It’s time to speak up for the male victims of rape

By James Hallwood.

Reports from Syria of routine rape against men and women is a reminder of the unspoken prevalence of the rape of men and boys in areas of conflict. Yet for the harrowing nature of this, and despite how widespread it is, awareness and support are truly minimal. Often categorised as ‘torture’ rather than ‘rape’, so many men around the world are silent victims of unbelievable acts of sexual cruelty.

Given that rape against males is a regular component of wars across all continents, it is surprising that there has been so little research into this. Dr Lara Stemple of UCLA School of Law has been at the forefront of raising awareness at the prevalence of the sexual abuse of males in war zones and has done much to ask why international institutions are seeing rape as a crime that only affects women.

76% of male political prisoners in 1980’s El Salvador attested to sexual torture, 80% of men in a concentration camp in Sarajevo reported being raped, 21% of men seeking help at a London centre for Sri Lankan torture victims spoke of sexual abuse, 22% of men in Eastern Congo had suffered from sexual violence. A clinic dealing with refugees in Uganda gave the shocking figure that 8 out of 10 women had been raped and 10 out of 10 men had suffered the same crime. Men are routinely raped in Iranian prisons while the disgusting actions by Lynndie England in Abu Ghraib show abuse against men can just as easily be committed by women and the West, no-one has a good record on this.

It is clear that these figures are only the tip of the iceberg. Societal stigma is enough to silence many of these men. Just like many female victims of rape, the men who survive these ordeals are often deserted by their spouses. An aid worker helping men recover from rape reported how wives of victims responded:

“They ask me: ‘So now how am I going to live with him? As what? Is this still a husband? Is it a wife?’ They ask, ‘If he can be raped, who is protecting me?’ There’s one family I have been working closely with in which the husband has been raped twice. When his wife discovered this, she went home, packed her belongings, picked up their child and left. Of course that brought down this man’s heart.”

The strong gender roles enforced in many societies make being a male victim of rape all the more taboo: Men fear no longer being perceived as ‘men’.

Abandoned by family and society, many of the male victims of rape are unable to ask for help, not just in dealing with the psychological scars but with the very literal injuries sustained from repeated sexual abuse. Many men are subjected to constant gang rape, penetrated with blunt objects and forced to give oral sex to soldiers. Survivors are often limited to a restricted diet, bleed incessantly and, worse still, fear asking for help in case they are arrested for homosexual behaviour. At this very moment, men are suffering and dying from these horrific injuries in silence.

International institutions should be able to step in where national governments fail, but they have so far seemed reluctant to do so. Dr Stemple applauded United Nations’ Resolution 1325 call to support women and girls in conflict zones but pointed out that much of its work neglects to look at sexual violence against men and boys. Failing to have a gender neutral definition of rape meant that male victims were operationally invisible. After much campaigning this definition was changed, but there is much still to do to change the culture of organisations that deal with rape.

Dr Stemple cites a literature review of 4000+ organisations that deal with rape in war zones: only 3% mention male victims in their informational material, and few are equipped to deal with the particular needs of men who come to them for help.

Across the globe men and women, boys and girls, are victims of the most disgusting sexual crimes imaginable. Few of the victims report this, many face stigma and shame, and the help any of them are offered is usually minimal at best.

It’s time that governments, international bodies, charities and people openly accept– in war zones sexual abuse rarely distinguishes between men and women, our response should likewise be to help all victims of these heinous crimes.

There remains a blanket of silence when it comes to the taboo of male victims of rape. More awareness, more research and more support is needed.

The perpetrators rely on the shame and particular stigma of being a man forcibly subjected to other men, we must break the silence: It’s time to speak up for the men who are raped in war zones.

James Hallwood is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Will I ever be able to afford my own house?

By Charles Wosu.

There are many young professional around the country; many of them well paid and hoping to save for their first homes. The only problem: rising rent prices mean they can’t save enough to make their first purchase. By spending up to 50% of their salary on rent, a generation of young people will struggle to save enough to take their first steps on to the house ladder.

Buying your first home is a typical rite of passage for adults in the UK. The British are well-known as a nation of homeowners. But the current housing crisis is driving the next generation of house-buyers away from the housing market and into the wild and dangerous private rental market.

I have been thinking recently if I would ever be able to own my own home; and I have come to the sad conclusion that I won’t. Three factors have led me to this conclusion: the rising costs of rent, the truly exorbitant house prices and the lack of affordable housing. Consequently, the future for me and many others of my age will be; a life of renting or moving back in with the parents!

Rental prices, particularly in London and the South-east have risen to exorbitant levels, with annual rents in inner London rising 7% last year – to just under £1,000 per month for a two bedroom house. For many young people spending this amount on rent is almost beyond them, giving them almost no chance in which they can save.

The last 5 years have seen stagnant wages and rising inflation, meaning people have less money in their pockets. Soaring rents combined with stagnating wages and the rising living cost are making it impossible for the average young person to save the thousands of pounds need for a deposit, without help from the bank of Mum and Dad.

Rising house prices are also restricting a young people getting onto the housing ladder. In 2001, the average price of a home was £121.769, 7.4 times the average an individual salary of £16.557. By 2011, the average house price had risen to £236.518 or 11.1 times an average salary of £21.330. These ridiculously expensive properties, close to many schools and workplaces are now almost beyond the reach of the average person. How are young people expected to save these ridiculous amounts?

The current housing crisis is being exacerbated by the lack of supply. Richard Hardy, head of policy and research at Shelter highlighted this: “There’s a lack of housing stock, which started in the 1980’s with council house sell-off and councils not being able to reinvest the money in housing; then not enough was built under successive governments.” This lack of supply and the excessive demand is driving up house prices, leading to more and more people entering the rental market, resulting in higher and higher rental prices. Is there any remedy to this problem? Yes, a comprehensive house building project is urgently required, making use of the vast swaths of brownfield sites within London and the South-east.

The rental market in London is becoming like the Wild West; the lack of supply, the astronomical demand, together with a lax set of rules and regulations are encouraging greedy landlords to consistently hike their prices. In contrast to the UK’s free for all rental market, local governments in Germany have the ability to set the maximum rents for flats. And unlike UK landlords who can randomly increase prices, landlords in Germany cannot arbitrarily impose dramatic price increases; increases can only come in regulated steps.

Now, I know that buying your own home is traditionally what British people do. But is renting actually that bad? There must be some positives to it as many of our European counterparts have much higher rental rates than the UK.  In Germany only 53.2% of the population are homeowners. 55.7% of the population in Switzerland rent and in France 38% of the population live in rented homes. Renting does give you the added flexibility if you quickly have to move for a new job or to study.

The housing crisis in London and the south-east is becoming particularly acute, there needs to be more houses built, particularly some form of affordable housing. Prices in the rental market need to be regulated to stop unscrupulous landlords. And perhaps there has to be a change in the UK’s housing culture and a greater acceptance for renting.  Without any of these changes many young people will be unable to follow their parents in owning their own homes.

Charles Wosu is a Young Fabians Member.

A veto on behalf of the charter?

In this post, Young Fabians member Alex Adranghi highlights the need for an impartial response to the situation in Syria

The furore over a Syrian resolution in the United Nations has been swept up into a battle over vetoes laid down by Russia and China.

Naturally I’m upset at the developments in Syria over the past year, especially having spent some time in Syria a few years ago as a student at the University of Damascus, and experiencing so much of what the great people of this country have to offer the world.

Despite this, the media coverage, as with Libya, has been far from  impartial, and now they have gone a step too far in painting Russia and China as pariah states with the use of their vetoes.

What has been overlooked is that the vote was forced to take place, with Russian UN Ambassador saying “the work we have been doing in the Security Council has not been finalised.” The Telegraph reports that the west miscalculated and forced the vote in the belief that Russia was playing for time, and would not veto it without their proposed amendments.

Their amendments placed demands on the ‘insurgents’ similar to those imposed on the Syrian regime. They fear that explicitly supporting the uprising would amount to regime change, like that experienced in Libya. Russia and China’s concern seems to be not whether it is best for Assad to go or not, but whether that is a question that the United Nations can answer at all.

Russia believes that changing the balance of the national dialogue amounts to domestic interference. This seems fairly reasonable. Both sides have argued that the other’s proposals do not reflect the reality of the situation in Syria. We don’t really have a clear impartial picture of what is happening inside the country, and the UN would be wise to deliberate more carefully before passing any resolution.

Interestingly, there is another major player in the United Nations that also strongly supports the need for resolutions to be based on impartial observations– The United States of America. In 2002, the United States announced that it will not back any Security Council resolution against Israel that did not include a condemnation of the ‘terrorist’ groups hostile to that state. This position has become formalised over the years, and is now referred to as the Negroponte doctrine. This was last used in 2011, and in this instance the United States vetoed against all other members of the Security Council. Was this not an even greater act of defiance towards the international community than that being displayed today by Russia and China?

Every call for the events in Syria to be treated impartially, should be matched by a call for events in Israel to be treated similarly. For every interest in Tartus there is a Bahrain. I really do fear that the media coverage here in the ‘free world’  is encouraging ‘tunnel vision’ and crude simplifications of the complex world of international relations. For that we all lose, as it makes a mockery of the public, which leads to a cheapening of politics. Before we know it, politicians are forced to take a stance because of a national psyche – like America to Israel, Argentina to the Falklands, Russia to its neighbours. Then the cycle tragically begins again.

Alex Adranghi is a Young Fabians member

Labour and the World: The Rational and the Romantic

Yesterday evening the Young Fabians hosted a round table as part of our Labour in the World Policy Commissions with Labour MEP for London Mary Honeyball. The meeting got a little stuck on the tactics of how Labour talks about Europe, rather than the political direction for Europe. Specifically, the question discussed was: how do pro Europeans make the case for EU membership in a net contributing EU member state?

There seems to be two approaches: the rational and the romantic.

Of the large net contributors to the EU budget, the French and Germans seem to fall on the romantic side, they hold a deep routed historical and ideological commitment to the European project following the aftermath of WW2. However the significant CAP and Structural Funds they share between them bend towards the rational. The Italians have the EU to thank for ridding them of the Lira, another rational argument. But what has Britain got to shout about? And will it be rational facts or romantic ideals that will work to make case for EU membership in any potential future vote on the matter?

During our period in government, departments successively made the case for Britain’s EU membership rationally and dispassionately, dealing with hard-headed facts. We spoke about trade, jobs, market access and a single set of market rules all meaning British companies and jobs are better off with Britain in, even if we pay more to the budget than we get back in hand outs (the rebate included). So our position in effect was (and largely still is) this: we pay more in, but without it, we’d be poorer. So in effect, EU membership is an indirect fiscal benefit to the Treasury and thus UK taxpayers.

So far so rational, but it’s not exactly going to send people rushing to the polling station to cast a yes in any prospective future referenda. So what is?

Do we need instead need to break the issue down to the emotive and evocative, using stories and images backed up by hard-headed facts?

The image that Europe, a continent that had been in conflict for centuries, has been at peace for over half a century is strong but it doesn’t seem as relevant today as in the last century.  But twin that with the rational facts of our inter-dependent trade and we might just have a script.

So to tell a story evocatively, as well as dealing in rational facts, Labour should weave a narrative of Britain needing to stand on the world stage with others and not alone, needing to draw on the resources of others to forge a way forward, needing to help those in their greatest need and a Britain that looks outward not inward and to quote a phrase, looking forward not back.

Brian Duggan is Young Fabian Policy Officer.

You can find out more about the 2011 Young Fabian Policy Commissions by clicking here.

US Focus: Power and Irresponsibility

In the first of a series of member posts on US politics in the run up to the Presidential race next year, Young Fabian member Jonathan Bailey reflects on the current political battle over the US debt ceiling.

“With great power comes great responsibility” is one of those toe-curling American clichés. Watching the Republican tactics on the debt issue you cannot help but think that the right phrase should be “With some power comes great irresponsibility.”

Next week, the Federal government will reach its debt ceiling and without Congressional intervention will likely default. So what we can learn about opposition tactics from this impending disaster?

1) If you are on a bipartisan commission, never miss an opportunity to create division:

11 of the 18 members of the Bowles-Simpson bipartisan commission agreed to $4 trillion in spending cuts, and tax increases worth about half that level. Both sides dug in on principle and the 14 required votes were missed. Right now that 2:1 cuts-to-tax ratio looks pretty attractive even if some of the details do not.

2) If you want to make a name for yourself, re-define radical:

Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget with its ‘privatisation’ of Medicare and tax cuts did not capture mainstream support until Presidential-hopeful Newt Gingrich slammed it as being ‘radical’. Gingrich’s Presidential campaign never recovered , and the Ryan budget became the new Republican orthodoxy.

3) If you’re all opposing the same thing, oppose it harder:

With Paul Ryan ruling out a Presidential run, the other Republican candidates lined up to say ‘I agree with Paul’ before competing on how forcefully they could pledge to vote against an increase to the debt ceiling.

So far Sarah Palin is winning.

4) If your side is compromising, be a hero:

After House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama looked close to agreeing a compromise deal with around 3:1 spending cuts to tax increases, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor jumped in to sink the deal by blocking tax increases. Not content with that superhero move he had the closest thing to a punch-up with the President that the Secret Service would allow.

5) And whatever you do, don’t try to explain the complexities of the situation to the American people:

35% of Americans do not know enough about the debt ceiling issue to know whether it should be increased or not, and most Republicans are borrowing from the climate change debate by denying debt default is a problem. Inaccurate analogies are helpful too; Cameron had his line about ‘fixing the roof’ the Republicans have ‘maxing out your credit card.’

It still seems more likely than not that a deal will be done, but Republican obstructionism will have done significant damage to President Obama. The left is frustrated with his continued lack of fight and his wider policy agenda has been put on hold with the summer recess almost upon us.

Putting the global economy at risk is downright irresponsible, but so far the Republicans seem to be getting away with it.

All politics is global

In this member post, Young Fabian member Debbie Moss reflects on last week’s China-EU Year of Youth roundtable event to which the Young Fabians were invited.

All politics is global.  This was the predominant lesson from last Friday’s roundtable event hosted by the Chinese embassy to celebrate the China-EU Year of Youth.  As one of the speakers commented, out on the door-step we almost invariably campaign on domestic issues.  When faced with questions about jobs and cuts to local services, we seek to explain how Labour would do things differently – cutting more slowly, investing in growth and protecting the most vulnerable.  But in today’s globalised world, our economy, and therefore the prosperity and wellbeing of British people, are inexorably linked with that of other countries.  If Labour is to continue its legacy as the party of internationalism we must integrate this into the narrative we present to voters.

On Friday, our Chinese hosts elaborated on two very welcome, interconnected themes.

First, China’s intention to play its part as a peaceful, responsible member of the international community, promoting trade as well as cultural, educational and other exchanges with Britain and Europe.  Second, China’s desire to be seen to be concerned not solely with increasing its GDP (an image often portrayed in the Western media) but also with social justice, human rights and the environment.

Pre-empting Western concerns about China’s one-party state, lack of democracy and use of capital punishment, officials often repeated that theirs was still a “developing” country, implying at times that China was moving teleologically towards more or less European norms in these areas.  Equally though, we were told that China would chart its own course rather than develop according to any Western programme.  Do China’s leaders believe their country will and/or should one day adopt human rights policies like those in Europe? It was hard to tell.

There are some areas though, on which we already agree.  There was consensus among Chinese officials and young people from across the British political spectrum on the importance of our “partnership for growth” as championed by David Cameron and President Hu Jintau.  Trade is of course a key plank in our bilateral relationship with the world’s second largest economy and solutions to the financial crisis must be as global as the problem.  It was reassuring too though to hear support for the presence of the 100,000 or so Chinese students studying in the UK.  I hope that young Conservatives and Liberal Democrats can play a role in influencing their leaders in Government whose controversial proposals to limit immigration, including student immigration, threaten to undermine the excellence and international standing of our universities.

I could not agree more with Nick Maxwell on the need to foster relations between British and European citizens and their Chinese counterparts.  This plays an essential role, complementary to that of diplomatic exchanges.  Meetings of ministers and ambassadors can achieve many things, but cannot alone facilitate the shared understanding and respect between peoples which our Chinese friends rightly emphasised throughout the event.

The discussion shed light on diverse areas of policy: domestic as well as foreign.  Above all, young British speakers as well as those who identified as Chinese-British spoke of the frustrating lack of Mandarin teaching in our schools.  This resonates for those of us who frequently experience embarrassment when traveling in Europe or around the world, as we realise that our language skills pale in comparison to our hosts, who often converse confidently in English and/or other foreign tongues.   To prepare our young people for the globalised 21st century, surely our education system must do more to prioritise language teaching.

Labour’s current policy review is a unique opportunity for fresh thinking.  Hopefully it will have a strong international element.  The party’s new vision for Britain must take account of our role in an increasingly interconnected global community.

China-EU year of youth: the promise of new foreign policy

On Friday 6 May, as part of the EU-China Year of Youth, the Young Fabians and youth groups from other parties were invited to contribute to a roundtable looking issues from educational links to climate change. Below is a summary of my introductory remarks to the roundtable, speaking about “China and Foreign Policy”

The promise of new foreign policy

There is a promise for a new type of foreign policy, driven by an unprecedented level of shared interests between nations.

The ideal is that UK foreign policy exists to support an environment conducive to sustainable, balanced global growth and stability; and that Chinese foreign policy exists to support an environment conducive to sustainable, balanced global growth and stability.

Across the political spectrum in the UK, there is consensus that we want the promise to prevail.

The financial crisis and the global downturn both demonstrated the extent to which economies, particularly the world’s leading economies are interlinked and interdependent. We are exposed to similar shocks and risks, and preventative action to contain economic risks requires cooperation. We no longer have distinct national interests.

It is important at the outset to recognise China’s achievements. Particularly in terms of poverty alleviation, China’s record of raising urban annual per capita income nine-fold over two decades is unprecedented in human history and raised millions from a life of suffering and squalor.

On the left, we are instinctively international and support the equal treatment and opportunity of human beings. China’s increasing prosperity is the success story of the century for humanity – and long may it continue. There is also much to welcome in the Ambassador’s remarks and the latest five-year economic plan on the environment and social equity.

However, both the EU and China, and indeed other players, need to be vigilant against clear risks to this happy co-existence and shared prosperity. There are three risks that I would like to talk about.

Resources and the return of Malthus

The world is resource constrained. In the UK we sometimes imagine that the globalisation of trade is unstoppable. Resource scarcity in oil, in commodities, in food, and in water – compounded by climate change – has already surfaced and put pressure on our global economic system and free trade. The pressure could mount to encourage countries to break economic links and return to a mercantilist approach to ownership of resources in the world.

State-back Chinese operations focus on securing resources, which can look highly mercantilist, and any draw back from free and open access to resources in a system of global trade will threaten our happy co-existence and the promise of new foreign policy.

The extraordinary growth in world population, expected to reach above 9bn by 2040, will put enormous pressure on the sustainability of our way of life. We should be in no doubt that nations will have to work very very hard not to come into conflict over resources.

China can play its part in building trust and confidence by encouraging transparency in its state backed businesses operating in extractive resources and should work to uphold open economic systems at all times.

Buyout fear

$1 trillion to $2 trillion of Chinese investment is expected to be on the markets by 2020.

We saw with Cadbury how emotive buy-outs can be.

Perceptions that Chinese buyouts are state-backed, unfair and – at worst – compromise on national security could undermine the promise of new foreign and economic policy.

In Europe, we need prepare the ground for Chinese investment in Europe, avoiding protectionism and buyout fear, and embracing new ways of doing business, innovation and investment in our communities.

Again from the Chinese side, there needs to be more effort put into transparency of Chinese companies.

On security, if China ceased to invest so heavily in cyber-military capabilities, it might allay fears over the implications of allowing investment and growth of Chinese high-tech companies in OECD nations. Stop the security hawks playing their games, which undermine Chinese high tech industries – particularly in relation to their Indian counterparts.

Legitimacy, peace and trust

China is not a democracy and its leadership relies on success for legitimacy. When economic success runs dry, history has shown us that authoritarian nations turn to jingoism and militarism to underpin their authority.

The growth of democracy in China will help avoid that terrible fate underpin the promise of cooperative growth and shared prosperity.

Everything should be done to better connect young British leaders in business, politics and civic society to their peers in China to help build understanding and dialogue between the two countries, and help avoid a slip from peaceful development.

A promising century

So it is a promising century for human cooperation, for prosperity – but we shouldn’t be ignorant of the threats to that promise. I think a lot of the choice in which way we will go in this century rests on Chinese foreign policy.

We have heard a lot that we can support from the Ambassador today, and we look to working with you, in the small way that we can, to help achieve the promise of a shared, prosperous and harmonious future.

Nick Maxwell is Fundraising and Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians.

Libya: The End Game

In this member post, Martin Edobor, a member of the Young Fabian Science and Society Network, discusses the current situation in Libya.

In the past few weeks we have seen a wind of change sweep through the Arab nations; a roaring voice calling for change. The first to fall was Ben Ali in Tunisia, and then Mubarak in Egypt and now on the brink is Libya’s Muammar Gadaffi.

Yet despite Tunisia and Egypt’s relatively peaceful uprisings, the Libyan revolution is proving to be both bloody and horrific. More than 200 people have been killed in Benghazi following protest, the use of mercenaries has been reported and a media blackout enforced.

International criticism from the west is intensifying. Gadaffi has defied calls from the world leaders to stand down and halt his act of aggression against the people of Libya. Political leaders in Europe and the US began are beginning to raise the pressure, pushing for a more concrete plan of action against Gaddafi, including a possible no-fly Zone. David Cameron has even talked up the possibility of military intervention. He made the strong statement: “We do not in any way rule out the use of military assets”, echoed by Italy Foreign minister Franco Frattini who has offered their Mediterranean military bases if the plan for military action were to go ahead.

What’s apparent is that there is a stalemate in Libya: a standoff between the rebel army and Gadaffi loyalists. The options being weighed are whether the West should militarily intervene, and support attempts by rebel leaders to oust Gadaffi, or to stand back and indirectly facilitate the current rebel movement (possibly by imposing a no-fly zone), which may risk a bloody and drawn-out revolution.

This is a tricky dilemma, with both options filled with pitfalls and drawbacks. The question now is what will Obama, Cameron and other western leaders choose to do?

Cameron is right to not completely rule out military intervention – when it comes to a tyrant like Gadaffi all options should be kept open. Yet Western leaders should tread carefully, as military intervention carries risk.

This is an Arab revolution, formed from the cries of freedom and the blood of the Libyan people. If the West intervenes militarily the movement may be jeopardised, changing it from revolution to war.

What next for Irish Labour?

In this member post, Young Fabian member Patrick Doyle reflects on the results of last week’s Irish Election, and what it means for Irish Labour.

Despite talk at the end of 2010 about the Irish election creating an opportunity for an unprecedented breakthrough for Labour, the clear winner has been Fine Gael – one of the two traditionally dominant parties. However, Irish Labour have had their most successful electoral showing, and they could be on the verge of a hugely significant decision over their role in the life of the next Dáil.

The most important election since the establishment of the modern Irish state has been one in which Labour emerged with a creditable performance. But, ultimately, one that may not signal a bright long-term future for the party. Undoubtedly Fine Gael have managed to secure their most impressive results since the formation of that party, but one can’t help feeling that the real story is the collapse in support for Fianna Fáil.  With coalition talks under way between Fine Gael and Labour, the latter should be aware of the risks of entering government.

If they accept the offer of power-sharing they will become the junior partner in government.  This is clearly not the first time this situation has arisen in Ireland, but given the context in which the election was held, could set the party back by years. The next Irish government is not going to be a popular one when the extent of their austerity measures becomes clear to the Irish population. Anger at Fianna Fáil is not going to sustain a Fine Gael/Labour coalition for the next few years. (As demonstrated in the UK, it is not always the most significant partner in power who takes the full brunt of public anger.)

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, a Fine Gael/Labour government is likely to resemble a national government given their combined, dominant share of seats in the Dáil.  Despite their poor showing in the poll, Fianna Fáil could present themselves as the main opposition to the new government.  Micheál Martin would quite rightly sense an opportunity to regroup and re-establish his party’s traditional support if presented with such an outcome.

Labour must be aware of what is at stake, but in order for this to mark a true game-changer in Irish politics, they should be bold and reject the offer of government.

Otherwise, the outcome of this general election may merely represent a blip in the Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil consensus that has characterised the political history of the state.

Irish election unlikely to spell end of two-and-a-half party system

This morning, polls opened in Ireland in one of the most hotly-anticipated elections in the history of the State. The coalition, while not a foregone conclusion, will likely have Fine Gael’s Enda Kenny at its head – a situation that seemed less likely some months ago.

Since 1923, all Irish governments have been led either by Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, or their precursor parties. The division between the two parties is historical, rather than ideological, representing the anti- and pro-Treaty sides in the Irish Civil War. Both parties share a broadly centre-right set of policies. The Irish left is divided, with PES sister party Labour likely to become the junior coalition partner to Fine Gael. Sinn Féin is likely to increase its vote share, while the United Left Alliance could conceivably regain Socialist MEP Joe Higgins’ Dáil seat. The Greens are tainted by their association with Fianna Fáil in the last Government; their electoral fortunes look bleak. Furthermore, the already comparatively high number of independent representatives in the Dáil looks set to increase further as disillusionment with the two main parties kicks in.

But from last summer until quite recently, there was serious discussion of the ending of the ‘two-and-a-half-party’ system in Ireland, as the traditionally third-placed Labour stormed ahead in the polls, with its leader Eamon Gilmore the most popular choice for Taoiseach. For the first time, the Labour Party dared to consider the prospect of a Labour-led Government. Tellingly, this slogan has been quietly retired in recent weeks as the election campaign progresses. But what has caused the sudden rush back towards the more traditional Fine Gael?

I would argue that several factors have contributed to the decline of Labour’s poll rating in recent weeks. Firstly, this election is all about the economy. Labour wants to create jobs and stimulate investment, including renegotiating the country’s debt repayments, and may have fallen foul of the mistrust of left-wing parties on economic issues.

Secondly, it is commonly expected that the traditional voting behaviour where families still support FF or FG would break down as the generations move further away from Civil War divisions. However, Irish citizens abroad are unable to vote. Ballotbox.ie estimates that there are 3.1 million voters in Ireland, with a further 800,000 abroad who are disenfranchised. As young unemployed graduates emigrate, the progressive vote may be going with them.

Thirdly, Labour as a socially progressive party has been subject to dirty-tricks campaigning in recent weeks. Labour is the only party with a pro-choice policy in a country where abortion remains illegal. The Guardian reports negative campaigning against Labour from anti-abortion groups in recent weeks. Labour also supports holding a referendum on extending full marriage rights to gay couples – a divisive issue in often socially-conservative Ireland.

Fine Gael are unlikely to take the 83 seats needed to go it alone in Government today. The electoral mathematics make a coalition with Labour the most likely, but not the only possibility. In a coalition dominated by Fine Gael, Labour will face an uphill struggle in Government.

Christine Quigley is Equalities Officer of the Young Fabians.