Category: Politics

Acknowledging Army was bad for SF business

by dsmooney, posted in Politics

This is my recent article on Martin McGuinness & Sinn Féin’s “profit before principles” approach to Óglaigh na hÉireann/Defence Forces in the Evening Herald on Friday Sept 30th – see it online here

I LIKE Senator John Crown’s test for judging the presidential race: “The presidency … should be prize for best pupil, not the most improved pupil”

It is a valid point. Martin McGuinness is one of many people who have — at varying speeds — helped move this island to a more peaceful existence.

But his story comes in two parts. If he is to get the positive marks for the latter part, then he must also accept the negative ones for the earlier part — and these are considerable.

Many men and women had to pay a heavy and lasting price for the delay in McGuinness, and others, coming to the conclusion reached years before by such inspirational figures as John Hume, Seamus Mallon and Ivan Cooper.

Now his supporters moan at his past being dragged up and the savage killings of the likes of Frank Hegarty and Jerry McCabe being discussed as if the “constructive ambiguity” that was devised to bring Sinn Fein into the political process had become their birthright.

They claim that younger people are not interested in the past. I am not sure that is as true as they think, but even if we do accept that argument, the concerns about their candidate are not all based in the past.

Some stem from the fact that the past stretches forward to touch us today. Take, for instance, Sinn Fein’s attitude to the Irish Defence Forces.

This is an important issue. The Constitution states that supreme command of the defence forces is vested in the President (Article 13.4) and that all officers of the defence forces hold their commissions from the President (Art 13.5.2).

The ambiguous nature of Sinn Fein’s attitude to the Irish Defence Forces post Good Friday agreement was of interest to me when I was adviser to the Minister for Defence.

Though Martin McGuinness the presidential candidate now says he accepts that Oglaigh na hEireann is the Irish Defence Forces, back then the only time you heard the words Oglaigh na hEireann from him or from Gerry Adams, it was a reference to the Provos.

Martin’s volte face on this matter is welcome, though long overdue. He accepts that only the Defence Forces, as successors to the Irish Volunteers, are entitled to use the title: ‘Oglaigh na hEireann’.

Section 16 of the Defence Acts states: “It shall be lawful for the Government to raise, train, equip, arm and maintain Defence Forces to be called and known as Oglaigh na hEireann or (in English) the Defence Forces.”

Perhaps the reason McGuinness and Co found it hard to acknowledge the existence of the Defence Forces was that doing that might be bad for business.

The business in question was the Shinners own online shop. There they busily flogged items, including T-shirts, mouse-mats, bracelets, pendants and signet rings, bearing the title Oglaigh na hEireann, to grab every last euro and dollar they could.

On three occasions, the then Minister wrote to the Sinn Fein leadership, North and South, asking them to remove this material from sale.

The letters were acknowledged, but despite repeated attempts to engage with them, no substantive response was ever issued.

I checked their website again last weekend and was amazed to find that Sinn Fein was still making money from the sale of jewellery bearing the words Oglaigh na hEireann.

While some of the items complained about back in 2005 have been ‘disappeared’, a number are still there. The online description of one of those, a signet ring selling for €45, said: “The inscription reads: Oglaigh na hEireann — which is Irish for Irish Republican Army.”

This gombeen attitude to our heritage and to those who serve our nation is not very presidential. The fact that it still continues suggests that McGuinness’ move on accepting the Defence Forces may not be as deep as it seems.

Well, maybe not until all their back stock of trinkets have been flogged off — profits before principles.

Ireland’s Super Tuesday

by dsmooney, posted in Aras11, Fine Gael, Irish Labour Party, Politics, Sinn Féin

For the last few months some people have been complaining about how impossible, unfair and stitched up the Irish presidential nomination process can be. True, these were mainly people aligned to one candidate or another, but even so, at least they cannot say now that is not exciting.

The massive flurry of activity in Council chambers across the country has been something to behold. Meetings have been called at the last minute in Councils from Donegal to Waterford and from Cork to Dublin.

They have become like our very own mini Primaries and Caucuses – mirroring those in theUSAwhere each States holds primary elections to mandate delegates in each of the two main parties to select their respective Presidential Candidates.

With eight Councils meeting today, this could be described as our own “Super Tuesday”.  Just as in the States, today will decide the fate of the two remaining ballot paper hopefuls.

I am not sure if this is ironic or just a symptom of poor campaigning, but one of the candidates, Dana Rosemary Scallon is the last one into the field, while the other Senator David Norris was the first one in, having launched his campaign as far back as March.

Back on May 9th Sen Norris was the first candidate to get Council backing, in his case Fingal. He only had to wait a mere twenty weeks to pick up his second one, securing the backing of Laois County Council yesterday. But, as we all know, a great deal has happened in those twenty weeks.

Highlighting the drama of his situation only three individual votes yesterday separated the Senator from his goal. First, te lost Carlow Council on the casting vote of the Fine Gael Chairman and then he went on to be defeated in Dublin South Council 11 – 12. Two more votes, or rather two more abstentions, from Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Féin would have made all the difference.

On the other side, Dana managed to take two Councils in quick succession. Norris’s loss in Carlow was her gain plus support from Roscommon. Today she turns her sights on Donegal, Longford and Westmeath, two of which backed her at her previous bids for the office.

One indicator of how Councillors might vote at the Council meetings today can be gleaned from last Sunday’s Business Post/RedC Opinion Poll.  Fortunately, for sad political junkies like me, the pollsters used two sample ballot papers – one without Norris and Dana on it and another with both included.

On the face of it Norris’s nomination today would not only see the race having a new front runner, it would also damage the campaigns of the candidates from the two Government parties. According to the Poll Michael D Higgins could lose up one third of his support to Norris, while Mitchell, who cannot afford to slip much more, could haemorrhage anywhere in the region of one quarter of his support to him.

Expect the Fine Gael and Labour Councillors to weight this possible outcome carefully when they consider how they will vote today, particularly when it comes to backing Norris. The outcomes will depend on how these considerations are balanced against the fear of a backlash against those who kept Norris out of the race.

Not that Higgins and Mitchell are the only ones affected by an expansion of the field. The entrance of Norris and Dana to the race could see Mary Davis lose up to a third of her support, Sean Gallagher lose about one quarter of his and Martin McGuinness lose about  a fifth.

In the case of these three, their capacity to influence the outcomes today will not be anywhere as great as for the two main parties. Plus their supporters will also want to size up if the damage done to the FG and lab candidates outweighs the impact on theirs.

Later this evening, as our Super Tuesday draws to a close with votes in Dublin Corporation and Cavan County Council we should know the final outcome. But, if not there is always Average Wednesday’s early morning’s meeting of Kilkenny County Council.

‘Hero to zero’ Gilmore has got only himself to blame

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

 

My take on Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore’s dilemma from The Evening Herald Thurs Sept 8th – see online here

 

THE much-missed RTE journalist Gerald Barry gave his name to possibly the one basic rule of Irish politics.

It states that “every leader of the Opposition is the worst ever leader of the Opposition”. Not only does it still apply, but our “new” politics seems to dictate that it be expanded to apply to Tanaistes.

As Eamon Gilmore is learning, being the deputy can be a thankless job. President Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president, John Nance Garner, described the job as “not worth a bucket of warm spit”. Though being a rough Texan, it is likely he put it a bit stronger

President Reagan’s VP, George Bush Snr, put it a bit more delicately, saying the job involved a lot of quiet diplomacy, possibly a reference to the number of state funerals he attended during his time.

Gilmore’s current stint in the doldrums is almost inevitable. He came into Government promising most, and with the highest public approval ratings. Remember the Gilmore For Taoiseach posters? If only I had held on to one! He could never deliver on these high expectations, given his lack of experience in office.

In Opposition, Gilmore outshone and outclassed Kenny. He was the one who seemed more capable and focused. He was better able to capture the public mood. His pithy and apparently off-the-cuff contributions contrasted with Enda’s heavy long-winded scripted ones. Those days are now long gone. The Taoiseach now outpolls the Tanaiste, as ex-FF voters see him more in tune with their concerns.

The cracks in the Gilmore edifice first began to appear in the leaders’ debate between Eamon and Micheal Martin. Contrary to expectations, the new Fianna Fail leader faired well, while Eamon seemed over- prepared, even defensive.

Looking back, it may have been a foretaste of Eamon’s difficulty: changing from Opposition mode into governance mode.

His weakening situation was compounded by taking the job in Government often seen as the most remote from everyday life at home — foreign affairs — and by his choice of ministers.

He appointed a team with both experience and youth, yet he has uniquely managed to rub many of his backbenchers up the wrong way –particularly those who served on the front benches before the election only to find themselves passed over in favour of relative newcomers for junior ministries.

This leaves him caught in a bind. On one side he is being daily eclipsed by his more experienced colleagues, Quinn, Howlin and Rabbitte — while on the other he is being sniped at by disgruntled backbenchers.

A situation not made any easier by the fact that he is not a “gene pool” Labour Party man, just a “stickie” blow-in.

Small wonder his polling numbers have fallen amid stories of his less-than-impressive contributions to Cabinet.

I was hearing these during my recent trips to Brussels as local officials spoke of how pedestrian his performances had been at EU meetings.

His dilemma is now threefold, at least.

First, his platform in Opposition was that we needed to tax more and cut less. That is not the view of the majority voters now.

Second, if he had taken a more central big-spending department he risked exposing his inexperience, so he chose to play safe.

Third, if he was more aggressive and assertive, we would be lambasting him for damaging the cohesiveness of the Coalition and putting party politics above national interest.

In these circumstances it is possible to almost feel sympathy for his plight … but only almost. He alone is the architect of his current misfortunes.

They may ease a little if his candidate fares well in the presidential election, though October 27 is a distance away and a Labour victory is by no means assured.

That would at best prove a temporary respite as already unhappy backbenchers grapple with the consequences of cuts in social welfare and services.

Gilmore’s place is secure for the moment, but all bets (and gloves) will be off come the mid- point of this Government’s term if his role and input into Government has not improved significantly.

–

Why Fianna Fáil is right not to contest Aras11

by dsmooney, posted in Politics

The reality that Fianna Fail is no longer the huge force in Irish politics that it once was is gradually dawning on some.

Former big beasts in the forest are finding that they now do not strike the same sense of awe and fear they once did when the party commanded support levels of around 40%.

While watching the process of them coming to terms with this loss of influence and authority in public is neither edifying nor appealing – it is better it happens quickly.

The reality of the last election is that Fianna Fail no longer has a God given right to presume it can be in power. It has received what a colleague of mine in the North described as “the mother and father of a political punishment beating”.

It is a beating from which the party can recover, but that process will be long and arduous. The process of renewal the party must undergo must itself commence with the facing of some facts.

The first among these is that the traditional way of doing political business will no longer work. That means, in this instance, that the old assumption that almost any candidate Fianna Fail selects from its own ranks will automatically be a front runner no longer applies. Things have changed utterly for everyone in the party, not just those at the top.

It applies even to huge voter getters like Brian Crowley. For him to think that he could personally withstand this swing against the party is to miss what happened last February.

There is no great evidence to show that the public anger has diminished significantly. Any candidate facing the electorate in the foreseeable future, and that includes this October, with Fianna Fail on their posters will incur the wrath of a still smarting public – no matter how small they make the logo.

Contrary to the views of others, the party leadership was right, and is right, to wait until now to decide its strategy. The suggestion that this decision should – or could – have been made last June or July is nonsense. This is a decision that required some time and space for calm consideration. It is a decision that needed to be made when the full impact and scale of what happened last February had been digested.

Having the Gay Byrne flirtation in public before taking this decision was an error, though it hard to see how anyone could have thought the Byrne option could ever have been considered just in private.

It sent the wrong message to the party membership. Martin’s countrywide tour of the constituencies was reconnecting the leadership with the members – the Byrne episode has dented that reconnection: though not damaged it irreparably, despite the rantings of a few impetuous people on Facebook.

But consider what a hero Micheal Martin would have appeared if he had convinced Byrne to run. Consider too that some of those who were most critical of Martin for courting the popular light entertainer had – a few weeks earlier – been urging him to allow four or five of his Oireachtas colleagues to sign the nomination papers of another, equally well regarded entertainment figure; David Norris.

There is a world of difference between accepting your current situation and allowing it to curb your ambitions. The fact that Fianna Fail may not directly contest this October’s Presidential election does not undermine the party’s hopes to recover the public trust it has lost.

If anything, not running a traditional style candidate is part of the process of letting former supporters know that it is taking the hard message they sent last February to heart.

This is not merely a question of the party saving a few hundred thousand Euros by not running a candidate – it is about Fianna Fail doing what it traditionally did best: facing up to harsh realities and addressing them. It is this which offers Fianna Fáil a way to renewal and recovery, not the fielding of an Áras 2011 candidate.

It is way too early to call the Aras11 race

by dsmooney, posted in Aras11, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Irish Labour Party, Politics, Sinn Féin

My latest article on the aras11 race from the Evening Herald 13th August 2011

 

In about 75 days we will vote for our next President. It is a long way away and there will be plenty of polls to mull over between now and then.

The latest RedC Paddy Power poll does throw up some unexpected numbers, so I suspect with the next two or three polls. I would not expect them to settle down and reflect actual voter intentions until much closer to October 27th.

Uncle Gaybo tells us that he will make up his mind on whether to run or not. He has some big things to mull over, including his high level of potential support. They are impressive by any standards, almost Norrisian when compared to polls taken in recent weeks.

But what do these big numbers mean or matter when the beneficiary is not in or out of the race yet? Plus, he should consider that early leads come with a major health warning from Irish presidential election history.

The first major poll of the 1997 Aras race was conducted by IMS and published in the Sunday Independent about 40 days before polling (on September 21st)

It showed the Labour party’s candidate, Adi Roche in a commanding lead with 38% – ten points ahead of Uncle Gaybo’s figure today. On polling day, on October 30th she ended up on 7%.

If things changed that much for her in 40 days, consider how much more they might change over the course of 76 days. The words “sprint” and “marathon” come to mind. Come to think of it, so do the words “obstacle course”

As with Uncle Gaybo, Adi’s name had come into the fray as a bit of a surprise announcement just days before an opinion poll. The Irish Times poll; published ten days later, had Roche on 22%, behind McAleese (who polled 35% in both polls).

I know the dangers of comparing polls from different polling companies with different samples. I also know that Adi’s declining poll numbers followed a tough and difficult campaign.

The point I am making here is that any poll taken so far out from the actual polling day, particularly with some candidates yet to declare, is no indicator of how anyone might fair out on the big day. This applies to those at the top or the bottom of the poll. We may as well poll as to who will win the 2012 Eurovision inAzerbaijan(Though it’s a fair bet they’ll be East European)

To put it in its crudest terms, this poll seems to me to simply reflect how well the public recognises the candidates’ names, so far.

I say this as the truth is that the Presidential campaign not started yet. Yes, there has been a lot of coverage over the past few weeks, but this has focussed on particular individuals rather than the full slate.

Apart from a few short one to one interviews on the Pat Kenny radio show and his rather terrible Frontline debate where most of the potential candidates stayed away, there has been no opportunity to calmly judge the candidates suitability to be President.

The campaign proper in October will matter. By then we will know who is definitely in the race or who is not. We will start to hear clear messages from each of them why they are the right person to succeed President McAleese. We will hear about their values and their thoughts on what the next seven years should bring.

We, the public will be able to assess and review the candidates individually and collectively over that three to four weeks of intensive campaigning.

The last thing anyone wants or needs is an 11 week campaign. No one’s sanity, patience or tolerance could withstand 75 days of that.

So let us stay calm, wait to see who is in or out and all take a few deep breaths from now until late September when the race can begin in earnest.

Quick quips will not get you out of this mess, Senator. You need to hear some things you don’t want to hear

by dsmooney, posted in Politics
Presidential candidate
Senator David Norris

Text of my article on the Norris campaign saga from Evening Herald – see it online here:

I like West Wing quotes. They are not just well written, they can neatly sum up a situation. The one which comes to mind as I watch the evolving Norris campaign saga is from an episode in series one.

In it, the fictional President Bartlett character advises a colleague on selecting a campaign manager/ chief of staff. “Do you have a best friend… Is he smarter than you… Would you trust him with your life?”

When the guy answers “Yes sir” to all three questions, Bartlett tells him: “That’s your chief of staff.”

That’s precisely what David Norris has needed from the start of this whole thing.

Though I have criticised some of them, he has had many loyal and personally devoted campaigners. He has a huge social media support network too. But sheer enthusiasm is not enough. The one thing he has lacked most was someone who could challenge him and tell him the unpleasant facts he has not wanted to hear.

Many months ago I said that David’s gift for the quick quip and caustic comment may prove to be his Achilles heel as it suggested a lack of gravitas.

This proved only in part to be true. The tone, content and nature of his lengthy 1997 letter to his former partner’s lawyers was ill considered, ill advised and exposed poor judgement.

With due respect to the Senator’s continuing supporters, this assessment is really not in question. One in Four founder Colm O’Gorman put it more forthrightly on Twitter saying: “my views on his writing the letter are clear and unequivocal. He was wrong. Very wrong.”

Some, like Senator John Crown, attempt to explain away the letter pointing to ones written by Kathleen Lynch, Bobby Molloy and Trevor Sargent. Besides the “two wrongs don’t make a right” argument, in those cases the authors accepted their ill judgement and in the cases of Molloy and Sergent they resigned.

Yes, there are nasty people and vile groups who want to see Norris’s candidacy scuppered. Yes, there are those who would have employing dirty tricks to frustrate him.

But this isn’t a mafia movie. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

The contemptibility of some of those who oppose David should not blind us to the legitimate questions this letter and saga raise about his candidacy. This is not a slanted leak from his detractors. The damage here comes from what the candidate has said himself and the material he has made available.

Running for the Presidency is not like a really big Trinity Senate campaign – and this campaign has not really started yet. We are still in the pre-campaign stage. The last two Presidential campaigns saw major negative campaigns. In 1990 the target was Brian Lenihan Sr, in 1997 it was Adi Roche and Mary McAleese. I fear we may have more to endure when this race hits its full stride in late September.

So where does that leave David’s campaign now?

David now says he wants to fight on, even though he recognises his chances slim. His courage and tenacity is admirable: but it is time to face realities. Alastair Campbell famously said that you have eleven days to kill a story or you’re toast. This is the second crisis for David, so he will have even less time.

I would suggest that one of two things may happen over the coming days to decide his future prospects.

The first is that some new Oireachtas members may rally to his cause. He already needed five more, the damage this crisis is inflicting on his campaign means he needs them today. If there are five more nominators out there: right now is the time to them to declare, not next September.

The second and more likely scenario is that some of those who have already declared for him will tell him, either privately or publicly, that they cannot now follow through on existing pledges of support. That will end his chances.

Whatever happens, this presidential race has changed completely. Past back markers may soon emerge as front runners… and there is still Dana to consider

Evening Herald August 1st August 2011

How politicians helped redeem themselves by taking on the big guys

by dsmooney, posted in EU, Fine Gael, Politics

My Evening Herald article is online Here

Saturday July 23 2011

JUST by coincidence, I happened to be passing through Brussels this week.

From the window of my hotel room near the Schuman roundabout, I could both see the European Council building and hear the sirens roar as EU heads of government arrived for the emergency EU summit.

From the the TV in the background I could hear and see the continuing fallout on BBC World news from the hacking scandal, while on my laptop I read and listen to the deserved praise being heaped on the Taoiseach for his speech on the Cloyne scandal.

As these three separate news stories competed for my attention it began to dawn on me that these three very different events have a common thread: how politics can work and how politicians can make a difference when they reflect the public mood.

In the case of the News of the World hacking scandal we see the politicians finally recovering their sense of confidence and self worth and shedding their decades of deference to one media mogul.

In the European Council decision we see politicians taking bolder and coordinated actions to exert some meaningful control over Europe’s economic destiny and shunning the cautious advice of bankers or ratings agencies.

In the case of Enda Kenny’s Cloyne speech we see a political leader not just standing up to Rome, but finding his voice calmly and forcefully telling it some home truths and reminding it how much it has lost its way.

redeem

By their actions and words, across these three events, public representatives have helped redeem the profession of politics somewhat by taking on three of the most powerful interest groups: the Church, the banking sector and the media.

This is no renaissance for politics, but just a timely reminder that politics and politicians can rise above the cynical and do good.

While the common thread in the three events is the primacy of democratic politics, it is no harm to reflect on how much further Enda is along the road of telling the Church its role and place in modern society than David Cameron is in his attempt to break this news to Rupert Murdoch and News International.

Nonetheless, this should not stop us taking a leaf out of Westminster’s book and, just as the MPs did with the Murdochs, bringing senior churchmen before a public hearing of a Dail Committee to answer questions from the people’s chosen representatives.

Just over a year ago the Papal Nuncio refused to appear before a committee considering the report of the Murphy Commission.

Let us test the water now to see if the Vatican and the Nunciature think they can sustain this refusal to answer for their actions.

As Fergus Finlay said, the Taoiseach’s Cloyne speech has set the bar high.

It follows on from Brian Cowen’s hard hitting speech responding to the Ryan Report and Dermot Ahern’s declaration following the Report of the Murphy Commission that a “clerical collar will protect no criminal”.

To quote Brutus in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.”

Enda has taken that tide and the Cloyne speech will help establish a political legacy.

However, while he is entitled to enjoy the coming few weeks as the speech continues to reverberate, he should make a quick call to a certain former Taoiseach in Drumcondra to discover how quickly the sheen on his real achievements in the Good Friday Agreement can be dulled by harsh economic realities.

opportunity

Enda needs to apply the same clarity of language and and certainty of approach to tackling the economy that he has found in tackling the Vatican and Catholic hierarchy.

The new measures agreed by euro leaders at the emergency EU Summit may just afford him such an opportunity — but he needs to take this particular tide soon and not squander the opportunities it affords.

Aras11: and then there was five, or four…..

by dsmooney, posted in Aras11, Government, Politics

With each passing day the Aras11 race increasingly resembles a remake of the 1945 Agatha Christie movie: And Then There Were None.

For those of you who haven’t seen the Barry Fitzgerald classic, or its later remakes, the plot revolves around a group of people brought together on a remote and isolated location by Mr U. N. Owen (say it out loud and you will get it).

One by one the guests depart. Each in increasingly tragic circumstances, until there is just one is left. Or, is there? Have each of them really gone to meet their maker? Could there be a last minute twist in the tale?

Ok, I have done this metaphor to death, but you can see where I am going with it.

Labour’s early selection of Michael D Higgins heralded early exits by Fergus Finlay and Kathleen O’Meara. Niall O’Dowd’s withdrawal last week and Avril Doyle’s exit this week has brought the total number of viable candidates down by four. I say “viable” as there are two also-rans seeking Council nominations.

Today’s Fine Gael selection convention will reduce the field by a further two – though you will find it hard to get a firm consensus on which two.

So what does this all mean? Well, by the close of business tonight the original field will have been halved. Three of these will definitely be on the Aras11 ballot paper: the FG and Lab nominees, plus Sean Gallagher. Two more: Mary Davis and Senator David Norris will be hoping to make it before the final deadline.

So it now looks like there will be a field of five candidates when the election comes around in October. Or will there? Will there be one or two more – will there be one less?  October is still a long way away.

With 33 Oireachtas members, Fianna Fáil has more than the 20 signatures needed and could still choose to support a candidate not already in the race and not necessarily from the Fianna Fáil family.

With a total of 31, the Independent TDs and Senators, including United Left Alliance, could also nominate, if they can find one on whom twenty of them can agree Though Norris supporters suggest he has 8 or 9 of them already signed up.

While Sinn Féin, with 17 Oireachtas members, would need to get three Independents on side to give a nomination to a person of their choice.

Back on the Council trail: the longest declared candidate, Senator David Norris, must be feeling pretty miffed to be overtaken in the Council stakes by Sean Gallagher on 5 and Mary Davis on 2.

Gallagher’s relative ease in securing motions of intent would suggest that he and his team were working on this campaign long before he officially entered the race. I know some of his core campaign team. They are very skilled professionals who have run it like a classic Seanad campaign.

It is this skill and ability; however, that makes Mary Davis’s victory in Gallagher’s Louth and Monaghan backyards all the more impressive.  Her comfortable margins suggests that my mate, and keen political blogger, Jonny Fallon, was right when he tweeted a few weeks back that the other Independents would have to wait until Gallagher got his four councils.

It also suggests that a coalition of non Fine Gael councillors across the remaining councils is preparing to swing in behind the Special Olympics boss Davis, as their next favoured independent. She now looks certain be also be on the Aras11

Less certain is Norris. He has been waiting for almost two months to follow up on his one success in Fingal Council. It will be interesting to see if Fine Gael is still set on stymieing his campaign. This would be in contrast to the Fine Gael abstentions elsewhere which allowed Gallagher to get through.

Maybe Fine Gael fear Norris more than Gallagher, or maybe they just want someone in the race who they can label and attack as a Fianna Fáiler?

Who knows, only time will tell – and time, as Agatha Christie observed, is the best killer.

ENDS 

From Evening Herald July 9th 2011

My Herald Column: Man overboard as ‘Capt Birdseye’ Reilly caught in storm of his own making

by dsmooney, posted in Fine Gael, Government, Policy, Politics

See online here:

Man overboard. Just four months in office and the Government has lost its first back bencher. In fairness, they have a lot of them, so one could hardly matter that much.

The 2011 intake of new Fine Gael and Labour TDs are still so unfamiliar to us that, in all likelihood, it could take a while to notice that two or three of them had gone missing.

At this rate — losing one backbencher every four months — the Coalition could hold on to its 58-seat majority for another 10 years. That is if there wasn’t a general election due in just under five years’ time.

And that’s why this first defection might have slightly largely ramifications than originally thought.

Pressure

Denis Naughten defied the party whip by voting for a Dail motion calling for accident and emergency facilities in Roscommon Hospital to remain open.

In doing so, he has significantly raised the pressure on his former colleagues. The Roscommon Hospital Committee has got a scalp. Other hospital committees and pressure groups committees will be taking notes.

Minister of State John Perry, who promised before the election to return breast cancer services at Sligo General Hospital, will find the heat being turned on him. He won’t be alone in the simmering pot. Government backbenchers in Portlaoise and across the country will find more targeted and co-ordinated campaigns being whipped up over the summer.

Never mind a winter of discontent, this government faces an autumn of anguish. Correction: the Fine Gael TDs face an autumn of anguish on the hospitals issue thanks to the Health Ministers upping the ante just before the election. (He’s the one who looks like a cross between Brian Blessed and Captain Birdseye)

If only he had played it calmer and cooler. Everyone could see Fine Gael and Labour were coasting to victory, but that was not enough for Fine Gael’s health spokesperson and deputy leader. Captain Blessed Birdseye wrote an open letter to the voters of Roscommon saying: “Fine Gael undertakes to retain the emergency surgical, medical and other health services at Roscommon Hospital.”

Last week the Taoiseach sought to defend the good Captain with the argument that Dr Reilly said this when he ” … was contesting the general election (and) he was not in possession of the information about the difficulties surrounding the recruitment of non-consultant hospital doctors”.

This did not, however, explain Deputy Naughten’s announcement at the end of March that Fine Gael had firmly “put a halt to any plans by the HSE to withdraw services from smaller hospitals”, and that it would not only protect, but would also enhance and develop these services.

One presumes that his words had Captain Blessed Birdseye’s blessings. If not, the Roscommon Deputy has made a rod for his own back. If he had, then there is still some considerable mileage left in this story.

This is also about management of expectations. The last government reduced expectations enormously, though as often by accident as by design. This Government came in building up expectations beyond anything that was deliverable.

Enda may come to regret leaving ministers in the portfolios they held in opposition. Yes, they are familiar with the minutiae of the issues, but they are also left to face those promises they made. Fine Gael could well end up reaping a whirlwind it started by itself and for itself. To quote the Book of Proverbs: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.” Put that in your sails, Captain.

Derek Mooney was political and policy adviser to a Cabinet Minister 2004-2010 and has worked as a public policy consultant since the mid-1990s

– Derek Mooney

Germany lectures us on debt — forgetting the lessons of its own history

by dsmooney, posted in EU, Government, Policy, Politics

Here is my column on Germany forgetting the lessons of its own history from the Herald (Tuesday June 28 2011)

—————————————————————

Signing the London Agreement on 27 Feb 1953 (Pic via: http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/article.asp?reference=8440)
Signing the London Agreement on 27 Feb 1953
(Pic via: http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/article.asp?reference=8440)

The media has been full of hourly reports of how the Greek debt crisis has the capacity to send the global economy back into the doldrums.

The Greeks, and by extension, the Portuguese, Irish and Spanish have had to endure tough lectures from France and Germany about the need for austerity.

The German government has been particularly forceful in delivering these lectures. Its leaders tell us their taxpayers do not want to subsidise bloated public sectors or unproductive workers across Europe.

And who could blame them? It is understandable that German workers do not want to pay extra taxes to send money across Europe, even if it is in the form of a loan with generous interest payments attached.

Understandable … but only if you have a short memory and disregard the history of the past century.

An economic historian at the LSE, Prof Albrecht Ritschl, has pointed out that the worst debtor nation of the past century is not Greece, it is Germany — and by a wide margin too. Worse still, Germany is denying to Greece, Portugal and Ireland the precise remedies it needed to rebuild itself. Twice in the last century, after WWI and WWII, Germany has ran up levels of debt that would make the Greek crisis look like a bad night at a mythical Tipperary Casino.

The cost of Germany’s 1930s debt default was as significant as the 2008 financial crisis. A default they were forced into as they could not repay the debts and war reparations set out in the Versailles Treaty following WWI.

This was the result of the rest of the world doing to Germany what Germany and others in the EU are now doing to us. Tons of new debt (in Germany’s case it was war reparations) were heaped on top of existing debt thereby draining the German economy of the ability to rebuild itself.

By the end of WWII, the rest of the world had learned a lesson. It recognised that lumbering a devastated and demoralised Germany with more debt was not a workable solution.

In the 1953 London Agreement on German External Debts, the Allied powers did the exact opposite of what the German and French governments are doing today. They wrote off half of Germany’s total mountain of debt and gave it additional time to repay the monies it owed.

It was thanks to the foresight and generosity of former enemies that West Germany was able to deliver the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) of the 1950s.

This was a deal negotiated between leaders who had learned from the mistakes of the past and could see beyond the political demands of the next election, particularly Germany’s own Konrad Adenauer.

Remember, also, that one of the occupied countries owed money by Germany was Greece. Those protesting in Athens remember that their parents and grandparents had to forego the compensation owed to them.

How galling must it be for them to take lectures from the current German Chancellor on the virtues of paying your debts?

And, in case anyone thinks this is all reaching too far into the past, think again. According to Prof Ritschl, Germany defaulted on one of the conditions of the 1953 London Agreement as recently as 1990.

TOOLS

It is a sad indictment of the current German leadership that it cannot see that denying others the tools that it required to rebuild itself is only storing up trouble for the future.

It does not take a Konrad Adenauer or a Willy Brandt, however, to recognise that Germany’s economic fortunes are so closely intertwined with the other eurozone countries that if part of the eurozone falls, Germany could flounder.

So, even if heeding the lessons of history cannot bring Germany to realise the current policy is not working, self interest just might.

– Derek Mooney