Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Irish Labour History is a Strange Fish
Read more about: Irish Election, Labour Party
Most of Labour’s critics, armed with a deadly cocktail of ignorance and arrogance, have dismissed it as a sideshow. There was never a strong left-wing party in Ireland, they say, because there was never a strong industrial base from which to build such a party. The only place where a true working class existed, the argument goes, was in Belfast and the surrounding area. Partition left Ireland a truncated working-class movement, and saw mainstream politics dominated by the polarities of the Civil War.
It is an historical analysis that the Irish Labour party is all too willing to endorse. The party’s official history states the following:
“The Labour Party did not take part in the General Election of 1918 or the parliamentary elections of 1921. This decision was taken to facilitate a clear-cut decision by the electorate on the national question and to avoid the possibility of a split in the Labour Movement which was organised on an all-Ireland basis. This decision had serious implications for the future of the Party. In the 1918 election, two out of every three voters were voting for the first time and forming political links which were to last a lifetime. The national debate was not resolved by the elections of 1918 and 1921 or the civil war which followed. It has continued to be a part of politics in Ireland ever since.”
The Irish Labour party’s analysis, however, is wrong.
In the 1920 local elections the Labour party emerged as the second largest party on the island. In 1922, the party went on to win seventeen seats out of eighteen candidates, with 20% of the vote. J.T. O’Farrell, secretary of the Railway Clerks’ Association, only lost out on making the Labour party’s campaign a perfect success by 361 votes. That was in Dublin. In Leix/Offaly, William Davin secured two quotas for the party, topping the poll with 15,167 first preference votes. There is no doubt that the Labour party would have won more seats had it fielded more candidates and engaged in the now mandatory vote management.
In 1922/23 Irish farm labourers, railwaymen, dockers, and teachers were engaged in a full-out wage war with their employers, and voted for the Labour party to fight on their behalf. However, the party’s leader, Thomas Johnston, entered the Dáil on a “moral” crusade. He decided that Labour’s role was to protect democracy, and not fight for its voters’ interests.
In the 1923 election the party’s vote shrank, leaving it with a slightly more modest fourteen seats. Thomas Johnston himself only retained his seat in Dublin North on the final count. Even with this, he failed to reach the quota, securing the seat through the elimination of the other candidates.
For the Labour party’s analysis - that the 1918 election somehow caused inter-generational voting patterns – to work, the Irish electorate must have undergone a collective amnesia for five years; or by consistently voting for a Labour party only to reject it in 1923 the party’s analysis is suggesting that the Irish electorate woke up on the morning of election day and said “Hey? Shouldn’t we be voting on Nationalist v Unionist patterns, like we did in 1918, even though the Unionists are gone and it is just us Nationalist here?”
That is quite a magic bullet.
Another analysis is that the Irish electorate voted for the Labour party in 1920 and 1922 to protect wages, and decided not to vote for them in 1923 when the party failed, under Johnston, to pursue that mandate.
The Labour party lost votes in 1923 through bad leadership and bad policies, and not through some mystical collective inter-generational voting pattern caused by a vote for Nationalism or Unionism in 1918.
From 1923 to 1932, bad leadership and a complete lack of vision conspired to create a labour party that was not a political party or a socialist party, or even a social democratic party.
It was trade union party - run by trade unionists for trade unionists, with trade union structures and procedures.
It organised branches only where there were trade union branches. All candidates for election had to be members of a trade union. All decisions and policies were taken with the interests of the trade union movement in mind (about 180,000 people), and not in interests of Irish labour (about 2 million people). It was a gap into which DeValera and Fianna Fáil rushed in, becoming in 1932 the largest party in the country with a potent mix of nationalism and social policies. Fianna Fáil became the working class party in Dublin, and apart from the odd upset- see 1992 for example – it has remained so.
That is where the Irish Labour party messed up. It had seventeen years (1912-1927) ahead of Fianna Fáil to secure those voters. Instead, it couldn’t see past the rule book and trade membership card.
No magic bullet. No inter-generational voting patterns. Just, no vision and no ambition.
Its relevance for today is that people continue to see the Irish Labour party’s lack of success as somehow out of the party’s control; that somehow, history is to blame. Civil war politics and all that. Concurrent with this is the recent debate on Rabbitte’s tax cut and the assumption that the Labour Party was, and is, a normal political party. The facts, I’m afraid, tell otherwise.
The party’s failure to see beyond its trade union template affected the party from the 1910s up to the 1980s, and continues to affect its performance today. The party needs to start looking towards becoming the largest party in any future coalition. Its analysis that the past is somehow to blame for its lack of progress in this regard is, quite simply, wrong. The prize is there, but whether the party is strong enough and ambitious enough to take it – well, that’s where the failing be.
I think the fact that Labour has ceded its natural constituency (urban, disenfranchised working class) to Sinn Fein without so much as a whimper implies the prize is well and truly out of their grasp.
Targetting socially consciencious middle class people seems to be their preferred route - 2pc tax cut anyone?
Do Labour even do ‘grass roots’ any more?
If labour cut its ties to its military wing in SIPTU I would vote for them.
I am all for the common worker but SIPTU is only interested in securing high redundancy payouts for its members at the expense of the Irish public.
Siptu also cost me my job by closing a company I worked for with their bully boy tactics.
Niall, are you suggesting that the “urban, disenfranchised working class” are opposed to a 2% cut in the standard rate?
I’m suggesting they probably need to get a job first.
And why do they not have a job currently, after all as Minister Brennan noted if 100,000 poles can come here and get a job in a single year you have to wonder why we still have any long term unemployed?
There may be issues of education, or literacy or some other problems that need to be addressed. However, for some it is simply an issue of not being arsed or perhaps not really unemployed.
I’m sure there are plenty of low-paid people in disadvantaged areas that will be happy with a 2pc tax cut, but the desired outcome of the policy is to appeal to a broader, middle class base, which seems to be where Labour is heading. The tax cut seems to be their big election ticket, which is slightly ironic when their advertising asks: ‘are you happy?’, questioning the notion that greater wealth has brought happiness.
Instead, the emphasis in their election campaign seems to be about individual cash payout, not using current prosperity to eradicate poverty or inequality.
I’d be happy with a 2pc tax cut, but getting rid of stealth taxes would be better for the poorest in the economy. I’d also rather forego the 2pc tax cut if traffic congestion was sorted out, homelessness was made a thing of the past, crime was reduced and we had a health service we could be proud of.
I suppose if disadvantaged areas are now full of Sinn Fein voters, let go by Labour without a fight, it shows they had made up their mind a long time ago to forget about their socialist ideals. Now they really don’t owe anything to the poorest areas; there’s no votes in it any more.
Niall, where are these “areas” that Labour has abandoned? On Dublin City council, Labour gained votes and seats in the last local elections. Hells bells even I got votes in areas that you would probably allege were full to the brim of SF voters.
Ben has written a truly thought-provoking piece, rooted as it is in a history that many are not familiar with. For instance, Labour was on the verge of a breakthrough in the 1940s with the new membership of the Left, including Larkin, determined to put an end to Fianna Fail rule; only to be undone by a split in the trade union movement which manifested itself in a split in the Party. Even with Johnston - he gambled on an alliance with the newly formed Fianna Fail (a controversial move to say the least) in an attempt to oust the right wing government of the day. That it failed didn’t take away the vision of new alliances - led by Labour. If I’m taking Ben’s analysis correctly, Labour and the wider Left can no longer blame outside forces for its minority status. We have to work hard - intellectually and on the ground - the create the alliances and politcs that will project us into a leadershp role. Ultimately, that does come down to a matter to whether ‘… the ambition is strong enough …’ That is certainly in our control.
Dan,
Labour’s vote has almost halved since 1992. As Sinn Fein is the only other out-and-out left-wing party and they have gained significantly in the interim period, it stands to reason they have attracted voters who would probably otherwise vote Labour. My perception, and that of many people I know, is that Labour are a middle-of-the-road party with no signicant ideological difference to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. The party has a complacency about what it stands for that neither totally convinces the right nor backs up its leftist heritage.
Niall, using 1992 as your benchmark is very dubious the ‘92 election was very unusual for Labour, why not use the 82 election since we’re 25 years on?
I would also point out that the Socialist Party is another out and out left-wing party, and while their polling figures are probably where SF were in ‘92 their leader is a much better Dail and constituency performer pound for pound that any of the current SF TDs.
I think Ben point in his article is quite valid, but I think the spin you’re trying to put on it is much too one-sided. Many of those that SF are getting out to vote now would be much more likely to have gone on to be FF voters than Labour voters. They would seem to be more wedded to nationalism than many had thought. I agree that your perception is that “Labour are a middle-of-the-road party with no signicant ideological difference to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. ” but I would suggest that your perception is flawed and based on lack of awareness of Irish political history prior to ‘92. Ben has a point that the simple answer that the south lacked an industrial base and hence no large left party was possible is incomplete. However, to suggest that the left was somehow waiting for SF to arrive is even more simplistic.
Dan,
As I have no political agenda here, I am not putting a spin on anything: I leave that to politicians. I am merely stating my perceptions, and I know quite a few people share them.
Like most people, I am not a scholar of Irish political history up to 1992 but I would not say I lack awareness of it either. I am, however, like most people, a voter in the upcoming election. We can go back to 1982 for comparison if you like, but this is election year 2007.
The Socialist Party has one TD and its grass roots support structure is negligible compared to Sinn Fein.
By the way, I don’t even know how this statement: “Labour are a middle-of-the-road party with no signicant ideological difference to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael,” is all that relevant to my awareness of political history up until 1992. It’s not a history lesson we need, its good politics.
Niall, the phrase in quotes was yours. If your own words aren’t relevant to your awareness of how Labour got to where they are then where does that leave you. And you don’t need to be scholar to know that taking the ‘92 election as your baseline for Labour support is just not appropriate. SF are much more a nationalist party than a left wing one, and I would believe that would be a more likely explanation in large part as how they have been more successful in some areas than Labour.
Dan,
I realise the phrase in quotes is mine; I just don’t see what it has to do with the history of the Labour Party.
Many young voters don’t particularly care about the history of the Labour party, but just by looking at what the political parties today are offering, one could easily come to the conclusion that they are are “a middle-of-the-road party with no signicant ideological difference to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael”.
I note you concentrate on quetioning my awareness of political history rather than actually trying to refute my statement. That seems to sum up the complacent attitude Labour has taken to canvassing the electorate in recent years.
Thank you for all your comments. I’m sorry I was able to contribute before now, I had to pop up to Derry and so wasn’t near the internet. If I can comment on Niall’s points first. I don’t think Labour has ceeded ground to Sinn Féin to any significant extent. Sinn Féin’s gain have been mainly, but not exclusively, to Fianna Fáil’s loss. The whole point of my article was to show that Labour is not a socialist or even a left-wing party - it was for many years a trade union party, with its focus on the interests of trade unions and trade union members - even partnership is an extension of this world-view than a belief in social democracy or even, gasp, socialism. Sinn Féin, as a left-wing, nationalist, party, has more in common with Fianna Fáil c.1932 than with labour. I think that one of Labour’s problems is that it believes it is a normal social-democratic, community-based, party, when it fact it is not.
Secondly, I think Michael Taft perfectly nailed what I was trying to say. The problems Labour faces in becoming the largest party in any future coalition are not historical, or even cultural, they are down to the Labour party itself. Now, far from being a criticism, I see this as a distinct advantage. Labour’s future can be in Labour’s hands if it only looks to its real history, and not its self-justifying myths.
Finally, I’m glad that the piece has at least caused some discussion around Labour’s history. Long overdue!
I think Michael Laffan wrote soemthing remarkably similar in Studies 30 years ago
Hi Michael, I think you’ll that Laffan said something quite different! The article I think you’re referring to is “Labour must wait”: Ireland’s conservative revolution, which was published in Historical Studies XV in 1985. In it, Laffan concludes that Labour’s gains in
“the election of 1922 had been an aberration; that of 1923 relegated labour to the minor role it has suffered ever since.”
but, Laffan completle ignore the fact that Labour retook the ground it had lost in 1923 in the 1927 general election. It also dismisses the 1920 local election, and argues that Labour’s gains in 1922
“[were] brought about in large measure by fear of civil war between forces ranged for and aginst the treaty, its [labour's] subsequent failure resulted largely from the outbreak, course and legacy of this war.”
I argue the following:
In 1922/23 Irish farm labourers, railwaymen, dockers, and teachers were engaged in a full-out wage war with their employers, and voted for the Labour party to fight on their behalf. However, the party’s leader, Thomas Johnston, entered the Dáil on a “moral” crusade. He decided that Labour’s role was to protect democracy, and not fight for its voters’ interests.
In the 1923 election the party’s vote shrank, leaving it with a slightly more modest fourteen seats. Thomas Johnston himself only retained his seat in Dublin North on the final count. Even with this, he failed to reach the quota, securing the seat through the elimination of the other candidates.”
Laffan makes no mention of the wage war / post-war recession, and does not see the economic crisis from 1921-25 as having ANY effect on the country. As with a lost of Irish historians, he sees nationalism, and nationalism alone, as having any bearing on Irish history - even when the facts suggest otherwise.
Because of Laffan’s inability to see past nationalism, he cannot explain Labour’s gains in 1922 in any concrete terms, only as an “aberration”. The fact that he ignores the party’s gains in 1927 allows him to make the spurious argument that 1933 “relegated labour to the minor role it has suffered ever since.”
no mention of fianna Fáil, no mention of the labour party’s rigid trade union structure, and no mention of the ecnomic, social and cultural forces that swept across Europe in the post-war period - forces that, in the myoptic world of Irish historians, are somwhow stopped by a kind of firewall from ever reaching our shores.
Laffan concludes,
“Before, during and after the revolutionary years from 1916 to 1922, social change was a distraction from what both the political establishment and the electorate regarded as the most pressing issue of the day. Even during a period of upheaval nationalists were able to defeat radicals with remarkable ease. Labour waited.”
Labour lost in 1923, but regained in 1927 what they had won in 1920 and 1922. Its failure to capitalise on those gains was exploited by DeValera and Fianna Fáil in 1932.
“The fact that he ignores the party’s gains in 1927 allows him to make the spurious argument that 1933 “relegated labour to the minor role it has suffered ever since.”
That should, of course, read 1923, not 1933.
Fair enough I hadn’t read it in a while (1989!!)
hi Michael, I think it’s interesting, though, how the Irish labour party have adapted the idea of the civil war as the watershed in Irish politics for their own uses.