Tag: Labour Party

Barrack Closures a Mistake on All Fronts

by dsmooney, posted in Defence, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Government, Irish Labour Party, Politics

This article appeared in the Irish Examiner on Thursday November 17th 2011

Resigning as a Minister is not something to be done lightly. You must weigh up the influence and input you are surrendering from having a seat at the table against the public acclamation you will receive. The applause and cheers will soon die down and you will be left standing on the outside while decisions get made without you.

Though he is not a household name, Willie Penrose is a smart man. While he may have the bearing and manner of a classic rural parish pump TD, he is a smart guy. An experienced and successful Barrister, Penrose knows what he is doing.

Gilmore knew that that the future of Columb Barracks in Mullingar was a red line issue for Penrose when he nominated him as a Super Junior – so why did he proceed with the appointment?

This government was only a few days in office when speculation started that they may close some more barracks. Further barrack closures have been a fixation with some senior civil servants and military figures in Defence.

Shortly after I entered the Department of Defence in October 2004 a senior official popped into my office to discuss the issue of “barrack consolidation”. This I came to learn was the euphemism for barrack closures.

There is a school of thought, among some in the Defence organisation, that we should have a much smaller number of super barracks – say three or four – located in the major cities, rather than the existing network of smaller posts across the State.

While this would potentially be a little more economic and efficient, this has to be weighed with the popular support and positive PR generated from having more locally organised and based units. It is a demonstrable fact that recruitment is strongest in those areas where there is a military post.

Even at the height of the Celtic Tiger for every general service recruit post advertised there were at least 5 applicants, while the Cadet competitions often saw 25 or 30 well qualified applicants for each vacancy.

Local barracks and locally based army units form strong bonds with local communities. Use of barracks facilities, especially sports grounds, is usually offered to local community groups, particularly youth groups. The local army unit is always on hand to help out in the classic “aid to the civil power” type exercises – flooding, ice clearance, bad weather etc.

While they are hard to measure on a civil servants excel spreadsheet, these strong local bonds are vitally important and should not be thrown away lightly.

The previous Minister, Michael Smith has closed six barracks back in 1998, though some of these properties had still not been disposed of almost six years later. Indeed it would take a further five or so years to deal with these.

The estimated year on year savings from these 1998 closures was estimated to be in the region of €3.5 – 4.5m. These were “economies of scale” saving from reduced security, heating, lighting and other savings.

If the current row over closing three or four barracks was just about that, I might be tempted to agree with it. But this is a mistake on all fronts.

Alan Shatter says that given the choice between saving buildings and retaining personnel, he opts for the latter. A noble intention: if only that was the choice before him.

It is not.

If the planned closures go ahead the Defence Forces can kiss good bye to seeing their numbers ever rise back above 10,500 again.

There are a number of reasons not to close these barracks.

Their closure will hurt the local economies in Mullingar, Clonmel and Cavan just as much as any factory closure. There is no point the Taoiseach giving out to Talk-Talk management for the inconsiderate handling of that closure while his own Minister is planning to do the same thing.

Where does the Minister propose to transfer the troops stationed in Mullingar, Clonmel and Cavan? Where is the spare capacity in the remaining barracks?

We are already aware from the last round of barrack closures that the remaining barracks were full and operating close to capacity.

To close these other barracks and to permanently move around 500 – 600 troops would require a considerable capital investment in additional facilities in Athlone, Finner andLimerick. This is not something that will appear overnight. Where does the Minister propose to get the cash to provide this additional capacity?

Colm McCarthy’s famous Bord Snip Nua report found that the Defence Forces were the only sector of the Public Service to reduce numbers during the height of the Celtic Tiger. His report suggested a number of further small reforms, including a reduction in the size of the force by a further 500 to 10,000. He recommended this be implemented over a two year period. It was achieved within a year, well ahead of the target date.

So what kind of signal do these further cuts – cuts that go beyond An Bord Snip Nua – send to others in the Public Service? This was a point that Brian Lenihan and Brian Cowen instinctively understood.

Here is a part of the public service that has downsized, modernised and reformed itself beyond expectations and yet it gets singled out again for cuts that neither make sense nor add up. These barrack closures appear, on the face of it, to be gratuitous.

The Defence Forces now do more with less. When it comes to real public sector reform the Defence Forces are a model of how it can be done right. These closures put that model at risk.

The investment in the Defence Forces made between 1997 and 2007 was a text book example of how to invest wisely and productively. Surplus property was sold and the proceeds invested in better training and equipment.

While the numbers working in the Public Service increased by 17% over the decade of the Celtic Tiger, the numbers working in the defence organisation actually fell by 8%.

This applied across all levels. The number of troops fell and so did the number of civil servants. Indeed Defence has a remarkably small civil service

The fact that the Minister does not get this point is compounded by the fact that he did not address the annual PDFORRA conference. That was a bad decision. It was his first opportunity to address the soldier’s representative organisation and he opted to send his Junior Minister while he and his Secretary General heading off to an international conference instead.

Willie Penrose’s resignation is about a lot more than just Mullingar Barracks; it is about a part time Defence Minister who fails to appreciate what he is doing, or is simply not bothered.

Labour Insanity Rules

by dsmooney, posted in Irish Labour Party, Politics

This had been written as a analysis piece on latest Aras11 opinion polls, but just didn’t make the cut today

 

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result each time.”

Depending on where you look this quote is attributed to Albert Einstein, Confucius Benjamin Franklin or Rita Mae Brown.

Whatever the true source, it is becoming increasing clear that no one in either the Higgins for President or Labour Party head quarters has heard it.

Two weeks ago, just after the fRedC poll picked up on the first wave of the surge of support to Sean Gallagher I warned here that the black ops against him would start, just as they had with Mary Davis.

And haven’t they just.

For almost two weeks we have seen daily reminders that Sean Gallagher had been a member of Fianna Fáil: that he had considered running for Fianna Fáil: that he still knew people in Fianna Fáil and that he might even like some of these people in Fianna Fáil.

The net result of almost two weeks of constantly pillorying and haranguing him about his Fianna Fáil associations has been an even great swing in support to him.

Two weeks of branding him as a latent or closet FF-er who probably eats his dinner in the middle of the day and the three latest opinion polls show Gallagher enjoying a solid double digit lead over Higgins.

And what is the response of Higgins’ supporters to the news that their man is now further behind Gallagher than he was last week? They go online and redouble their attacks on Gallagher.

Insanity or what? Desperation possibly? Someone urgently needs to change the script in Higgins’ HQ. It is not just that the tactic is not working: it is seriously backfiring.

Just recall how, a few weeks ago, Higgins was reaching out to Fianna Fáil voters saying that he knew that most of them were decent and honourable people. Gay Mitchell tried that strategy too, but it was never going to work for a solid dyed in the wool Fine Gael-er like him.

It did, however, look for a short while like the approach might pay off for Michael D. though. The RED C poll that first signalled a swing to Gallagher also showed that more Fianna Fáil voters supported Higgins than Gallagher.

Well that is not the case anymore, thanks to the campaign’s tactics.

The Higgins campaign went from reaching out to that 17% of voters who stuck with FF in February to vilifying and attacking them. Worse still they got their own candidate in on the act.  Have they never heard of second and third preferences?

Did they not see the damage Gay Mitchell did to himself and his campaign from being his own attack dog?

Labour has managed to change their own candidate from appearing as a calm, knowledgeable; slightly aloof, elder statesman figure into an old fashioned Labour party machine candidate who is starting to look and act desperate.

It will be interesting in the final TV debate tonight to see if Higgins compounds the mistakes of the past few days or tries to reach out to that 17% in some way.

It could be that his team will try a totally different tack and make a play for Martin McGuinness’s number 2s. In which case do not expect hear the names of Pte Patrick Kelly or Det Jerry McCabe pass his lips.

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.

‘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 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