It's all about the economy, stupid!

One of the things Sinn Féin has been criticised for has been its lack of understanding of economic issues and in truth our politics have focused on matters other than the economy and as a result we have been open to such criticism.

To me the leadership have attempted to deal with these attacks by putting forward moderate economic proposals, trying at all times to sound "reasonable" and falling in line with what other major parties are proposing. This in my opinion led to Sinn Féin failing to benefit from the shift to the left that happened in the recent local and European elections in the South.

However, there there is a growing socialist/social democratic economic analysis of the present situation and we on the left need to grow in our understanding of that analysis and use it to push for the changes we wish to see in Ireland. Sinn Féin members need to be able to be able to counter the arguments put forward that there is no alternative to the economic cuts and deflation that lies at the core of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and even Labour Party thinking. In order to do this we need to increase our understanding of economics.

Personally I have for a while now been trying to do this and an excellent source of information has been Michael Taft. He has a site called notes from the front about progressive economics. He has consistently argued the case against the government's economic policies and he has shown where they are taking us to.

Michael is a member of the Labour Party and works for UNITE and is on the left in terms of his thinking.

If anybody else has a site they would recommend then please let me know.

Below is an article from Michael Taft on An Bord Snip.

Histories At Dawn: June 30th The Recession Diaries

History is such a malleable thing. It can be twisted this way and that to support or oppose any contemporary position. Take An Bord Snip Nua – this is a grand thing altogether. How do we know this? Because, sure, its predecessor was such an outstanding success. Yes, it brought pain but it set the groundwork for the Celtic Tiger economy. So goes the history; if we gird our loins, cut and hack away, we too can replicate this outstanding success. Suffer a couple of years of fiscal pain, and economic paradise awaits.

But history is not so straight-forward and certainly not so reductionist. Was it really the case that the ‘cutbacks’ endured under Mac the Knife (Finance Minister Ray McSharry) were (a) successful and (b) set the preconditions for the growth explosion in the mid-1990s? Let’s take a look at some provocative facts for clearly there is a lot of myth making about that period – a period that ran from 1987 to 1989, encompassing three budgets.

First, how much was cut? In nominal terms, public expenditure wasn’t cut – it increased. During the three budgets, total expenditure increased. Current expenditure increased. Even excluding interest payments, current expenditure increased by over 5 percent. The main target of the knife was that ol’ standby – capital expenditure. Cutting investment is the easiest option. It doesn’t take away from what people already have – it only defers something we don’t have. This started a period of long-term chronic under-investment in our economic base.

But that’s only Irish public expenditure. Don’t forget – this was ‘begging bowl’ days, when Ireland was one of the poorer performing economies in the EU. So what about public expenditure in Ireland? Between 1987 and 1989 we received over £1 billion under the EU Social and Regional Development Funds - a substantial 38 percent increase in the previous three years under the hapless Fine Gael/Labour government. Now, £1 billion might not sound much but were we to receive the same proportional amount it would come to nearly €6 billion over the next three years. That would subsidise a lot of cuts, but it’s doubtful if the EU today would play ball.

Second, there is much talk about how the minority Fianna Fail government brought down the public spending/GNP ratio. In 1986 public expenditure amounted to 54.7 percent of GNP (if you think that’s because we had some kind of super-Nordic government, remember – it was largely due to interest payments and social welfare). By 1989, spending was brought down to 45.1 percent. But this was only the continuation of a trend that was already in place since 1983 when expenditure was over 62 percent of GNP.

But there was one thing that saved Fianna Fail’s bacon. The numbers on the Live Register started to fall. Was that because all this fiscal contraction started producing jobs? Hardly. Between 1986 and 1992, the economy was generating an average of only 14,000 new net jobs, and while unemployment didn’t rise it didn’t fall either. Between 1988 (the first year of the ILO calculation) and 1993, unemployment fell by less than 1% leaving nearly 16 percent still unemployed. So what happened here?

Yes, you guessed it: emigration. Between 1987 and 1989 over 100,000 emigrated. While not all of these would have been of working age, it’s a fair bet most were – the overwhelming majority. The numbers emigrating amounted to 8 percent of the entire labour force in 1989. To put this in perspective, we’d need over 180,000 to leave over the next three years to reach this level.

Emigrants are great. You don’t have to pay them any dole. They reduce demand on social services. They don’t end up clogging our jails. It’s a great solution, and it certainly gave the Government at the time a real dig out. Expansionary fiscal contraction? Try expansionary demographic contraction.

There is no question about the impact of some of the cuts during that period. But, as always, there were choices. Fianna Fail did choose – they chose to abolish the Land Tax – just as they abolished the Wealth Tax a decade earlier. When it came to patients being moved out of closed hospital wards or the IFA, Fianna Fail certainly knew whose side it was on.

Whatever about our ‘historians’ today, what did contemporaries think of this policy? They couldn’t ditch it fast enough. First to go was Mac the Knife himself – kicked upstairs to the EU Commission. During the 1989 election campaign – resulting from a lost vote on a non-economic private member’s bill – Charles Haughey apologised on an RTE phone-in show for not realising the damage being done to cutbacks in the health services (what’s new?). The election result put the seal on Fianna Fail’s historical anti-coalitionism, and for the first time they entered cabinet with another party – the right-wing PDs. What happened then? More of th same? Don't you believe it.

The Fianna Fail/PD government went on a spending spree. In the very first budget spending cuts were reversed – and how; public spending rose by 7 percent. In the three budgets under this government, spending increased by over a quarter while capital spending increased by a third.

And then there was that EU dosh. It really started flooding in – over £2.2 billion in the three year period. This was more than double the amount received in the previous three year period. Public expenditure in Ireland leaped and bounded ever upwards.

And this was done against a pretty bleak fiscal situation. While spending was being increased, the debt/GDP ratio was over 85%, though falling; interest payments on the debt soaked up a quarter of tax revenue and over 7% of GDP (compare that to payments in 2008 which made up only 1 percent of GDP). Still, they kept spending.
And then the 1993 devaluation – which made our exports cheaper.

And then the fruits of years of work by the IDA – the multinationals swept in, bringing mega-growth.

And the direct state investment into the high-tech domestic sector.
We never hear that narrative – one that poses spending, investment and public policy as the driving force in the emerging economic boom. Rather, all we get is a selective and reductionist recitation of history, skewered to fit a set of pre-conceived policies.

And just remember, when you read reports of today’s Bord Snip proposing cuts in social welfare, that throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, social welfare increased every year. And public sector workers received pay increases.
History has much to teach us.

http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/politicaleconomy/2009/06/history-is-such-a-malleable-thing-it-can-be-twisted-this-way-and-that-to-support-or-oppose-any-contemporary-position-take-a.html

An phoblacht's view on the recent racist attacks in Belfast

I was asked to post the editoral from An Phoblacht concerning the recent racist attacks in Belfast. It was recently stated that not enough Sinn Féin activists are reading the paper and as a result many are not aware of the party's position or thinking on current issues.

So here you go. See what you think.

Sectarianism and racism must be confronted

DESPITE all the political progress of recent years there are still some unionist politicians in the North who continue to oppose equality and refuse to confront sectarianism.

The Six Counties is a state that was established on the basis of sectarianism and inequality. It remains sectarian at its core. When Unionism was in control of the institutions of state it abused those institutions and used its political power to sustain its control.

Sectarianism is a device to keep citizens in their place. Catholics were the main target of this sectarianism and victims of state policies of discrimination.
Sectarianism also kept working class Protestants in their place, divided from their Catholic neighbours and distrustful of them even though in many cases living conditions, particularly for all poor working class people, were similar.
Because the North is a sectarian state and because unionism could not be trusted to govern fairly, the outcomes of the Good Friday Agreement and the Saint Andrews Agreement are all-Ireland in nature, particularly in their institutions.
There are also many equality and other legal safeguards built into the new political dispensation. These include compulsory power sharing and partnership political arrangements. ‘Thinking unionism’ knows that this will be the case for as long as the new dispensation lasts and fair minded unionist MLAs have slowly but surely come to terms with this reality. They fulfil their political duties in a positive way. They also appreciate that these safeguards are to their advantage as the constitutional position changes in the future.

Others, inside and outside the North’s Assembly, toy with the idea that the system of governance can be changed. If they are serious, they are living in Fantasy Land.
If the new political dispensation is to deliver for everyone, it will do so because all political parties have entered into the spirit as well as the letter of power sharing.

Any suggestion that the compulsory nature of the power sharing arrangements can be changed is dishonest and misleading. Those who argue for this position know that it is unattainable. All politicians have a duty to set their faces against sectarianism.
Recent attacks on members of the Romanian community in South Belfast and other attacks against people from eastern Europe in other parts of the North have led many people to correctly draw parallels between these racist incidents and the long history of sectarian discrimination and violence in the Six Counties. Racism and sectarianism are two sides of the one coin.The tolerance that is shown by many political leaders for sectarianism makes it inevitable that racism will thrive. It also needs to be confronted.

How will Sinn Féin tackle reactionary groups within the unionist working class?

Over the past number of weeks some of the worst elements within the unionist working class have come to the fore. The first incident was the murder of Kevin McDaid by a loyalist mob and the second has been the racist attacks on Romanian families in Belfast.

The response by Sinn Féin to both of these cases has been strong condemnation and a call for the police and local community to come together to prosecute those involved. Martin McGuinness has made clear and correct statements on the fact that the motivation behind these attacks is reactionary and should be opposed by all progressive forces within society.

The question I ask here is that all we can do? Is/will Sinn Féin be forced to simply condemn these attacks from the outside and to call on other groups to tackle these reactionary elements within working class unionism?

To date I’m unaware of anything happening within Coleraine that could be viewed as any orgainsed attempt to challenge the bigotry that led to Kevin McDaid’s death. However within Belfast that is not the case. The clearest challenge to the forces of racism has come form Paddy Meehan of the Socialist party Youth wing. He has been there organising resistance to racist attacks. He has stood with the Romanian families when they needed support and he was there to be counted and as a result he has been informed of death threats against him.

Yes, I know he has put himself forward as a resident’s spokesperson and kept his party loyalties in the background. And yes I know the Socialist party have avoided issues such as the RIR and other issues, but so what.

Paddy Meehan is doing what every good socialist knows needs to be done. He knows that the way to deal with these reactionary elements is to force the issue out into the open and deal with it. Communities need to confront the issues around these types of attacks and the community needs to decide whether it sees such behaviour as acceptable. If this does not happen and people are allowed to turn a blind eye to such attacks, then those behind them grow in power and influence. This then results in victims of such attacks becoming in ever-greater danger of serious injury or death.

So where does this leave Sinn Féin? How do we propose to be able to stand with Paddy Meehan and others in fighting racism? How can we develop in such a way so that we can be seen on the streets (in unionist working class areas) with progressive groups, immigrants and concerned residents? When do we see ourselves as being able to put our views across in person to the unionist working class?

Do actions speak louder than words? Selling northern coalition ploicies to left wing voters.

Following the election I have not posted anything because I wished to let the dust settle and recharge my batteries.

Below are two articles I received concerning Sinn Fein’s role in the Northern Government. The first article is from a Sinn Féin member in the South who was/is struggling to justify to others, and himself, the parties differing attitude to Public Finance Initiatives in the north and in the South.

This to me is very valid viewpoint. When Sinn Féin supporters in the South go around promoting our left wing policies it is hard to respond to left wing criticism of certain actions taken by our ministers in the North. In the case of the first article it is Public Private Financing of projects.

The second article asks what can be done about this contradiction and proposes how we can possibly move forward.


Policy must apply on an all-Ireland basis by Slán Abhaile

Over the past number of months I have noticed some inconsistencies in the way in which the party is applying policy North and South of the border.One recent instance of this is the signing of a contract, oversaw by Education Minister Catriona Ruane, for the construction of four schools in the Co. Down area. The contract for £4.45million is to be completed by Public Private Partnership (PPP), yet Sinn Féin policy is explicit in its opposition to Public Private Partnerships and it features prominently in our Local Government Election Manifesto 2009.

In the past these Public Private Partnerships have been bad value for taxpayer’s money and several examples litter the island such as the farce that is the toll bridge on Dublin’s M50 motorway. Ms. Ruane must be questioned regarding her support for a Public Private Partnership and the actual cost of this Partnership must be made public, as has been demanded by Sinn Féin of similar Fianna Fail-backed PPPs in the 26 Counties.


Second Article　
　
WHATS COMING DOWN THE TRACKS

The UUP have entered into an alliance with the English conservative party. The English Conservative Party looks set to win the next election on the island of Britain. The Conservative Party NI spokesperson has echoed UUP sentiment that they view the involuntary nature of coalition in the six counties as a temporary arrangement and that they view majority rule as the favourable solution. After years of work there are major problems in this for SF but for the sake of argument and the sake of this blog looking at things in a left perspective hypothetically could there be a positive?

If after a fight/negotiations etc there were guaranteed legal rights for the minority in the northern statelet, a greater role for the south to secure them, an Irish language act, finance raising powers, transfer of police and justice powers etc. What if in such circumstances SF did take up a position of the largest opposition party, would it be all bad?

At the moment one of the negatives of our involvement in the executive is having to implement economics that we feel uncomfortable with. Water charges, teacher assistants cuts, public private partnerships etc. this is inconsistent with our position in the south and has opened us up for criticism on such issues. After an election where we were the only left wing party not to benefit from a swing do such weaknesses matter? I think they might. Some people think we’re right wing others left. It’s a major problem that there’s a doubt.

If we were in a role of opposition in the six counties we would have a consistent message across Ireland. The issues are the same, government cuts, privatisation, marginalisation etc the boarder doesn’t distinguish. As Seamus Costello said, "I believe in guerrilla tactics inside and outside of parliaments."

What if we changed tactic in the north? Obviously there are losses but we have proved able to turn weakness into strength before. Hypothetically is there a case for it here?
　

This site is simply washing Sinn Féin's dirty laundry in public

I received this post as a comment and again i think the points raised are valid and should be discussed.


This is a general comment on your blog, having read through your earlier posts.

I mean this genuinely with no disrespect, as I don't know you or your background in the party. I realize your intention here is something positive, but would it not fit you better, rather than washing dirty laundry in public about the party, to get more involved in your local party structures and argue your case from there?

I think you'll find the more active you are and the more responsibility you take on, the more respect you will have in SF circles - the more respect you have then the easier it is to argue your case up the line and have leadership people take your views on board.again no disrespect - but would you stand at the side of the road with a megaphone criticizing and debating the parties faults? No? well then why do it on the internet?

why Sinn Féin supporters should vote labour, Green and Socialist Party

This is an article written by Eoin O Broin and published in this weeks An Phoblacht. I agree with its ideas, but living in Dublin I would certainly add the Socialist Party to the list of candidates Sinn Féin supporters should vote for.



Voting for a Left alternative


THERE are nine days left. Seats will be won or lost on the basis of what each of us do and say in the remaining days of the campaign. Every vote is crucial. Including transfers.

For Sinn Féin, securing transfers is vital if we are to make breakthroughs across the country. Enormous thought and energy will be spent on identifying and securing those preferences.
But what of our transfers? How will we vote after placing our initial preferences for Sinn Féin candidates?

For this writer, it’s very simple. I will vote Sinn Féin, Labour and Green.

My reasons for doing so are straightforward. I want a Left alternative government.
I want a Left, republican, green alternative in my local council, in Leinster House and, in time, nationally.

I want a Left alternative that promotes job creation, public services, environmental sustainability, social and economic equality and human rights.

In the 26 Counties, this means that Sinn Féin, Labour and the Green Party must form an alliance to break the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael stranglehold on local and central government.

But haven’t Labour ruled out a coalition of the Left? Isn’t Eamon Gilmore positioning himself to enter government with Fine Gael? Surely a vote for Labour is a vote for Fine Gael?

Unfortunately, the answer to these questions is yes.

But, in order to strengthen the hand of those people inside Labour who are arguing for a Left alliance, we have to demonstrate that the numbers stack up. We have to show that a Left alliance is not just politically desirable but numerically possible.

But aren’t the Greens propping up a Fianna Fáil government? Haven’t Green TDs supported cuts to vital public services and bail-outs for developers and bankers? Did they not pass two Budgets that punished young people, pensioners and those with special needs?

Yes, and the electorate will punish them for all of these decisions.

The Green Party is not the problem; Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are. Building a Left alternative in the 26 Counties will require the involvement of the Green Party, their policies and those people who vote for them. Our objective should not be to punish them but to detach them from Fianna Fáil and engage them in our alternative.
Despite knowing that neither Labour nor the Greens are currently interested in building a Left alliance, I will vote for them anyway.

Some on the Left find it easier to dismiss both Labour and the Greens. But, as always, disunity on the Left benefits only Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
Our job must be to build the Left republican alternative we believe in. It is not enough just to make the political arguments. We have to win them, with other political parties, trade unions, civic society and, crucially, the public.

As with any process of political change, someone has to take the lead. Should it surprise any of us that that someone is Sinn Féin?

WHY SINN FÉIN OR ANY IRISH LEFT WING PARTY SHOULD SAY NO TO COALITION WITH FIANNA FÁIL OR FINE GAEL.

I received this article as a comment, to a previous article, on going into coalition with Fine Gael. However, I felt it was good enough to post as a separate piece. I must confess that the view put forward here is certainly one I would support. Please note that I have edited the article slightly, so if the original poster wishes to make changes then please let me know.

WHY SINN FÉIN OR ANY IRISH LEFT WING PARTY SHOULD SAY NO TO COALITION WITH FIANNA FÁIL OR FINE GAEL.



How should I respond to the previous post on this site - Fine Gael Sinn Fein Coalition Options? That article put forward the case for Sinn Féin and Fine Gael to consider the benefits of going into coalition. Well, I feel the arguments against such a move have already been made when members of the Labour Party argued against election pacts, and such like, with Fine Gael. One of the main thinkers in opposing such a link up was Mick O’Reilly. I personally would say that Mick O’Reilly put together an argument, which I think, should be the basis of any left wing party’s attitude to coalition with Fine Gael. Mick is a trade union official with UNITE and a member of the labour party. He articulates the politics of the 26 county state best in his summary of the history of the Irish state as being a “one policy state” as opposed to a “one party state”.

He points out that since 1932 every government has been FF for 2 or 3 terms followed by FG lab followed by FF getting back in for 2 3 terms etc etc etc.


In looking at the make up of these two types of government he points out they are basically the same. He argues Fianna Fáil is historically a party made up of a coalition of a number of different socio-economic groups, labourers, trades men, farmers, solicitors etc

The internal coalition within Fianna Fail is matched by the Fine Gael/ labour coalition. Namely the middle upper class nature of Fine Gael and the working class/middle class nature of labour.

This is not an exact match but roughly speaking that would be how the support base of the 3 main parties breaks down. The consequence is that the two power blocks draw support from a wide cross section of society and in trying to satisfy the broad coalitions they represent, they only ever adopt centrist policies. The dominance of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in these two power blocks means that Irish politics has therefore never been able to escape the civil war divide. These factors have therefore combined and prevented a left right split from forming in the politics of the 26 counties.

Mick O’Reilly argued that the way to break this one policy cycle is for the labour party to simply say no and refuse point blank to go in to government with FG. The idea is that FG will always need labour to get in to government. Therefore if labour say no to FG, then they will eventually stop being viewed as a potential party of government.

In the shot term this may mean a jump in support for FF, but in the long-term we can try to create a post centre right v centre right election choice for the electorate by ruling out FG. Sooner or later FF as always will eventually loose an election. This would give Fine Gael its first opportunity to be a party of government with FF and thus hopefully finally killing of civil war politics and creating the first left right divide in Irish politics. Admittedly the Labour Party will be a opposition party in the Dáil, but finally there will be a clear cut left right choice for the electorate. This situation does not automatically mean labour will gain but such a new scenario has the potential for great change.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO SINN FÉIN?

In post credit crunch Ireland the roles of FF and FG could be reversed. Though FFs base is mixed, and as a result over the long term more robust and less vulnerable, but the theory’s a good one. It’s as relevant to SINN FÉIN as it is/was to labour. Mick’s theory does not appear to have been adhered to in labour, regretfully due to the short term practicalities of electoral politics I presume.

But if people are genuine about creating an alternative then they have to think long term. For SF there’s a hard question in it. The strategy to be in power both sides of the boarder does certainly create a greater opportunity to implement the all Ireland agenda. But as a small left wing party in a FF or FG led government, would we really get the chance? Or would we be squeezed out like other smaller parties before us.

I joined SF with a Brits out mentality but got educated in wider politics, people campaigns and reading classes etc.

For me the very notion of going into government with Fine Gael is wrong. However, this is not because of my gut feeling, but rather I believe that we can make longer-term gains by not doing so. See for me the question is short term gains or long term gains. I’d say hold out but it's easy to say that when it’s not an option this minute. (addition from original author)However, if the party got a chance to imlement the all ireland agrenda, speed up dismantleing the boarder it would be a very tempting option for me. Just like for greens the possibility of implementing a green agenda was extreamly tempting for them. as small parties we will never do it on our own so we need a coalition. We have an ideal coalition in our head but time is passing and what should we do if we only have one offer. Do people marry foor love or for security? We know what they should do but what do they do, though choice.


I hope the leadership is aiming at long term gains and that they will see the merits of the case put forward by Mick O’Reilly. Or is the notion of gaining any form of political power just too attractive for some to resist?