Opinion

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    The pencil and the mouse

    For nearly 20 years before his death in 1989, my father, who left school at 11 and drove a mailcar for a living, railed against the undemocratic evil of the European Thing. He brought me to understand that its operation depended on replacing intelligent politicians with stupid ones for the purpose of absolute control – the mechanism operating to lift from the shoulders of politicians all requirement for thought, vision, creativity or foresight, providing them with the wherewithal to enable their countries to function after a fashion for as long as they do what they are told.  Once the transfer of sovereignty is achieved, he said, anyone can run a country. Hence, Enda Kenny. The world catches up – slowly. For sure: our former nations, even our former empires, have now become as dependent on the bureaucratic girdle of the EU as, in the years of the Iron Curtain, were the peoples of the former communist satellites in Czechoslovakia and Poland on the Soviet apparatus.  We know no other way of being, never mind living.  Both as an upshot and a driving factor, we are nowadays incapable of producing anything other than functionaries and middle-managers whose odd admixture of timidity and egomania allows them to become mini-dictators in their own countries, implementing the will of their foreign masters. Just don’t ask them to pronounce an original thought, a vision of independence or a promise of self-realisation. One thing that we have gleaned from Brexit is that, almost for certain, there are no grown-ups left in British politics.  There are boys, and certainly one or two girls, but no adults. The daily tableau of happenings is like a series of scenes from a tale written by Frank Richards: a story with a constant tumble of intricate twists arising from the flaws of its cast of hapless and villainous anti-heroes: the toffy-nosed school captain done down by the incompetent scheming of the Fat Owl of the Remove; the Fat Owl in turn done down by the beasts and bounders of the lower fourth. But Theresa may. She may yet emerge as the only one capable of looking convincing in long trousers. We move ever closer to Alexander Mitscherlich’s prophecy of a mass society stripped of responsibility, where everyone’s a sibling, looking sideways, waiting to be fed, and there are no adults left to lead the people back on to the vertical path from history to the future. No one looks up to the top of the stairs, because there is no one there to see. In 1975, when the UK last held a referendum on membership of the European ‘Thing’, it was mainly left-wingers like Michael Foot and Tony Benn (labelled, interestingly, the ‘Minister for Fear’ by the Daily Mirror)  who opposed it. The result was two-to-one in favour of remaining in what was then called the Common Market. There were many interesting similarities and contrasts between that contest and the recent one, but one thing that has to be said is that the calibre of leader available to Britain at that time – on both sides of the argument – was infinitely greater than it is now. It has gradually become clear that most of those advocating the Leave position did not want to win. Boris Johnson played a faux populist tune in which he didn’t actually believe. He may well have been the most dismayed of all, having hoped for a narrow defeat. The main purpose in his elbowing in was to deny Nigel Farage the mileage to be gained from winning or losing narrowly. As the polls closed, he was predicting a narrow win for Remain. In the immediate aftermath of the result, faced with having to step up to cope with all the fallout, you could see his chagrin and confusion. “It was just a lark”, he seemed to say, “why take things so seriously?”. It was no surprise when he jumped at the first excuse to cop out altogether. Farage duly followed shortly afterwards. Michael Gove is far worse, a man utterly without qualities, run by his appalling wife. He was the first politician I ever registered who believes, “We have to get over our obsession with biological parenthood”. He was sleeping, clearly anticipating defeat with an easy conscience, when they called him to say that his side had won. I had the feeling from the start about the Vote Leave campaign that they were a bunch randomly picked to make a case they didn’t believe in. Boris et al seemed simply to parrot off-the-peg populist arguments in a manner designed to sound convincing to the hoi polloi but without conviction, as though the Brexit campaign was intended as a controlled explosion of Euroscepticism – a managed letting off of the known negativity but in a manner as to ensure that, no matter how it went, the situation would be steered back on course and the Tories would be the victors. Nigel would be bypassed, Cameron would if necessary fall on his sword. But both sides of the argument would be controlled by essentially the same forces. This result was a long time coming. Avoidance by those whose duty it was to do otherwise pushed the UK’s demographic and cultural nightmare under the carpet, making the present moment all but inevitable. Nigel Farage erupted from the resulting silence, propelled into the public arena by virtue of media bullying and the cowardice of mainstream politicians, who emitted mixed and coded signals about immigration because they knew it concerned a lot of people but remained a dodgy topic under PC rules. Fifteen months ago, I wrote: “There’s something slightly too obvious about him – like a poorly drafted comic character in ‘EastEnders’, a likely lad with an over-developed patter and excessively large lapels. Farage says wholly predictable things in a wholly foreseeable way, but he represented something of the suppressed feelings of Britain’s uneasy gut, and the studied condescension he attracted from the media was the most reliable indicator of

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Welcome to reality: EU wasn’t serving least well-off

    Last month, the UK referendum on membership of the European Union posited a seemingly simple question and delivered an obviously complex outcome. The vote on June 23 came in with a massive turnout of 71.8 percent, the highest for any UK-wide vote since the 1992 general election. In the end, England voted by a strong margin of 6.8 percentage points in favour of Leave, while Wales voted by 5 percentage points in favour. Scotland opted by a 24-point margin for Remain, and Northern Ireland voted Remain by 11.6 percentage points. Gibraltar voted 95.9 percent in favour of Remain, best in the class, pro-EU. Based on voter turnout-adjusted figures, eight out of the ten largest voting area across the UK posted majority Leave vote, with London (ranked number two in the total number of voters participating) and Scotland (ranked number eight) being two exceptions. The results were divisive. Widely reported results from Lord Ashcroft’s Polls show that only 27 percent of voters age 18-24 were in favour of leaving the EU, with 38 percent and 48 percent Leave support for 25-24 year olds and 35-44 year olds, respectively. In contrast, 56 percent of 45-54 year olds and 57 percent of 55-64 year olds were pro-Leave. 60 percent of those aged 65+ voted against the EU membership. The problem with interpreting the above results is that they are unadjusted for turnout figures. Based on the analysis of voting data, voter turnout strongly increased with age. According to the Financial Times (FT):“The generational divide on Brexit has been common knowledge throughout the campaign, and is apparent in the demographic data, even if only weakly”. The main factors driving voter decisions were socio-economic: education and occupation (with higher educational attainment and occupational position being the two statistically strongest determinants of propensity to vote ’Remain’); followed by the share of people holding a passport. The fourth factor was labour earnings. As the FT put it: “Before the vote several polls identified a common finding: people intending to vote Leave were much more likely than Remain voters to say they felt Britain’s economy was either stagnant or in decline”. In simple terms, the Brexit vote reflects the relatively more complex socio-economic divisions of the modern UK as opposed to the commonly-touted Leave voters’ age-determined anti-immigration sentiments, xenophobia and nationalism. The key forces shaping the anti-EU sentiment in the UK, as much as in other member states of the EU, are rooted in the realities of the modern economy: the post-Global Financial Crisis status quo of income and wealth divisions, and the underlying evolution of the global marketplace for labour and skills. The voter characteristics that defined Leave supporters, according to most economic literature, also determine earnings in the advanced economies. Most importantly, education and occupational choices drive two key earnings-related risks: labour productivity and the degree of worker substitutability by technology. In simple terms: lower-educated and less-skilled workers face more downward pressure on their earnings, higher volatility of earnings, a lower correlation between their own productivity and their earnings and higher risk to their jobs from automatisation, robotisation and technological displacement. They are also more exposed to direct competition from migrants. Based on recent research from the Resolution Foundation, published in February, it is clear UK middle-class earnings have been effectively stagnant since the early 2000s. This development took place during the period of EU enlargement, increased migration, and the push towards political harmonisation, exacerbated by the Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession. Over the same period, the EU was shocked by the Euro-area sovereign debt crisis and the subsequent external migration crisis. Five out of seven key shocks between 2000 and today are directly linked to European-wide policiy choices. This, in the words of the Resolution Foundation analysts, fuelled the electorate’s “disillusionment at the economic and political status quo”. Since 2002, over half of middle-class UK households across the entire working-age population witnessed “falling or flat living standards [as] two-thirds of the growth in average working-age income has been wiped out by rising housing costs”. For the growing population of renters, the decline in private incomes net of housing costs was larger than increases in earnings. Meanwhile, home-ownership has dropped 16 percentage points for Millennials, compared to Generation-Xers, controlling for age. The bulk of home-ownership decline took place in middle-income households, with ownership trends relatively steady for the poorest and the wealthiest households. In a way, the Brexit vote was symmetric with voter tendencies across a number of countries. In its annual report for 2016, Sweden’s Timbro Institute documented the relentless rise of political populism in Europe: “Never before have populist parties had as strong support throughout Europe as they do today. On average a fifth of all European voters now vote for a left-wing or right-wing populist party. The voter demand for populism has increased steadily since the millennium shift all across Europe”. Which, of course, also reflects the dire lack of resonant pragmatic leadership. After decades of delegation of ethics and decision-making to narrow groups or substrata of technocrats – a process embodied by EU institutions, but also by national institutions – European voters no longer see a tangible connection between themselves (the governed) and those who lead them (the governors). The Global Financial Crisis and subsequent Great Recession have exposed the cartel-like nature of the corporatist systems in Europe (and increasingly also in the US). Again, Timbro notes: “2015 was the most successful year so far for populist parties, and consistent polls show that right-wing populist parties have grown significantly as a result of the 2015 refugee crisis…Today, populist parties are represented in the governments of nine European countries and act as parliamentary support in another two”. The net outrun is that: “…one third of the governments of Europe are constituted by or dependent on populist parties”. The official European (and Irish) Kommentariat are keen on blaming nationalism and xenophobia for these trends. But the causality is likely to flow the other way: the failure of the European political elites

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Class not gender is intractable

    There are well-meaning campaigns to increase the number of female voices in Irish media and politics. Equal treatment of the sexes is a war that needed to be fought. It doesn’t just benefit women, it benefits men as well, as men can be freed from a race to the bottom of macho culture that tends to invade work and social relations. It benefits us all when in politics women bring different views to a discussion. There is plenty of research that shows a plurality of views leads to better decision-making. We also know that women make decisions in different ways. Women tend to be more cautious, which means they avoid making massive (and grave) errors. Think bankers and their under-regulation. The cause of feminism is not over, but the war has in effect been won – no one would seriously argue against the principle. There are, however, some important skirmishes left to be finished in the clean-up operation. ‘Skirmishes’ is probably too soft a word for issues such as the pay gap and the glass ceiling. But the causes of these things are quite complex and certain measures to advance women’s rights might be unfair, ineffective or unnecessary. But who studies them? It’s usually just those people who feel most oppressed. It’s what the Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath calls ‘me’ studies. Because gender studies is dominated by a certain type of person it is (ironically) falling into the trap that the absence of women in decision-making positions in politics, science, business, academia and elsewhere suffer: they do not hear reasonable criticisms. That’s because now to criticise any form of feminism or a measure for gender equality is to expose yourself as against equality. Those who are in fact in favour of equality, but don’t want to appear to be opposed then stay silent from these debates. Only a small extreme minority vocalises against it, and this further convinces the ‘me studies’ crew of the moral rectitude of their position. Stopping the conversation has a number of negative consequences, led by the danger we lose sight of the real causes and complexity of the issues. Simpson’s Paradox is a quirk in probability that shows that trends in statistics disappear or are reversed when the data are combined. A famous case is admissions to Graduate School in Berkeley in 1973. The data showed a large and statistically significant bias in admissions in favour of men. A naive analysis of the data suggested Berkeley had a case to answer. But statisticians there observed when the data are broken down by department the trend is reversed. There’s a bias in favour of women! That’s because women are systematically more likely to apply to courses that have much lower admissions rates. Other cases are more complex. When we discuss the glass ceiling, factors that are less easy to measure or observe might explain discrepancies. Gender is pretty easy to measure – the vast majority of people can be put in the binary categories of male or female. We often focus on it to the exclusion of other sources of discrimination. But there are many other important sources of difference among humans. Gender equality isn’t the threat that class inequality poses. Feminism has largely won because middle-class women and middle-class men share interests. Why would middle-class men feel threatened by allowing their wives, sisters or neighbours to achieve equality? It won’t cost us anything. Middle-class Dublin voices are broadly the same regardless of gender. And the establishment will be happy to fixate on any remaining inequalities, because feminism deflects attention from the more threatening issue of class inequality. The next time you are invited to join criticism of a panel or committee deemed a ‘sausage fest’, also ask about class, age, race and nationality. In a gender-neutral panel or a gender-neutral cultural programme there are likely to be other important voices not being heard. An alternative view by Eoin O’Malley

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Don’t just commit, implement

    So, now we have been promised a “Government working to give every person equality of opportunity in a fair society” in the Programme for Government. Leaving aside the limited ambition as goals of equality of opportunity and fairness, the Programme does contain a raft of equality commitments. There is something for nearly everyone in the audience. Women, people with disabilities, older people, young people, Travellers and carers get substantive mention. Lone parents are less fortunate and get one commitment on income disregards. Refugees and asylum-seekers are least evident with a vague promise to promote integration, but no indication of how this is to be done, and one to reform Direct Provision, but only for its negative impact on family life. The equality infrastructure is what sustains the commitment to such promises. It includes the policy processes, policy plans, institutions, and legislation that drives their implementation. It is useful to assess how the Programme commits to the further strengthening of this equality infrastructure. This strengthening is needed given its rather tattered post-economic-crisis state. The Programme has a dramatic commitment to “develop the process of budget and policy proofing as a means of advancing equality, reducing poverty and strengthening economic and social rights”. If properly implemented this has great potential. It is to be the responsibility of the Budget and Finance Committee with the involvement of a new independent fiscal and budget office and Government departments and with support from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There is, however, no mention of the statutory duty on public bodies to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity, and protect human rights. This has been in place since late 2014. No Government department has implemented it and no guidance has been provided by IHREC on its implementation. It would have been more convincing to commit to developing the institutional arrangements for implementing this statutory duty alongside the new budget-proofing process. Policy plans are valuable in establishing strategies to address the inequalities experienced by different groups and sustaining a focus on these. There is a plethora of policy plans promised: new National Women’s Strategy; new National Disability Inclusion Strategy; existing Comprehensive Employment Strategy for People with Disabilities; new National Traveller and Roma Inclusion Strategy; and new Action Plan for Educational Inclusion. There are further commitments to implement the 2012 Carers Strategy, develop a LGBT youth strategy, and pursue an integrated plan across Government Departments to reduce poverty, disadvantage and inequality. The issue with plans, though, is implementation. The development of such plans tends to be the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Equality. Their implementation tends to be the responsibility of a wide range of other less enthusiastic Government departments and agencies. Implementation of ambitious plans can get reduced to diverse projects supported by some Department of Justice and Equality funding. While the projects are valuable, this diminishes the potential of policy plans. The Programme makes no mention of how implementation of these policy plans is to be driven and ensured. Constant planning in a context of limited action and change rapidly gets disheartening. The only statutory institution for equality mentioned is the National Disability Authority. There is a vague commitment to review its role. This must be ambitious if this agency is to emerge from the shadows of uselessness. On a time-limited basis, but nonetheless valuable, a special working group is promised to audit the current delivery and implementation of local authority Traveller accommodation plans, and a taskforce is promised to promote implementation of personalised budgets for people with disabilities. The community and voluntary sector gets significant mention, but only for its provision of “the human, social and community services in all key areas of our national life” and its contribution “to the economy” and for creating “value for Irish society”. This passes over the central contribution of this sector in advancing the interests, and giving a platform to the voice, of communities experiencing inequality. Its value should be identified in terms of our democracy rather than our economy. Increased funding levels are promised to the sector. However, funding models are to focus on “quality, effectiveness and efficiency” rather than on advancing equality, rights, or social justice. The promise is further compromised by an emphasis on commissioning for services, a process that commodifies or marketises these services and turns community groups into commercial entities. Legislation gets hardly a mention. There is a strange commitment to refer the proposal of the Constitutional Convention to incorporate economic, social and cultural rights into the Constitution, for consideration by the Oireachtas Committee on Housing; and a vague promise to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. By Niall Crowley

    Loading

    Read more