The poverty of politics

Recent events – or non-events – in the political scene have served once again to emphasise the poverty of politics in modern Ireland. Very rarely is any matter of genuine political principle or policy choice an occasion of conflict or controversy: that is reserved for personalised in-fighting and career manoeuvring.

A classic case was last weekend's endorsement by the Labour Party executive, as expected, of Pat Rabbitte's proposal for a pre-election pact with Fine Gael. Such pacts have been politically disastrous for Labour in the past, but occasionally they worked in the sense that they advanced the political careers of one set of individuals at the expense of another. And this pact is no different, because there is no policy platform whatever attached to the pact proposal.

It's as if politics don't matter, and only strategy is important.

At the least it can be said of the Greens that they are insisting that their policies be discussed and that some key components of their policies occupy a core part of any pre-election pact into which they might enter.

And it's not as if Labour doesn't have things to say or developed political positions to argue for. Less than two weeks ago, for example, Éamon Gilmore, Labour's most prolific and relevant policy developer, outlined a new scheme to help first-time buyers. He wants the Government to support the acquisition of a deposit by such buyers, arguing that mortgage repayments are often lower than rents.

Gilmore offered a range of options as to how such a scheme could be put in place. It merited no public discussion whatever.

Of course, neither Labour nor Gilmore are entirely to blame for that. The media, too, runs a mile from real politics. Journalists can count votes and work out percentages, but they can't discuss policy choices. So perhaps Pat Rabbitte is not entirely off the wall when he avoids politics altogether and concentrates on something the journalists can understand: who will win the next election.

Unfortunately, it looks as if the answer to that is that it will be the present Government again.

Rabbitte argues that the very fact of declaring a pact will put an alternative before the people (alternative personnel, but not alternative policies) and that this will generate its own momentum. Well, we'll see; and if Rabbitte's plan falls flat on its face – as I think it will – then there's plenty waiting in the wings to take on the mantle of Labour leader in a more congenial coalition.

The one thing that offers a ray of hope for Rabbitte's strategy is the existence of divisions within the Government. Ironically there is a real political content to these divisions – the role of the state in economic development vis-à-vis private competition, and the role of private enterprise in social provision like health, the prison service and so on.

How amazing then that with a crucial battle underway between the PDs on one hand, with their fetish about private competition, and Fianna Fáil on the other, under trades union pressure, Labour concentrates its fire on Fianna Fáil.

Take the row about nursing home charges. What a lot of noise about nothing. Yes, nothing: because all parties – all parties – agree that charges should be made for the care of old people in such homes. The failure to establish a proper legal basis for the charges is a technical issue, in which all parties – yes, all parties – share responsibility.

But Harney and the PDs have used the opportunity to dump on Mícheál Martin who is busy trying to reverse the emphasis on unrestrained private enterprise established by Mary Harney when she was in charge of enterprise.

But does no one else think it astonishing that only Tim O'Malley of the PDs read the famous briefing paper for the December 2003 meeting – at which it was decided to seek legal advice from the attorney general on the issue – and only Tim O'Malley saw immediately the serious consequences which no civil servant saw?

And they didn't see it, precisely because it was a technical issue and one which would be set right by legislation – though Harney made a mess of that when the time came.

The implication, of course, was that if Mícheál Martin had read it – well, if he had read it the same decision would have been made as was made.

Did Labour rally to the defence of the man who puts a humanistic vision before the interests of profit? No way: Liz McManus sided inevitably with the PDs.

Look again at how muted Labour has been in querying Mary Harney's role in the infamous Gama affair; or how supportive they are of Michael McDowell's anti-Republican diatribes – and yet Pat Rabbitte will pretend that the PDs don't enter his coalition plans! If the arithmetic is right, don't hold your breath, and certainly don't worry about policy differences because policy doesn't matter in this debate.