Social Items

TPQ
Louth For Ever ★ writing in Medium on 6-June-2026.

The left can see that something has gone wrong with Sinn Féin. It has reached for revulsion where the answer is structural

RDS Stage, Dublin

1. The Standard

The Robert Tressell Festival took place in the RDS on Saturday, and in the course of it Ruth Coppinger TD stood up and described, more completely than anyone has managed in months of commentary, what a genuine left would have to be.

She began with the form. There should be a common left platform, she said, coming up to the next election. And then, before anyone could file it under electoral arithmetic, she widened it: it is not just about elections, because to challenge what is happening you have to build movements on the ground as well. That second sentence is the one worth holding onto. It says the platform is not a transfer pact or a seat-maximising arrangement. It is a thing built outside the electoral cycle, in the places elections do not reach, and the electoral form is meant to grow from it rather than stand in for it.

Then she set the conditions. A genuine left, in her account, stands implacably against racism and in solidarity with racialised communities, with women, with LGBT people. It acknowledges that the wealth of the society is hoarded by a tiny minority, and it advocates for that wealth to be taxed and taken under control. The social commitments and the economic commitment are not two lists. They are one list, and the holding of both together is what she meant by genuine.

On migration she was emphatic in a way that is worth reproducing closely. A united front against racism, she said, with no leaning in, in any way, shape or form, to anti-immigrant sentiment. Immigrants are not to blame for the crisis in capitalism. To challenge the myth of scarce resources, you talk about wealth, not about the people who have arrived to live among the scarcity. On abortion she was just as plain: no backtracking, on that or on any position previously held. And on the question of who a left platform could govern with, she drew the hardest line of all. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are excluded from a common left project. Not negotiable, not a matter of seats, excluded.

Set those pieces beside one another and what you have is not a wish list and not a purity test. It is a coherent account of a political position: hold the whole terrain, social and economic, as one thing; do not trade your positions for advantage; build the strength outside the electoral cycle that the electoral cycle can then express; and do not walk through the door marked government if the parties of the existing order are standing in it. Whatever one makes of any single plank, the thing hangs together. It describes a left that knows what it is and will not be moved off it.

That is the standard. It was stated clearly, from a stage, by a sitting TD, on a Saturday in June. Hold it there for a moment, because the rest of what follows is a question about the distance between that standard and the ground it was stated on.

II. The Room It Was Stated In

Consider the room it was stated in.

The festival’s theme, printed on the banner behind the speakers, was that the enemy is not the foreigner, the enemy is the system of greed. It is the right line, and it gathered the right people: trade unionists, the flotilla crews, Corbyn and McDonnell over from a British left in its own difficulty, the Higginses as patrons, writers and organisers and musicians, the whole ecosystem of the Irish and international left assembled under one roof for a day. The framing was solidarity, and the solidarity was real. For a day, the left performed its own unity, and there is a value in a movement reminding itself what it is for.

But a standard stated from a stage is also a measure laid against everyone standing on it. And Coppinger’s standard, taken at its word, describes a left that several of the parties in that room do not currently constitute. Arriving at the festival, Mary Lou McDonald spoke clearly and without hedging on Gaza, confirming Sinn Féin would table a motion to stop the Irish football team playing Israel while a genocide is committed, calling it unconscionable. Bacik and Gibney said the same, in much the same words. On that question the left was united and unequivocal, and Sinn Féin was unequivocal with it.

It is worth asking why that question was easy. The answer is that on Gaza the line costs Sinn Féin nothing. Its base is already there, the broad public is largely there, and clarity on Palestine loses the party no votes it wants to keep. Set it beside the questions on which the party does hedge, migration above all, and a pattern appears that is not vagueness and not cowardice but something more precise. Sinn Féin is clear exactly where clarity is free and reaches for ambiguity exactly where clarity has a price. The same instinct that let McDonald be unequivocal about the Israel match is the instinct that produced the leaflet promising to manage migration. The unequivocal stance and the managed one are not a contradiction. They are the same calculation, run on two questions with two different costs.

And the choice of what to carry home from the day tells the same story. The clip Sinn Féin cut and sent into the world was not the Gaza motion or anything on the terrain Coppinger had named. It was reunification, and the building of the republic we all deserve. A party’s choice of what to amplify is a choice about what it wants seen, and from a festival convened around the economic and social terrain, Sinn Féin chose to show its base the one piece of ground that is unambiguously and historically its own, and that costs it nothing to stand on.

So the room performed a unity that the standard stated within it quietly fractured. Not because anyone present was insincere about solidarity. Because solidarity as a feeling and a genuine left as Coppinger described it are not the same thing, and the gap between them is precisely the gap the rest of this is about. The left can fill a hall. The question is whether the thing it stated from the stage of that hall is a thing any party in the hall can actually be.

III. The Revulsion and the Analysis

Here is where I want to slow down, because the way the left has talked about this matters as much as the thing it has been talking about.

When Sinn Féin leans toward anti-immigrant feeling, when it hedges on migration, when it lets a leaflet promise to manage the thing rather than refuse the framing of it, the response from the left has been revulsion. Betrayal, disgust, the sense of a party showing a face it had kept hidden. And the revulsion is not wrong. Something is wrong. The leaning-in is real and it is bad, and the people who feel it as a betrayal have correctly identified that a line has been crossed. I am not going to ask anyone to feel less about it. The feeling is earned.

But the feeling has been close to the whole of the response, and a feeling is not an analysis. Revulsion treats the hedge as a failure of character. They were cowards. They were cynics. They sold the principle for a few points in a poll. And if that is what the problem is, then the remedy follows from it: better people, more courage, a leadership that would hold the line where this one would not. Find the braver party, or shame this one into bravery, and the problem is solved.

I do not think that is what the problem is, and I think the comfort of the revulsion is part of why it has been mistaken for an explanation. There is a satisfaction in disgust. It flatters the one who feels it: we would never lean in, we hold the line, the rot is in them and not in the situation. It sorts the field into the principled and the sold-out and lets us know, warmly, which side we are on. That satisfaction is exactly what an analysis has to give up, because the question an analysis has to ask is the unsatisfying one. Not how do we feel about the leaning-in. Why does it happen. Why does it happen to this party and not to the party down the bill. Why does it happen to the large party and not the small one. The revulsion has no answer to those questions, because it was never asking them. It was naming a wrong, which is a real thing to do, and then stopping at the naming.

What follows is an attempt not to stop at the naming. The wrong is real; the revulsion has that right. But the wrong is structural before it is moral, and reading it as moral leads somewhere that does not work, because the next party that reaches the size this one has reached will meet the same thing, and bravery will not have been the missing ingredient. To see why, you have to put the feeling down for a moment and look at the table the pieces are actually standing on.

IV. The Physics of the Table

There are two forces on the table, and between them they do most of the work that the language of cowardice has been asked to do.

The first is the shape of the terrain itself. There was a time when a party could hold a clear economic position and stay vague on the social questions, or hold firm on the social questions and stay quiet on the economics, and the two could be kept in separate rooms. That time is over, and the far right ended it. The achievement of the reactionary politics now organising across the West, in Ireland as everywhere, has been to bundle the questions together: migration, the borders, the national culture, the rights of women, the climate, sovereignty, all wired into a single circuit so that a position on any one of them reads as a position on all of them. You cannot, any longer, be sound on housing and evasive on 
migration and have the evasion go unnoticed, because the migration question now carries the whole charge of the bundle. This is why Coppinger named the two grounds she named. The migration line and the abortion line are not two items she happened to mention. They are the two places where the integrated terrain bites hardest, the points where a left position is most exposed to the pull of the bundle, and she named them because she understood that holding the terrain means holding it precisely there, where it is hardest, or not holding it at all.

The second force is the one the party is standing in rather than standing on. The institutional architecture of the southern state is built to absorb. Every serious attempt to construct a left politics outside the two parties of government has, within a generation, been drawn into one of them, and the drawing-in has a mechanism. The architecture rewards the party that comes inside and punishes the party that stays out. Come inside and there are ministries, there is the vocabulary of the state, there is the slow education in what cannot be done, and at the end of the education the party speaks the language of the thing it set out to change. Stay outside and there is permanent opposition, permanent criticism of decisions taken by others, permanent smallness. The architecture is not neutral ground that parties cross. It is a set of rails, laid in advance, and the party that climbs aboard can take the driver’s seat and grip the wheel and feel itself to be steering, while the track decides where it goes. Coppinger’s hardest condition, the refusal to govern with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, is a condition written against exactly this. It is an attempt to bar the one door through which the absorption has always come.

These are the two forces. The terrain that will not let the social questions stay quiet, and the architecture that carries aboard whoever climbs on. Neither of them is about the character of any particular leader. They are the physics of the table, and they act on every object placed there, regardless of what the object intends or how brave it is. Which is why the question that matters is not whether a given party is principled, but where on the table it has come to rest, and what the forces do to an object resting there.

V. The Standard and the Scale

Now put the standard back on the table and watch what the forces do to it.

Coppinger stated the standard and she holds it. Implacably, in her phrase, with no leaning in, in any way. And she holds it from two per cent. Her party, Solidarity – People Before Profit, the alliance her party sits within polls at two per cent between them, and it has held the line on migration with a completeness that no larger party has matched. The temptation is to read the completeness as the cause of something, a purity that ought to be rewarded and has been punished by an ungrateful electorate. I want to suggest the relation runs the other way. Solidarity – People Before Profit can hold the line with total confidence because two per cent is a position the line has never cost it anything to hold. It is a group of committed activists in a handful of constituencies, talking mostly to people who already agree, never within reach of the kind of power that puts a position under the pressure that breaks it. The line is easy to hold there. That is not a criticism. It is a description of where on the table the small left rests, and of how light the forces fall on an object resting there.

Move to where Sinn Féin rests and the forces fall differently. A poll this weekend, the second in a fortnight to say the same thing, put the party at 20%, sliding, with the vote it gained in 2020 visibly draining away. The Social Democrats were up 3% in the same poll, and it does not take much to see where a good part of the drained vote has gone. 20% is not 2%. 20% is a party trying to hold together a coalition of voters that includes the cosmopolitan and the communitarian, the city professional frustrated by housing and the worker in a town where immigration is felt as a pressure and not an abstraction, and 20% is within reach of the power that 2% is not. That is where the migration question bites. That is where the integrated terrain and the architecture meet, on a base too wide and too contradictory to be held by a single clear line, with the rails of government close enough to climb aboard. The party leaned because that is what the forces do to an object resting there. Not because it was braver or more cowardly than the party at 2%. Because it was bigger, and bigness is where the test is.

This is the sentence the revulsion cannot say, and the reason it cannot say it is that the sentence offers no one any satisfaction. The small left holds the line not because it is virtuous but because it is small. Sinn Féin leaned not because it is vicious but because it is large, and largeness is where the pressure lives. The principled small party and the compromised large one are not two kinds of character. They are the same forces acting on objects at different points on the table, and the difference between them is the difference between 2% and 20%, between never being tested and being tested constantly. Strip the moral language away and what is left is a structural fact with no villain in it. The standard that Coppinger stated from the stage is a standard that becomes harder to hold the closer a party comes to the scale at which holding it would matter.

It is worth saying that the fracture this describes is not invisible to the mainstream. The Irish Times, surveying the same left after the by-elections, noted that the disagreements between Sinn Féin and the rest run through abortion, immigration and climate, and concluded that they do not extend to the economic questions that once defined the divide. The first half of that is exactly right, and it is the half that matters here: the terrain on which the left fractures is the social terrain, the integrated terrain, the ground the far right has wired together. Whether the economic agreement is as settled as the second half assumes is a question for another day. What is not in doubt is where the breaking happens, and it happens precisely where the bundle bites.

Holding the line and reaching the scale to enact the line have come apart. The party that has the line does not have the scale. The party that has the scale cannot hold the line. And the form that would have both does not exist.

VI. The Gamble

There is a reply to all of this, and it is the best reply available, and it comes from someone who was inside the building.

Siobhán Fenton was a press adviser to the Sinn Féin leader and then a spokesperson for the party, and she has written an account of its inner workings that is due in the autumn. Ahead of it she has offered the strongest version of the case that the drift is not a failure at all but a strategy. The argument runs like this. The 2020 coalition of voters was always incompatible, the cosmopolitan and the communitarian wired together by a housing crisis they both felt and little else they agreed on. To pick a side would be to lose the other and collapse back to a smaller party. So the ambiguity is deliberate, a holding of both for as long as both can be held, and it has an exit. The issue that will decide the next election is not yet visible, just as immigration was not visible early in the last cycle and housing was not visible early in the one before. The party waits. When the galvanising issue arrives, late in 2028, it plants its flag, recovers a clear identity, and fights the election on ground it has chosen. The lacklustre years are the price of the option, and the option is worth the price.

It is a serious argument and it should be taken seriously, with the caveat that it is an account offered by a former press officer rather than a proven fact about what the leadership decided, and that the book it trails is framed less as a story of strategy than as a story of how things came apart. But take the argument at its strongest, as the deliberate gamble it claims to be, and it still rests on a single assumption that the rest of this piece has been quietly dismantling. The gamble assumes that the deciding issue of 2028 will arrive in the form the gamble needs: a clean issue, an economic one, the kind a party can lead on while keeping the social questions in their separate room. Housing in 2020 was such an issue. You could ride it without committing on migration or abortion, because in 2020 the terrain had not yet been bundled.

It has been bundled now. That is the whole burden of the integrated terrain, and it is why the gamble’s exit is sealed over. The issue that decides 2028 will not arrive clean, because there are no clean issues left on a terrain the far right has wired into a single circuit. Whatever the galvanising question turns out to be, it will come already carrying the charge of the bundle, already entangled with migration and the borders and the rest, and the party that has spent the intervening years declining to hold a position on exactly that terrain will not be able to plant a flag on it, because the flag-planting is the very thing the years of declining will have unlearned. Coppinger named the two grounds where the terrain bites because she understood that they cannot be kept quiet until a convenient moment. The gamble is a bet that they can. The bet is against the structure, and the structure does not break.

VII. What Would Have to Be Built

So return to the stage, and to the standard stated on it.

The thing worth holding onto from Saturday is not that Sinn Féin failed a test. It is that the test was stated at all, completely and clearly, by someone who meant it. The left does not have a problem of not knowing what it is for. Coppinger said what it is for, in plain sentences, from a platform, in front of the whole movement: hold the terrain entire, refuse the leaning-in, keep the positions, build the strength outside the cycle, stay off the rails that lead inside. There is no confusion about the standard. The standard is not the difficulty.

The difficulty is the one this piece has been tracing. The standard becomes harder to hold the closer a party comes to the scale at which holding it would change anything, and at the scale where it would change everything it has so far proved impossible to hold at all. The party that keeps the line is kept small partly by keeping it. The party that reached the scale could not carry the line up the slope with it. This is not a story about good people and bad people. It is a story about a shape, the shape of a terrain that will not let the hard questions stay quiet and an architecture that absorbs whoever climbs aboard, and about the fact that no political form has yet been built that can hold the standard and the scale at the same time, against both of those forces, on the ground as it actually is.

That form is what would have to be built. Not a better leader for an existing party, because the forces do not care about leaders. Not a purer small party, because purity at two per cent is not a counter to anything. Not a clever wait for a clean issue that the terrain will no longer supply. Something else: a politics that could hold what Coppinger described, at a scale that could enact it, while resisting the pull that has absorbed every previous attempt to do exactly that. Whether such a thing can be built I do not know. I know that it does not exist, that the weekend made its absence unusually visible, and that the absence is the actual subject beneath the polls and the speeches and the insider accounts of who decided what.

The standard was stated on Saturday. The form that could carry it has not been. That gap is the whole of the matter, and what fills it, if anything fills it, will be built by people with more at stake than a writer watching the room. I will keep watching the room. The building, if it happens, will happen elsewhere.

⏩Louth For Ever writes on Irish politics and constitutional change. Follow for analysis of Ireland’s democratic future as it’s constructed by those actually engaged in the work.

No Villain In It

Louth For Ever ★ writing in Medium on 6-June-2026.

The left can see that something has gone wrong with Sinn Féin. It has reached for revulsion where the answer is structural

RDS Stage, Dublin

1. The Standard

The Robert Tressell Festival took place in the RDS on Saturday, and in the course of it Ruth Coppinger TD stood up and described, more completely than anyone has managed in months of commentary, what a genuine left would have to be.

She began with the form. There should be a common left platform, she said, coming up to the next election. And then, before anyone could file it under electoral arithmetic, she widened it: it is not just about elections, because to challenge what is happening you have to build movements on the ground as well. That second sentence is the one worth holding onto. It says the platform is not a transfer pact or a seat-maximising arrangement. It is a thing built outside the electoral cycle, in the places elections do not reach, and the electoral form is meant to grow from it rather than stand in for it.

Then she set the conditions. A genuine left, in her account, stands implacably against racism and in solidarity with racialised communities, with women, with LGBT people. It acknowledges that the wealth of the society is hoarded by a tiny minority, and it advocates for that wealth to be taxed and taken under control. The social commitments and the economic commitment are not two lists. They are one list, and the holding of both together is what she meant by genuine.

On migration she was emphatic in a way that is worth reproducing closely. A united front against racism, she said, with no leaning in, in any way, shape or form, to anti-immigrant sentiment. Immigrants are not to blame for the crisis in capitalism. To challenge the myth of scarce resources, you talk about wealth, not about the people who have arrived to live among the scarcity. On abortion she was just as plain: no backtracking, on that or on any position previously held. And on the question of who a left platform could govern with, she drew the hardest line of all. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are excluded from a common left project. Not negotiable, not a matter of seats, excluded.

Set those pieces beside one another and what you have is not a wish list and not a purity test. It is a coherent account of a political position: hold the whole terrain, social and economic, as one thing; do not trade your positions for advantage; build the strength outside the electoral cycle that the electoral cycle can then express; and do not walk through the door marked government if the parties of the existing order are standing in it. Whatever one makes of any single plank, the thing hangs together. It describes a left that knows what it is and will not be moved off it.

That is the standard. It was stated clearly, from a stage, by a sitting TD, on a Saturday in June. Hold it there for a moment, because the rest of what follows is a question about the distance between that standard and the ground it was stated on.

II. The Room It Was Stated In

Consider the room it was stated in.

The festival’s theme, printed on the banner behind the speakers, was that the enemy is not the foreigner, the enemy is the system of greed. It is the right line, and it gathered the right people: trade unionists, the flotilla crews, Corbyn and McDonnell over from a British left in its own difficulty, the Higginses as patrons, writers and organisers and musicians, the whole ecosystem of the Irish and international left assembled under one roof for a day. The framing was solidarity, and the solidarity was real. For a day, the left performed its own unity, and there is a value in a movement reminding itself what it is for.

But a standard stated from a stage is also a measure laid against everyone standing on it. And Coppinger’s standard, taken at its word, describes a left that several of the parties in that room do not currently constitute. Arriving at the festival, Mary Lou McDonald spoke clearly and without hedging on Gaza, confirming Sinn Féin would table a motion to stop the Irish football team playing Israel while a genocide is committed, calling it unconscionable. Bacik and Gibney said the same, in much the same words. On that question the left was united and unequivocal, and Sinn Féin was unequivocal with it.

It is worth asking why that question was easy. The answer is that on Gaza the line costs Sinn Féin nothing. Its base is already there, the broad public is largely there, and clarity on Palestine loses the party no votes it wants to keep. Set it beside the questions on which the party does hedge, migration above all, and a pattern appears that is not vagueness and not cowardice but something more precise. Sinn Féin is clear exactly where clarity is free and reaches for ambiguity exactly where clarity has a price. The same instinct that let McDonald be unequivocal about the Israel match is the instinct that produced the leaflet promising to manage migration. The unequivocal stance and the managed one are not a contradiction. They are the same calculation, run on two questions with two different costs.

And the choice of what to carry home from the day tells the same story. The clip Sinn Féin cut and sent into the world was not the Gaza motion or anything on the terrain Coppinger had named. It was reunification, and the building of the republic we all deserve. A party’s choice of what to amplify is a choice about what it wants seen, and from a festival convened around the economic and social terrain, Sinn Féin chose to show its base the one piece of ground that is unambiguously and historically its own, and that costs it nothing to stand on.

So the room performed a unity that the standard stated within it quietly fractured. Not because anyone present was insincere about solidarity. Because solidarity as a feeling and a genuine left as Coppinger described it are not the same thing, and the gap between them is precisely the gap the rest of this is about. The left can fill a hall. The question is whether the thing it stated from the stage of that hall is a thing any party in the hall can actually be.

III. The Revulsion and the Analysis

Here is where I want to slow down, because the way the left has talked about this matters as much as the thing it has been talking about.

When Sinn Féin leans toward anti-immigrant feeling, when it hedges on migration, when it lets a leaflet promise to manage the thing rather than refuse the framing of it, the response from the left has been revulsion. Betrayal, disgust, the sense of a party showing a face it had kept hidden. And the revulsion is not wrong. Something is wrong. The leaning-in is real and it is bad, and the people who feel it as a betrayal have correctly identified that a line has been crossed. I am not going to ask anyone to feel less about it. The feeling is earned.

But the feeling has been close to the whole of the response, and a feeling is not an analysis. Revulsion treats the hedge as a failure of character. They were cowards. They were cynics. They sold the principle for a few points in a poll. And if that is what the problem is, then the remedy follows from it: better people, more courage, a leadership that would hold the line where this one would not. Find the braver party, or shame this one into bravery, and the problem is solved.

I do not think that is what the problem is, and I think the comfort of the revulsion is part of why it has been mistaken for an explanation. There is a satisfaction in disgust. It flatters the one who feels it: we would never lean in, we hold the line, the rot is in them and not in the situation. It sorts the field into the principled and the sold-out and lets us know, warmly, which side we are on. That satisfaction is exactly what an analysis has to give up, because the question an analysis has to ask is the unsatisfying one. Not how do we feel about the leaning-in. Why does it happen. Why does it happen to this party and not to the party down the bill. Why does it happen to the large party and not the small one. The revulsion has no answer to those questions, because it was never asking them. It was naming a wrong, which is a real thing to do, and then stopping at the naming.

What follows is an attempt not to stop at the naming. The wrong is real; the revulsion has that right. But the wrong is structural before it is moral, and reading it as moral leads somewhere that does not work, because the next party that reaches the size this one has reached will meet the same thing, and bravery will not have been the missing ingredient. To see why, you have to put the feeling down for a moment and look at the table the pieces are actually standing on.

IV. The Physics of the Table

There are two forces on the table, and between them they do most of the work that the language of cowardice has been asked to do.

The first is the shape of the terrain itself. There was a time when a party could hold a clear economic position and stay vague on the social questions, or hold firm on the social questions and stay quiet on the economics, and the two could be kept in separate rooms. That time is over, and the far right ended it. The achievement of the reactionary politics now organising across the West, in Ireland as everywhere, has been to bundle the questions together: migration, the borders, the national culture, the rights of women, the climate, sovereignty, all wired into a single circuit so that a position on any one of them reads as a position on all of them. You cannot, any longer, be sound on housing and evasive on 
migration and have the evasion go unnoticed, because the migration question now carries the whole charge of the bundle. This is why Coppinger named the two grounds she named. The migration line and the abortion line are not two items she happened to mention. They are the two places where the integrated terrain bites hardest, the points where a left position is most exposed to the pull of the bundle, and she named them because she understood that holding the terrain means holding it precisely there, where it is hardest, or not holding it at all.

The second force is the one the party is standing in rather than standing on. The institutional architecture of the southern state is built to absorb. Every serious attempt to construct a left politics outside the two parties of government has, within a generation, been drawn into one of them, and the drawing-in has a mechanism. The architecture rewards the party that comes inside and punishes the party that stays out. Come inside and there are ministries, there is the vocabulary of the state, there is the slow education in what cannot be done, and at the end of the education the party speaks the language of the thing it set out to change. Stay outside and there is permanent opposition, permanent criticism of decisions taken by others, permanent smallness. The architecture is not neutral ground that parties cross. It is a set of rails, laid in advance, and the party that climbs aboard can take the driver’s seat and grip the wheel and feel itself to be steering, while the track decides where it goes. Coppinger’s hardest condition, the refusal to govern with Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, is a condition written against exactly this. It is an attempt to bar the one door through which the absorption has always come.

These are the two forces. The terrain that will not let the social questions stay quiet, and the architecture that carries aboard whoever climbs on. Neither of them is about the character of any particular leader. They are the physics of the table, and they act on every object placed there, regardless of what the object intends or how brave it is. Which is why the question that matters is not whether a given party is principled, but where on the table it has come to rest, and what the forces do to an object resting there.

V. The Standard and the Scale

Now put the standard back on the table and watch what the forces do to it.

Coppinger stated the standard and she holds it. Implacably, in her phrase, with no leaning in, in any way. And she holds it from two per cent. Her party, Solidarity – People Before Profit, the alliance her party sits within polls at two per cent between them, and it has held the line on migration with a completeness that no larger party has matched. The temptation is to read the completeness as the cause of something, a purity that ought to be rewarded and has been punished by an ungrateful electorate. I want to suggest the relation runs the other way. Solidarity – People Before Profit can hold the line with total confidence because two per cent is a position the line has never cost it anything to hold. It is a group of committed activists in a handful of constituencies, talking mostly to people who already agree, never within reach of the kind of power that puts a position under the pressure that breaks it. The line is easy to hold there. That is not a criticism. It is a description of where on the table the small left rests, and of how light the forces fall on an object resting there.

Move to where Sinn Féin rests and the forces fall differently. A poll this weekend, the second in a fortnight to say the same thing, put the party at 20%, sliding, with the vote it gained in 2020 visibly draining away. The Social Democrats were up 3% in the same poll, and it does not take much to see where a good part of the drained vote has gone. 20% is not 2%. 20% is a party trying to hold together a coalition of voters that includes the cosmopolitan and the communitarian, the city professional frustrated by housing and the worker in a town where immigration is felt as a pressure and not an abstraction, and 20% is within reach of the power that 2% is not. That is where the migration question bites. That is where the integrated terrain and the architecture meet, on a base too wide and too contradictory to be held by a single clear line, with the rails of government close enough to climb aboard. The party leaned because that is what the forces do to an object resting there. Not because it was braver or more cowardly than the party at 2%. Because it was bigger, and bigness is where the test is.

This is the sentence the revulsion cannot say, and the reason it cannot say it is that the sentence offers no one any satisfaction. The small left holds the line not because it is virtuous but because it is small. Sinn Féin leaned not because it is vicious but because it is large, and largeness is where the pressure lives. The principled small party and the compromised large one are not two kinds of character. They are the same forces acting on objects at different points on the table, and the difference between them is the difference between 2% and 20%, between never being tested and being tested constantly. Strip the moral language away and what is left is a structural fact with no villain in it. The standard that Coppinger stated from the stage is a standard that becomes harder to hold the closer a party comes to the scale at which holding it would matter.

It is worth saying that the fracture this describes is not invisible to the mainstream. The Irish Times, surveying the same left after the by-elections, noted that the disagreements between Sinn Féin and the rest run through abortion, immigration and climate, and concluded that they do not extend to the economic questions that once defined the divide. The first half of that is exactly right, and it is the half that matters here: the terrain on which the left fractures is the social terrain, the integrated terrain, the ground the far right has wired together. Whether the economic agreement is as settled as the second half assumes is a question for another day. What is not in doubt is where the breaking happens, and it happens precisely where the bundle bites.

Holding the line and reaching the scale to enact the line have come apart. The party that has the line does not have the scale. The party that has the scale cannot hold the line. And the form that would have both does not exist.

VI. The Gamble

There is a reply to all of this, and it is the best reply available, and it comes from someone who was inside the building.

Siobhán Fenton was a press adviser to the Sinn Féin leader and then a spokesperson for the party, and she has written an account of its inner workings that is due in the autumn. Ahead of it she has offered the strongest version of the case that the drift is not a failure at all but a strategy. The argument runs like this. The 2020 coalition of voters was always incompatible, the cosmopolitan and the communitarian wired together by a housing crisis they both felt and little else they agreed on. To pick a side would be to lose the other and collapse back to a smaller party. So the ambiguity is deliberate, a holding of both for as long as both can be held, and it has an exit. The issue that will decide the next election is not yet visible, just as immigration was not visible early in the last cycle and housing was not visible early in the one before. The party waits. When the galvanising issue arrives, late in 2028, it plants its flag, recovers a clear identity, and fights the election on ground it has chosen. The lacklustre years are the price of the option, and the option is worth the price.

It is a serious argument and it should be taken seriously, with the caveat that it is an account offered by a former press officer rather than a proven fact about what the leadership decided, and that the book it trails is framed less as a story of strategy than as a story of how things came apart. But take the argument at its strongest, as the deliberate gamble it claims to be, and it still rests on a single assumption that the rest of this piece has been quietly dismantling. The gamble assumes that the deciding issue of 2028 will arrive in the form the gamble needs: a clean issue, an economic one, the kind a party can lead on while keeping the social questions in their separate room. Housing in 2020 was such an issue. You could ride it without committing on migration or abortion, because in 2020 the terrain had not yet been bundled.

It has been bundled now. That is the whole burden of the integrated terrain, and it is why the gamble’s exit is sealed over. The issue that decides 2028 will not arrive clean, because there are no clean issues left on a terrain the far right has wired into a single circuit. Whatever the galvanising question turns out to be, it will come already carrying the charge of the bundle, already entangled with migration and the borders and the rest, and the party that has spent the intervening years declining to hold a position on exactly that terrain will not be able to plant a flag on it, because the flag-planting is the very thing the years of declining will have unlearned. Coppinger named the two grounds where the terrain bites because she understood that they cannot be kept quiet until a convenient moment. The gamble is a bet that they can. The bet is against the structure, and the structure does not break.

VII. What Would Have to Be Built

So return to the stage, and to the standard stated on it.

The thing worth holding onto from Saturday is not that Sinn Féin failed a test. It is that the test was stated at all, completely and clearly, by someone who meant it. The left does not have a problem of not knowing what it is for. Coppinger said what it is for, in plain sentences, from a platform, in front of the whole movement: hold the terrain entire, refuse the leaning-in, keep the positions, build the strength outside the cycle, stay off the rails that lead inside. There is no confusion about the standard. The standard is not the difficulty.

The difficulty is the one this piece has been tracing. The standard becomes harder to hold the closer a party comes to the scale at which holding it would change anything, and at the scale where it would change everything it has so far proved impossible to hold at all. The party that keeps the line is kept small partly by keeping it. The party that reached the scale could not carry the line up the slope with it. This is not a story about good people and bad people. It is a story about a shape, the shape of a terrain that will not let the hard questions stay quiet and an architecture that absorbs whoever climbs aboard, and about the fact that no political form has yet been built that can hold the standard and the scale at the same time, against both of those forces, on the ground as it actually is.

That form is what would have to be built. Not a better leader for an existing party, because the forces do not care about leaders. Not a purer small party, because purity at two per cent is not a counter to anything. Not a clever wait for a clean issue that the terrain will no longer supply. Something else: a politics that could hold what Coppinger described, at a scale that could enact it, while resisting the pull that has absorbed every previous attempt to do exactly that. Whether such a thing can be built I do not know. I know that it does not exist, that the weekend made its absence unusually visible, and that the absence is the actual subject beneath the polls and the speeches and the insider accounts of who decided what.

The standard was stated on Saturday. The form that could carry it has not been. That gap is the whole of the matter, and what fills it, if anything fills it, will be built by people with more at stake than a writer watching the room. I will keep watching the room. The building, if it happens, will happen elsewhere.

⏩Louth For Ever writes on Irish politics and constitutional change. Follow for analysis of Ireland’s democratic future as it’s constructed by those actually engaged in the work.
Louth For Ever Sinn Fein & Left

No comments

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)