Constituency Commission reports

On Tuesday of this week, a little after 2pm, the Constituency Commission published their report on General Election boundary revisions.  I had a lot of opinions once I looked at it, but I wanted to take a couple of days to mull them over before I posted up here.  The big question is whether they hurt Labour, or helped us.  I’d suggest they have hurt us a little more than they helped us, but overall, we’ve emerged OK.

Firstly, the bad news.  I’d imagine Dominic Hannigan is quite rightly upset about the movement of over 16,000 people from Meath East to Louth.  There were some strange changes made during this revision, but this is probably the strangest.  Essentially, all of Dominic’s area has been moved into Louth, leaving both himself and Cllr. Ged Nash as potential GE candidates for us in the southern end of Louth.  In a knock-on effect, our candidate in Meath West, Cllr. Brian Collins, now finds himself in Meath East, as Kells was moved from one constituency to the other.  So, instead of having three excellent candidates in three constituencies, we now find ourselves with three excellent candidates in two constituencies, with nobody in Meath West.  Very disappointing for the party, but the silver lining is that we now look exceptionally strong in Louth (which seems likely to elect Dermot Ahern and Arthur Morgan from the Dundalk end of the constituency, and Seamas Kirk and two additional seats from the Southern end).

In Dublin, the news was more mixed for the party.  Speaking selfishly, I was delighted that Dublin North-Central still exists as a constituency, with the left-leaning Edenmore moved back into the constituency (though one has to question what continuity of representation the people of Edenmore are getting, as the last revision saw them moved from North-Central to North-East, and now they’ve been moved back).  While the loss of Edenmore would have been disappointing to Tommy Broughan in Dublin North-East, it will damage Sinn Féin more in that constituency.  Of more concern to Tommy will be the addition of Portmarnock and surrounding areas to his constituency – areas that traditionally have a very high Fine Gael vote.  Dublin North-West, Dublin Central, Dublin Mid-West, Dublin South-West and Dublin South-Central remain unchanged, and that’s probably good news for Labour, who hold seats in all of these constituencies, with Eric Byrne now having a great chance to have another go in 2012.  The loss of the Foxrock area from Dun Laoghaire won’t upset Eamon Gilmore too much, though it almost certainly puts paid to any chance of a second seat for Labour in that constituency.   Better news is that Dublin South retains five seats, which gives Alex White a great chance of taking a Dáil seat next time out.  Finally for Dublin, Joan Burton will be relieved that an extra seat has been added to Dublin West, but the decision to divide Swords between Dublin West and Dublin North is a bizarre one, which may well damage our chances of taking back a seat in Dublin North (I haven’t seen tally figures for the Swords area from the last GE, so I’m not entirely sure how this will affect us).

Wicklow remains unchanged, which is good for us, though Carlow will be disappointed that the section of the county which sits in the Wicklow constituency was not returned to them.  Carlow-Kilkenny, Wexford and Waterford are also unchanged, and that’s good news for us too.  We’ll be aiming to take four, if not five, seats from those four constituencies next time out.  Most of the changes in the Midlands were tinkering – bits of Tipp South moved into Tipp North, which also took a chunk of Offaly (this constituency commission seem to have decided to throw county boundaries all over the place).  Tipp South still looks OK for us, but Tipp North is now possibly a little more conservative than it was, which will toughen the task for Alan Kelly in his first public election.  Willie Penrose has lost a bit of territory north of Mullingar into Meath West, but I’d certainly expect him to still comfortably hold his seat, and probably take a running mate on board too.  Cavan-Monaghan remains unchanged.

Moving further west, the people of Leitrim will be utterly disgusted.  The majority of all submissions to the constituency commission were from Leitrim people, disgusted at their lack of representation in the Dáil.  The commission have done possibly the only thing that could have made things worse for Leitrim people.  They have more evenly split Leitrim between two constituencies, meaning that neither constituency has a quota of Leitrim people, and their complete lack of representation in Dáil Éireann seems set to continue.  Galway East and West and Mayo remain unchanged, while there are adjustments between the two Donegal constituencies, though I would expect things to stay pretty much as they stand.  Clare also remains unchanged.

The South-West has some of the strangest boundary revisions in the country.  Taking Cork firstly, South-Central and South-West remain unchanged, and I’m pretty sure Michael McCarthy will be happy about that, even though it still leaves him with an enormous constituency.  Cork North-Central meanwhile, has expanded into both Cork North-West and Cork East.  Cork North-West hasn’t exactly been a bastion of Labour strength recently, so Kathleen Lynch may be a little disappointed by the addition of some of that area into hers.  But she’ll be less concerned about the addition of some of Cork East, where Sean Sherlock was recently elected, while John Mulvihill also performed well.  Meanwhile, Sherlock will be delighted that his core area of Mallow remains in his home turf.

Kerry South have kept their three seats (this will be a two-seat election next time due to the automatic returning of Ceann Comhairle John O’Donoghue), taking in an extra 5,098 population from Kerry North (Castleisland, Cordal and Kilgobban being the areas on the move).  Despite the extra territory, returning a Labour deputy in a two-seat race will be an enormous ask.  Kerry North have in turn taken a chunk of 13,146 from Limerick West, to create the new three seat constituency of Kerry North-West Limerick.  This is extremely conservative territory, and again a gain will be a big ask, particularly in light of Terry O’Brien’s decision not to contest the next General Election for Labour.  The remainder of Limerick has been split essentially into one urban four-seat constituency (to be known as Limerick City, incorporating the city and surrounding environs), and one rural three-seat constituency (to be known simply as Limerick).  The loss of a seat in the Limerick City area (what was Limerick East), will put Jan O’Sullivan under a little pressure, but she should still be fairly comfortable.  Meanwhile, the new Limerick constituency looks a challenging one for James Heffernan, but after his respectable performance in his first outing this summer, I have great faith that he can build a vote in this constituency.

So, that’s my view of the country.  Looking at the overall picture, I don’t think any of our sitting TDs will find themselves unduly pressured next time out.  The tougher challenge lies for our sitting Senators and new candidates.  For the Senators, Dominic Hannigan will need to sit down with Ged Nash and decide which of them will run in newly-expanded Louth.  Alan Kelly will have to deal with a new, conservative part of Offaly in his constituency, while Brendan Ryan will have to deal with the loss of half of Swords to Dublin West.  Phil Prendergast doesn’t have too many changes, and in particular her home patch of Clonmel is untouched by the revisions.  Alex White will have to try to appeal to the Foxrock voters who are new to his constituency, but I think he’s up for any such challenge.  In the other areas, our challenge is now to get out and select our new candidates, and give them a full run in to the next election.

Civil Unions

Next Wednesday (Oct 31st), Labour will once again introduce the Civil Unions Bill to the floor of the Dáil. The Bill was first put to the floor of the Dáil on Feb 20th and 21st of this year. At that time, Fianna Fáil and the PDs voted in favour of an amendment which would postpone the debate six months. Of the Government speakers during that debate, only McDowell spoke against, with Charlie O’Connor, Fiona O’Malley, Sean Power and Barry Andrews standing up to essentially apologise for what the Government was about to do. Those two nights in the Dáil were some of my proudest moments as a member of the Labour Party, as I watched Brendan Howlin introduce the bill, followed by passionate speeches from Michael D. Higgins, Jan O’Sullivan, Liz McManus, Pat Rabbitte and in particular Ruairi Quinn, who lambasted Fiona O’Malley for the PD decision to abandon their socially liberal principles.  At the time, Labour LGBT were particularly thrilled to see the work we had done with Brendan during the drafting of the bill come to fruition, but equally disappointed to see the behaviour of the Government.
So, here we are 8 months on, and I’m thrilled that Labour are devoting Private Members’ Time once more to introducing this bill.  What has changed in the intervening period?  Well, Labour are one seat weaker than we were, but all 20 TDs are expected to vote in favour of the bill.  Fine Gael are 20 seats better off than they were, and we can expect them to support passage of the bill to committee stage (where they will seek to remove adoption from gay couples from the legislation).  The Greens voted in favour last time, but it remains to be seen whether they will continue to support it from the Government benches.  The PDs voted against last time, but if the Greens are permitted to vote in favour, they may also wish to cross the floor, which (combined with a couple of sympathetic independents) would be enough to see the bill safely pass to committee stage.

What can we do to help.  Well, the biggest target needs to be trying to convince Greens and Independents to cross the floor.  In particular, Finian McGrath was very supportive last time, and his support should be sought again.  The three FF members who spoke in favour of the idea (Sean Power, Charlie O’Connor and Barry Andrews) should also be contacted, as should all 6 Green Party TDs.  And of course, people should contact their ownlocal TDs/Senators of all parties to pressure them to support the bill.  Any responses received can be forwarded to campaigns@labour.ie

A summary of the bill can be found here.

You can phone the Dáil at 01 618 3000 and ask to be put through to your local TD or send them an email.  The contact details for members of the House can also be found here.

People should also contact their friends and let them know that this debate is taking place. Anyone who would like to attend the Dail debate on Wednesday, Oct 31^st should contact either Cathy at Labour HQ at 6784700 or email: campaigns@labour.ie

Fingers crossed we’ll get this debate through to committee stage next week!

The TV Debate

I was at a branch meeting in Dublin South-Central last night, continuing the campaign trail.  In advance of the meeting, Michael had given the NEC candidates who would be attending a heads-up on a question he intended asking us.  When he mentioned the question to me, I immediately had an answer formed in my head.  However, once I sat down and thought about it a bit more, the answer began to expand.  Michael didn’t get to ask his question last night, which meant I didn’t get to give my newly extended answer.  I though I’d post the question and answer here (since I have an answer prepared, I might as well use it somewhere!):

Michael’s Question:

One of the most disappointing facets of the last election, was Pat Rabbitte’s absence from the Leaders’ Debate.  What do you think the Labour Party can do in advance of the next election to ensure that Eamon Gilmore sits alongside the leaders of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael during the Leaders’ Debate?

My Answer:

When talking about the TV debate, there are three questions to which we need to analyse.  Firstly, we need to look at why Labour was absent from the Big Debate in May of this year.  Secondly, we need to examine exactly what the Leaders’ Debate is.  And thirdly, we need to look at how we can ensure that we get to participate in that debate in future.

Why did it happen?

Labour, due to the Mullingar Accord, had made ourselves subservient to Fine Gael int he run-up to General Election 2007.  Our policies had appeared on Fine Gael posters all around the country, and many of our braver policies has disappeared from view completely.  All ambition within the Labour Party seemed to have been reduced to a desire to see Pat Rabbitte as Tánaiste to Enda Kenny as Taoiseach, and the country was focussed on a presidential-style choice between Bertie Ahern and Enda Kenny as potential taoisigh.

For some time prior to the election, Labour had been polling at or under 15% – hardly the polling figures of a party challenging to be the largest in the country.

Local polling was not promising for us as a party, and our future seemed to sit on a knife-edge, as a loss or gain of up to 6 seats seemed equally possible when individual constituencies were analysed.

The previous few years had seen Labour make minor gains in the local elections, had seen a very disappointing European election campaign for the party, and had seen us duck out of a potential bid for the Presidency.

Now, in light of all the above, one has to wonder.  If I were the Director General of RTÉ, would I have considered allowing Pat Rabbitte into the Leaders’ Debate?  Quite honestly, the answer is no.  Pat Rabbitte was leader of a party that was helping prop up Fine Gael, that was polling terribly, that had failed to set the world alight in Local and European Elections in 2004, and that had avoided the opportunity to create real political debate in the country by nominating Michael D. Higgins as a candidate for Presidency.  There’s no way any responsible Director General would want to include the leader of such a party in the largest debate in the run-up to the election.

What is the Leaders’ Debate, and what does it mean to the Labour party to be involved?

The Leaders’ Debate has the largest viewing figures of any political programme in the election period.  Record numbers tuned in this time to see one of the blandest debates in history, and as Ireland adopts a Presidential style politics in our General Elections, these viewing figures seem likely to increase in future

However, despite the high viewing figures, the impact of the debate on voting patterns is still unclear.  It is apparent that most people have decided their voting intentions at this point, and perhaps the Leaders’ debate serves only to reinforce previously held intentions.  Nevertheless, with such high viewing figures, there is undoubtedly a portion of swing votes up for grabs.

Participation in the Leaders’ Debate would remove Labour from being associated with the smaller parties constantly, and would recognise that while we are smaller than FF and FG at present, there is an enormous gulf between a party of our size, and parties such as the Greens or PDs.

But there’s one answer that really resonates with me when asked what the Leaders’ Debate represents to Labour – the Leaders’ Debate is a target for us.  Like Eamon Gilmore’s ambition to gain over 30 Dáil seats at the next General Election, or the target of at least 150 local seats which I outlined in a previous blog post, it is a benchmark on which we can judge the successes or failures of the party.  As such, it’s probably a pretty good benchmark to show where we are in relation to our ambitions of growing to become a party larger than FF or FG.

How do we reach that target?  How do we ensure that Eamon Gilmore participates in the Leaders’ Debate in the run-up to the next General Election?

The way to acheive a large target such as this, is to set in place a series of smaller goals which cumulatively will lead us towards that target and beyond.  And so I have 7 goals that I think Labour should focus on in the coming years:

1. Restore an independent identity to the Labour Party.  Eamon Gilmore has made the first step by declaring that we will not engage in pre-election pacts.  But we need to go further – our policies must be clearer, and more accessible to people.  I won’t propose what all of those policies should be, but there are several discussion documents being produced at the moment, which I hope will guide us in this direction.

2. Select our candidates for the Local Elections by March next year,  and ensure early selection of General Election candidates as soon as the Local Elections are out of the way.  This way, we will give the best possible run-in time to all of our candidates.

3. Put in place additional support and mentoring structures for candidates.  I firmly believe we need more staff employed in Head Office providing mentoring and assistance to candidates – particularly first-time candidates.  I believe we should employ a full-time fundraiser, or at least tap into the expertise in this area which exists within the party membership.  This fundraiser should be used to substantially increase the fundraising done by the national party, and also to provide assistance and guidance to constituencies and branches who are attempting to organise their own fundraising efforts.  Mentoring staff, and an increase in the number of organisers employed by the party are also votal to ensuring that we have well-prepared candidates and local organisations in advance of Local and General Elections.

4. Build the membership to a minimum of 15,000 members within 2 years.  Fianna Fáil are well known for getting people to recruit their entire families and villages!  We tend to be the opposite, and often shy away from asking people to join the party.  We need a change in attitude, and a major push to recruit more members into the party in all areas.

5. Set an ambitious but acheivable target for the Local Elections.  I’ve floated the number of 150 councillors as a target for the 2009 Local Elections.  Maybe we should target 200, or 175, or 140.  In many ways, the number is irrelevant.  We need to analyse each Local Electoral Area in the country, and try to identify key targets all over the country.  Setting such a target, and acheiving that target, would be a big milestone for us.

6. Set a target for European Elections 2009.  The decision by the Constituency Commission yesterday to have four 3-seat constituencies in Ireland for the European Elections, is a strange one worthy of further debate in a separate post.  But whether we like that outcome or not, we now need to analyse our targets for the European Elections.  Whether Proinsias DeRossa runs again or not, a Labour seat in Dublin should remain secure provided we run a good campaign.  The East constituency (formerly Leinster) almost provided us with an MEP last time out, and needs to be our primary target for gaining a seat.  South (formerly Munster) needs a strong candidate, but with 5 TDs and 3 Senators in the Munster area, a strong candidate and a good campaign could conceivably gain us another seat here.  North-West (formerly Connacht-Ulster) is definitely a weak area for us.  I believe we should use the European Elections as an opportunity to provide a high-profile boost to two candidates in the region who will be seeking election at the following General Election.  For example, putting Hughie Baxter and Siobhan McLaughlin on our ticket, could give the Labour profile in Roscommon and Donegal a massive boost in the run-up to the following General Election.

7. Run a candidate for President.  In 2011, there will be a presidential election.  Labour must not make the same mistake we did in 2004 by backing down from a potential presidential bid.  In 1992, the platform for the Spring-tide had been boosted massively by the election of Mary Robinson in 1990.  We need to identify a willing and capable candidate for the 2011 presidential election as soon as possible, and prepare ourselves for a campaign that will do much to boost the profile of the party 12 months out from a General Election.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but if we want to acheive the target of participation in the Leaders’ Debate prior to the next General Election, I believe the above 7 goals represent a framework within which we can acheive this target.

Some support

It has been a rollercoaster few weeks, travelling from branch to branch, drumming up bits of support here and there.  And there are 3 weeks left to go, during which I still have a lot of votes to make up.  But I wanted to pause for a moment, to thank the party sections which have given me their complete backing.

My first nomination, which got me formally in the race, came from the Artane/Beaumont branch in Dublin North-Central.  It was great to know that I had another constituency branch on board, and the endorsement of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Cllr. Paddy Bourke, was central to this.  This was then followed by the support of my own Fairview & District branch, and a week later, the nomination and support of Dublin North-Central constituency.  Most NEC candidates are supported by large home constituencies – I can’t compete on that basis, as we have quite a tight constituency organisation, with just one councillor, and no TD or Senator to represent the constituency.  Nevertheless, I was very pleased to get the support of my home constituency, to give me a base on which to build momentum.

Labour Youth have endorsed myself and Paul Dillon as candidates for the NEC.  It’s terrific to see two Labour Youth members in the race for the NEC, and having served as Vice-Chair and Campaigns Officer of Labour Youth for the last two years, I was delighted to be endorsed by that party section.

Finally, Labour LGBT voted unanimously to endorse me for NEC.  I’m in my third year as Treasurer of Labour LGBT, so I was delighted to receive such an enthusiastic endorsement from them.

In terms of official endorsements, that’s it so far.  There are branches and constituencies where I’m hoping to pick up more votes along the way, but the campaign trail is a long road!!

Increasing membership

Thanks to Ian for his comments on my last post - they relate to how we can increase membership, so I’ll tackle them in a new post. 

In his first comment, he points out that many paper members do not even pay their own fees, but branches or public reps pay their fees in order to retain higher membership lists.  This is true – all members of Labour will have heard of it happening at some point.  I don’t think it’s rampant in all areas, but I do think it’s an issue that needs to be addressed, so I’ll expand on what I think are ways in which we need to deal with paper members. 

Firstly, there are supporters of Labour who pay a membership fee every year, but don’t have the time/inclination to be more involved than financially supporting us.  It is the responsibility of branches and public reps to try to entice these people to increased their activity levels.  However, if someone is adamant that they just want to contribute financially, they should be permitted to do so. 

Secondly, there are people artificially kept on the books to increase delegation size etc.  This practice needs to end, but it can only end if we change the culture within the party at all levels.  I would favour a root and branch examination of the membership lists across the country.  Every year, members are provided with the opportunity to update the details head office have on record for them, and they’re provided with postage-paid envelopes to return their updated or confirmed details in.  Every year, less than 10% of members respond, and this cycle continues ad infinitum.  We need to fundamentally re-examine this approach and the attitudes which underpin it.  And we need branches to consider the real advantage to the party of having hundreds of names on a database who aren’t really active members.  The cost of emailing these members and sending them several letters a month, not to mention the actual cost to a branch of paying fees for such people, needs to be taken into account.  Is it really in the best interests of a branch to spend a couple of hundred quid a year on membership fees for non-existent members, when these proceeds could go towards funding branch activity?

The second point Ian rightly raises, is the issue of inactive branches being a barrier to participation for new members.  Mike Allen was asked a very similar question at the members meeting in the Westbury, and responded by saying that it’s impossible for Head Office to close down such branches, as they will frequently lie and pretend to have been recently active.  This is a point on which I fundamentally disagree with Mike.  Regional Development Officers should be making a point of attending meetings of every branch in the country.  Where they are unable to secure an invite to a branch meeting in a 6 month period, or the meeting consists of less than 5 people, neighbouring branches should be merged – no argument.  However, in order to carry out such an examination, we need more such staff, and not the abolition of these posts in favour of a smaller number of Deputy National Organisers.  If we do not invest in staff to help build our local organisations, the status quo is set to continue.  We need to examine all of our branches around the country; not to upset or undermine the people involved, but to ensure that the branches to which we are assigning new members provide structures which will be conducive to encouraging participation and activity from those members.

Finally, Ian raises the idea of sitting representatives etc being opposed to large-scale recruitment for fear of having their power usurped.  I make no apology for saying that such attitudes run directly contrary to the values and aims of the Labour Party, and such attitudes should simply not be accepted.  The only way in which we can possibly hope to increase our levels of activity and representation all around the country, is through having a larger party membership to assist with the process.  More members means more canvassers and campaigning members.  More members means more money in contributions to the party, which means there are more funds for representatives to run campaigns with.  And more members means more expertise in more areas, which means we’ll further improve our ideas and policies.  Public representatives need our support and the support of Head Office, but that doesn’t mean they should have the power to block the party from growing.

Apologies if this post is a little rambling, but I’m a little busy in work at the moment, and got distracted a couple of times while writing this.  I hope it answers some of the questions Ian has rightly raised, but I point out – I don’t have all the solutions to every problem that has been identified, and I won’t claim to have them.  What I can do is help highlight the issues that we see, and raise them with a group of people who are capable of developing solutions.

A disappointing turnout?

Much has been written about the recent Labour Party Deputy Leadership contest in recent weeks, from Justine McCarthy’s rant in the Indo about the lack of women’s representation in the party (without even mentioning that we have the same number of female TDs as Fianna Fáil!) to widespread debate about what the role should involve.

But examining the election result throws up some interesting points which are worthy of comment.  Firstly, turnout was 59.3% of members eligible to vote (making it considerably less than 50% of Labour Party members).  For a party who pride ourselves as having Democracy as one of our key values, this figure is extremely disappointing.  I believe the low turnout can be explained by two factors – paper members and the lack of a leadership contest.  Paper members are a part of every political party in Ireland – people who pay their membership fees every year, but have never shown any activity other than this (and possibly voting for us at election time!).  And I believe that paper members would account for 10-15% of eligible voters in any election, regardless how competitive it was.  The lack of a contest for the position of Party Leader was just as significant in my view.  I was a member of Eamon Gilmore’s campaign team for the leadership contest, but even within that campaign team, there was some disappointment that we wouldn’t have a contest.  A contest would have allowed for a much more open and public debate on the future of the Labour Party, while also giving the new leader a few weeks to prepare for the role.  With the media attention such a leadership contest would have attracted, I believe turnout for the deputy leadership would have been 10-15% higher.

Which leaves about 10% of the eligible voters unexplained.  The fact that Jan and Joan are very friendly, and are viewed as having similar politics probably explains much of this, as it could easily have led to some voter apathy.

So, broadly speaking, that probably explains the low turnout.  However, when looking at these figures, that was not the figure which remotely concerned me.  The one figure which leaped off the page at me, was the total eligible membership of the Labour Party – just 4,661.

Now, this membership figure only includes full members who have been in benefit (ie – fully paid up) for the last two years.  This means that any members who joined as youth members only were ineligible to vote, as were all new members, and any members who had missed their dues for one of the last two years.  However, even rounding that figure up to take account of such members, we’re talking about a total membership of under 7,000.

7,000 members nationally gives us about 160 members in each constituency in the country.  If we are seriously going to aim to have a campaigning organisation in every constituency, those numbers will certainly need to rise.  Indeed, if we are going to gain a substantial number of local election seats in 2009, those numbers will need to rise pretty fast.  So we need to recruit, we need to activate, and we need to campaign – I think we should be setting ourselves a target of at least 15,000 members by the next election – this figure would still only amount to 0.3% of the Irish population (roughly speaking), which should certainly be acheivable.

This country needs a new politics – a Government with Labour at it’s centre.  Without the people to help make that happen, that new politics could be a long way off.

Red-green relations

I only have a moment, but Michael Taft has written an open letter to Ciarán Cuffe TD, in response to his speech to the Ireland Institute, which I thought needed to be advertised far and wide.

In this post, Michael tackles Cuffe’s contention that the unions are vested interests, and that they receive preferential treatment to environmental lobby groups.  Be you red or green, the letter is well worth reading if you have an interest in social justice. 

Increasing youth participation

I’ve had quite a few visitors strolling by thanks to Damien putting this blog into his fluffy links this morning, so I thought it only fair that I write something for them to gaze upon prior to clicking onwards into the internet ether.

I was at a Labour Party branch meeting in Clontarf last night, and one of the key topis under discussion was how to improve youth and women’s participation in the party.  Labour Women are meeting for their Conference this coming weekend, so I’ll leave comments on women’s participation until after that – a couple of my ideas appear in one or two of the submitted motions, so it’ll be interesting to hear how they go down.

So my topic for today is improving youth participation in the party.  Specifically, there are three areas I would suggest that Labour needs to improve: youth member retention, mentoring of potential youth candidates and branch structures.  

Retention of youth members is an area all political parties in Ireland struggle with.  All the youth wings recruit new, young members every year, but all struggle with keeping members involved once they reach an age at which they are no longer members of the youth wing.  It is vital that we begin to put structures in place which can act as a safety net to members leaving the youth wing, and provide them with outlets through which they can continue their engagement with the party.  I believe that people at this age (26 in the case of Labour Youth members) are interested in policy development, grassroots campaigning and the social outlet which politics often provides.  Often, having spent several years involved in the formulation of Labour Youth policy, running campaigns on their behalf, and socialising with fellow members on a regular basis, members suddenly find themselves cast out in the cold, just a day after their 26th birthday!  We need to establish forums within which such members can smoothly transition, to begin feeding directly into party policy formation, to begin supporting campaigns organised by the main party, and to begin engaging at branch, constituency and regional levels to maintain the social aspect to which they are often accustomed.  In a few months time (next June to be exact), I will cease to be a member of Labour Youth.  But I’m lucky enough to have been elected to the co-ordinating council of Labour Equality last weekend, as well as being heavily involved with the party at local, regional and national levels.  There are many more members who don’t have the opportunity to become this involved before ‘graduating’ Labour Youth, and we desperately need to redress the current situation which sees us haemorrage such members.

One of the enormous advantages of having a strong youth wing such as Labour Youth, is that it provides a constant stream of new talent into the party.  Within Labour Youth, there is a concerted effort to constantly engage with and involve new members.  This involves mentoring new members to empower them to take on roles in organising campaigns, recruiting, developing policy, debating, dealing with the press and engaging with international organisations, as well as canvassing and leafleting for Party candidates.  However, these skills and talents are often wasted when young candidates don’t receive enough support and encouragement from the party.  We need to welcome young people running for positions within the party – be it a branch-level position or a position on the National Executive.  We need to engage with Labour Youth members more regularly, to ensure that we are aware of the new talents emerging.  We need to mentor such talents, and encourage them to contest selection conventions for Local and General Election candidates.  And we need to select such candidates long before an election, to give them time to adjust to the realities of being an election candidate, and build up relationships and campaigns in their local areas.  The Labour Party Youth Development Officer, in conjunction with the National Youth Executive does a fantastic job in mentoring youth members, and encouraging them to develop their political skills.  It is now time for the party to embrace the youth of the party, and encourage youth members to develop into party officers and candidates.

Finally, there is a distinct need for Labour to examine our current local and regional structures.  While many of our branches meet regularly, and provide a terrific outlet for youth members to hone their local political skills and knowledge, there are swathes of the country within which Labour branches are not operating regularly.  The Dublin Regional Development Officer sought to rectify this situation at our last Party Conference, with the establishment of Divisional Councils, which organise all branches in a ward into one local structure.  But these structures need a lot more support and development to become viable long-term solutions.  In the meantime, new members are being placed into their local branch upon entry to the party – where this branch is inactive, the members are often slipping through the cracks.  Similarly, with ‘graduating’ Youth members, they often suddenly find themselves without a functioning local organisation, within which they could continue their political involvement.  We are probably 5 years out from the next General Election, and we urgently need to solve such structural and organisational issues in advance of that election.

A weak Fine Gael, bolstered by such organisational improvements, gained 20 seats in GE 2007.  A strong Labour, with clearly articulated policies, an independent electoral strategy, a new leadership and such organisational improvements, could conceivably repeat this gain in 2012.

Redressing the Democratic Deficit?

I’ve been lucky enough to be invited to speak to several branch and constituency meetings over the last couple of weeks.  During these meetings, I’ve been expanding on what I see as something of a democratic deficit which currently exists within the Labour Party, and the ways which this deficit could be resolved.

First and foremost, it is vital that the Labour Party move to having full delegate, motion-based conferences on an annual basis.  Two arguments have been used against this in the past; the expense of hosting such a conference, and the idea that a Labour Party conference debating policy months before an election could be damaging to the party.  I reject both of these reasons out of hand.  The ‘TV conferences’ which the party has held in the Helix over the last couple of years, have been just as expensive to host as the last full conference, held in Tralee.  It is clear that in cost terms, holding a one-day conference in a prime Dublin venue, is just as expensive as holding a weekend-long conference in a hotel outside Dublin.  The idea that displaying internal debate in the lead-up to an election could prove damaging is a conservative, timid view of the Irish political sphere, and I believe the very idea is merely a hangover from the days of the militant tendency, and the attempts by Labour Left to withdraw the party from Government.  As a party, we have always stood as champions of democracy, and we should lead by example, in allowing our own members to debate and decide party policy every year.  As we saw with the debate on electoral strategy at the last conference, we are capable of clearly articulated debates, fought on political grounds with respect for the nuance of political debate.  I believe we should be showing more, and not less, of that quality.  Labour Youth and Ranelagh branch (Dublin South-East) have both sent in motions calling for annual conferences, and I intend providing my full backing to them.

Secondly, it is vital that reports of NEC meetings are distributed to every pary member, increasing the levels of accountability of our National Executive Committee, and allowing all of our members to feel more included in the decisions of the party.  During his time on the NEC, Peter Fitzgerald always issued reports on the activities of the NEC to any interested members, and that is a practice I am committing to reviving if elected.  It is vital that we move towards a situation where all NEC members are available for political discussions with ordinary members of the party, to ensure that the broadest range of views are recognised within the debates and decisions of the NEC.

Thirdly, the NEC must begin to hold spokespeople to account in upholding the will of party members as described in the motions passed at Party Conferences.  I find it incredible that spokespeople can openly refer to the practice of motions relating to their portfolios ‘disappearing into black holes’, without reprisal from within the party.  If spokespeople disagree with motions put to a party conference, they should stand and make their case in opposition to such motions.  However, they must begin to respect the decisions made democratically by the party membership, even if those decisions run contrary to their personal opinions.  The NEC must block any attempts by spokespeople or leadership of the party to subvert the democratic will of the party membership, and we need strong, competent voices on the NEC in order to block such attempts.

Finally, we must strive to constantly move towards what I have described as an ‘ongoing dialogue’ between the leadership and the membership of the party.  Something of a disconnect has been allowed to open up between the leadership and the membership in recent years, and I think this is something that could be relatively easily resolved through greater levels of interaction.  There are two solutions which I have been working on in recent times to help close this gap.  Firstly, on September 22nd, I was one of the principal organisers of a day-long event in the Westbury Hotel.  Following on from the successful Tom Johnson Summer School in Galway in July, this event brought together the Party leader, General Secretary, public representatives and party members, and provided the opportunity for a free and frank exchange of views on a variety of topics such as organisation, identity, and an evaluation of our present position in an Irish political context.  I believe that such events should be a regular feature for party members.  Secondly, I have been encouraging members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) to post on the Labour Members’ Forum.  To date, Joanna Tuffy TD, Sen. Michael McCarthy and Ciarán Lynch TD have all agreed to join as members of this online discussion forum, and debate aspects of their portfolios with party members.  New media provide us with enormous opportunities for improving the interaction between all levels of the party, and lessen our reliance on traditional meetings.  This discussion forum provides a terrific opportunity for leadership and membership to engage on a huge variety of topics, and I will continue pushing members of the PLP to sign up as members.

These are four areas which I think could be easily improved, which would go a long way towards redressing the democratic deficit which currently exists within our party.  If elected to the NEC, I will be pushing for immediate improvements in all four areas.

A biography

A few people have dropped me emails, suggesting that I write something of an introduction to who I am on the blog, to give people an idea of what I’m involved in both within the Labour Party, and in wider general life.  This post will try to satisfy that!

I am 25 years old, and live in Marino on the northside of Dublin (currently part of Dublin North-Central constituency, but it seems unlikely that Dublin North-Central will even exist after the publishing of the Boundary Commission report in late-October).  I was brought up in the border counties, living in Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan, and Dundalk, Co. Louth, but moved to Dublin to read English, German and Philosophy in UCD once my Leaving Cert was out of the way.

Nowadays, I work as a Senior Project Officer for a Japanese Financial Services company, having spent several years working in Hedge Fund Administration.  I’m also studying part-time with the Open University towards a BA in Politics and Government.  I’m a member of AMICUS trade union/UNITE Irish Section, and represent them on the ICTY Youth Committee.

Since joining the Labour Party, I have always tried to develop my relationships with various sections of the party, with a particular focus on campaigning both within the party and in wider society.  I have served as Vice-Chair and Campaigns Officer of Labour Youth, Treasurer of Labour LGBT, and Youth Officer of Dublin North-Central Labour Party (all since 2005), and was recently elected to the Co-ordinating Council of Labour Equality.  I am also a member of the party’s Web Advisory Group, and act as an administrator for the internal Labour Members’ Forum.  During the General Election campaign this year, I was fortunate enough to get to campaign with Eric Byrne, Joanna Tuffy, Joan Burton and Derek McDowell, as well as working in Labour HQ for the short campaign.

One of my main areas of interest is in campaigning for Equality, and this has led me to be involved with several organisations outside Labour, while also being a supporter of both Labour Equality and Labour Women.  In 2005, I was one of the founding members of Equal Ireland, a lobbying group established to campaign for full equality for all minority communities.  I am currently Chairperson of Dublin Pride Festival Committee which is responsible for organising the Dublin Pride festival every year, and I am a member of Choice Ireland.  I am also a member of the Amnesty International Irish Section.

One of my hobbies is web-design, and a combination of this and my political interest led to my becoming a member of the Content Team at Politics.ie.  I’ve also been involved in the creation of websites such as Ruairi Quinn’s.

By way of an introduction, I think that will suffice, but please feel free to contact me at any stage over the coming weeks.  I’ll be using this blog to explain some of my motivations for running for the NEC, as well as expanding on some of the ideas I’m fortunate to be getting to discuss with branches and constituencies all around the country.