Archives

“For good and bad Kelly killed the issue [of water charges], even if tens of thousands of diehards continue to protest the principle at occasional marches in Dublin” (Village, May 2015) Alan Kelly got it wrong. The mainstream media got it wrong. Village got it wrong. They were united in the rhetoric that water charges were environmentally progressive and that the non-payment movement would go down to defeat. In Alan Kelly’s words, “Ruth Coppinger and her band of people will lead people up to the top of the hill and then abandon them”. Instead, the movement has forced the suspension of water charges. They are very unlikely to be re-imposed in the course of this Dáil. Fine Gael salvaged what they could – the continuation of Irish Water. The project of commodification of water is badly damaged but remains intact to make a return at a more opportune time. In response, a whole new genre of writing has been spawned – one bemoaning this suspension, which “embodies all that is wrong with Irish politics” (the headline on Una Mullally’s opinion piece in the Irish Times on 27 April 2016). Competition for the worst example is fierce, but the winner is arguably Daniel McConnell’s who concluded in the Irish Examiner on 30 April“… this is why we need the Troika back in town”. This is the gratifyingly honest logical endpoint of the denunciation of ‘populism’ (read: ‘democracy’). Village will undoubtedly join in, but in a more ‘progressive’ tone. The arguments are predictable. We need increased investment in water infrastructure and water conservation. Yes, clearly, but why water charges, which lost money, and borrowing by a semi-state at higher rates than direct state borrowing would increase spending on infrastructure is never explained. The evidence of the limited impact of charges on usage by comparing Ireland and Britain is ignored. The significantly greater impact on conservation, but at a cost to developers and builders, of proper building regulations is not addressed. The other favoured argument is to cite the very many things that are undoubtedly more important than water charges. Donal O’Keeffe in The Journal (28 April) helpfully put together a list of ten issues, including homelessness, the living wage and the need for repeal of the 8th amendment. Village has its own list, which includes equality, NAMA and corruption. One could in passing question whether most of those making this argument have ever done anything about these issues either – in contrast to most of the leading figures in the anti-water charges movement who are also active in movements on housing, wages and abortion rights. The key question, however, is whether the movement and partial victory on water charges make change on these other issues more or less likely? The answer gets to the heart of the matter. What is missing from the analysis of Village and others who share with the radical left a wish for a more equal and socially just society, is class. We live in a deeply divided class society, where the ruling capitalist class, through their traditional parties, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and latterly Labour, try to implement policies that improve their relative position in society. That’s what water charges were about – shifting the taxation burden from the 1% to the 99%, as well as preparing the way for privatisation. In this capitalist world, we can’t choose the issues upon which major class battles and possible victories turn. This was the case for water charges – because of the timing of their implementation when recovery was being loudly announced and because people could resist easily and effectively by refusing to pay. A victory for our class over their class on any important issue makes it more, not less, likely that further victories can be won. When Enda Kenny asked “it’s not about water, is it?” he was right – it is about bank bailouts, payments to bondholders and seven years of crushing austerity. Suspension of water charges is not just about water either then. Irish politics has changed quite fundamentally as a result. A people-power movement of mass civil disobedience, of course with many flaws, forced the establishment back. Having experienced a victory, however partial, it is not likely that working class people return to the role allotted to them by capitalist ‘democracy’, voting every few years for parties which pretend to represent their interests and sitting passively waiting for the next election. An active, politicised and confident working class can score further victories against a weak minority government on housing, precarious working conditions and abortion rights. It is also likely to generalise from the experience of these movements, developing towards the kind of broad class consciousness that is essential to win socialist change.

After almost seventy days wandering in the political wilderness the two largest parties have finally agreed a programme with a 30-month timelimit. As Village was going to print the programme was being supplemented with whatever concessions are necessary to attract at least eight independents into the Fine Gaelled minority administration in a ‘Programme for Partnership’. But it was clear that it is a broadly centre-right deal. This reflects the largely indistinguishable ideological orientations of the two parties and sets out a range of proposals on the economy, public-sector pay and services, jobs, housing, crime and water. A fiveyear strategy for the health service is presumably intended to avoid the annual Health Services Executive cost overrun which destabilises budget planning.  Among its principles, the document has Fianna Fáil agreeing to permit the election of a Taoiseach and cabinet, to facilitate up to three budgets and to abstain or vote against on any motions of confidence in the government, its ministers or significant financial measures. In return, Fine Gael agrees to publish any deals it makes with Independents or other parties, allow the opposition to present bills without government obstruction and avoid policy surprises. Crucially, it accepts “that Fianna Fáil is an independent party in opposition and is not a party to the programme for government”. This particular figleaf is presumably intended to allow Michael Martin to pretend to his party members and supporters that he is not responsible for whatever the government does though Fianna Fáil has effectively written much of its agenda. In other words, Fianna Fáil is hoping to maintain its position of lead opposition party while ensuring that Enda Kenny, or whoever replaces him within the coming 12 to 18 months, sticks to implementing the policies contained in the eight page document. Clearly the agreement cannot include provision for the unexpected events that are certain to erupt over the coming three years or indeed for the outcome of the Brexit referendum in Britain, the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe or the outcome of the uneasy compromise on water provision and charges. The water can has been kicked under the bridge but will still cast a shadow over the minority government which will have to deal with the recommendations of the expert commission it will establish within eight weeks of its appointment and which will have until early next year to compile its report. The outcome is the ultimate in political fudge since the findings will be put to an Oireachtas committee and then to an Oireachtas vote sometime in the late Spring of 2017 if the timetable is realised. With the certainty that any proposed charging scheme will be opposed by a majority of TDs and senators the policy programme has included a convenient contingency which states that “those who have paid their water bills to date will be treated no less favourably than those who do not”. Realistically this signals the end of the shambolic charges regime imposed by Irish Water and the outgoing government and its probable replacement in a subsequent budget by a new household/property/utility tax. All of this hinges on the willingness of Fianna Fáil to allow this new dispensation where it seeks to influence the policy direction of the government, including a budget division of 2:1 in favour of public services over tax cuts, while sitting on the opposition benches posing as an alternative administration in waiting and dreaming of the next election result when it hopes to increase its tally of TDs to the mid-sixties. Martin and his more far-sighted colleagues also know that there is no longer a likelihood of any single party gaining a majority to allow it form the type of government Fianna Fáil used to dominate and are prepared to envisage a similar arrangement next time around, with FG as the facilitators. It’s either that or full-blown coalition with the blueshirts. However, they are also watching their backs and know full well that Sinn Féin, the other left parties and independents who do not sign up to Kenny’s temporary little arrangement will not give an easy ride to the new minority administration, and are certainly not obliged to. Equally, those independents who join government, mainly of centre-right disposition – or of the well-known disposition that allows the sacrifice of left-wing principles for a seat, or influence, at the cabinet table – are likely to get nervous if events don’t work out as planned. A failure to realise their ambitions, whether local or national, as the minority government totters unsteadily towards its near-three-year termination date will mean almost certain defections from the depleted ship of state. Add to that the potential for industrial unrest, as workers demand a greater share of promised recovery, continuing anger over the homeless, housing and health crises and general dissatisfaction at a weak administration unable to cope with big issues like climate change and international developments and you have a recipe for uncertainty. Not a lot to look forward to.

‘Sharing in the recovery’ was the big theme in the work of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed (INOU) in 2015. Our members and affiliates, the users of our services, and participants in our regional Discussion Forums and training events were all clear that this recovery had yet to be experienced by many people dealing with unemployment. There was a strong sense that the job recovery is urban-based and not evident in rural areas. Still, people living in disadvantaged urban areas noted the lack of visibility for any recovery in their communities. We need a Government that is serious about supporting unemployed people, their families and their communities. Any such commitment will only be credible if it is seen in action. The INOU have identified four key issues to be addressed. Firstly, they must strive to create an equitable and inclusive society. The second highest rate of discrimination was reported by people who are unemployed, at 23%, in the Central Statistics Office August 2015 ‘Equality Module’. This discrimination festers the absence of any protection. There is no ground in the equality legislation related to employment status and, therefore, no way for these people to challenge or change this experience. This first step for the new Government must be to commit to an equitable and inclusive society. The incoming Government should add socio-economic status as one of the grounds protected under the Employment Equality Acts and the Equal Status Acts so that unemployed people receive the full protection of this legislation. Linked to this, the Government must hold a referendum to enshrine economic, social and cultural rights into the Constitution, as already recommended by the Constitutional Convention. Secondly, the Government must support unemployed people to achieve a minimum essential standard of living. Given the impact of unemployment on people’s lives, it is critical that unemployed people receive social welfare payments that ensure they can meet their needs. ‘Jobseekers’’ payments must be restored to their 2009 levels. The age segregation applied to ‘Jobseekers Allowance’ payments in 2009 must be reversed. Further steps must be taken to protect unemployed people’s incomes. People whose primary source of income is their social welfare payment should be exempt from the additional charges introduced during the economic crisis. Rent Supplement and Housing Assistance Payments should be increased to more realistic levels that would support people to access accommodation. The third step that must be taken is to deliver better services for unemployed people. It is critical that these services enable them to make informed choices. Good career guidance, the provision of which would support unemployed people to access appropriate education and training and ultimately get a decent job, is a critical element. Frontline staff must be adequately trained to provide a top class service. A service that is built around the needs of the unemployed person is required: a service that provide additional supports to enhance unemployed people’s participation in education, training and employment programmes and ensures that this participation is by choice. This would lead to the more efficient and effective use of the resources. It would create services for which both providers and users would have a high regard. Community organisations play important roles in the delivery of services to unemployed people and others experiencing social exclusion. During the crisis, a lot of their funding was withdrawn, at a time when the demand for their supports was increasing. The new Government needs to acknowledge this work and re-invest in these community organisations to support the growth and development of their work on tackling inequality, poverty and social exclusion. Fourthly, the new Government must ensure that unemployed people can get decent and sustainable jobs. The creation of decent and sustainable jobs, jobs that pay a decent wage, must be prioritised and maximised. Employment programmes that serve as a stepping stone to such jobs must be developed. Action is needed with participants, providers and employers to secure better outcomes from such programmes. Part-time work can be a meaningful option for unemployed people and, in some regions, possibly the only option. It should be facilitated through tailored employment and social protection supports. Self-employment can be an important access point to the labour market for unemployed people experiencing exclusion because, for example, of their age, their ethnicity, or their locality. Their access to supports must be improved to make self-employment a more viable option for them. Brid O’Brien is Head of Policy and Media with the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed