A question of balance

// February 11th, 2011 // No Comments » // GE11

Image by infomatique via Flickr

Last night we had another one of those eye of the beholder Vincent Browne moments. To set the scene, there was a review of the Fine Gael Manifesto with the panel consisting of two folks from a Labour/Left background, at least Mary Murphy had the decency to be up front about being a Labour party member,and one a centrist sceptic along with Leo Varadkar. And they were joined for a review of the papers by the sub from the UCD equality studies department, Marie Moran, who is there when Kathleen Lynch isn’t available*.

The moment came from the inability of Mary Murphy and Marie Moran to understand that the primary cause of ill-health in those in the more vulnerable social classes might not necessarily that they’re in living on a low income. Leo Varadkar wasn’t arguing that it wasn’t a factor at all in their situation but that in many cases the opposite is true that people are in poverty because they have a chronic illness that limits their ability to work or earn with sufficient regularity to move out of this vulnerability. Vincent then took his bias out for a run, in that laugh it off manner of his, by stating that Leo suffered from the disability of having studied medicine which he had compounded by his membership of Fine Gael**.

The problem for Mary and Marie, and others who thought this was great gas and that Leo was having his ass handed to him on the plage, is that they are looking at a table of data and feeling that it has given them some conclusive insight in people’s life; when all it has done, much like wikipedia, is offer pointers to areas for further investigations. If you select a group on the basis of social exclusion and then you see a pattern of social exclusion that’s doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re seeing a pattern in the data, it could mean you selected the data on the basis of a pattern.

For those for whom the Spirit Level data is some revelatory uncovering, I would say this. I think it is interesting work but too much is made of what appears to be a correlation without there being a necessarily definite causal link. It might actually be that some societies have done better for other reasons, and as a result there is more equality of outcome rather than that they do better because of more equality of outcome in the society.

From personally experience, I did find it strange for example that Japan was included in the spirit level as beacon of equality, certainly the highest earnings in Japan don’t tend to be the same multiples as in the US but there is an enormous degree of social segregation and exclusivity to how the society works. To suggest that Japan is a fantastically more equal society than say Ireland is peculiar to my mind. But that’s what happens when you rely on looking at tables of statistics where people see patterns but ignore the fact that their select criteria helped create the pattern in the first place. People say that numbers don’t lie, but they ignore that there is often more than one singular truth and that the numbers might be telling only one truth and not the whole.

And part of the political problem here, and this is a point of difference for people in Labour and one the left and many of us in Fine Gael, is that it sees people primarily being as members of groups rather than as individuals as Marie Moran illustrated quite well at the end of vinb last night,

A core problem with this work is that it ignores the effect that social mobility over the period of time that relatively free education has operated and what it has done to various communities. In the worst of cases like in the UK with the Richard Boyd Barrettalikes over there, someone from a working class background who goes to college and makes a few quid is viewed as a class traitors as if middle class kids were the arbiters of who was and was not working class. I’m from a working class background as are most of my friends but most of us too are really no longer working class because we were able to make the most of the opportunities that were there with the deliberate assistance of our families. There are others who weren’t able to do so but it wasn’t because they were not well off. It was for a myriad of other reasons, none of which Mary and Marie appear to want to recognise because it would undermine their view that we were simply members of a group and not individuals with our own unique stories.

*I wonder after the Labour party manifesto launch if we will see two people from a right of centre background on the show to tag-team up on the Labour representative, will we hell.

The lunacy of an agreed FG/Lab program for government

// February 2nd, 2011 // 2 Comments » // 2011, GE11

Image via Wikipedia

It has come up repeatedly in press commentary over the last few weeks and was a feature  again last night on Vincent Browne that FG and Labour should published an agreed program for government before the election takes place. We know that Vincent isn’t the greatest with numbers so I’ll be really slow with this.

If FG get 60 seats and Labour 30 then that’s a 2:1 ratio or if FG and Labour both got 50 seats then that’s a 1:1 ratio or a 50/50 split.

The ratio of the parties would affect and reflect more than the simple make up of the cabinet. It would reflect the level of public support that each party’s manifesto had gotten and thus the legitimate negotiating strength for each position. That is why for the parties to negotiate now in advance of the people giving their verdict on the proposals of each party would be sure lunacy, as it presupposes or rather completely ignores what the opinion of the public would be. The election isn’t just about who is Taoiseach or how many bums each party gets to seat around the cabinet table, but it is about whose ideas the public favour more.

Imagine an Irish election with no transfers that mattered

// November 9th, 2010 // No Comments » // election 2010

It is entirely possible that Donegal South West might see an election with no significant transfers shifts of note. That the result will simply be decided on who does best on the first count. FF appear to have solid tribal party vote there and perhaps the floor to their vote is around 30%, SF meanwhile would have a ceiling in what they would be able to attract and might find it hard to get a majority i.e 50% of the remaining non-FF vote so they would be capped at a 35% maximum. Labour have a national tail wind behind them while FG will be solid but unlikely to see any sort of surge. So FG could be wandering about in the mid 20%s unable to attract those fleeing FF in significant numbers mostly cos of tribal antipathy while the media attention is all on SF and Labour.

Clearly from the Vincent Browne show last night the most polished and articulate candidates are SF’s Pearse Doherty and FF’s Brian ÓDomhnail* (and let’s face it both are already full-time paid elected reps so we should expect no less) , FG’s Barry O’Neill was really only fair to middling in his contributions, seeming to have too much recourse to standard phrases and sound bites (there again he has the least experience in front of a camera of the four so perhaps it was nerves, but he’d want to be more fluid and natural if he gets a chance again on the telly) with the stand out (and not in the best of ways) contributions coming from Labour Frank McBrearty who was constantly reminding me most of various politicians from across the border who were most intent on speaking to their own community and to hell with any sort of rational engagement.

It is very hard, indeed near impossible, to see SF breaching 35% on the 1st count (if they did so and did it by halving the FF vote then every FF TD in the country will have endless sleepless nights ahead) so I’d have them in the low to mid 30s at the moment, FF will be close enough to 30% with FG behind them in the mid 20s and Labour on the mid teens. Expressing that in hard numbers that equates to SF32%/FF28%/FG25%/Lab15%. Those numbers could be soft in places on the 1st count though with the various flavours ofd indos likely to take 4/5% before transferring back into the pool to put us back to those numbers above.

I honestly can’t see those FF and SF numbers shifting too much up or down, so the battle is really between FG and Labour to secure the best possible 3rd place position on the 1st count. If FG could get their % up sufficiently to be a neck ahead of  FF then they might stand a chance but if they did it would mean the amount of Labour transfers were likely to be very limited indeed.

As for transfers, I can easily see Labour splitting pretty evenly between SF and FG (with perhaps a marginal % trend to FG, say 20NT 8% to FF, 38FG 34SF) and with FG not transferring much at all to anyone. Something we more traditionally associate with FF, though the Labour transfers to FG will largely carry on to SF ensuring the election of Pearse Doherty. I expect FF if it comes to it to not transfer much to anyone at all with in excess of 50% NT at all. After that geography trumps all and Doherty would get the lions share of the remainder.

So it’s SF’s to lose in my view with FG caught by the same tribal vote ceiling as SF but only more so.

* which should be required viewing by everyone interested in politics. McBrearty’s reference to €8 bonds is fast becoming a mini-meme and reminded me of the 8 minute abs scene in There’s something about Mary. Bonds for €8, shocking stuff. There again if it was Jackie Healy Rae, he’d nearly refer to not caring if they were Euro Bonds, Brooke Bounds or James Bonds and then go on to top the poll. So I doubt this will do much harm to McBrearty. After all, if Labour’s policy free zone doesn’t bother ya why would a future piece of Labour’s lobby fodder not being precise about financial terminology bother ya.

** I couldn’t help but think it was a very differently accented more animated Ciaran Cuffe speaking at times.

The possible return of the Basic Income Scheme

// September 22nd, 2010 // 3 Comments » // irish politics

Last night on Vincent Browne, Sen. Dan Boyle made an interesting comment which didn’t elicit much response from the other panellists due to the rather heated back and forth that was going on. The comment was about how we need to integrate more the means by which we provide social welfare to some people and tax credits (I think he referred to them as being refundable) to others as a means to make the entire system fairer.

This sounded suspiciously to me, just as the reference in the budget speech of Brian Lenihan did last year to reform of PRSI, like we might be headed for significantly greater changes in social welfare and taxation than many expect in the next budget. Budget 2011 could represent a massive big bang in social welfare provision and income tax collection.

All the focus at the moment in the media and public discourse is on the amounts to be saved or raised from spending or tax and next to nothing on on how they are spent or collected. I have a belief that the comment from Brian Lenihan last year was a signal that he intended major reform and restructuring to the system of income tax and social welfare income, and that it may seek to marry some elements of a flat tax (ensuring that everyone irrespective of income pays at least say 15%** of their earnings with a basic income scheme that would simplify social welfare payments (give people X amount of a direct payment to be recouped by tax).  The massive cost saving would be in the Department of Social Welfare itself, we would in effect abolish the need for most of the work of this department as there would be no more applying for payments or means testing of most recipients. Instead the remainder of the department could be re-tasked to identify the skills people without work need and train them or match them to employment prospects or policing the black economy to ensure that people are paying the tax they should (which should be largely self financing). It would represent a massive reduction in current public sector spending with little if any effect on the public.

What was the Basic Income Scheme? The essential idea was that everyone would get a payment of social dividend from the state and then the state would leave you to get on with it.  One form might be the following: imagine for a moment that society decided to give every adult who is able to work* €100** per week recouping it from those with other earnings by abolishing tax credits, we could then offer another €100 per week to people for 10 hours work in the community, coaching teams whatever form it may take. That would be available to everyone, be they employed or not. It would mean there would be no distinction between those on social welfare and those in employment while ensuring that a lot of necessary work that is currently neglected  in the public sphere gets done.  I’m not suggesting we’re going to have 20 year olds with no training looking after the elderly in their homes, but driving a meals on wheels service doesn’t require 4 years in college either. There has to be a halfway house that ensuring the skills match the job required.

There are a lot of tasks currently not being undertaken because the skills we supposedly require to do the job associated with the tasks are too expensive. But we could do the more straightforward tasks without involving the skilled workers who currently do them. And let the skills be focused where they are needed.

* with respect to those who are unable to work, I’d seek a modification of the scheme to take account of this.

** I’m using these numbers for the purpose of simple illustration and not as a suggested level or target.

They’re burning our beards!

// January 22nd, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

Reading the reports that the BBC are pressuring Adrian Chiles (he has a brother goes by the name of Voodoo) to remove his recently grown beard I’m given to wonder what it is that people have against them. Let’s face it, it’s entirely natural for man to have hair on their faces. In many cultures the lack of facial hair marks your continued membership of the boy kingdom, only with a proper whispery top lip can you partake of the more manly pursuits like taking out the bins and the unclogging of drains.

It’s entirely natural for man to have hair on their faces, it’s the shaving of them that’s unnatural. I’m not comparing it to the binding of feet, but has many of the same elements of conformity to it. And it stings, no one tells you about the stings.

It is even possible if highly unlikely that this is part of a plot because only one gender can really grow beards. But given the range of dos and what not that woman are allowed get away with in regard to their barnets it is remarkable that the merest hint of hair on mail face and people are up in arms (the showing of pits optional). Let Adrian have his beard if he wants it.

In the Irish context, I’m even of the view that it has hampered the electoral prospects of such giants as Jason O’Mahony and even yours truly. How long will the new growth sprouted by Fionnan Sheehan on Vincent Browne’s show last evening last?