Tag: Fine Gael

Kenny’s U-turn on Special Advisers

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

Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s defence of his U-turn on capping the pay of Special Advisers set me to thinking.

Merrion Street
Dept of An Taoiseach

When they came into office just eight months ago the Taoiseach started out well. He announced the withdrawal of ministerial cars and garda drivers from most Cabinet Ministers and was seen striding to work onfoot with no merc or beemer in sight.

He also said that he intended to take a similar approach to Special Advisers pay. The results there have been less impressive. Contrary to the declared intention to reduce the pay rates, it now emerges that almost 50% of them have been given exemptions and are now paid above the Principal Officer grade.

The Taoiseach defends this saying that Advisers are still paid less than previously.

Is that really so, Enda?

Back in October 2004 I was asked to become the Special Adviser to the newly appointed Defence Minister. It took me about five or six weeks to wind up my existing business and take on my duties as Special Adviser.

Within a few days of taking on the position I sat down with the Department’s HR manager. He talked me through the Departments requirements and regulations.

There were a number of forms to sign, covering a range of matters including security and related matters. I was required to produce the usual tax forms required of any new employee plus a Tax Clearance Certificate.

He then produced my contract of employment. We discussed some of the provisions while I leafed through the document. Then we both went quiet at the same time.

When it came to my pay rate the contract stated that I would be paid at the first point on the Assistant Principal (AP) grade. My understanding when I had accepted the post was that I would be paid at Principal Officer (PO) grade.

The difference between the first points on the AP and PO scales was in the region of €25k. The first point on the AP scale was in or around €57K as best as I can recall now.

I was a bit taken back by this and said as much to the HR manager. He explained that the default rate for my post in the department was AP grade unless I could show that my previous salary had been higher than that.

I relaxed as I knew I should clearly show that my annual income over the previous few years was in excess of the AP scale. It did take a few weeks to sort out but the paperwork was finalised as my first year’s pay was set at the first point on the PO scale.

I am not revealing anything new here. I am open about my salary as the then opposition used to ask parliamentary questions about my pay and expenses, and that of my colleagues across other Departments, at least twice a year. The replies were published regularly.

Indeed I recall opening an issue of the Sunday Independent as I was queuing to board a Ryanair flight to visit my parents in Spain and seeing one of those replies featuring my name, photo and pay rate there.  Worse still, I saw some people on the plane later holding copies of the Sindo and glaring at me.

Those replies usually pointed to the fact that there were fewer advisers in the post 1997 FF/PD Governments than there had been in the 94-97 FG/Lab/DL one. About 30% fewer: as far as I remember.

I make this point as the Taoiseach has sought to assert that paying 50% of their advisers at the first point on the PO scale is some big advance on the situation while I was there.

It is not.

The point on the scale is the same, though the scale has reduced. It was reduced by the last Government, not this one. As advisers we agreed to a 9% voluntary reduction in our pay in line with the voluntary cut in Ministerial pay, as well as the increased pension contributions and reductions in civil service pay rates across the board.

Like many things this Government is doing they may want people to think it is different – the reality is that it is the same.

And they say that negative campaigns don’t work…..

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

The presidential campaign is barely a week old and already we have candidates producing P60s showing how much they have earned over the years. This was in response to dark propaganda about earnings and directorships.

And they say that negative campaigns don’t work. If we are at this stage just one week into the race then it cannot be long until the demands come that this candidate or that one produces their birth, baptismal or parents’ marriage certs.

We should not really be that surprised. Academic/college politics is said to be so much more vicious than real politics because the stakes are so low. It could just as easily be said about Irish Presidential elections.

It is not that the office is unimportant; it is that the powers are limited and the office appears to fade into the background once the campaign is over.

The fact that Mary McAleese has been an excellent President somehow adds to the notion that it doesn’t matter an awful lot as to who succeeds her.

As none of the candidates have so far convinced us that they are cut from the same cloth as her, the debate is slowly turning to which of them will be the least worst.

The office of President is so tightly defined and closely managed that almost no occupant could manage to go truly rogue. So, while many people, myself included, have severe misgivings about the possibility of McGuinness occupying the office, the truth is that his being President would not change anything. Martin McGuinness being President will not make a significant difference to anyone’s daily life – apart from his own.

The reality of the past decade is that Sinn Féin has been moving steadily to the centre in the North. No sooner do they move into office but they very quickly adopt the policies and strategies of those who were there before them. Sinn Féin in Government in the North is not a thorn in anyone’s side, least of all the DUP’s. They may head up anti hospital closure committees in the 26 counties, but in the North they merrily implement the cuts imposed byLondon.

So, while his election may not herald the end of civilisation as we know it, it could send out a very embarrassing signal at this crucial time.

Almost any of the other candidates: Michael D Higgins, Mary Davis, Sean Gallagher or Gay Mitchell could each fulfil the role in their own individual ways without causing us any embarrassment or sparking an international crisis.

This least-worst approach appeared to be the underlying theme to last night’s TV3 debate.  Unlike past encounters, there was some spark to it. The cross talk between the candidates did not yield much and at times became insufferably twee. The competition to be the most concerned by the trauma of suicide bordered on distasteful.

It was the questioning and serial grilling by the moderator that managed to reveal something more about each of the candidates. As someone said on Twitter last night, it was not that any one candidate emerged as the winner: it was more that some managed to emerge less damaged and scarred.

David Norris and Dana were not among them. Though a veteran of past campaigns, Dana seemed the least prepared and most unfocused. While Norris’s continuing obfuscation in the face of very specific questions from Browne on who it was inIsraelwho had advised him not to publish the remaining letters was telling.

David’s protestations that the public will decide this issue ring particularly hollow when he refuses to give them access to the full facts by releasing the outstanding letters. This issue is not going away and the longer it continues the worse he will get for him.

His media adviser is a big admirer of Tony Blair’s spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, He should remind his client of Campbell’s famous rule that if you allowed a bad news story to dominate the headlines for more than four days, you are in trouble.

David has had more than four days of such headlines and the only end in sight is his own. And, to think, we still have three weeks more of this to go.

Why current crisis is more political than economic

by dsmooney, posted in EU, Policy

My latest Evening Herald column from August 8th 2011 – you can also see it online: here

——————————

Euro Parliament Committee Room - Bxl

Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Clearly, no one has told the economists this.

In any other walk of life — architecture, dentistry, cake decorating — people run away when they see failure or disaster looming.

Not the economists. They embrace disaster. They revel in it.

As soon as a crisis looms they rush to the TV camera and the microphone to say how they predicted it.

They take a pride and pleasure in being associated with doom and failure that would do your heart good, if the consequences were not so dire for the rest of us.

In the wake of last week’s market turmoil, the weekend papers and discussion shows were full of economists doing what they do best.

Switching between the radio stations on Saturday and Sunday mornings was like playing some demented radio five-card stud — I see your dollar bond collapse and raise you an Italian bailout.

The Sunday newspapers were as bad with even more dire predictions of either the collapse of the euro or the dollar, or both.

We are living in uncertain economic times … and will be for some years to come. No one needs to tune into the radio to learn that.

This is a major culture shock for many, though not for those of us who lived through the Eighties … and no one wants to see another decade lost to despair and inactivity.

But I digress. So why have we seen renewed predictions of crisis this week? They do not seem to have been prompted by the publication of any eurozone statistics or hard figures.

Neither could they be reasonably explained away as just the result of a global slow news day.

While they may, in part, be due to the outworkings of the American debt ceiling compromise, the giveaway is in the word most often employed by economists in describing the crisis: confidence.

We have seen share values drop and bond costs increase over the past week because market analysts and investors do not have confidence in the capacity of eurozone countries to deal with all the debt in the system.

Could these possibly be the same investors who were protected from massive losses in banks and bad investments by those same governments?

Ironic, isn’t it? Eaten bread may be soon forgotten, but never with anything like the speed and hypocrisy with which socialised private losses are forgotten by the markets.

It is tough to make someone have confidence in you, particularly when you have not got much confidence or trust in them. But wringing our hands in anger on this won’t make the problem go away.

As I said earlier, the past week’s scare does not have its origin in a spreadsheet. It is fundamentally a political issue; not an economic one.

The real danger for us is that the dramatic actions and reforms the market is demanding in return for their “confidence” would be deeply unacceptable to people here and across the Eurozone.

This is the almost impossible balance that the eurozone leaders are trying to strike. To make the changes just about needed to gain market approval without totally alienating public opinion at home. The political spectre of Brian Cowen must stalk their deliberations.

Not that the eurozone leaders merit much sympathy. Merkel and Sarkozy’s slowness to act decisively in the early stages of this crisis has cost us all. Their dithering and loose talk threw Ireland to the market wolves in a futile attempt to stem the tide at no cost to themselves.

Their recent reforms to the European Financial Stability Fund have been more carefully judged, though these will take a while to work their way through.

Meanwhile, the next time you hear an economist demanding firmer and more determined actions, just remember that translates in higher taxes and higher charges for you and yours.

– Derek Mooney

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.

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