Labour's Narrative

At last the Labour Party has released a comprehensive policy document dealing with economic matters.  Called A Fair Deal: Fighting Poverty and Exclusion it has been described elsewhere as a "Blair-style focus on children's poverty and welfare (it’s all about the children) coupled with commitments to communities left behind".  I'll leave the specifics of the economic analysis to my friend Michael Taft in his Notes on the Front but I want to make a few observations about the narrative thrust of the document. 

The term "political narrative" can best an idea or set of linked ideas that lies behind what we say and believe.  Political parties are most convincing when they possess a convincing storyline that best explains their policies by saying who they are, where they have come from and what they want to do now and in the future.  This kind of overarching narrative has been used successfully by Reagan ("morning in America"), Thatcher ("rolling back the frontiers of the state") and Lemass ("a rising tide lifts all boats").  It's not difficult to think of many others.  Narrative helps people to remember what the policies are and how they all connect in a coherent way.  What does this new Labour Party document have to tell us about our recent past and our future?

The policy thrust of the document is about equality and poverty and Labour wants to emphasise how badly Ireland compares with other European countries "despite the Irish achievement of the last fifteen years".  It also points out the structural nature of poverty and inequality and that it is largely inherited.  There is much in the document that marks it out as radical and progressive in a broadly social democratic way, such as the emphasis on poverty raising a basic ethical question about rights, distributive justice and the real meaning of citizenship.  In fact its radicalism is such that even republicans and communitarians would find something to commend. 

Politically, it opposes "the Anglo-American view of things" and of course condemns the Progressive Democrats for the view that inequality is needed to provide incentives.  The "Victorian welfare model" of the Irish state is juxtaposed to the notion of "equality of opportunity in terms of the social and economic rights of our citizens".  The deficiencies of the Irish state is noted, especially in its refusal to take a more developmental approach,  as well as its fostering of a "culture of servility and patronage".  The state stands accused of neglecting its children.  In contrast James Connolly is quoted whose aim was to achieve a country where

every child in our Irish soil will by the mere fact of its existence be an heir to, and partner in, all the country produces; will have the same right to an assured existence as the citizen has today to his citizenship – in fact that will then be the right of citizenship, the right to live in the country and the right to enjoy those fruits of labour the country will yield to its children.

The invocation of Connolly and the emphasis on "true republican notions of shared citizenship" probably reflects the party's concerns not to cede that kind of political space to Sinn Féin.  The document clearly signals that Labour is still a party of the left although it does not, at least in the preface written by Pat Rabbitte, use that term and there is no explicit linkage to the European socialist or social democratic tradition. Labour wants to tell us that it has an adventurous and ambitious programme for government that goes beyond mere tinkering at the margins and throwing more money around.

The radicalism of the document is blunted however by its story of the recent prosperity brought about by the Celtic Tiger.  Labour does not want to be accused "turning its back on policies of recent growth and national prosperity" and the Celtic Tiger "no more belongs to the right than it is disowned by the left".  Furthermore it elevates the role of the social partners above political parties and implies that it is the presence of the former that have made the project an national and inclusive one. 

The document uses a rather tortuous metaphor to emphasise its muscular tigerism:

So Labour does not argue that the country has gone down the wrong road, or that we must reverse gear or change direction. But we do argue that far too many have been left behind. And our ambition in government will be to continue to strengthen the economy, but in ways that are sustainable and share the benefits of growth much more broadly than they are at present – thus achieving greater equity and my vision of the Fair Society.

There is a missed opportunity here to critique the glaring deficiencies of the Tiger model.  The party is clearly worried about any impression it may give to floating middle class voters that it is not to be trusted in managing the current prosperity.  But without a more rigorous critique its promise of a more sustainable and equitable model will be nebulous.  For the left, a huge element of its programme must still be the economy, stupid.  Commentators will look at this document to see if clear blue water emerges between Labour and Fine Gael.  A more significant  element of it is a lack of self-confidence when it comes to wider  economic analysis.   

Comments

[cian]

I agree with the final point and i reckon that it is made most manifest in the line in the document which stipulates that this policy is subject to the availability of funds.

The more cynical reading of this is a weakness in economic analysis may make this policy the victim of FG priorities.