Claiming our Future debates our national condition

Cormac O’Malley reports on the Claiming Our Future event in Galway

The convention took place last Saturday, in the Bailey Allen Hall, NUI Galway. The objectives of the day were to share information and hear perspectives on low income and poverty, on high incomes and inequality, and on what a more equal, poverty-free Ireland would look like. With the information we were given, after being divided in to groups, discussion and occasionally lively debate arose between members of all groups.

The first thing discussed was a general introduction to income inequality in Ireland. The theory of what defines wealth and where income comes from dominated this particular discussion. While the definition of wealth may be what you own minus what you owe, there remains a wide gulf between the working and the upper-middle classes. It may be the view of some that a hierarchical society is inevitable.

It was no surprise to learn at the convention that official data shows that since the crisis, greater numbers of Irish people are living in poverty. While that may be the case, income inequality has decreased. A majority - 75% -¾ of low-paid people are women. Most of them are working part-time and it was discussed that society should not turn its back on these women who may also have maternal responsibilities, unpaid work. Those who are low-paid and those on welfare are on or below the poverty line. This morally weakens the argument that our welfare budget needs to be cut even more. All agreed that reducing welfare further is not an incentive to get people back to work. Such a common myth was dispelled as being farcical. We were reminded of the importance of charities such as St. Vincent De Paul. It is charities like these that are occasionally forced in to the position of deciding which people may or may not be fed. This raised the question, has governmental social policy failed? It certainly seems to be the case if the responsibility of providing for the most vulnerable, is left to a charity. Something which arose in conversation was that people’s needs vary. People who are starting a family have different needs to others. However, there are essentials needed by everyone such as food, shelter, healthcare and an education. In these most tragic of times, many in poverty may not be able to afford all of these. When in such a position, two pieces of advices are most helpful, the first being how one gets back to work and the second being how one spends their weekly budget. It was agreed that the first is more important than the second, and getting back to work relieves the pressure associated with devising a weekly budget.

All groups then moved on to the idea of a maximum income being implemented by the state upon society. There were mixed reactions about whether this would be a good idea. However, it was agreed that the cutting of the welfare of those who don’t want to work is much less important than cutting the salaries of CEOs. A satisfactory explanation was given to why people on welfare don’t want to work, being that their self-esteem may be particularly low and they may feel that they have little or nothing to contribute to society.

It’s a known fact that the societies which have the smallest gaps between the richest and the poorest are not only the most sustainable and most equal societies but also the fairest. There was a common belief among groups that the only barometer in testing the health of an economy is the unemployment rate. There was one vital question asked, will we ever live in a society where there will be jobs for everyone, a society where everyone will see their contribution as valuable? If the answer to this were yes, then Thomas More would be proud, that Utopia became a reality.

The next issue raised was the minimum wage. There seemed to be contempt towards politicians for having little respect for the electorate; by subscribing to the view that it is economically smart to decrease the minimum wage. There was delight amongst many when informed that after much deliberation and significant protest, the minimum wage will be restored to €8.65 p/h on July 1 .

A thought-provoking moment was reached in the discussion, when the following questions were asked, should the minimum wage be set by politicians or experts or the poor? Should people be obliged to take up an offer of work? What is necessary to live in society, to live with dignity and to respect human rights? It was acknowledged that there must be support in the community for the most vulnerable. Awareness must be raised and local debate must be promoted. Claiming our future certainly succeeds at doing this, but where does it go from here? The answer seems to be that communal empowerment does lead to social change. This may act as an incentive for making people want to volunteer. However, there may be a flaw in the welfare system. Being that people may not be able to volunteer, should they be offered a job. Another point brought up in my group, was that politicians should not only listen to the general consensus for the benefit of receiving a vote. Everyone agreed that TDs should be lobbied, and made aware of the reality of the livelihood of the most vulnerable.

A separate, but still valid point was brought up as regards taxation. It can be argued, that all people (high and low earners) would be more willing to pay taxes if state services, especially social policies, were improved. In other words, it’s usually the natural corollary that people want to be happy with what they’re paying for. The high earners would be less willing to pay taxes if they got nothing back, e.g. if child benefit was means tested for high earners.

Near the end of the convention, a number of people spoke about the need for constitutional change to tackle the problem of inequality. Such an idea is not only thought-provoking, but also realistic. Because the movement is called claiming our future, we all asked, what is the future? It’s a more equal, sustainable and happier place. Many thought that a deadline is needed to create the kind of future we want, the future which is best for everyone. Some in my group also blamed the media for sending society a discouraging message. To be taken seriously, claiming our future must not fall in to the recent media trap - the duopoly of telling people how terrible things are, and rhetorically asking, how do we get out of this mess?

It was surprising but simultaneously valid to hear the point that there needs to be a campaign to encourage people to buy Irish products and buy locally. This would no doubt great a better sense of cohesion in the community. Raised was the point that the state is a duty-bearer for civic education. Because of this people need to be educated how you vote, why you should do so and what issues are most important. This empowers citizenship, and all thought that this should be promoted by the state.

Most important of the entire convention was the reminder that equality doesn’t just mean the earnings of individuals, and the gap between the richest 10% and the poorest 10%. It also means how society treats certain people and how valuable people feel their contributions are. It seems very important to remember that the objective of claiming our future is to work for the betterment of society; to provoke ideas to make Irish society a better place to be part of, and one of which we can all be proud.