Category: Government

Coalition Junior Partners Come Off Worse Eventually

by dsmooney, posted in Fine Gael, Government, Irish Labour Party, Policy, Politics

My column from Thursday’s Evening Herald (27/Sept/2012)  on Eamon Gilmore’s travails following Dep Roisín Shortall’s resignation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Who would want to be the leader of the Labour party today? No doubt Éamon Gilmore still does, though perhaps with a little less relish than he exuded last Monday when he was sitting cheerfully behind me on the early morning flight to Brussels.

Former Labour Party Leader
The late Frank Cluskey – took a principled stand on Dublin Gas

While the dip in Labour’s fortunes revealed in the previous day’s RedC poll may not have demonstrably dampened his ardour, last night’s dramatic resignation by Roisín Shortall will.

Eighteen months in office and he is looking like the Mr Worthing character in the “Importance of Being Earnest:”: losing  one Junior Minister, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.

But isn’t this what happens to the smaller party in Government? When they get into battles with the larger party, don’t they usually come out the worst?

A quick glance at the history of coalitions and it would appear otherwise.

The electoral reality is that going into office costs the smaller party seats at the next election. It takes the bigger risk and, in return, gets a say in policy above its Dáil strength.

That’s the deal. Both partners they know they need the other. It is not for eternity, maybe not even for the full five years of the term, but each knows that without the other neither would in power. unless one sees an alternative, in which case the balance is disturbed.

I served in two Fianna Fáil led coalitions featuring feisty junior partners: the Greens and the Progressive Democrats. While there were the occasional stand-offs, indeed one partly led to my departure, these were the exception to the rule.

Coalition work and last where there is a well negotiated and defined programme for government around which they can agree.

Naturally, where there are two distinct parties with their own hinterlands and approaches, there will be tensions. In my experience these were confined to issues not specifically covered in the Programme for Government or those thrown up by unexpected events.

The other main source of disruptions were the interventions from senior figures, just outside of government, in the smaller party who saw themselves as the conscience of their party, Dan Boyle was particular master of this dark art. While the major partner was usually the main target of these outbursts they were just as often designed to embarrass, irk and provoke their own ministers.

While deeply frustrating, these things came with the territory.  The larger party in a coalition knows it needs the smaller one to stay in office. While it can never allow itself to be seen as a pushover, it also knew that the smaller party could not stay long in office if their members felt there were being used as a mudguard.

This is what makes Roisin Shortall’s resignation so significant. Unlike most ministerial resignations this was about policy. Yes, there are personality and political dimensions too, but essentially this is about adherence to the programme for government.

Her departure is reminiscent of the late Frank Cluskey’s 1983 resignation from Cabinet not only because it too was about policy, but also thanks to the increasing number of comparisons been drawn between both administrations’ handling of the economic problems facing them.

But, as with most parallels, it is not a perfect one. While his departure was a protest against Fine Gael’s stance on Dublin Gas, Shortall’s resignation is just as much about her own parties role in government as it is about Minister Reilly’s capacity to run a department.

When Frank Cluskey quit he made it clear that he did not expect other labour ministers to follow him out and bring down that government. There was no hint that he had lost any confidence in his colleagues. The feeling was mutual. At the meeting following his resignation he reportedly received a lengthy standing ovation from his parliamentary colleagues. Can Deputy Shortall expect to be cheered to the rafters by messers Quinn, Howlin, Gilmore and Rabbitte when they next week? I doubt it.

The Strongest Opposition may be within the coalition itself

by dsmooney, posted in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Government, independents, Irish Labour Party, Policy, Politics, Sinn Féin

The text of my column from tonight’s Evening Herald (Mon Sept 17th)

—————————————-

Irish politics is a zero sum game. If the government is doing badly; then the opposition is doing well, and vice versa.

Derek Mooney’s Column in tonight’s Evening Herald

This makes the coming Dáil term just as vital for the opposition as for the government.

But which element of the opposition is set to fare better? The balance between Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin is almost as much a zero sum game as that between them and the government.

While the occasional opinion poll shows them in the high teens, Sinn Féin’s vote in the ballot box has remained, at best, stubbornly in the low teens. It did get over 13% at the Presidential election, but failed to break the 10% barrier at the General Election.

The question for the Shinners is whether they are a leftish haven for disaffected Labour voters or a centrist alternative to Fianna Fáil. While its instincts may be to try to do both, it is hard to see that tactic working.

On the left they are in competition with the ULA, several Independents and what is left of Joe Higgin’s Socialists.

On the other side they have Fianna Fáil, which insists on just not going away. The fact that FF has not seen any particular advance in its fortunes in the polls should come as no surprise given the scale of the hatred it engendered.

The past 18 months has been about Fianna Fáil stabilising its position. It has put a floor under its decline, which was no small task. The issue now is if it can recover former ground.

While FF may skirmish with SF over ex FF voters who went to Labour, the main battle will be fought elsewhere and with another enemy. Surveys suggest that up to 40% of those who said they voted FF in 2007 switched to FG in 2011.

This sizeable group are still angry and hurt. They have not been ready to listen to Fianna Fáil so far. Will they become disenchanted over the coming months with Enda Kenny and Fine Gael as it struggles to deliver on its election promises?

Will this be sufficient? Will the disenchantment be enough to allow them to listen to anything the party has to say, never mind be convinced by it? These are questions taxing Fianna Fail reps at their think in today and tomorrow.

The opposition parties and independents will also need to consider the competition they face from the emerging, and varied, opposition within government.

It ranges from Brian Hayes and Joan Burton’s fighting over pensioners to FG backbenchers bemoaning its failure to take on the public sector.

The greatest challenge, though, may come from within the Labour Party. There seems to be something about becoming chairman of the smaller party in government that makes the holder think they are the deputy leader of the opposition. I call it “Dan Boyle Syndrome”.

As a first time Deputy; sitting on the government backbenches; the new Labour Chairman may gaze longingly at the other side of the Dáil wishing he were there opposing and criticising the current Government, but he isn’t.

The public gets the difference between government and opposition. They understand the fundamental truth of Mario Cuomo’s famous maxim: “you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose”.

If he thinks doing solo runs will firewall him from the approaching barrage of criticism and unpopularity, then he is in for a nasty surprise. All he needs to do is Google “Dan Boyle” and “election results” to see how these tactics failed.

FG and Lab TDs would do well to heed the words of Mary Harney: “Even the worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition”. This may seem unlikely, but it is the case, especially if you believe politics is about improving things.

If they doubt it, then they only need call the Marine Hotel and ask any Fianna Fáil TD.

ENDS

Dan Boyle Syndrome

by dsmooney, posted in Government, Irish Labour Party, Politics

What is it about the position of chairman of the smaller party in government that makes them think they are the deputy leader of the opposition?

Labour’s parliamentary party chairman, Colm Keaveney is not a wet day in the job and already he is showing signs of the delusion.

Labour: In government or opposition?

He disowns government actions and policies like a member of the opposition while enjoying the privileges perks and access that being in office bring.

I call it “Dan Boyle Syndrome”. While the avuncular Cork man was not the first to exhibit the symptom, the condition reached such a virulent pitch during his time as the Green party chairman that he came to define the condition.

The most noted previous sufferer of the condition, one Michael McDowell, did occasionally present with chronic symptoms, including a slight political tourettes, but seemed to affect a recovery.

It is like a form of “Stockholm Syndrome”. In that; the subject comes to identify and sympathise with their captor, In “Dan Boyle Syndrome” the person loses any sympathy or attachment to their partners and projects themselves into the role of in-house opposition.

Deputy Keaveney’s angry reaction to the

latest round of health cuts, suggesting that it could precipitate an early election may have uttered with the intention of convincing the public that he was still on their side, but it only served to suggest that he still does not understand how government works.

Rather than convincing his voters that he is still on their side, they want him to convince his senior colleagues in government to start taking measures

The public is not impressed by politicians repeating their own concerns back to them. They want their representatives to reflect their views to those in authority, not reflect them back to those who hold them like a possessed hall of mirrors.

The public get the difference between government and opposition. They understand the fundamental truth of Mario Cuomo’s famous maxim: “you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose”.

Doubtless Deputy Keaveney is getting a lot of hassle and criticism from people he meets on the street. As a first time Deputy; sitting on the government backbenches; he may gaze longingly at the Fianna Fáil benches wishing he were there opposing and criticising the tough and unpopular choices that government brings, but he would do well to remember the words of Mary Harney: “Even the worst day in government was better than the best day in opposition”.

Though it may not seem like it to Deputy Keaveney now, Harney’s counsel is right, but only if you believe politics is about changing things and improving society.

Having worked in government and opposition, I know and understand the strains and pressures of both. I am not totally unsympathetic to Deputy Keaveny’s plight, but being sympathetic is not the same as supportive.

If he seriously believes that he will firewall himself and his party colleagues from the approaching barrage of criticism and unpopularity, then he is in for a bad surprise.

Just google “Dan Boyle” and “election results” and he will see how his tactics failed. While other Greens, like Trevor Sargent and Eamon Ryan saw their vote collapse by between 40% and 50% last year, Boyle’s already low vote (he had lost his Dáil seat in 2007) dropped by almost 70%.

If Deputy Keaveney truly finds it impossible to reconcile the platform he was elected upon with the policies his party is pursuing in office then he can follow the example of his three former colleagues: Willie Penrose, Tommy Broughan and Patrick Nulty and resign the Labour whip in the Dáil.

They were not the only three Oireachtas members elected on a labour ticket missing from the five star Carton House think in. as reported here last Wednesday, three Labour senators also stayed away.

A sign to Deputy Keaveney, perhaps, that if he still around next year he may be chairing an even smaller gathering.

ENDS

Intriguing insight into the worklife of Minister Quinn

by dsmooney, posted in Government, Irish Labour Party, Policy, Politics

My column from today’s Evening Herald on Monday night’s RTE 1 #backtoschool documentary “Inside the Department” – a fly on the wall look at life in Education Minister, Ruairi Quinn’s office. 

——————————————————————————

There are times when you despair at how little choice of TV viewing there appears to be on the domestic channels.

Wesht Wing?
The West Wing’s Toby Ziegler….. not a young Ruairi Quinn TD

Last night was not one of those nights.

You could watch the fly on the wall documentary “Inside the Department” on RTE1 or the latest incarnation of Dallas on TV3.

What a choice. A programme about power, jealousy, feuding, lust, carnality, sumptuous offices, driving ambition, back stabbing, expense accounts and flash cars….. or you could watch JR and Bobby stare it out on Dallas.

As an ex ministerial adviser, I opted for the former and watched “Inside the Department”. Indeed, I not only watched it, I recorded it and watched it a second time.

This was not due to my not believing what I had seen the first time, but rather as a means of catching on the second viewing any gems or nuggets of information I missed on the first viewing.  I needn’t have bothered.

As a PR colleague from the North observed on Twitter last night: like all bad ideas making this documentary probably looked like a good one at the time.

That is not to say it was a bad idea for the producers, far from it. It was interesting programme. The problem is that it did not achieve its goal. It was less a look “inside the department” and more a look at Ruairi Quinn and his kitchen cabinet.

And what a kitchen cabinet it is. I think I counted five of them around a table at one point. When I was a special adviser at the Department of Defence there was just the two of us: me and the Minister’s press adviser. Even so, the then Fine Gael and Labour opposition told us we were over staffed

But even they, notwithstanding their numbers, failed to note that the title of the programme was “Inside the Department” and not “Inside the West Wing”.

They also forgot that they are there as servants of the Minister, not as players. Their role is to aid and assist the minister in implementing government policy. This is work you can best do silently and discreetly.

What possessed them to agree to do interviews to camera and offer what were, in my opinion, smug and ill-considered running commentaries on the events of the day?

Worse still, how did they allow themselves and their Minister to talk so loosely on camera about “summoning” Minister Rabbitte over to the northside and being “wary” of  the planned “off the record” meeting with Rabbitte and a delegation of Labour TDs?

As Minister Quinn said during the programme itself, we all make mistakes, I know that only too well myself, but having such a discussion on camera shows naivety at best.

On the broader front, I got the sense that the neither Minister nor the advisers were ever arguing the public’s side during any discussions: either on the Déis schools or reductions in teacher numbers.

It is called “going native”. It was the accusation that stuck to the last administration after 14 years in office. It is the impression that Ministers and advisers are there to represent and present the policy of the bureaucracy, not the voters.

While it took us the guts of 14 years to that that way, these guys seems to have achieved it in as many weeks.

Listening to them talk and interact with the officials it is almost impossible to believe that they had ever been in opposition. It was if they had no problems with the existing policy and saw it merely as their role to guarantee its seamless and uncritical transmission to the public, with the odd kick at Fianna Fáil thrown in to remind them that this lot is different.

Yes, there were the clips of Ruairi calling the Department “malevolently dysfunction” back in 2010, but where did we see it reflected in his discussion with his officials?

Rather than coming across as our representatives in Government, they came across as the system’s front men to us, more concerned with presentation than substance.

Perhaps the documentary caught the mood of the place accurately, but as someone who believes in the benefits of the adviser system, I sincerely hope it didn’t.

ENDS

Labour TDs could not cause an election: even if they tried

by dsmooney, posted in Fine Gael, Government, Irish Labour Party, Policy

And so it starts. Only eighteen months into a five year term and some jumpy Labour TDs are talking about snap general elections.

While it may be an idle threat, intended to frighten Fine Gael backbenchers, it is the non unnatural response of inexperienced functionaries to the health cut provocations of an inexperienced and dysfunction Minister.

While Minister Reilly’s bluff and bluster approach to his portfolio has irritated and angered many, in his defence it is not as if these Labour backbenchers were not given plenty of warning about the impending health crisis.

Within a couple of months of the last Budget being passed it was clear that health spending was in trouble and that the Minister had not given the health service the tools and supports to make the almost €750 million in savings he was demanding, but were the Labour TDs threatening a general election then? No.

By July those initial worries were confirmed. The mid year numbers showed that health spending was running out of control and the deficit had almost reached €300 million, and was expected to rise to €500 million by year’s end, but were the Labour TDs threatening a general election then? No.

Only now, with the year almost over and the preparations for the next Budget underway, do they find their voices, so what good can they achieve? To be frank: precious little. While some of them may threaten snap elections, the Dáil mathematics suggests that they are powerless and they could not cause an election even if they tried.

Blessed or Reilly?
Minister Reilly tooling up for a meeting with Labour TDs?

While first time Labour TDs may think that sitting on the opposition back benches would be an easier life than sitting on the government ones, Labour front benchers don’t. Does anyone seriously think that the likes of Brendan Howlin, Ruairi Quinn or Pat Rabbitte are ready, willing or prepared to walk away from office?

These guys cannot believe their extreme good fortune to still be there after so long. Some of their Ministerial careers commenced two and three decades ago. Ruairi Quinn was first appointed a Minister back in 1982, Howlin in 1993. They have no plans to go now, or at any mid term re shuffle.

Similarly, many Labour backbench TDs know from reading the opinion polls in their own areas that an election now would only result in them losing out to other left wing parties or independents.

But even ignoring these two very important reasons, the Dáil numbers suggest that Labour withdrawal from Government would not necessarily result in a snap election.

The results of the last General Election gave Fine Gael 76 seats, Labour 37, Fianna Fáil 20, Sinn Féin 14, and 19 various left wingers and assorted independents. The death of Brian Lenihan and the resulting by-election increased Labour’s total by one at Fianna Fail’s expense.

The other changes to the maths are the election of Sean Barrett as Ceann Comhairle, reducing Fine Gael’s numbers by one and the fact that several Government TDs jumped ship, three Labour and one Fine Gael. The three dissident Labour TDs could be expected to follow Labour if it was to pull out.

The point that we forget, however, is that 5 independent TDs voted for Enda Kenny as Taoiseach when the Dáil first met on March 9th 2011.

If these five independents were to stick with Fine Gael that would give a single party Fine Gael Government 80 seats, just three short of an overall majority. Admittedly, this is a very big “if” though the likes of Michael Lowry would find it hard not to vote for his former friends and colleagues.

There is no guarantee that everyone else would vote together to bring about an election. All Fine Gael need is a few abstentions and it can struggle through. The most the combined left: Labour, Socialist, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit and assorted other left leaning independents can muster, at a very big push, is 65.

This gives Fianna Fáil and a few other independents, such as Shane Ross, the effective balance of power. Is that really what these jumpy Labour TDs want?

I doubt it. The bad news for them is that they are stuck on this rollercoaster to the end. They suggested last year that there was as easier way out of this.

There wasn’t. They cannot now just cut and run when the going gets rough. I suppose, in a way, this makes them very much like the rest of us.

ENDS

Switching banks should be as easy as switching mobile phone provider

by dsmooney, posted in Banks, Government, Policy
Fr Ted Resting
The money was just resting

I am always struck by how some people can confuse cause with effect. Take Ulster Bank’s Chief Executive, Jim Brown, for example.

Yesterday, as he looked back over the month of turmoil; he noted that no customers had left the bank and that balances had remained flat.

This was said as if it was a measure of his customer’s loyalty to the bank. Might I suggest it is the other way around? The fact that no one has yet closed their account says more about how tough and cumbersome it is to change banks than it does about allegiance

If you are not happy with your mobile phone provider you can switch to another one without any major hassle. You don’t even have to change numbers or go without service for too long. You just make a call and the process proceeds. The same is essentially true for other utilities like internet, gas or even electricity supplier.

In all of these services, competition is king. So, why not in banking?

Switching banks is not easy.

Think of all the new account numbers and PINs to be learned. Think of all companies with whom you have direct debits and standing orders – they all have to be notified and their details changed.

I know how difficult and complex it can be. A few weeks after my dad died early last year my mother called into her bank to sort out a few things following the funeral.

My Dad had never had his own current account or credit card. For years his salary was paid into my mum’s account. I think his name only started to appear on the cheque book around the time of his retirement, though I cannot recall him ever signing one, well not to me at least. The account had always been with the same bank.

I went with to the bank with my Mum that day as she wanted to lodge some cheques and draw out some cash. We had already been to the tax office, social welfare, the credit union and HSE earlier that morning to sort out transfer of entitlements pensions and other stuff. These were all dealt with without any fuss or bother.

But the bank was another matter. One of the cheques Mum was lodging related to my dad’s funeral expenses. When the cashier noticed it she called the assistant manager and we were ushered from the teller’s window to the customer service area.

There we were told that the bank was closing the current account and cancelling her credit card due to my dad’s passing. They said that as one of the names on the account was dead the account had to be closed. They said they would open a new current account and issue a new credit card, both with new numbers and new PINs in the following days.

I asked why this was necessary. They said that it was “bank policy”. I explained that the cheques had only ever required one signature and that my Dad had rarely signed cheques or used the card when he was alive and was probably even less likely to do so now. This somehow failed to reassure them.

Thanks to their policy we then had to spend the following days resorting direct debits and lodgements to a new account number. Even more stressful my mum had to try and learn new account numbers and PINs and forget an account number she had known by heart for over forty years.

Long story short – of all the paperwork we had to sort out following dad’s death, the bank’s was the most burdensome and pointless: and this wasn’t even about moving the account to another bank, it was just about leaving it there and changing one name on it.

Simplifying the process of changing banks and allowing you to keep the same account number when you do move would be a start to real banking reform at ground level and a sign that customers matter.

Why lobbysits are so vital for all communities

by dsmooney, posted in Government, Policy, Politics

My Evening Herald column from last Saturday (23rd June 2012)

Lobby of The Willard Hotel in DC
Pic courtesy of biberfan on flickr

I have an aversion to the term: lobbyist. I resisted its use in describe myself when I worked with a range of national representative groups and I can’t recall ever using it to describe those whom I dealt with while I was a ministerial adviser.

The term “lobbyist” seems to have a pejorative tone to it. Lobbying is viewed with suspicion. Understandable enough after the Tribunal horror stories of men in well cut suits loitering outside Council chambers offering “incentives” to errant Councillors.

The reality is that lobbying is a practice as old as government itself. The origins of the term are often erroneously attributed to the post Civil War US President, Ulysses S. Grant.

Grant was fond of retiring to the bar of the old Willard Hotel across from the White House. News of his habit soon spread and he increasingly found himself besieged by promoters of this or that project as he passed through the lobby of the Hotel.

The term, in fact, well predates Grant and the Willard Hotel and most probably goes back to 17th century England and refers to the lobbies where constituents and petitioners could meet Members of Parliament.

Yet somehow the image of rail tycoons and land speculators in the lobby of the Willard smoking big cigars while stuffing cash into the pockets of pliable politicians seems to have stuck

This is a great pity as lobbying is an entirely legitimate and democratic activity. It is even protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution which speaks of the right “…to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Substitute the words “advocacy” or “campaigning” for “lobbying” and you get a better sense of what it should be about: making the best case you can to the powers that be.

When it descends to kick backs and payola it is no longer lobbying, it is just corruption, plain and simple.

Yet this is the image that still persists: guys in the lobby of the Willard improperly influencing politicians, and their more modern day equivalents.

But it is a false image. Lobbyists today come in all shapes, sizes and types.

People can be advocates on their own behalf, or they can seek the services of others with experience and skills in presenting a case on behalf of others.

They can be from schools, universities, communities, companies, trade associations, trade unions, churches, charities, environmental groups or senior citizens groups

Not all lobbyists are paid. In my experience (from both sides of the divide) most are not. During my time in government I recall getting more calls and emails from volunteer lobbyists than paid ones.

Lobbying is not simply about getting access to a TD, Senator Councillor or Official. These meetings are just the final small step in a much more complex process.

Lobbying is about preparation. It is about research. It is about assembling the facts and honestly analyzing the implications of what you propose. It is a process – and one more about research, education and communication than it is just about persuasion.

I know, from being on the other side, that a dedicated individual pleading a case that they know and understand deeply can be infinity more persuasive than the most costly lawyer or public affairs consultant.

This was the case with those who campaigned for formal recognition of the bravery of those who fought at Jadotville in the Congo in 1961. Not only were they tireless and passionate, they had done their research. No one knew or understood the complexities of this tragic situation better than they. When presented, their case was undeniable.

Far from having something to fear from lobbying such as this, democracy needs it. Just as lobbyists and public affairs people will benefit from a transparent and fair system of regulation.

As Justice Brandeis observed, almost a century ago. “sunlight is the best of disinfectants”.

ENDS

Results of my online poll

by dsmooney, posted in EU, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Government, Irish Labour Party, referendum, Sinn Féin

Here are the results of my online poll. Over 360 visitors to the webpage in last two days – thanks for the 247 votes cast and for the comments posted.

I am not claiming this as scientific, just indicative…. maybe most indicative of just who follows me on Twitter and Facebook

You can print out the results in a PDF document fromhere: Impressed Most Poll

The question posed: Leaving aside whether you voted Yes or No who impressed you most during the Fiscal Treaty Campaign (Pick 3)

 

Total Votes 247

%

 

 

 

1

Micheál Martin

21.86%

2

Declan Ganley

14.17%

3

Michael McGrath

14.17%

4

Simon Coveney

13.77%

5

Mary Lou McDonald

13.77%

6

Joan Burton

5.67%

7

Gerry Adams

5.26%

8

Enda Kenny

4.45%

9

Shane Ross

2.83%

10

Eamon Gilmore

1.62%

11

Joe Higgins

1.21%

12

Richard Boyd Barrett

1.21%

 

  

Labour could be casualty in Treaty Yes vote

by dsmooney, posted in EU, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Government, Irish Labour Party, referendum, Sinn Féin

My Evening Herald column from today’s (Thurs May 24th) edition:

voting
Many different reasons to vote yes or no

With less than a week to go the referendum campaign seems more and more to be about less and less.

On the face of it, if you believe the posters, the choice is to Vote Yes to achieve stability or to Vote No to end austerity.

But do any of us really believe these claims? Regrettably, like previous EU referendums the debate has been conducted at the extremes, not the centre. It was the case in the Nice and Lisbon referendums, remember those “€1.84 Minimum Wage after Lisbon” posters?

Mercifully, we have been spared the malign input of Cóir and Youth Defence this time. The are no loss, especially as most of them wouldn’t know a treaty from a tea-bag (to rob a line I recently overheard)

But this absence of any significant ultra right involvement on the no side does highlight a curious undercurrent to the campaign, one, which I suspect, may be a factor in how some people decide how to vote next week.

While the slogans maybe about the EU and the Euro the referendum has morphed into a proxy battle on the future of left / right politics in Ireland.

From the start the battle front was drawn up along left versus right lines.

On the Yes side you had the right and centre right parties: FG, FF and Lab (more about them later), the employers’ and business organisations, the farmer’s groups and the more established/mainstream trade unions.

On the No side you had the socialist and hard left parties, People Before Profit, Joe Higgin’s Socialists, Sinn Féin, the more radical trade unions.

While the entrance of The Declan Ganley somewhat clouded the the Left/Right delineation, it hasn’t ruptured it.

The sight of him sharing No platforms with irredentist left firebrands is a joy to behold, especially when you consider that they agree on virtually nothing, including Europe. Most on the hard left are euro-sceptic while The Ganley is avowedly Euro-federalist.

While passing the Fiscal Treaty will herald no major day to day changes – mainly because it just restates the centre/centre right economic orthodoxy in place since 2008 – it will cement it into domestic law for the foreseeable future.

It is this that the left fears and opposes most.

Passing the Treaty would recalibrate the centre of the Irish political spectrum a few points to the right. It won’t be a seismic or noticeable shift, but it torpedoes the Left’s ambitions of shifting it the other way.

It doesn’t vanquish them, nor does it make them to tone the rhetoric down. If anything, it will do the opposite, but in their hearts they will know that their ambition to shift Ireland economically to the left has been reversed.

This explains why the campaign from Joe Higgins, Boyd Barrett and Sinn Féin has been so fierce. But not as fierce as when its over and they start to target each other.

I am not predicting that their poll rating drops are set to drop. They won’t. They will probably rise as voters use them to express their disapproval of government parties going pack on pre election pledges.

But the Irish electorate is sophisticated. It is overwhelmingly aspirational. This applies across all social classes and communities. They want their kids to do better than they did. That decides voting intentions more than anything.

In the meantime Sinn Féin will continue to do well at Labour’s expense, after all Gerry and Mary Lou are saying now what Éamon and Joan were saying two years ago.

It is Labour who will be the biggest casualty. Polls showing 40% of Labour supporters voting No could have longer term ramifications for the leadership. But whatever they may be, they can be so where near as damaging as Gilmore’s infamous “Frankfurt’s Way or Labour’s Way” slogan.

It may turn out to be the most devastating political slogan of recent times – devastating to its authors, that is.

Referendum is as much about Left vs Right as it is about the €

by dsmooney, posted in EU, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Government, Irish Labour Party, referendum, Sinn Féin

What will we be voting about on May 31st? It is one of the toughest Treaty referendum questions to answer.

European Central Bank
The ECB on Frankfurt’s Way?

If you are to believe the thousands of posters that adorn our street lamps we are either voting yes to stability and jobs or voting no to austerity. A simple enough choice… or so you’d think? Unfortunately, as the campaign progresses, it is becoming clear that neither the Yes nor the No poster claims stands up to much scrutiny.

Do we really think we will suddenly achieve stability and more jobs if we vote yes? I suspect that even the most ardent of yes voters believes that to be case.

On the other hand does the most convinced no voter think that the austerity measures, including household and septic tank charges will disappear if 50% plus one of us votes no? I doubt it.

So what are we voting about?

The best answer I have heard so far has not come from a member of government, the ULA or Sinn Féin. It came, peculiarly enough, from a Euro bureaucrat, a former member of the board of the European Central Bank member. Not the type of person you would expect to speak with simplicity and clarity, yet he did.

Speaking on RTE Radio One’s This Week programme, Lorenzo Bini Smaghi described the decision before us with a cheque book analogy. After years of having separate current accounts, he explained, the Eurozone countries have decided to have one current account and one single chequebook between them for certain purposes.

The risk with this is that any individual country could abuse their access and stick others with the bill, so it is important to agree a set of strict and enforceable rules beforehand. These rules are set out in the Fiscal Treaty. If you want to be able to use the joint account, you need to agree the rules. Refuse to agree the rules and you won’t be allowed near the chequebook.

It is a simple and effective explanation.

What we are voting about is our relationship with the Eurozone countries. Do we want to continue and strengthen that relationship or do we want to weaken it. This does not mean that voting No is the same as being against the Europe, but the choice we are facing has become starker than we would like it to be.

Ok. So now that I have attempted to make the issue a little clearer and get behind the hype and hysteria printed on the posters let me now reverse the process and confuse it again.

While much of the debate has been about the EU and the Euro let me point to another level in the debate. Though it does not get mentioned so much, this referendum has become a proxy battle on the future of left versus right politics in Ireland.

Before The Declan Ganley entered the fray the battle lines had been drawn up along clear Left/Right lines.

On the Yes side you had the right/centre right parties (FG, FF and even Lab), the employers’ and business organisations, the farmer’s groups and the more conservative trade unions.

On the No side you had the radical and left parties, People Before Profit, Joe Higgins Socialists, Sinn Féin, the more radical trade unions.

A Yes result would recalibrate the centre of the Irish political spectrum several degrees to the right. While this would not vanquish the left, it would limit their scope and hem them in.

This could help explain why Sinn Féin has been so fierce in urging a No. A Yes vote would place a definite ceiling on their ambitions and make the centre/centre right economic approach the norm for at least the next decade.

This would leave the hard left /socialist factions with no influence, just sitting on the sideline spouting rhetoric – so, no change there.

The main casualty could be Irish Labour Party, no matter what the result. “Frankfurt’s Way or Labour’s Way” may turn out to be the most devastating political slogan of recent times – devastating to its authors, that is.