Every now and again the good and the wise wring their hands over the apathy there is about Irish politics, particularly among the "young", writes Vincent Browne.
These are not interested any more, consumed by the celebrity culture, Playstations and their drug of choice, cannabis or cocaine. The "quality" of our democracy is being eroded by their indifference. You are familiar with the line.
Well, there is good reason why the "young" along with the middle-aged and the old should be apathetic about politics. And it is because politics is now about almost nothing at all, aside from office.
An illustration of this is in the interview by the new Political Correspondent of The Irish Times, Stephen Collins, with Pat Rabbitte, published yesterday. In the interview Rabbitte, obviously, was keen to establish his Progressive Democrat credentials. Everything he said could have come from the PD press office.
A minimum tax on the super-rich is "likely" to be a key element of the Labour Party policy at the next election, according to Pat Rabbitte. That will rattle the markets. But, incidentally, didn't Brian Cowen say exactly the same in the Budget speech a month ago? Rabbitte said it was "premature" to spell out his tax policy in advance of the general election. Now why would that be so?
Because Fianna Fáil and the PDs might steal the policy? Or Fianna Fáil and the PDs might have an opportunity and time to rubbish the policy? Or some other party might steal the policy? Or Labour has not made up its mind yet? Or he doesn't want to be issuing policy statements until they are approved by Fine Gael?
It has to be one of these. If it is that he is worried the policy would be stolen by FF, the PDs or by someone else, then that makes my point, doesn't it? There is no difference.
If there is a danger that the policy would be rubbished by Fianna Fáil and/or the PDs, what does that say about the policy, or about Labour's ability to win the argument? If it is that the policy has to be approved in advance by Fine Gael, how pathetic. If it is that Labour has not yet made up its mind, well . . . then, God protect us (if there is a God!).
Stephen Collins reports that Pat Rabbitte repeated that he would not be proposing any increase in personal or corporation tax rates. Then quoting Rabbitte, he writes: "After that, it is about fairness in the tax code".
Well, isn't that reassuring? Fairness in the tax code but only "after" the commitment not to increase personal or corporation tax rates.
There used to be a time when Labour would consider first what was fair and then give commitments on tax; now it is the other way around. Or perhaps this is being pedantic; he didn't mean that. Well, what did he mean?
That a commitment first not to increase personal or corporation tax was fair per se? Why is that an assumption we should start from? Then, dispelling his suggestion that he might favour an increase in capital gains tax, he offers the re-
assurance that what he had said previously on this front was taken out of context. He points out delightedly how he got Labour off the hook of reverting the capital gains tax back to 40 per cent from its present 20 per cent level. He was "highly amused" with how his views on capital gains tax had been reported in the media.
What we should be concentrating on was his triumph in weaning Labour away from the commitment to revert to the 40 per cent rate, rather than the incidental and inconsequential suggestion that he might favour a modest increase in the 20 per cent rate!
Just two questions to Pat Rabbitte: in what respect is your tax policy different from that of the present Government? And if there is no perceptible difference between you and the Government on the central issue of redistribution (for the tax mechanism is now the central agency of redistribution), what difference would Labour make in government, any government?
Is the EU survey on Income and Living Conditions published by the Central Statistics Office on December 12th of any relevance? It showed almost one-fifth (19.4 per cent) of the population were living on incomes of less than €9,680 per year. It showed that one in 14 were living in "consistent poverty, and 31 per cent of lone-parent households were in consistent poverty.
Isn't there something grossly wrong about a distribution of income whereby one-fifth of the population live on incomes that equal less than one-twelfth of the income Pat Rabbitte got last year (about the same as myself incidentally), or one-fifteenth of the income Conor Lenihan got, or one-twentieth of the income Mary Harney got or one-hundredth of the income the CEO of Irish Ferries got last year?
All the more so since many of those on the lowest incomes make the most valuable contribution to society, ie the carers?
Isn't this something a Labour Party should care about, accepting that something radical needs to be done about fairness here?