Tag: gerry adams

Labour could be casualty in Treaty Yes vote

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

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

voting
Many different reasons to vote yes or no

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is this that the left fears and opposes most.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dáil breaks can only benefit both sides

by dsmooney, posted in Politics

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.

Ends

Is Sinn Fein’s living on the average wage claim all that it seems?

by dsmooney, posted in Politics

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?

ENDS

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.

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