech which was notable by its absence on the political arena, outlining a series of positions that a moderate US Republican or British Tory would regard as perfectly reasonable. I don’t say that disparagingly, by the way, what I mean is that it is a pretty disgraceful state of affairs that we don’t have a party advocating a clear centre-right pro-private sector position.
One other thing: Nessa Childers MEP spoke, giving a centre-left analysis. She was heckled a bit, but for the most part listened to. Curiously enough, I have always found right of centre meetings far more tolerant of left wing contributors (and rightly so) than vice versa. Or is that just me? One woman at the back called for a minute’s silence for that poor Greek bastard who took his own life. Do you ever notice how people who call for a minute’s silence always wait until they have exhausted what they want to say, and then want the minute’s silence from someone else’s speaking time? A pet peeve of mine.
You can get more information on the National Forum here. I’m not a member, by the way, but I would go to another meeting if it was a lively as this.
Posted by Jason O on Apr 7, 2012 in
Irish Politics
Cold hard cash: the real driver in Irish life.
A story in the Irish Times today suggests that the government may give some tax relief to those who paid large amounts of stamp duty relatively recently, in the event of a property tax being introduced next year. Whereas it seems like a fair and reasonable idea, I can already see where the bone of contention is going to be, the “talk to Joe” moment. Can anyone see it?
The cut-off point. Just watch as the government announces that, say, anyone who paid stamp duty after June 1st 2007 will be exempt for the first five years. Watch as everyone who paid in the previous twelve months to that take to the airwaves in indignation. Watch as opposition TDs (especially on the left. Curious how much time the Irish left spend defending the very wealthy) take up the banner on behalf of those who bought hugely expensive houses and so paid large amounts of stamp duty. Watch as opportunistic independent TDs demand that the time line should be extended to a more “fair and equitable” deadline, like, say, June 1st 1854. There will be war.
Of course, all of this will be academic if the government fails to enforce the Household Charge. We all know people who have not paid, and we’ll know if they get away with it, and if they do, the government can forget about the property tax. You would assume that they know that, but you can never know how insular the Leinster House mind can get.
Posted by Jason O on Apr 7, 2012 in
Irish Politics
Aine Collins TD
I was recently on a discussion panel on Newstalk’s “Talking Points” with a new Fine Gael TD, Aine Collins. We discussed my usual hobby horse, the fact that there is almost no difference between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, and Aine, to her credit, gave as good as she got. But talking to her I was reminded of something I had forgotten since I had ceased to be active in a party. I was struck by how physically tired she was, having left her constituency in Cork at 5:30 that morning.
It’s something that people not involved in politics don’t realise, just how actually physical Irish politics is, because our voters require our elected representatives to be present at all hours across their constituency. Nearly every TD I have known, from across the political spectrum, if they are serious about keeping their seats, have to go from early in the morning until normally after midnight. The funny thing is that it is a vicious circle, in that the public go to TDs because they feel, often rightly, that the Irish system of public administration is set up in such a way as to make it impervious to action unless a TD or senator or especially a minister pulls the right strings. Therefore TDs have to make themselves available to pull the strings, yet the only reason the strings need to be pulled in the first place is the fact that TDs feel it is what gets them elected.
Are they right? Do they need to have this exhausting runaround as the only way of proving their worth to their voters? It is TDs’s fault to a large degree. There is little reason why, as we do when buying books or airline tickets, citizens can’t just enter their PPS numbers online, fill in details, and be told whether they are entitled to something or not, and get the cash sent to their bank or post office account. TDs will tell you that it isn’t that simple, that the social welfare system is not so straightforward, but who designed it? Those same TDs who complain. Are they really saying that the Irish welfare system is more complicated than the international credit card, airline booking, DVD ordering and MP3 track downloading systems combined? What many won’t admit is that many TDs (but not all) will attempt to influence the the system to get people things they are not entitled to. If not, then shouldn’t those TDs welcome an online welfare system?
It is not in our interest that TDs be shattered all the time, nor is it necessary. There are plenty of politicians that the public admire who don’t live in their constituency, but get the admiration because of their national performance. But would the public vote for them? Not if being the constituency ombudsman, running around like a blue arsed fly, is what is on the ballot. But supposing they had two ballot papers, one for the local area and a second for a national constituency? We might see a different type of voter then. The problem is that so many TDs are terrified that if they are not consituency fixers, what are they? How about some class of a member of the national legislature?
Posted by Jason O on Apr 1, 2012 in
Irish Politics
Sssssh!
1. In Fr Patrick Ryan Park, in Merrion Square, a large rise in the middle of one of the greens is where the emergency government bunker is kept. It’s accessed from a hidden manhole in nearby bushes, and was commissioned in the early 1970s when it was determined that there would not be time in the event of an imminent nuclear attack to get the the cabinet to the larger facility in Athlone. It’s all academic anyway, because the bunker was built too close to the surface by the contractor, who did not want to pay overtime and will almost certainly be destroyed by a detonation over central Dublin.
2. One of the Dublin’s major shopping centres is designated as an emergency detention centre in the event of major civil unrest. One of its car parks has been constructed in such a way that it can be fenced in quickly, and the centre even has a vacant tower (requested by the Department of Justice at planning stages) to act as a watch tower.
3. On Mount Gabriel, in West Cork, there is a mountain top facility protected by soldiers not wearing identifying markings. Its dome was originally used by US, British and French nuclear submarines to confirm their positions whilst in the North Atlantic before GPS became standard. It remains now as a back up facility.
4. Both Knock and Shannon Airports are designated emergency landing facilities for US bombers returning from Russia. Shannon was at one stage a designated landing facility for the Space Shuttle. Knock is one of nine locations in the World designated by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs as a potential First Contact site for negotiated extra terrestrial landing, which is also the reason why the nearby Childers Barracks has been protected from defence cuts.
5. In 1982, under the codename Operation Wild Geese, then Taoiseach Charles Haughey considered sending 150 Irish soldiers to fight alongside the Argentines in the Falklands War. The 150 volunteers would all officially have been deemed to have resigned from the Defence Forces, and Haughey was hoping to provoke a row with opposition leader Garret Fitzgerald over the affair, followed by a snap election as Irish soldiers engaged British forces in the South Atlantic. The plan was abandoned when senior Army sources, alarmed at the proposal, alerted the US ambassador Peter Dailey, who informed Haughey that such a plan would have a major impact on White House support for Irish visas.
