Last Sunday Bertie Ahern spoke of "an irresistible dynamic" towards a united Ireland. If there is such a "dynamic", where is it, what is the point of it and isn't it a pity that whatever "dynamic" there may be is not directed towards the creation on this island of a fair society?
There were two arguments in favour of a united Ireland, neither of them now of any continuing relevance. The first of these arguments was that the Irish people as a whole had a right to "national self-determination" which, irresistibly, it was argued, meant a united Ireland. The second was that the Northern Ireland state had to be obliterated because of its irremediably sectarian character.
The "self-determination" factor was disposed of in the referendum of May 25th last. In that the Irish people assented to the continuing partition of the island of Ireland until and unless a majority of the people of Northern Ireland decided otherwise. The sectarian argument has been addressed by the attempted creation of a non-discriminatory Northern Ireland state.
So what is the point of a united Ireland or of a "dynamic" in that direction? Anyway, where is such a "dynamic". Aren't we are all "Cruisers" now ("Cruisers" as in Conor Cruise O'Brien)? We are all no longer working for a united Ireland, or most of us are not. The pity is that we are "cruisers" also in the pursuit of a "Fair Ireland" ("fair" not as in "green" but as in "just") and that reality will be underlined with emphasis in a week's time on Budget day.
Bertie Ahern said last Saturday at the RDS: "Our mission remains to rid this country of the scourge of low income, poor facilities, high unemployment and the associated crime levels which are still concentrated in certain urban areas." He said at the close of his speech: "We seek a society that is fair, a country of equal opportunity, a nation where partnership, sharing, community and family support are of prime importance."
Bertie's instincts are right but his convictions are weak. On the hard decisions on the creation of a fair society he caves in to the clamour of "enterprise" and the imperatives of what is perceived as the realpolitik. And in that he is no different to others, such as Garret FitzGerald and Charles Haughey, who shared his gut instincts.
That "enterprise" argument goes as follows.
Let's not kill the goose that laid the golden egg. We have achieved economic success through cutting taxes, curtailing public expenditure and slashing borrowing. A reversal of these strategies could endanger the success we have achieved and make it harder in the longer run to eliminate poverty. Poverty can be addressed now through creating more jobs, through increases in the basic tax allowances and the widening of the lower tax band.
And that, at best, will be the message of next week's Budget.
Poverty is always going to be eliminated "in the longer term". Garret FitzGerald and others argued by implication over a decade ago that the poor would have to wait until such time as we could again create wealth. Well, we have created wealth but still the poor must wait, lest anything we do now would make it more difficult to help them "in the longer term".
We have now the means to intervene decisively on the problems of deprivation and inequality in our society. This can be done through a variety of measures, including a substantial increase in the basic social welfare allowances (unemployment assistance, child benefit and old age pensions) or the introduction of the basic income scheme proposed by CORI at a cost of around £600 million.
It would also involve the identification of the major pockets of deprivation in the State and the provision of the educational, community and social supports needed to regenerate these areas, such as extra teachers in primary schools, plus remedial teachers and child care facilities, proper lighting, garbage collection, bus transport, Garda stations and recreational facilities.
There should also be tax incentives (e.g. double rent allowances) for businesses and retail outlets to operate from within these areas, and of a course a properly funded drugs rehabilitation programme. Investment in public authority housing would also be required, as would measures to deal with the immediate problem of homelessness.
The total cost of all this might well be £1 billion in addition to the provisions for social welfare increases that the Budget will make available anyway. And it should be funded by means of increased income tax or a special "equality levy" on incomes of above, say, £25,000, specifically designed to create a fairer society.
Of course there is no political constituency for such measures now and this isn't simply because the poor don't vote. It is because no political party has attempted to create such a constituency by trying to convince a substantial proportion of the electorate of the imperatives of fairness.
And it is an issue of fairness, for there is no moral, social or economic justification for the present division of society's resources. Opportunity, power and wealth are distributed on an entirely arbitrary basis, largely on the basis of inheritance (this remains the major determinant of privilege), significantly on the basis of gender and partly on the basis of chance. Shorn of our vested interests, we would never have agreed to the basis upon which power, wealth and opportunity are presently distributed.
What moral, economic or social justification could there be for 10 per cent of the population getting a greater proportion of disposable income than the bottom 50 per cent (see Collins and Kavanagh in Social Policy in Ireland, Principles, Practices and Problems)?
What moral, economic or social justification would there be for there being more people living in poverty now than there were a decade ago, when poverty is defined in terms of income being below 50 per cent of average income (see Poverty in the 1990s by Callan et al of the ERSI).
What moral, economic or social justification can there be for the proportion of people (15 per cent) experiencing basic deprivation (not being able to afford a warm coat or a second pair of shoes for instance) remaining unchanged from 1987 to 1994 (see Poverty in the 1990s)?
What moral, economic or social justification can there be for children being very much more at risk of poverty than adults (30 per cent, as compared with 18 per cent)?
We can deal with these problems simply by identifying them as indeed of "prime importance" (to use Bertie Ahern's words of last Saturday). That is if we genuinely mean "prime", if we treat the elimination of poverty as the "prime" task we face, more important than promoting an "enterprise culture" or "incentives" or Croke Park stands.
And if politicians had the nerve, they could win votes on that score as well.