In a TV debate with Joan Bur­ton recent­ly, the for­mer leader of the Irish Labour Par­ty made a point that is of inter­est in terms of how pol­i­tics is con­duct­ed in Ire­land, and else­where, today. The debate was about the direc­tion of Irish pol­i­tics and where a real alter­na­tive to address inequal­i­ty and depri­va­tion might emerge from. But that is for anoth­er day. For now, what inter­ests me about this par­tic­u­lar debate is some­thing Ms. Bur­ton said towards the end of it.

I had set out some of the issues that I think need to be addressed to build an alter­na­tive.  I had also set out my view of the way in which Fine Gael and Fian­na Fail gov­ern­ments, through­out our his­to­ry as an inde­pen­dent state, have looked after the few at the expense of the many. While agree­ing on the impor­tance of the issues I set out, Ms. Bur­ton bemoaned the fact that I thought the Labour Par­ty could not deliv­er this alter­na­tive. In fact she, quite legit­i­mate­ly, list­ed a range of social reforms that the Labour Par­ty have sup­port­ed going back decades. She spoke about divorce, con­tra­cep­tion, the equal­i­ty ref­er­en­dum and even Repeal, and held them up as issues that the Labour Par­ty have got­ten behind as evi­dence of that party’s worth and use­ful­ness. It would be churl­ish to debate the extent to which this one par­ty played a role in these changes. That would be a large­ly sub­jec­tive analy­sis any­way. What­ev­er about that, I read­i­ly acknowl­edge that these issues hold with­in them evi­dence of real progress on what I call ‘social’ issues. Changes in these areas, and pub­lic sup­port for those changes, is social lib­er­al­ism in action.

Just how sig­nif­i­cant progress on these issues is was demon­strat­ed to me at a recent event in Bal­ly­mun in which I par­tic­i­pat­ed. This was a ‘cross com­mu­ni­ty’ event with rep­re­sen­ta­tives of com­mu­ni­ties in Dublin and of North­ern Ireland’s union­ist com­mu­ni­ty. It was strik­ing to note how the new right to gay mar­riage here, and even hav­ing a ref­er­en­dum on repeal of the 8th Amend­ment, is very far ahead of any sim­i­lar leg­isla­tive or con­sti­tu­tion­al changes in the North around LBGTQ rights, abor­tion rights and a woman’s right to bod­i­ly auton­o­my. Yes, despite decades of often repres­sive and even abu­sive social con­ser­vatism here, we are indeed mov­ing for­ward and see­ing real progress in some of these areas and poten­tial progress in oth­ers. This is pos­i­tive stuff.

But what about change in our eco­nom­ic direc­tion? It is clear that changes in the area of per­son­al rights like these are absolute­ly no indi­ca­tor of fun­da­men­tal change in how soci­ety is struc­tured eco­nom­i­cal­ly, and in whose inter­ests it is so struc­tured. In that respect, not only are we not mak­ing progress, but we are going back­wards at con­sid­er­able speed. While social lib­er­al­ism has seen slow but steady progress over the last num­ber of decades here, eco­nom­ic con­ser­vatism ‘rules ok’!

You don’t real­ly need a very sci­en­tif­ic analy­sis to prove this.

So clear is the grow­ing divide between those that have, and those who can only dream, that a very short trip down mem­o­ry lane is all that is need­ed to empha­sise the point. In 1992, when I first threw a mail­bag into a train car­riage on Plat­form 2 in Dun­dalk Sta­tion, the Dublin porter who caught it recog­nised a new face on staff and uttered the now almost implau­si­ble words, ‘well done, you have just got your­self a good sta­ble pen­sion­able job’. Now, we’ll leave aside any assess­ment of the CIE pen­sion scheme and how ‘good’ it is, or oth­er­wise, to make a wider point. How many of our young peo­ple are now get­ting good, sta­ble, pen­sion­able jobs? The next time Richard Bru­ton and his spin machine make an appear­ance telling you about all the jobs we now have, just remem­ber that we need them all, and more, because for the first time I can remem­ber we actu­al­ly have peo­ple work­ing 3 and 4 jobs who still can’t pay their bills. I am old enough to remem­ber some­thing called ‘a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay’. Eco­nom­ic con­ser­vatism has destroyed that quaint notion for most. And that isn’t all it has destroyed.

Health­care? We had a hos­pi­tal in Dun­dalk then too. A busy one, that you got into if you were sick, and wait­ing on a trol­ley for a bed was just unheard of. Oh yes read­ers, before the cur­rent phase of eco­nom­ic con­ser­vatism com­mod­i­fied every­thing includ­ing our health, we had a pub­lic health sys­tem that almost worked!

We had roofs over their heads too, all of us.  Pub­lic and pri­vate hous­ing was ample and afford­able, and home­less chil­dren were just not an issue. Hotels had tourists in them back then, not fam­i­lies with nowhere else to go, ‘liv­ing’ four to a room.

Do you want a mea­sure of how eco­nom­i­cal­ly con­ser­v­a­tive we now are as a nation? If we want our chil­dren to have a steady job, a home, health­care when they are sick, and a pen­sion when they retire, we are now con­sid­ered rad­i­cals. Expect­ing the most basic and rudi­men­ta­ry needs to be met, and even expect­ing rights  – decent work, health­care and a roof over our heads – is now con­sid­ered unrea­son­able and rad­i­cal, lux­u­ries unob­tain­able and unaf­ford­able for vast chunks of our pop­u­la­tion who are not viewed as hav­ing any right to expect them. It is, in fact, the absence of these basics that is now con­sid­ered nor­mal, even accept­able and to be expect­ed. As some­one who finds him­self argu­ing pub­licly for such basic needs to be met, and basic ser­vices pro­vid­ed, on the air­waves from time to time, I am always struck by just how read­i­ly my oppo­nents in such debates – not to men­tion the pre­sen­ters in many cas­es – start from the posi­tion that the absence of uni­ver­sal health­care, afford­able hous­ing and prop­er­ly-paid work is now the ‘norm’.

That is the tri­umph of eco­nom­ic con­ser­vatism.

So back to Joan Bur­ton? Maybe. But not just her or Irish Labour. No, Fine Gael and Fian­na Fail are up to their necks in this. Con­sid­er our Taoiseach. He is a gay man who put him­self at the cen­tre of the ‘Yes Equal­i­ty’ debate by strate­gi­cal­ly declar­ing his sex­u­al­i­ty on the air­waves and cam­paign­ing vig­or­ous­ly and open­ly for a ‘Yes’ vote in that ref­er­en­dum. Good for him. He is social­ly lib­er­al. And he is now espous­ing a strong ‘Yes Repeal’ posi­tion on the abor­tion issue. I agree while him ful­ly on that too. I am social­ly lib­er­al, always have been, and I think that peo­ple should be able to live their lives as they see fit. They should be able to make choic­es about their bod­ies, adults should be free and able to express their sex­u­al­i­ty as they see fit pro­vid­ed it is legal, to sep­a­rate and divorce in a break­down sit­u­a­tion, remar­ry if they choose – as I have myself – and basi­cal­ly make per­son­al choic­es about how they live their lives. These choic­es should be freed from the judge­ments of oth­ers, and not imposed upon by a reli­gious doc­trine that they may not agree with through the law or con­sti­tu­tion. I am glad that I now live in a coun­try where our Taoiseach shares my view on these issues.

But none of these issues chal­lenge the eco­nom­ic doc­trine of neolib­er­al­ism one iota. None of them require Ire­land to stop being a sor­did lit­tle tax haven, or to tax wealth and cap­i­tal at some­thing like, eh, maybe the Euro­pean aver­age? None of them require us to estab­lish a sin­gle-tier health sys­tem based on the health needs of our cit­i­zens, not the prof­it-dri­ven needs of pri­vate share­hold­ers. None of them require us to abol­ish effec­tive zero-hour con­tracts in the work­place and strength­en our labour and union laws, or address the gen­der pay gap. None of them require us to engage in a mas­sive pro­gramme of pub­lic hous­ing con­struc­tion, the only pos­si­ble solu­tion to our cur­rent hous­ing emer­gency. None of them require us to put the needs of our own sus­tain­able small and medi­um busi­ness sec­tors above the suf­fo­cat­ing and unsus­tain­able demands of mul­ti-nation­al spec­u­la­tive cap­i­tal. None of them require us to close the gap between the rich and the poor by one Euro.

Social­ly lib­er­al eco­nom­ic con­ser­v­a­tives don’t real­ly care what you do in your pri­vate life, you see, and they will often sup­port your right to equal­i­ty on social issues because they can. Because it doesn’t chal­lenge their far-right neolib­er­al hege­mo­ny. It doesn’t chal­lenge or threat­en a mod­el of eco­nom­ic struc­tur­ing of soci­ety that dai­ly deliv­ers the most obscene eco­nom­ic inequal­i­ty since slav­ery, that turns basic needs into pipedreams or lux­u­ries, and that actu­al­ly has peo­ple dying on our streets for the want of a roof over their head.

Social­ly lib­er­al eco­nom­ic con­ser­v­a­tives may agree with your rights on social issues, but if every eco­nom­ic pol­i­cy they espouse and impose results in keep­ing you rel­a­tive­ly poor, and fur­ther embeds an already unsus­tain­able wealth divide that is lead­ing to social break­down, whose side do you real­ly think they are on?

ENDS

Spread the mes­sage