The speech at Washington DC’s Georgetown University by former Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, has attracted some comment since it was reported last week in the Financial Times and Irish Times. Much of that comment has focussed upon just about everything about from its contents. It is a well drafted and cogently argued analysis of the crisis that befell both Ireland and the EU and well worth reading in full: Speech By Fmr Taoiseach B Cowen – 21.03.12
Given the venue and context it is evident that this was meant as a low key, considered and informed contribution and not as a political foray. While I think it will, in time, be seen as an important analysis of the situtaion from 2007/08 onwards. I also think it is important to note how the former taoiseach took the opportunity present to talk Ireland up and to touts for business and investment for Ireland. This is particularly evident in the final paragraphs of the speech:
“I believe Ireland is one of the best locations in the world to establish and to grow a business. This is not just rhetoric but is reflected in the rapid on-going overseas investment which is occurring in Ireland. Ireland is not just open for business but as, I believe, any independent assessmentwould indicate it is among the best places in Europe to start and grow an international business. This will ultimately pay off for our citizens. Indeed all of the fundamental strengths which prior to the crisis meant that Ireland had one of the highest growth rates of GNP per capita among advanced countries for a very long period are still in place and in many respects our advantages have improved in terms of increased cost competitiveness.”
My Evening Herald column from Saturday March 31st arguing that breaks in Dáil sittings are necessary and beneficial
Leinster House
On Thursday Dáil Éireann takes a break for the Easter recess. It is set to return on April 18th. Cue a hue and cry from opposition TDs and assorted political hacks demanding that the Dáil return sooner or sit longer or whatever.
These protests are not only regular and predictable, they are just as entertaining as they are pointless.
These sham battles seem to be based on the notion that the more the Dáil sits the better. Really? It is hard to sustain that argument when you look at the household charge fiasco.
In its recent annual report the Government commends itself for increasing the number of sitting days, saying that the Dáil sat for about 127 days, roughly 36/37weeks, in its first year.
According to the government’s calculations this is a 44% increase on the number of sitting days in the first year of the previous Dáil (2007/08).
A major achievement you’d think. Though not quiet as impressive when compared with the years 2008/09 and 2009/10 when the Dáil actually sat for 35 weeks per annum.
But what’s a week or two between old sworn enemies?
It is the old public sector problem: measuring inputs, not outcomes. Successive governments have been guilty of it.
The Government’s legislative programme should be driven by the number of pieces of legislation it wishes to pass into law, not by a need to produce bits of legislation to fill up some allotted time slot.
TDs should not be apologising for the Dáil not sitting in plenary session over the next three weeks.
Yes, various Oireachtas committees will be sitting during that time – but something else should also be happening. Something that is, in my opinion, far more important.
Politicians and their policy advisers should be availing of this break to do something they rarely get to do: think and prepare.
There is a story, probably apochryphal, about a Minister walking along a corridor in his Department when he spies a senior policy maker sitting back with his feet up on the desk. “Have you no work to do?” asks the Minister, “I have…” comes the reply “…I am doing it now, I’m thinking”.
These short breaks in Dáil sittings afford Ministers and senior officials some time and space away from debates, motions and parliamentary questions to think and to focus on other matters in their departments – things that don’t often make the headlines at Leader’s questions.
Central to this is standing back and taking stock of where they are.
When the Dáil is sitting a surprising amount of time in a government Department can be taken up in answering TDs questions alone, particularly when its that Minister’s turn at oral PQs.
Parliamentary accountability and scrutiny is an essential part of the democratic process, but you also need time to go and effectively do all those things that the parliament will subsequently want to scrutinise.
But if the need for this “thinking” time is important for Ministers and officials is it absolutely vital for an opposition and its support teams.
The Minister has a full time team of 8 or more in his office to fetch, carry and prepare – plus those other senior officials along the corridor to advise and research – the opposition spokesman is often depending on two or three.
But it is not a matter of resources. While the Dáil is sitting the agenda is set by the government. The opposition is usually just reacting to it – or reacting to the media reaction to events.
This is not always a bad thing, especially for an opposition that is effective at harrying the administration. This was the case in the latter half of the last government. The only crumb of comfort it got from the polls was when the Dáil was in recess. When it was in session both oppositions parties’ ratings went up, especially Labour’s.
But an opposition also needs to set the agenda too. It takes a lot of preparation and planning for an opposition to get the focus on its agenda. These breaks can often provide that space.
Politicians on both sides should acknowledge this fact. Who knows, maybe the reporters who cover the Dáil and actually benefit from the break might even credit them for it.
Besides our Fianna Fáil backgrounds, Sean Gallagher and I have something else in common: an errant tweet has contributed to us both losing out on a job.
In my case it partly caused me to lose a job I already held. I was Willie O’Dea’s adviser and programme manager when Dan Boyle sent his infamous tweet.
Its claim that there would: “Probably be a few chapters in this story yet” proved baseless, nonetheless 24 hours later the Minister had resigned and yours truly was clearing out his desk. C’est la vie. The tweet only brought the inevitable forward by twelve months.
In Sean’s case the broadcast of a bogus tweet during the Frontline Presidential Debate played a major play in derailing his campaign and denying him the job he wanted.
Yesterday the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland gave its verdict on his complaint against RTE, The Frontline and The Pat Kenny Show.
It was a fairly damning judgement. The BAI found that Sean Gallagher had been treated “unfairly” on three counts.
One: by the broadcast of the initial bogus tweet from an account that purported to be from the official Martin McGuinness for President campaign.
Two: by the failure of the Frontline to tell the audience of the subsequent tweet from the official McGuinness campaign denying that it had issued the bogus one.
Three: by the continuing failure of the Today with Pat Kenny radio show the next morning to properly clarify the status and background of the two tweets.
Given that it found that a programme that was intended as a Presidential Debate was unfair to one particular candidate, it was amazing to see the BAI go on to say that no further investigation or inquiry is required as the complaint “was not of such a serious nature as to warrant an investigation or public hearings”.
It is not as if this might have affected the outcome of an election or anything….. oh, hang on a minute…. Yes, it might.
No one can definitively state whether the tweetgate affair altered the outcome, but we do know that Sean Gallagher was the poll leader before the debate and he wasn’t a few days later. We also know that tallies of the postal votes – ie those votes cast and returned to the presiding officers before the Frontline debate – showed Gallagher topping the poll.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible that viewers watching the Frontline debate might have switched from Gallagher to Michael D Higgins even if the tweet had never been mentioned.
All this is in the realms of speculation. What is not speculation however it that someone sent that tweet to undermine the front runner and affect the race.
So, yes, this matter does require further investigation.
The BAI has determined that Mr Gallagher was treated unfairly in how the tweet was handled. RTE’s Director General made a sincere and genuine apology and the RTE Authority is to examine the BAI’s finding.
This is all right and proper. But RTE’s actions are only part of the case.
Like others watching the campaign on the internet I was not aware of the difference between the real and fake McGuinness for President twitter accounts until the controversy broke that night.
The confusion was easy as, according to some Social Media watchers, both twitter accounts were created on the same day. Indeed, as part of its own defence, RTE argued that many other journalists were similarly confused and had taken the first bogus tweet as genuine. (A defence rejected by the BAI)
The question remains: who was responsible for sending out the tweet? Are we going to tolerate a situation where an election outcome can potentially be so easily influenced by one person or group of people acting in the shadows?
We have seen thousands of people protest on the streets of Moscow regarding accusations that Putin rigged their Presidential election, are we not to try and look a bit deeper into this case?
Isn’t the integrity of our democratic process worth a bit more effort?
My take on Fianna Fáil’s 73ú Ard Fheis which is taking place in the RDS this weekend (March 2 & 3). This piece was written for the Evening Herald of March 3rd
———————————-
For as long as I can recall Fianna Fáil Árd Fheiseana were the party conferences where the emphasis was more on the “partying” than the “conferencing”.
They were great social and political occasions where activists from all strands of society, right across the country, gathered to celebrate their membership of the party.
There they rallied; networked; socialised and renewed friendships with colleagues from other constituencies.
To be brutally honest, for many – myself included – the formal debates and motions were incidental to the core objective: discussing politics with old friends and hearing the leader’s speech.
While tonight’s address, the first by Michael Martin as leader, will remain the highpoint of this weekend’s Árd Fheis, it will come at the end of two days of serious and intense debate about the party’s future.
The issue before the Árd Fheis is that stark: the very survival of what was once the greatest modern political movement in Western Europe.
Over these two days – yesterday and today – at the RDS, members are deciding a slate of major reforms on how the party is organised and run.
Key to these is the move away from the representative/delegate model for candidate selection in favour of the One Member One Vote system (OMOV). In other words; to allow every active member in every cumann to have an equal say in selecting candidates and officers.
It is resonant of the crucial debate the British Labour Party had at their 1993 Conference. That was the year they ended the Trade Union block vote and adopted OMOV.
It was not an easy battle for them. The move to reform and modernise had been delayed for almost 14 years as they tore themselves apart with internal wrangling and infighting.
The result was three stunning defeats and three terms of powerless opposition.
Only by reforming their internal structures and systems did Labour allow itself to reconnect with its membership and, more importantly, with the people. After 14 years of irrelevance “New” Labour began to get in touch with the cares and concerns of the British people and respond effectively to them.
That is what Michael Martin hopes to achieve with this Árd Fheis. While the events of the past few days may have moved the focus slightly away from that goal, he was determined to shift it back as soon as the members start to gather in the RDS last night.
And a fair few of them gathered; with over 4000 members registered to attend by the middle of the week.
It is an indication of how serious the party’s grassroot members are about renewing their party. The number of people running for positions is another. Contest for the 20 nationally elected places on the Fianna Fáil Árd Comhairle has never been keener, with many bright, young first time candidates.
The same applies to several of the other senior positions, though the contest for the positions of Party Vice President was made marginally less intense with the withdrawals of two former party big hitters: Mary Hanafin and Éamon Ó Cuiv.
The weekend’s debates are not confined to organisational matters. The Clár contains some motions which, if passed, would herald interesting shifts in policy, including ones on gay marriage, gay adoption ending the regime of TDs’ and Senators expenses’ and reducing the voting age to 16.
There is also a slew of the more traditional Árd Fheis motions, including some Dublin centred resolutions calling for the reinstatement of the Ballymun Regeneration, Grangegorman DIT Campus and Metro North projects.
So, a great deal of serious work will be done by those gathering in Ballsbridge, but be certain too that there some socialising and banter as the faithful show that while they may be down, the party is by no means finished.
Derek Mooney was a Ministerial Adviser 2004 – 2010 and a Public Affairs Consultant and Speechwriter since the 90s
My thoughts on why I am not impressed with this Fiscal Compact Treaty, but why I will vote for it and urge others to vote Yes too.
A few nights ago I was on the cusp of penning a piece as to how it was possible to be a committed pro European and still urge a “No” vote at the forthcoming Fiscal Compact Referendum.
My reasoning broadly ran as follows.
While the Fiscal Compact does contain some important measures that would have addressed the fiscal problems that others, not Ireland, had experienced in the run up to the crisis – it effectively does nothing about the core issue facing the EU and the Euro: the dysfunctional European banking system.
The EU Council and Commission have wasted over two years taking pointless half measures that tinker about with the symptoms of the problem while studiously ignoring the core problem: the banking crisis.
This fiscal compact is just the latest in a series of well intentioned, but minimalist attempts to assure the markets that it ready to address the crisis. Like the others it will fail.
What the EU needs now is a short sharp shock to jolt it into effective and decisive action. By decisive action I mean tackling the banking and credit crisis head on and bolstering the role of the European Central Bank to become the lender of last resort.
Ireland can not only deliver that shock by rejecting the Fiscal Treaty as inadequate and lacking substance, but it can take the lead – particularly among the smaller, peripheral nations – in demanding that the Commission, particularly President Barroso stop acting as the servants of the French & German governments and get the EU back to being a Union of countries that work together, in partnership and in solidarity for our mutual benefit.
That was my broad theory.
It is not heresy or anti European to say that the Fiscal Compact Treaty does not address the biggest problem facing the economies in both the EU and the Euro.
The point is not that the Fiscal Compact goes too far – it is that it is too one sided. It addresses a secondary problem – not the primary one. It almost completely omits the measures required, specifically on the ECB, to tackle the real problems facing us all.
As I was writing the piece I realised that while I still fully believe in points 1 – 4 the reasoning underpinning Point 5 was fatally flawed.
Ireland rejecting the Fiscal Compact will not be seen as us rejecting it as a half measure. It will be seen as Irish petulance. We have thrown down the gauntlet before – on Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 for reasons that most in the EU failed to grasp.
The Taoiseach and his Ministers have shown not the slightest interest in showing Leadership at the EU Council or of building any consensus among the smaller peripheral countries.
Rather the Taoiseach has been content to roll over and have his belly tickled (metaphorically – I hope) by the big two, and hope that no one will ask him any difficult questions.
He has consistently underplayed his hand for the past year. Stories that talked tough and banged the table at his first Council meeting yielded nothing. Since then he has been content to keep his head below the parapet. The same applies to Eamon Gilmore.
There is nothing to suggest that either are capable of building a consensus across the EU. The reality is that neither have attempted it. Their antithesis to travelling to meet other leaders or hold bi-laterals here is mind boggling, especially when you consider how they howled in opposition that the last Government was allowing Ireland’s reputation to slip.
None of this augurs well for Ireland’s forthcoming EU Presidency, but that’s another story.
Those pointless rejections of Nice 1 and Lisbon 1, are now coming back to bite us. Those who urged us to say No then, are once again in the vanguard urging us to Vote No once more. Their reasoning has not changed. They are as Eurosceptic and anti European as they ever were.
Saying No now would be seen as biting the hand that feeds us – even when that hand has been making a few bob from what its been doing.
Worse still saying No would not gain anything by saying No – except to put ourselves in some undefined limbo beyond the revised European Stability Mechanism. Whereas our saying No in Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 held up the process of ratifying those treaties, saying No now will halt nothing.
We have no veto. We have no bargaining chips on this one. There is no point in threatening to pull the trigger when everyone else knows we have no ammo in the chamber. UCD’s Dr Ben Tonra makes this point very clearly in an excellent post on the politicalreform.e page here.
The conclusion is that we must pass the Fiscal Compact treaty and then use that passing of the Treaty to build a coalition of smaller countries across the EU to tackle the real problem facing us.
I would love to think that saying No would urge the EU into actions that are long overdue. The sad reality is that it will not.
So, just like the French Socialists who were compelled to vote for Chirac in Round Two of the 2002 Presidential elections, rather than seeing Le Pen slip through, I may be taking a disinfectant mat with me to the polling station as I vote Yes.
I want a better treaty. I want a treaty that tackles the real problems. This treaty itself even acknowledges the need for a further treaty.
If passing this one is the price we must pay to get to that point – then let us do so – and quickly.
my take on the recent Sunday Times poll as seen from a different perspective, both in terms of distance and time. I never cease to be intrigued how distance can change your perspective. It is true whether that distance is in time or in space. Indeed not only does it change it, it usually improves it.
This blindingly obvious conclusion struck me late on Saturday night as I sat in my Hotel room on the Costa Blanca coast watching my twitter feed to find the results of the latest Sunday Times opinion poll.
As the old joke goes: it was like deja vu all over again. Exactly one year earlier I was sitting in another room at the same Hotel trying to follow the results of the General Election online.
Though I managed to log in every few hours to catch the resulting coming in online, I still failed to fully grasp the full impact of Fianna Fail’s defeat at the time. My mind was elsewhere. My Dad had died suddenly at my parents’ home in Spain on the eve of polling day. I had, along with other family members, rushed over for the funeral in the days that followed.
It therefore took a week or so for the full enormity of what had happened at the polls to sink in. When it did, I found myself almost detached from its consequences and outworkings. I had not been at the count centres for the emotional traumas. By the time I was back home and chatting with former colleagues; they were reconciled with their fates to the point of being phlegmatic.
Anyway, that was a year ago. Back to last Saturday night. Sitting in a similar room, one year on and almost 1800km away, I found myself having quite a different perspective on the latest opinion poll figures.
As I looked at the RTE news online I was taken aback to see them running the line that big news in this poll was the drop in support for Fianna Fail.
Really? Not from where I was sitting.
Perhaps it was the night breeze drifting in off the Mediterranean. Maybe it was the over generous Soberano.
Either way; it appeared to me that the big news in this poll lay elsewhere.
To my mind the first piece of news in the Sunday Times B&A poll was the halving of Labour’s support in one year – from 19.4% on polling day to 10% today.
Second was the dramatic increase in support for Sinn Fein. from just under 10% at the General Election to a whopping 25% in the poll.
Indeed, there is a third equally significant story, namely the finding that, at 70%, almost three times as many people are disatisfied with the Government than are satisfied with it (26%). Not a ringing endorsement for a government just one year into its term and yet to face any seriously testing challenges.
Though it would be foolish to read too much into just one poll, Sinn Fein’s strategists North and South will be feeling understandably satisfied that their tactic of placing the Labour Party firmly in their sights is paying dividends.
In comparison with these almost double digit changes, Fianna Fail’s decrease from 17.4 to 16 is modest, though disappointing.
Yes, it is the type of news Michael Martin and Co can do without with the first Ard Fheis in two years only a week away and the Mahon report looming. But who, in their right mind, really expected voters, who were bitterly angry with Fianna Fail, to suddenly turn and cry “this shower is even worse than you lot: all is forgiven” barely one year on?
Maybe it is a back handed compliment of sorts that the party’s fortunes still merit such attention and coverage: even when the figures don’t exactly back it up.
If so, then expect plenty more of the same for the rest of the year as further polls emerge and more pundits line out to say what it all means for Fianna Fail. Meanwhile, I will see if I can manage to be away for their publication. It appears to be the best way to view them.
My Evening Herald column from today’s paper. Friday 17th February 2012
Sinn Féin
There are few topics more guaranteed to raise the hackles than politicians’ pay. I recently overheard a conversation on the topic in a pub in Cork. It was hard not to hear it given the volume of the exchange. This was curious as they were agreeing with each other – their argument was as to which of them detested politicians more.
The late Brian Lenihan kick started the process of trying to bring down the levels of politicians’ pay and expenses back in October 2008. There have been a few rounds since. Enda Kenny started out ok reducing the number of garda drivers and cutting staff levels in ministerial offices, but recently lost the plot with the €17k pay hikes for Super Juniors.
The issue of reducing politicians’ pay and re-allocating that money elsewhere even raised its head during the Presidential election. Several candidates said they favoured a cut, including Martin McGuinness who promised to only take home the average industrial wage if elected.
In doing this he was repeating what Sinn Féin elected reps say they do in the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly. While TDs earn about €92K a year, Sinn Fein’s TDs say they take the average industrial wage: around €32,000 per year. Speaking to the Donegal Daily a few weeks ago SF TD Pearse Doherty put his weekly take home pay at around €540.
They frequently remind us of their largesse. Without a doubt anyone foregoing 60% of their salary is entitled to praise and kudos, but only when that is what they are really doing. So, this begs the question: are they truly foregoing the money?
Martin McGuinness partly answered this question in the Guardian newspaper in April 2009. This was in the aftermath of a report that he and Gerry Adams jointly claimed expenses of £3,600 a month (under the House of Commons second home allowance scheme) for rent on a shared two-bedroom flat in north London.
Speaking at the time Mr McGuinness said: “I get roughly over £300 per week from Sinn Féin, the exact same money as the person who drives me to my work”.
“I have no difficulty or problem with that, knowing that the rest of the money is being put into developing Sinn Féin and developing constituency offices all over the island of Ireland for the people of Ireland.”_
There are two things wrong with this statement. First, he regards Sinn Féin as his paymaster; not the taxpayer. Second, the sense of pride that the “rest of the money”, in his case in the region of £75k before tax, does not go back in to central funds to pay for hospital beds or SNAs: but rather goes to funding and advancing Sinn Féin’s political enterprise.
The money surrendered by Sinn Féin’s TDs and Senators does not benefit the taxpayer or the person on welfare: it benefits their own local party organisations. It goes to running constituency offices and funding local activists. In Pearse Doherty’s case it pays for two part time workers in his constituency
So, Sinn Féin takes money from the public coffers and puts it into running political operations dedicated to helping them keep their seats. This is not so much a sacrifice: it is more of an investment in their own political future.
Though on the average industrial wage, they get to be local employers with extra paid staff. I am fairly sure there are not many others on the industrial wage out there who can similarly hire someone in to help them keep their job.
Yet the rules state that a political party may not accept a donation from the same person in the same calendar year which exceeds €6,348.69 in value. So is what they are doing a donation or not?
It is an issue which freelance journalist Gerard Cunningham aka faduda.ie has attempted to raise with both Sinn Féin and SIPO, though without much success.
Is there a distinction between donations depending on whether they are allocated locally or nationally – if so, then it is a big loophole. If not, then shouldn’t all TDs and all Senators be placed on a level playing field when it comes to funding their local political activities?
Most important, if taxpayers money is being handed back – shouldn’t it be handed back to the taxpayer?
Is it any wonder there is so much confusion about what to do with the bank bondholders?
Less than twelve months ago (February 10th to be precise) Leo Varadkar was saying:
“Any bank coming to us looking for more money is going to have to show how they are going to impose losses on their junior bondholders, on their senior bondholders, and on other creditors before they come looking to us for any more money. Not another cent.”
That was before the General Election. Eight months after the election; the now Minister Varadkar had changed tack and was saying:
What’s happening in relation to the Anglo bondholders is they’ll be paid from Anglo’s own resources, from the sale of its own property assets, for example.
By last weekend the line had developed further. On Sunday he was says that the Government “had to weigh up the costs on the one side and the risks on the other.” and that not paying the €1.2billion of Anglo bonds due this Wednesday: “…would have implications for other State companies like ESB and Bord Gáis,”
It is probably a littler bit unfair to single out Minister Varadkar like this. He was saying pretty much what everyone else was saying in FG during this period. His skill and talent was that he said it more directly and concisely than almost any of his colleagues. It is what makes his quotes more memorable.
Whatever about the changes in the Fine Gael script, two bigger truths have not changed over the past year. The ironic part is that these truths are contradictory.
The first is that the ECB is still holding to its line that bond holders should not be ‘burned’. By that they mean that bond holders should not be forced to accept any reduction in the monies due to them.
The other is the reality that there is a very active market in bonds being sold off at a discount in return for hard cash. These discounts can be fairly hefty, particularly where those bonds have a tasty coupon included.
This trade in bonds was touched upon at a recent seminar on the issue of offset debt, hosted by Thomas Pringle TD and how it could ease the plight of those in negative equity.
Some bond holders are deciding, in their own business interests, to mitigate their losses and sell bonds at a discount. Their rationale is that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush: a not uncommon business approach.
They sell the bonds on to vulture capitalists who buy the bonds at a 30, 40 or even 50% discount. They retain the bonds face value, and so, they stand to make a hefty profile when the bonds are paid off.
While bondholders may choose to do this, the ECB says they must not be made to do it – except in the case of Greece, but let’s put that to one side for the moment.
This leaves a classic Catch 22. Investors, speculators and traders are selling bonds between each other at varying hefty discounts, with the prospects of making even bigger profits.
It is one thing to say that bond holder’s rights should not be ridden over and allow the market to function, but telling European taxpayers that they should not enter the open market and offer to buy back those bonds, is another.
Its like signing an IOU and watching it being traded among your friends for less than its face value, but being told you cannot dare attempt to buy it back: even if the guy currently holding it would be willing to sell it to you.
Ireland cannot do a solo run and give two fingers to the ECB, but it needs to start canvassing opinion around the EU table to start looking at this issue again.
The noises coming from the new Belgian government, coupled with the prospect of a new occupant of the Élysée Palace come the summer suggests it may be a route worth exploring. Something, perhaps, for the Taoiseach to consider as he heads to Brussels?
Hadn’t posted on here in a few weeks – catching up on missed items today. This is the most current of the three blogs posted today. It was originally intended for today’s Evening Herald
—————————————————
As far as I am aware the only eponymous Irish Rule of Politics was named for its creator, the much missed political journalist Gerald Barry.
The rule roughly states that “every leader of the opposition will, be at some point, be hailed as the worst ever leader of the opposition.” Its strength lies not just in its inherent truth; but also to the fact that it applies in almost every jurisdiction.
Look at poor Ed Miliband. How he manages to drag himself into Parliament after reading reports of backbench murmuring and discontent in that morning’s papers is beyond me.
Yet he does, thus highlighting the fundamental truth that scorn and opprobrium goes with the job of being opposition leader. Maybe Enda Kenny could give Ed some pointers on this
But I digress. While the US has numerous rules and laws of politics, Gerald Barry’s is the only one I can think of in the Irish context, or at least it was until now.
Over the weekend the Social affairs Minister, Joan Burton reminded us that there is a second immutable rule of Irish politics, even if it hasn’t had a name up to now.
This Second law states that “large government majorities can lead to disaster and indiscipline”. It so might have been drafted with Minister Burton’s tactics in mind that it probably should be named for her: The Burton Second Law of Inverse Stability.
It’s most notable occurrence to date was during the 1977 – 1981 Fianna Fail majority Government. In 1997 Jack Lynch returned Fianna Fail to office with a twenty seat majority.
Two years later a variety of backbench insurrections on issues from the Farmer’s Levy to British Army border flyovers had so weakened and undermined his leadership that he lost two by-elections in his own back yard and would see his leadership ended by December of 1979.
While at first sight it would appear that big majorities would leave a government comfortably placed to win Dáil votes, the counter intuitive truth is otherwise.
Such big majorities allow backbenchers the scope to flex their muscles and run risks they would not dare try if they thought their actions might herald an election and the loss of their own seat.
Enter Minister Joan Burton. Almost since her appointment to government she has erred on the side of expressing her own strongly views rather than merely defer to the broader FG/Lab consensus.
She has some entitlement to feel aggrieved. She did the heavy lifting as the party’s Finance spokesperson in opposition. She carved out a separate position for the Labour party on the economy, differentiating itself from Fine Gael.
She played a vital part in securing the Labour swing, only to find herself having to standby while Labour effectively disavowed her policies, not in favour of Fine Gael’s but, in favour of those of the outgoing Government.
A hard pill to swallow, made harder by seeing front bench colleagues leap frog her into Cabinet.
It would seem her response has been to work the Labour back benches and strive to speak more for them than for her FG colleagues. A good strategy for positioning yourself within the party: not a great one when it comes to conveying the impression of strong and cohesive government.
While her comments on a second bailout may not send the markets into a spin or (regrettably) make President Sarkozy’s political headaches any worse, it will not endear her to her party leader or Cabinet colleagues.
It also sends a signal to others to feel free to do the same. Clearly, with three of them jettisoning the Labour Whip so far, labour backbenchers do not need much encouragement, but for how much longer can or will Fine Gael be prepared to tolerate this?
Which brings me back to the issue of rules and laws. Newton’s Third Law of Motion states: “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. It is just as true in politics.
While they have been disciplined up to now, I suspect it won’t be too long until we see some Fine Gaelers feeling the same need to unburden themselves and say their piece.
Maybe we will then have our third law of politics: Varadkar’s Third Law of Political Momentum?
This was written for last Friday’s Evening Herald (January 13th) but, unluckily, did not make the cut.
What is it with some American troops? Why, even in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib and other scandals, do they still seem incapable of acting with restraint and showing even basic common decency?
The video, shown on the TV news last night, of a group of US Marines urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban insurgents once again raises the issue of their suitability to serve on peace support operations outside theUSA.
It is not as if the guys involved were raw recruits or conscripts: these were Marines: the supposed cream of the American military. Their motto: “Semper Fidelis” means always faithful, presumably that includes fidelity to their own three core values: Honour, Courage Commitment.
The Marine Corps manual says of the first value: Honour: “Respect for others is essential. Marines are expected to act responsibly in a manner befitting the title they’ve earned.”
Clearly the actions of the four Marines who appeared on our screens last night fell well short of that. Indeed that dishonour extends beyond the men filmed to include those who gleefully recorded the sorry episode, probably for future broadcast at private gatherings stateside.
None of this can be excused by the stresses and strains of their task or the coarseness of their environment. It is an example of dehumanising of the enemy; of treating those who are fighting against as less than human.
This is not an attitude that can be tolerated. It is not in the Afgahnis interest and neither is it in theUS’s either.
While the Americans serve inAfghanistanas part of a UN mandated NATO coordinated mission, their presence has a greater and wider significance.
The noted American playwright and peace activist Eve Ensler put it best after her 2003 visit to the region: “Afghanistan is a test case,” “We may never recover the trust of the Muslim world . . . if theU.S.does not deliver security, substantial aid, and reconstruction . . . [and] fulfil our promises.”
Those who support the mission in Afghanistan (and I include myself in that) can point to a number of positives it has already helped achieve: new motorways and buildings; 4 million children now attending school, including many for the first time; a growing economy, a new constitution, and the return of more than 2.5 million refugees.
The action of the Marines not only undermines these achievements, it seriously dents the already precarious support of the Afghan people for the mission’s continuing presence. Their despicable actions potentially put their comrades at greater risk.
This sorry dehumanising episode again raises serious questions about the institutional ability of American troops to serve on peace support or quasi policing operations in regions or communities with different cultures and traditions.
It is not something new. I recall a mid rankingUKofficer recounting his experience with American officers under his command on a multi-lateral mission in sub Saharan Africa. He told me that he had a tough time even getting them to take off their mirrored sunglasses when talking with locals.
He told me of his frustration in having to constantly tell the Americans that this was vital to build up trust with the locals. The local culture demanded that you be able to look into someone’s eyes when they spoke with you. You have to treat those you are there to protect as your equal, not as your inferior – and not as your enemy.
It is something that now comes instinctively to our troops serving overseas. Perhaps this is in part due to our sense memory of being a former colony. We can empathise with the plight of the local communities and the hardship they endure while retaining our impartiality and commitment to our mission.
It is something that can be taught. Significantly it is taught here at the UN Training School in the Curragh Camp. The UN School runs United Nations Military Observers and Staff Officers courses.
While the offending Marines will probably be drummed out of the army, perhaps their senior commanding officers might be sent to the Curragh for some basic lessons in how to get their people to start showing respect.
derekmooney.ie 