Labour bells the cat

Labour finally bells the cat

County View
John Healy

WHATEVER else it might be remembered for, Eamon Gilmore’s first party conference as Labour leader was notable as being the one where the party finally belled the trade union cat.
One of the permanent riddles of Irish politics for years has been this: if the trade union movement is affiliated to the Labour Party, and if the country’s thousands of trade union members are contributing to the Labour Party, then how come with such a supposed harvest of votes, Labour is not in Government more often?
For years, the question has been the elephant in the room, with Labour leaders being careful to tip-toe around anything that might smack of a confrontation. Nobody wanted to prod too deeply under the stone for an answer to blindingly obvious questions.
But the Wexford conference changed that, and it was the straight-talking Westmeath man, Willie Penrose, who brought the house down when he challenged the trade union leaders to return to their working class roots.
It was time, he said, for Labour to be shown a bit of loyalty from trade union leaders. To an audience which included SIPTU President, Jack O’Connor, he declared that those leaders should stop being so palsy-walsy with Bertie Ahern. Labour, he said, would continue to campaign for the best interest of Irish workers in the Dáil. But there had to be a certain amount of loyalty in return.
“We expect trade unionists to come out and support us and not be behind the door,” he said. “Forget about being palsy-walsy with Bertie, forget about the china, forget about Farmleigh and Merrion Square,” he chided.
It was a line which Gilmore himself was only too happy to seize on. Many in Labour, he said, were frustrated that trade union leaders have got too close to Government and disappointed that, in spite of the formal affiliation between Labour and the trade unions, when election time comes, the support which might be expected of trade union members is just not there.
Penrose’s observations, and the enthusiasm with which they were received, show how deep is the belief that trade union leaders have forgotten their roots. There has, for years, been a perception that the spokesmen of the working class have been seduced by the glamour and glitter of rubbing shoulders too often with the great and the good.
Charlie Haughey, strategist that he was, made it his business to nurture close contacts with trade union leaders. With an arm around their shoulders, he escorted them to the forum of plump armchairs and walnut conference tables. He made them part of the establishment and they, in turn, forgot where they had come from.
Bone china and crystal chandeliers, briefings at Leinster House, first name familiarity with taoisigh and ministers, fine food and wines, Farmleigh and the Shelbourne gala dinners and bow ties – all of these are a long way removed from the unglamorous world of Labour Party back offices.
Time, indeed, to whistle back to reality the palsy-walsy leaders of the workers. Penrose and Gilmore may have stumbled on the secret box which holds the key to the revival of Labour.