Whatever happens next…the Green Party and Fianna Fáil June 8, 2007
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Fianna Fáil, Greens, Irish Election 2007, Irish Politics.trackback
On foot of the most recent news about the Fianna Fáil/Green Party negotiations for government one aspect of these events struck me…
That was the clear professionalism of the Green Party in its approach and manner in which it has dealt with them. One feels that an awful lot of misconceptions about it will have been laid to rest in the public mind by the measured tone adopted by both Dan Boyle and John Gormley.
Moreover, whatever happens next…and there is time yet for Fianna Fáil to come back to the Green Party – depending on what happens on the day the Dáil reconvenes – that impression of professionalism will linger.
Comparisons are invidious, which is probably why I’ll make a few. Compare and contrast with the Labour party which has adopted the lowest of low profiles. Perhaps they await the knock on the door from Bertie Ahern. Or perhaps they’ve given up. Conor, over at Dublin Opinion, notes a rumour that there is a long term plan for a merger of Labour with Fine Gael. I don’t buy it, the two organisations are too far apart, their histories too distinct. I’m more than old enough to recall Gay Mitchells acerbic reaction to Alan Dukes efforts in the 1988-89 period to brand FG as an explicitly “Social Democratic” party. That bird won’t fly. But…who knows where certain individual senior politicians see their future?
I’ve mentioned what I believe was the responsibility of Labour to attempt to forge an agreement. In any other country in Europe a mild left party of Labours ilk would do likewise. And in failing, as perhaps the Greens have today, there would be no dishonour.
Which is why I think that however the next forty days pan out, that forty hours of work the Green Party put in to the negotiations was well worth the effort.
1. put on suit
2. go negotiating
3. tell media in a serious tone that talks were constructive but issues remain.
I fear you’re giving them a bit more credit than the task of appearing ‘professional’ while involved in negotiations deserves.
Actually suit-wearing has proved a difficult area for us in the past.
I think the “professionalism” being attributed is mostly down to the lack of contradictory statements being fired out by random Green reps throughout the process.
Have to say that I’ve been suspicious the whole time that this might be just a charade for Bertie, and that the real negotiations are going on away from the camera’s glare, possibly with Labour. Interestingly a Labour activist told me yesterday that he suspects the same thing – and that it’s Howlin rather than Rabbitte that FF are dealing with. Could be a load of shite but who knows.
Precisely joemomma. Chekov, a certain cynicism is a plus in almost all situations, but there is a point where it appears a tad…jaded. Incidentally I’ve always been wary of those who try to read too much into symbolism, such as suits since that staunch and entirely useless upholder of the working class Arthur Scargill appeared at a Labour party conference during the 1980s brandishing a filofax as if that somehow signified anything…meanwhile those who understand such symbols are essentially meaningless were destroying the remnants of the unionised working class out from him and others…
Wednesday, I heard much the same a week ago. And that was from Green Party sources. I share your attitude. Don’t think it’s relevant, but … who knows?
“I’ve always been wary of those who try to read too much into symbolism, such as suits”
That’s sort of my point though. I mean appearing professional during negotiations merely requires a decent understanding of the symbols required by the media. I just think that successfully understanding the media requirements doesn’t say very much at all and is even a dangerous road to go down – you start dancing to their tune and the piper doesn’t stop playing to let you wheel out your real politics at some stage in the future.
Also, I don’t think that rigid party discipline during negotiations is necassarily a good thing – what’s wrong with having the party openly debate the possibilities? such debate can even be a help to negotiations as the appearance of a demanding base can give the negotiator more ammunition.
Finally, I’m shocked that anybody could think of me as cynical and jaded – I’m actually an outrageous optimist without a cynical bone in my body. I just categorise all this stuff as pantomime and refuse to take it very seriously at all.
Ah, no that’s just the way it came out yesterday. I don’t think of you as jaded or cynical.
But I think that the Greens appeared professional because they were coherent, they also exercised a strong degree of representationalism in its best sense by going back to the reference group and underpinning that was the final veto of their convention. In other words they acted with their principles, not against them… I also thought that the way in which they were courteous, even funny, at the press conference last night was quite remarkable in the usually macho discourse of Irish politics. Compare and contrast with the clipped stuff coming from Brian Cowen, or indeed anything Enda Kenny said during the election.
Again you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the significance of these things. I don’t see it as pantomime, particularly in reference to the issues the Green Party, unlike probably any other party vying for government, is linked to. I am a far from unquestioning critic of some aspects of their policies, but they are existential. Their not being in power over the next five years isn’t quite the same as Labour or PDs not being in power with FF where the tilts would be mildly rightist, mildly centrist/centre left.
At the same time I don’t want to overstate it. If the Greens were unable to even get a minimum program of policies agreed with FF (and presumably in relation to the Dept. of Finance) then the prospect of them being able to do so with Labour/FG had the opportunity arisen would be equally unlikely.