Debate can’t mask compromises

‘We’d probably be run out of town if we tried to,’ a TD added

Reading the motions tabled by delegates at this weekend’s Labour conference, one could be forgiven for thinking there was a mutinous mood among members.

There were motions calling on Labour in government to reverse the “swingeing cuts” imposed on rural and disadvantaged schools, to lift the recruitment moratorium in the health service, to introduce a third rate of tax on high earners, and to protect the vulnerable and the elderly from future budget cuts.

There were motions suggesting the Government had “failed to grasp the problem” of unemployment, that the overall austerity policy adhered to by the coalition was “a failure”, and that radical action was needed to create jobs and get the economy back on track.

There were even motions criticising Labour’s communications strategy, with one calling for an immediate review and restructuring of the party press office to make it “fit for purpose”, and another calling on Labour ministers personally to “improve the communications to the party members and the public in general”.

Yet for all those motions, this wasn’t a mutinous conference. The only calls for revolution came from the protesters outside the con-ference venue in NUI Galway.

Inside the venue hall, there was plenty of debate on the motions, and some of it very heated, as rank-and-file Labour members had their say on how the first year of coalition had gone.

There were one or two outcomes the leadership would not have expected, or particularly liked — such as delegates approving a motion opposing the sale of state assets, which runs contrary to coalition policy.

And some did not like the fact that Saturday’s televised session, from 11am to 1pm, featured none of the really awkward motions and was instead “stage managed” to present the right image to the watching public.

But the very fact that the awkward motions were debated at all over the weekend signalled that, as political conferences go, this was fairly open.

“We never micro-manage these conferences,” one minister said. “We never did. And we never will.”

“We’d probably be run out of town if we tried to,” another TD said, pointing to the fact that firm “debate” was a staple of Labour conferences and delegates would not tolerate efforts to shut out dissenting voices.

And much of the heat represented expressions of frustration rather than outright rebellion.

Certainly, the Labour hierarchy seemed relatively sanguine about it.

In fact, in the leadership’s mind, the conference probably served a useful purpose in allowing people to vent those frustrations.

Having had their chance to let off steam, the members were then willing in turn to listen to the leadership’s message — which was along the lines of “keep the faith”.

Or as Eamon Gilmore put it in his televised address: “We will pull out of these tough times.”

He was talking about the economy, and addressing the nation at large, when delivering that line.

But the obvious political reality is that if Labour can deliver recovery for the country, there should be payback for the party.

“And to achieve that, we have to work at it every day. Inch by inch. Bit by bit,” Mr Gilmore said.

Again, he was talking about recovery — but it could easily have served as a party political message to members too: Have patience and good things will come.

But, of course, there is always a risk that recovery will come slower than expected — and Gilmore’s suggestion that just “two more” difficult budgets would be needed to get the deficit down and get over the economic hump was arguably misleading.

On the one hand, he was urging public support for the fiscal stability treaty, which would oblige Ireland to comply with tough budget rules and debt-reduction requirements for the foreseeable future. On the other, he was floating the alluring image of the worst being over in just two budgets. Given Ireland’s massive debt overhang, it’s hard to see how one can square with the other.

And that’s where the difficulty lies for Labour — that the recovery will come slower than expected and, in the process, the party will have abandoned many of its core values or long-standing policy commitments, causing them to suffer rather than profit at the next election.

Given that it was Labour’s centenary conference, Gilmore referenced the likes of founders James Connolly and Jim Larkin over the weekend. But it’s hard to imagine either presiding over cutbacks to disadvantaged schools or welfare reductions for young people with disabilities, as Labour did in the December budget, only to subsequently backtrack with haste.

Admittedly, it’s only in opposition that parties can remain ideologically pure. Being in government, especially coalition, usually requires compromise — especially when working under the constraints of an EU/IMF bailout programme.

But Labour needs to be careful it doesn’t compromise too much.