Yesterday morning, the Taoiseach went on Virgin Media and declared that he did not think that “care” is the responsibility of the state. This is not a statement of fact, but an opinion, and a legitimately held one at that:
I for one am shocked to find out Leo Varadkar doesn’t think the state’s core duty is to care for its citizens pic.twitter.com/69ZkcWWve7
— Seán Hickey (@seannhickey) March 5, 2024
Also yesterday morning, the Minister for Social Protection was quoted in a newspaper as saying that in the event of a “Yes” vote in the referendums on Friday, the state would issue more funding to disabled people who need care. This is not a statement of fact either, but a political promise made conditional on an outcome which is not actually necessary, if the state wants to increase funding for the disabled.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPTKelly/status/1764978987468480873
It is important to deal with Minister Humphreys first. Her statement, as journalist Michael Kelly notes, is indeed flat out untrue.
There is no constitutional prohibition on the state allocating funds to support disabled people, or anybody else. There are, in fact, very few constitutional prohibitions on how the state spends the money it raises in taxes – so few that you could name them all. The state cannot directly subsidise one business at the expense of another under EU state aid rules (though it arguably breaches this by funding RTE vastly more than it funds commercial radio or television). It cannot fund one side of a referendum campaign, though it arguably breaches that via the funding that goes to it’s panopoly of pet NGOs. Finally, it cannot exceed the EU’s growth and stability spending limits under the terms of the EU fiscal treaty, a rule which it has breached many, many times.
Aside from those three things, it can do what it wants. The referendums on Friday will not change that, and a minister suggesting otherwise is lying to you. If a “no” vote results in less funding for disabled people in the upcoming budget then that will be the choice of politicians, not voters.
What’s interesting in the two statements is the utter incoherence of the YES campaign. On the one hand, Mr. Varadkar says it is not the state’s responsibility to provide care. On the other hand, one of his most senior Ministers says that providing more care is what the referendum is about.
Of course, there’s a revealing part to the incoherence. Minister Humphreys talking about more funding for carers is what the Government is saying to get votes. The Taoiseach saying he doesn’t think it is the state’s responsibility is the Government telling us what it really thinks.
Leo Varadkar, in fairness, has mostly buried his one-time persona as a heartless right winger who believes in cutting spending and taxes and asking people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. That element to his political makeup has been carefully and diligently buried with the spade of ambition, as he remakes himself as a progressive social democrat in the model of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, draped in rainbow flags and the language of inclusion. The new Leo is an altogether cuddly fellow, happiest when comparing his socks with those of Justin Trudeau, and not at all like Margaret Thatcher. Until, sometimes, he slips up and the old Leo slips out. Welfare cheats cheat us all, and all that.
The problem for the Government is that the public, asked to choose between Minister Humphreys promise of more funding, and the Taoiseach’s “look after yourself, plebs” approach, will instinctively and correctly identify that the Taoiseach is being more honest, and that his views are much more in line with his party and his Government. That is confirmed, not rebuked, by Minister Humphreys statement.
Because the truth is that the Government could have increased disability funding at any time. It could do it in a supplementary budget tomorrow. Indeed, Minister Humphreys could simply reallocate her existing budget to give more to disabled people. What we’re seeing instead is a Government pretending that the constitution is stopping it from doing something that, as the Taoiseach admitted, it’s not really inclined to do anyway.
One trend in modern society – and not just in Ireland – is that politicians favour progressive ideas so long as they do not cost money. That’s one of the great things about what we might call the “rainbow agenda”, which has long since expanded beyond the rights of gay and lesbian people and now includes everything from gender quotas to hate speech laws to equality audits of Government departments. What these things all have in common is that they are cheap, and do not require real work, or real spending.
The referendum is in that category: Instead of actually spending money to improve the lives of disabled people, the Government has called a vote which, it argues, will allow us to make a statement that we support disabled people. It’s the political equivalent of patting a homeless person on the back and saying “you’re great to do it”. We all know people like this who, in our hour of need, we know can be relied upon to say something vaguely supportive, and then run for the hills. None of us value those people as friends.
It is neat, in a way, that in the same morning we got to see the two faces of our Government. Voters will have to decide which face is the real one. But I suspect most of us already know.