Rumour and counter rumour? The calls for the resignation of Bertie Ahern of Fianna Fáil by the opposition… January 15, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.trackback
Rumour has it that far from ‘an extraordinary two-pronged attack on the credibility of his evidence to the planning tribunal’ when the ‘two main Opposition leaders have demanded the resignation of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern’ at the weekend a rather more ordinary political process was in train. This rumour goes that Eamon Gilmore of the Labour Party had intended to announce to the press his statement calling on the Taoiseach to resign on Sunday. This was transmitted in vague form to the media and somehow – who knows how? – this worked its way back to Fine Gael which resulted in leader Enda Kenny issuing his statement first.
Good to see that the two are working together so … er… closely.
Anyhow, whether true or not, and frustratingly who can know for sure there is a determined push by the opposition to up the heat on the Taoiseach, particularly since he has departed the country for sunnier climes in South Africa. One can only imagine the conversations between him and another somewhat wounded political leader, Thabo Mbeki. Perhaps they can swap notes. In the Irish Times it was reported that:
During the weekend, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny and his Labour Party counterpart Eamon Gilmore separately called on Mr Ahern to step down over what Mr Kenny claimed were accounts of his personal finances that demeaned the profession of politics.
Mr Kenny issued a 1,500-word statement on Saturday in which he made his most excoriating personal criticism of Mr Ahern since he became leader of Fine Gael in 2002.
In unremittingly harsh and personalised language, Mr Kenny said that Mr Ahern’s evidence to the tribunal would erode the authority of the office of Taoiseach if it continued in the same vein as his previous appearances. “It is not acceptable to have a Taoiseach who cannot declare compliance with the tax codes, who cannot explain €300,000 worth of lodgements to his accounts and who has clearly misled the public and the Dáil over his inexplicable finances,” he said.
There are problems here politically. It’s simply too late. There are close to four and a half years to go before the next election. And while Ahern may well face serious problems in the wake of the Tribunal that is then, this is now. Hence…
Yesterday Mr Gilmore strongly backed up Mr Kenny’s calls by renewing his own calls from last September for Mr Ahern to step down. He told RTÉ Radio’s This Wee k programme: “If anything, the situation has got worse [since September 2007]. We have about four different versions of the story of the Taoiseach’s personal finances. We now know the Revenue Commissioners have an issue with it. We now know that he’s not able to get a tax clearance certificate.”
And further…
Both Mr Kenny and Mr Gilmore also widened their attacks to apply political pressure on those surrounding Mr Ahern, including Tánaiste Brian Cowen; other Fianna Fáil Ministers; and junior Coalition parties, the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats.
But again, this isn’t serious politics. The idea that Cowen would wield a knife is simply beyond comprehension. Apart from initiating civil war in Fianna Fáil it would simply raise the question later as to why he hadn’t acted sooner if the situation was this serious. It’s not going to happen.
And I know that. And Fine Gael and Labour know that and I suspect the electorate know that. So despite:
Mr Kenny honed in for the first time on the responsibilities of the Tánaiste. He said that if Mr Cowen did not force the Taoiseach to resign, he would be perceived as “an accomplice”.
… I can’t help feeling this is a bad bad strategy. Nor is it just Cowen who is getting it in the neck.
Both Mr Kenny and Mr Gilmore also widened their attacks to apply political pressure on those surrounding Mr Ahern, including Tánaiste Brian Cowen; other Fianna Fáil Ministers; and junior Coalition parties, the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats.
Which led to a predictable response and one which points up a major contradiction at the heart of the strategy…
The scathing nature of Mr Kenny’s remarks prompted the Government parties to respond quickly and robustly. In a terse statement, Mr Cowen said he was not surprised at the vitriolic nature of the comments. “Personal attacks are becoming Mr Kenny’s stock in trade. I reject them as the electorate rejected him last year,” he said. Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan also accused the Fine Gael leader of editing the tribunal evidence to suit his own purposes.
Not only, but also…
The scathing nature of Mr Kenny’s remarks prompted the Government parties to respond quickly and robustly. In a terse statement, Mr Cowen said he was not surprised at the vitriolic nature of the comments. “Personal attacks are becoming Mr Kenny’s stock in trade. I reject them as the electorate rejected him last year,” he said. Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan also accused the Fine Gael leader of editing the tribunal evidence to suit his own purposes.
The Greens also brushed aside criticism from Mr Gilmore that Fianna Fáil was running rings around them in Government. “We feel Mr Gilmore’s remarks may reflect his own and his party’s ongoing frustration at the outcome of the election,” their spokesman said.
And think about it. What is better calculated to develop even greater cohesion amongst the Coalition parties than these sort of attacks. It’s a tricky line, the one between a coalition fractious enough to be disassembled by external pressure and one which is actually strengthened by said pressure.
Worth drawing peoples attention to the last line:
Others pointed to the fact that with Mr Ahern travelling abroad, it gave Mr Kenny an opening to seize the domestic political initiative and dominate the news agenda ahead of the Dáil returning at the end of January and the first major opinion polls of the year.
Perhaps. Perhaps. I’m told that the RedC polls in the Sunday Business Post have been discontinued, which is a real pity if correct, and I’d be grateful if someone could confirm it. They’ve provided an invaluable source of data to mull over, and in truth – for my money – have been the most accurate reading of public opinion of all polls, month to month. So presumably the IT is lining up a poll for late January or early February.
But again. I wonder how effective this ploy will be. There is a point where continual calls for action begin to lose traction in the face of no forward movement. It is clear – as is often said – that the Coalition is now relatively well embedded. Sure, perhaps the Greens could be prised away, but it won’t be over the Tribunals (And a quick thought, anyone noticed how it is more and more being seen as the FF/Green coalition with the minor party of the liberal right now hardly more than an afterthought. How convenient for them that Harney remains in Health where she soaks up the political flak).
And in the absence of a clear killing blow, this is all so much posturing and hot air.
Yesterday’s afternoon’s damp squib, reported on Politics.ie and elsewhere, was a statement was to be released by Enda Kenny on the plinth of Leinster House which sent the political temperature – amongst some – soaring. That it proved to be no more than a reiteration of the previously stated position perhaps belied the true situation. And the problem is the optics. Set something up on the plinth and it conveys some terrifically important statement is about to be made. When it isn’t… well, hardly surprising that the public switches off in droves.
I don’t envy the Opposition, particularly the leading formations. In fairness, rhetoric is, for the moment, all they have. Perhaps they scent blood further down the line. A damaged Taoiseach, forced to resign in the wake of a less than glowing Tribunal Report. Happy days for them then. Perhaps
And indeed, the suggestion has been made on Irish Election that this is an effort to ‘link’ Cowen, and indeed all others who might have made public protestations of support within Fianna Fáil with Ahern. I’m very dubious about that strategy. I can’t see it working particularly well for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is the 2007 election itself. That suggests that potentially difficult issues for Ahern which were widely known prior to May 2007 simply didn’t impact sufficiently to remove a significant portion of FF support. Why should that not hold true in the wake of a possible negative finding at the Tribunal? That links into the still valid argument – and one propounded by FF’s coalition partners – that it is necessary to wait for the outcome of the Tribunal. Secondly, Cowen and Ahern are widely known to be far from brothers in arms. Add to this the clear change in tone should Cowen achieve the leadership (by no means a given) – a change which will be accentuated by the fact that once more a rural TD represents the party and I suspect that efforts to make ‘linkages’ are bound to fail. Thirdly, there is a hint of desperation in the idea that somehow Fianna Fáil will somehow be more discredited in the future than it is now. This feeds into a narrative that both Fine Gael and Labour have been keen to promote that someday, sometime in some way the Irish people will ‘wake’ up from the false consciousness that a Machiavellian Fianna Fáil has somehow managed to generate in the minds of said Irish people.
It’s not really tenable is it? I’m far from a champion of FF, but the idea that their support will vanish as with the morning mist is simply unrealistic. Sure, FG might do better next time around. Perhaps Labour will make up the numbers. But there will be no mortal blow against FF and such thinking is frankly a greater impediment to political change (even for those – unlike myself – who believe that FG is a vehicle for such change) than almost any other factor I can think of. It’s the politics of delusion, of grand slams, of seismic shifts. Perhaps there is no other strategy, perhaps keeping the pot… well, not boiling but just about simmering… is the best that can be hoped for. But somehow, amongst all the talk about how the current situation does no service to Irish politics I can’t help thinking that this approach isn’t the right way forward either.
It doesn’t help that the charges against Ahern are hyped by that Tory rag the Daily Mail, which cannot help but come across as a Brit import telling the Paddies how to behave. And that the level of hysteria rarely reflects the level of corruption.
Irish political discourse in general rarely rises above the level of the ‘few bad men’ theory of social ills. Get rid of the ‘few bad men’ behind our society’s problems – be they farmers, travellers, members of Fianna Fail, Catholics, Protestants, homosexuals, people who read Socialist Worker – you can think of your own categories I’m sure – and then everything will be alright.
Or get rid of Bertie and then everything will be alright.
But it is of course not that simple. . .
The southern political class and establishment is rotten to the core, and has been for decades. While tax evasion and brown envelopes for developers are the most obvious example, there are plenty of other causes for concern, which are being passed over. British politics looked fairly clean, but now we can see just how corrupt it is too.
I just assumed that all of this noise was an effort to put the frighteners on the Greens. Based on what you’re saying, even if that was the intention you see no hope for any real success there.
I was thinking that if Mary Harney had any ambition to revive the PD’s she’d resign right now in protest. Would undermine the Greens’ position and get her out of the health nightmare in a nice way.
What in the name of God does Eamon think he’s doing? I would have thought a clear distance from FG would be basic common sense for anyone who wants to revive Labour’s fortunes.
I can’t help thinking of the BICO’s nice little take on things, that there’s the parliamentary opposition (FG and Labour) and then there’s the real opposition (the IT). Certainly this novel strategy has the look of IT boilerplate about it.
When was British politics clean? Profumo? Poulson? Edward and Mrs. Simpson? The buying of seats in the 19th century?
And David Lloyd George selling honours for cash way back in 1922.
They didn’t call the OBE the ‘Order of the Bad Egg’ for nothing, you know.
In the Z magazine from 1989 ago Peadar Kirby spoke of the ideological hegemony of the right over Irish public life. Now 20 years later that hegemony has been consolidated. Ireland is now only surpassed by Hong Kong and Singapore in the imposition of right wing economic policy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120036519907490279.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Because there is ideological consensus in Dail Eireann the opposition has to find some way to differentiate itself from the government. Hence the vituperation of the attacks, although of course the attacks are made possible by the endemic corruption of F.F.
Kirby spoke also of the need to develop an alternative. HIs book on the ‘Celtic Tiger’, using the work of Karl Polanyi, is a step in that direction. Polanyi’s ‘The Great Transformation’ is essential to the understanding of contemporary reality.
The demonisation of Fianna Fail (as mired in corruption as it is) does not contribute to an understanding of how to affect social change, because Labour and others on the left cannot/will not comprehend how large numbers of working class people have voted for and supported FF since the 1930s. Seeing things in terms of hysteria about corruption invaribly comes across as looking down their noses at the ‘mere Irish’ and their silly choices.
Ireland is now only surpassed by Hong Kong and Singapore in the imposition of right wing economic policy.
I find it hard to believe that some of the Eastern European states aren’t stronger contenders in that field.
ejh-I’m just going by the 2008 ‘index of economic freedom’ in the linked WSJ article.
I did say fairly clean. That a UK prime minister with Bertie’s problems would be re-elected is inconceivable. And I do think that the level of fiscal corruption in the south has a European parallel only in Italy. Or in elements of the biggest party in the north.
Ed, I completely agree with your analysis in comment 10. I’ve known many who took that journey into Labour and I genuinely think it’s a cul-de-sac.
CL, that’s an interesting proposition you make, but as ejh suggests, I’m more than certain we can look at almost any eastern European state to see much much much worse… with flat income taxes, bizarre privatisations and so on. One of the few good features of FF being in government has been an actual extension of some working rights and the necessity to maintain some patina of public interest. BTW talking to someone recently about the young Turks in FG they’re very very worrying for their potential to introduce serious hard right economic and social thinking… worse I’d suggest than the PDs…
Or in the PP in Spain, albeit generally at municipal level.
Splintered, I think that analysis is also correct. The IT has certainly seen itself as the conscience of a nation not worthy of it. And it’s palpable disdain at the uselessness of the ‘opposition’ is entertaining.
Eagle, now that’s a fascinating thought… Harney resigns. The Greens have to take up the slack, etc, etc… still, she doesn’t seem to care much about the PDs per se, so I wouldn’t hold my breath…
“The IT has certainly seen itself as the conscience of a nation not worthy of it. And it’s palpable disdain at the uselessness of the ‘opposition’ is entertaining.”
The Irish Examiner has also been strongly critical of
Ahern. A refreshing change from the nauseating
sycophancy of the Sindo.
The 2 leading exponents of right-wing economic philosophy, The Heritage Institute and the Wall Street Journal, released today their empirically-based ‘Index of Economic Freedom’ for 2008. Ireland ranks number 3 after Hong Kong and Singapore. I linked to the Wall St.J. article above. Here’s the link to the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
It will be interesting to see if the Labour Party or Fine Gael reacts critically.
BTW talking to someone recently about the young Turks in FG they’re very very worrying for their potential to introduce serious hard right economic and social thinking…
Oh, be still my heart.
It will be interesting to see if the Labour Party or Fine Gael reacts critically.
Why should they react critically? This is positive news. Now, you may have a chart that displays the countries and uses a similar table of 10 criteria to measure various social issues and maybe that would indicate that Ireland doesn’t score well. But, absent such data why should any party (or anyone) criticize the fact that Ireland is a good place in which to do business?
I’m deeply embarrassed with the level of discourse on the Left about the very serious issues which are yet to be dealt with that are emerging about this country’s de facto single party of government. Hayes comes out with some crap about ‘well sorting Bertie won’t make the world great. We need total social change like man!’ – Tragic – if the central role of corruption in Irish society is tackled properly at this point in time, it gives an opportunity to the Left. Irish political corruption is based around the financing of Fianna Fail and it politicians by extremely suspect businesses interests. How these ‘business interests’ have directly effected the Working Class include – shit planning leaving people without not only amenities but the basic ability to shop in town centres that were planned for them – how was this done – money given to Fianna Fail politicians and that party in order to allow development to be skewed towards the serving the middle class. This corrupt have also supported the industrial scale abuse of children, baling out those fuckers with PAYE workers money…the list goes on.
Currently the tribunals are dealing with one small aspect of this – the planning of one shopping centre in West Dublin. This problem was total during the early 90s and throughout the economic boom of the Celtic Tiger. Just a note – Owen O’Callaghan is one developer involved. There is a whole fuckin’ class of business interests involved here, why has Tony O’Reilly become Fianna Fail’s ‘Pravda.’ As to where the start up capital came from for a major developer involved in City West, and his family’s continued involvement in the supply of drugs into working class areas – a situation which the Garda have found difficulty in rectifying due to the family’s links with the O’Donovan Rossa mafia is something the informed Left should be discussing rather than the piss that Labour are no better. We do not have a Left Alternative in this country – which has much to do with the secret and in many instances corrupt manner in which Irish politics is funded – the centre piece of this is the property developer/Fianna Fail axis. Funding is everything in serious politics – this crap of comparing Irish politics with Britain is sad – the funding scandals in the current labour party are the hangover of the attempted usurpation of that party by Blair, in Ireland we have actual straight up corruption by the ruling party who has over time appointed there people in most aspects of state activity – this crap from Ed of the Daily Mail leading this story is due to one thing that is the close tying of the Irish media to the Fianna Fail apparatus – Independent newspapers, need we say more, RTE FF appointed board, Irish Times with a former PD editor – the Irish Examiner with the same solicitors as Owen O’Callaghan – even that said journalists and in the IT’s case the editor, showing some of the liberal values lost by her former accomplices, have still displayed their civil duty.
Corruption is a Left issue – the destruction of the Fianna Fail cartel is a Left issue – shiting on about 1930’s FF populism and Labour’s failure is pointless bollox in building a real left. It’s time that the bastrads funding was broken once and for all.
The commodification of a fictitious commodity-land-is the basis of F.F. corruption. The commodification of land, labour, and everything else is destructive of society-seen in rising crime, mass drunkenness, a drug epidemic, increasing levels of mental illness, a bizzaredly dysfunctional 2-tier health service, the working class still largely excluded from higher educaton and it is no accident that Ireland is at the top of the leagues in both suicide and market liberalism. Against the hegemony of the neo-liberal economic ideology the Left has offered no alternative. Replacing Bertie with Brian, or with Enda or Eamon will change nothing,-except maybe Paddy the Plasterer’s drinking companions.
Pete, the problem with your thesis, and it’s a good thesis (particularly your point about how the Left responds to de facto FF political hegemony – although it’s worth noting that in coalition arrangements it isn’t quite single party rule), is – to my mind – that it’s simply not accurate to say FF is the root source of all corruption in this country. I’m old enough to remember how WP and some Labour and the Green Party such as it was fought a fight against FF/FG and some Labour on councils the length and breadth of the Republic against crazy planning, etc, etc. Look at the actual record of FG and Labour governments and point out how they differed in any material way in the instances you cite about amenities from FF? In some respects there is even a slight counter argument that they were objectively worse because they didn’t depend on the working class areas so much and were less sensitive to them (quite apart from the fact that they tended to govern during particularly appalling economic times). Think back to to the way in which – and this something I experienced campaigning on the ground in the 1980s and 1990s – FF stitched up through clientalist structures the working class in terms of housing, etc. All dismal. All terrible, and all of a nature that there will be no ‘ta-dah!’ moment when people will realise the error of their ways as regards FF. This is something a lot of people don’t get. People like FF on the ground. They like them a lot. They see them as chancers but effective, people who generally deliver. They don’t think that about the ‘Left’ and they certainly don’t think that about FG. And all the IT whinging, and wringing of hands amongst the bien-pensants or the ‘advanced’ sections of the working class does nothing at all to change that… worse again it comes over as elitist disdain.
It’s always very attractive to try to paint one individual, element or whatever as the sole source, but it’s a mistake that the left would be very foolish to make. And I’d share Ed’s point that a Left which ignores FF populism and its ability to speak for and represent the largest portion of the working class on this island is something that makes talk about ‘destruction’ of an FF cartel close to impossible.
And the original point I make above is that implicitly even were FF removed, and this is something CL picks up on, – something that won’t happen, however much we huff and puff – who is waiting to slide in and take the reins, why non other than an FG which is before our very eyes turning into a machine with not merely a centre right aspect, but a distinctly – if unformed – Thatcherite hue.
[...] his third term in June. Though as World BY Storm points out at the Cedar Room, Kenny is working in competition with, rather than in concert with the leader of the opposition Labour Party. Casting this as Enda vs Bertie undoubtedly helped [...]
Fine Gael at leadership level is against corruption and has attempted t deal with it. FF at leadership level is corruption. FG is a right party, let it be so, do you expect the Middle Classes and business to have no representation? Fianna Fail is a liar’s party, a corrupt party and is holding back this country’s political and social development. As the Left all we can hope for is a Left/Right political divide to supersede the current corrupt/non-corrupt divide in Irish politics. And those faint hearted who can never see the end of the FF corrupt business nexus need only look as far as the Italian Christian Democrats. The corrupt will of course attempt a come back but clientist corrupt parties are the greatest threat to a real Left not political debate with a genuine right.
People like FF on the ground. They like them a lot. They see them as chancers but effective, people who generally deliver. They don’t think that about the ‘Left’ and they certainly don’t think that about FG. And all the IT whinging, and wringing of hands amongst the bien-pensants or the ‘advanced’ sections of the working class does nothing at all to change that… worse again it comes over as elitist disdain.
WBS,
So what do we do? Pete is right that the corruption of FF is not a side issue, an unfortunate by- product of their hegemony – it’s is the reason for, and the rationale of, that hegemony. Just because the working- classes seem to like it that way is no excuse for those who would represent them (as opposed to those who actually do) not to combat it. Some working class people did well out of the boom and think that Bertie and his cronies had something to do with it; the fact is we could have all done a hell of a whole lot better out of it in terms of real quality of life stuff and, as the Bertie generation gets older, and needs hospitals and schools and instead finds pre-fabs and overworked doctors and teachers (unless they’re willing to pay for health and education), then maybe the real cynicism and public squalor of this govt. will become apparent. Not a ‘ta- dah’ moment, maybe, but a gradual and growing disgust. As Pete says, the DC in Italy, which looked immortal, perished, and state socialism evaporated in eastern Europe. One day too, FF may stand naked.
sonofstan, not sure that I go the full way along the lines that corruption of FF is somehow the reason for and rationale of their hegemony. That that has become an element of their hegemony is a very different issue. For example, take what Pete says above. If we are to believe his reading then corruption is the most significant issue that faces this society and is ‘holding back this country’s political and social development’. I find that frankly an untenable thesis. Then, moving on after berating us all roundly for arguing that an analysis of FF and its populism is necessary he suggests that ‘all we can hope for is a Left Right divide to supersede the current corrupt/non corrupt divide in Irish politics’. Even if I accepted that statement on its own terms which I don’t, again I think its utterly overblown hyperbole (and if people don’t believe me go look at Transparency International to see a realistic appraisal of corruption in this society) I can’t imagine a worse way of viewing Irish politics or bringing about change, because the basic fact is that the power relations which FF expresses are precisely the same (albeit expressing differentiations within capitalist elites in the society) as those that FG expresses and the idea that their notional distinctions in terms of policy, etc are superceded by some aspect of ‘corruption’ seems naive. And that’s precisely why Pete’s analysis is wrong. An FG/Labour government would have acted in much the same way as the current FF/Green one. And that would still result in all the negative outcomes that we see today in terms of health etc. Here I think also there is a confusion, or elision of financial corruption and economic conservatism. They’re not the same thing.
And the big player in all this is not merely a tiny number of people who did stupendously well, but the much larger group who have never given their vote to the left. Which is hardly surprising if the ‘left’ simply berates ordinary people for their voting choices…
How do you get people to change their vote, then? surely by suggesting they vote left instead of FF, you are, in some way berating them for their previous choice? And, just because as socialists, we want to represent the working class doesn’t mean that we can’t say that working- class people can be wrong about things.
And what do FF stand for if not cute hoorism? By ’stand for’ I don’t mean pious aspiration – the republic, the language (…and ‘draining the shannon’ as my father always used to add)- but what sections of society do they actually and materially represent in terms of promoting their interests? The logic of the FF voter is this; he’s a cute hoor, I’ll vote for him, because he’ll look after me in return …. see, I’m a cute hoor too….. it’s a gamblers approach to politics, and advantage is reckoned at the expense of others – less cute – and, scandalously, in this generation, at the expense of our children. Behind this kind of thinking is a lack of faith in the state to promote fair outcomes, a lack of faith in ourselves at bottom. As for who benefits from this kind of govt. – the answer should by now be apparent after more than a decade of this.
FG and the PDs at least offer a version of neo- liberalism that argues that the best outcomes arise from the freeist market, and that all we need govt. for is managerial expertise; FF offer instead a personal contract to the voter ‘ vote for us and we’ll look after you’
To answer your first question, no I’m not. What I am suggesting is that simply berating people for voting FF is not a viable way forward, and in a system where PR is king it’s no way forward at all. Of course the working class is wrong. But there are different degrees of wrongness and different and often better ways of demonstrating that wrongness that the sort of rhetoric that Pete uses.
Also, I know a fair number of FF people. To themselves they’re pragmatic realists who eschew ideology and reference themselves in relation to a sort of Republicanism. It’s not my politics, not at all, particularly because I’m extremely suspicious of people who don’t believe class is a determinant both economic and social, but it’s not just ‘cute hoorism’ (albeit that is an aspect of some of them – generally because pragmatism leads that way if unchecked). And to be honest I think that the left had the opportunity in the 1990s to drive FF to the left, but didn’t take it.
So the PDs pushed an open door and ran with them leading precisely to the outcomes we see today.
I’m also dubious that somehow the PDs ‘ideology’ which seems pretty thin all things considered, or indeed that of FG which seems even thinner (but both of which are clearly of the right) is somehow superior to a instinctively centrist party which could have been moulded however reluctantly to a more left wing stance by proactive partners. I should add that over the years of political activity I’ve been given the opportunity to observe FGers at close hand I see no lesser propensity for ‘cute hoorism’ there either.
And in any case, all this still leaps us away from my central point which is that in structural terms blaming FF and exonerating (in part) FG is to simply perpetuate a social dynamic…
I don’t buy the idea of FF as a big, brainless idiot boy that can be pushed by ideologically driven smaller parties of the right or left in their preferred direction – the PDs like the idea that they were the brains of the operation, and it suits FF on the doorstep to shrug its shoulders and blame Mary for the hospitals, but i find it hard to believe that the ideological direction of FF was ever up for grabs; certainly not with Charlie McCreevy in the cabinet.
…. and surely any ‘instinctively centrist party’, which doesn’t believe ‘class is a determinant both economic and social’ is, in fact, right wing?
WBS – I have applauded your work on this site but have severely doubted your analysis for some time. The alarm bells first rang when I think you hinted that at one stage you supported the Iraq adventure – a feared a Leftism which stray’s towards Observer type liberalism and charity work. On this issue I see you don’t see much difference between a FG/Labour or FF/Green government. I fear here is more of this nothing but save the world crap – a government with Labour in it would not allow co-location of private hospitals, now if you see that as a minor issue that is perhaps due to your own parents private health insurance or other such safety values which allows you to put political day dreaming beyond practical politics. If you think working class leftism is in anyway the same as the dewy eyed bullshit about global warming that emerges from those cretins Gormley and Ryan, they are not of the Left – the Labour party funded by trade unionism would be a Left party, now Labour is not perfect but they are structurally a party of the Left – FF is structurally a party more comparable to the party of Institution Revolutionary or such shite in Mexico, the Italian CD or unfortunately the horrible state that ZANU/PF has degraded to. Don’t come it with transparency international shite – this country is ridden with corruption – only one aspect of it – the Catholic Church has come lose to being dealt with now it’s time for FF and the Gardai – these are the issues for the Left not making up excuses to undermine people actually pursing Left issues in a realistic fashion.
Another point of your analysis which I found wanting was the reaction to the Paul Quinn killing, now there’s some good old Irish corruption which has been getting over looked lately. By the way my own personal preference for the last election as a Labour/FF coalition it would have allowed the Left in nicely to gut the fuckers and I personally think the ex-Sticks would have been capable of doing that.
Those who declare that they have ‘no ideology’ deceive themselves-and, very often, others too.
This shit about FF being a centre party – since at least the 50’s its a rightwing party full stop – and again FG is not our enemy they represent other class intrests and unless WBS your back supporting Eastern Block communism (which is not something I would condem you for but you should be upfront about), FG, or something of the same is going to be a around for ever.
Pete, you’re entirely entitled to your opinion. All I can say is I’m uncertain on most things and value uncertainty in matters political above almost everything, particularly coming from a rigid ideological background.
As regards the Iraq venture, I didn’t hint, I made it entirely explicit that I had originally felt there was some merit in it and I explained how and why I came to that conclusion. I also explained how I came to realise I was wrong and how and why I came to that conclusion too. If you think that being wrong on one thing invalidates all else… fair dues.
Frankly I think your jibe about my parents says more about you than me since I’m 43 this year, my father died seven years ago and my mother is in her 60s. It’s a long long time since they bailed me out of anything, and trust me it certainly wasn’t in the area of health insurance which they didn’t have.
As for corruption, I’ve worked in both the private and public sector. Frankly I think you’re wrong about this country being riddled with corruption. It’s not, and while you dismiss TI, what other yardstick do you care to use?
As regards the Italian CD, well maybe, but if you know your Italian politics as I’m sure you do you’ll realise that was forged in very very different circumstances to FF – with much more shallow roots and in a context where there was already a broad mass party of the working class, the PCI. So, that analogy sort of breaks down.
I haven’t mentioned the Greens to you, so I’m not really sure where you’re coming from there. if however you’re suggesting that the Greens had a central project which they valued above all else i.e. climate change and decided that that was worth going into government with FF to make even some changes, well then fair enough, guilty as charged. I think they were probably right. What I find incomprehensible is that Labour also has a central project, called social democracy but would rather ’sit this one out’ on the sidelines than progress it even fractionally – and in a context where Mary Harney is Minister of Health. So perhaps we both agree on that?
Finally, yet again I have to say I’m no champion or partisan of FF, but what I’m certain of is that a left that makes the mistake of believing that we can somehow insult and deride the very class we seek to assist us in transforming society because of its choices is making a serious error.
sonofstan, look at the record on social issues of the FF/Lab coalition. It’s very clear that FF could be pushed in precisely a social liberal direction despite its own instincts. The same is even more true of a leftist direction.
Pete, previously you suggest FF will vanish, now in 34 you suggest that FG is around for ever and that it has some other class interest and is not ‘our’ enemy. Yes, FG. The friend of the worker…
CL, I completely agree, and that’s why I think FF’ers self perception is utterly delusory. Of course they have ideology, the pragmatism I mentioned earlier… and that pragmatism allows them to make decisions which are often directly at odds with their support base.
On pragmatism:
“Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”
– J.M.Keynes
Great quote
I think people downplay the general, causal corruption. For example, a Garda inspector who gets rid of minor things for a box of chocolates for the wife. On the political front, it’s been much more general than FF. Let’s not forget the troubles our old friend Pat Rabbitte got himself into during the eraly days of DL. What did the fact that he was getting donations from developers suggest?
The sort of ‘under the radar’ corruption that you point to is intangible although I’m sure it exists. And it raises problematic questions, such as Is it part and parcel of how people get along and how is it possible to prevent it? Furthermore who precisely are we comparing ourselves with. Are we saying, for example, that we think in Britain that sort of corruption is less or more likely to happen. The US, Finland? France?
And corruption in the political side of things springs up – as you say – in many forms and places.
My bottom line on this is that it’s crucial to implement stricter and stricter regimes as regards legal frameworks to edge out the opportunity for corrupt behaviour across a range of areas.
I agree. And shoot a few people every now and again. Not that it seems to be working all that well for the Chinese though.
Now that’s what I call corruption… But in fairness in political life the sort of things we see with the current mess are artifacts of the 1980s and early 1990s. From my reading of it it would be effectively impossible for a similar situation to develop today due to the legislation. But I’m none too happy that FF resisted the Greens initial demands on further extending the framework. And while part of that was a sort of response exemplified by Cowen, who I paraphrase, said something like he didn’t have to be ‘taught morals by the Greens’, another part was pretty self-serving.
On a serious note though, it’s quite clear to me that while there is a great deal of corruption in the north, the south is worse for that level of generalised corruption. That’s the comparison I usually make. I also think that compared to the UK, the corruption at local government level in the south remains amazing. The element of who you know facilitating life is stronger down below, and does remind me of Italy. In that sense the south may well have postcolonial elements to its political culture.
I wonder sometimes whether it is a hangover, or if people have become cleverer. I mean the Bertie stuff is much more recent, and I’m sure there’s more skeletons in the closets. I’d be very surprised if the new breed of FG people for example aren’t found in the future to have some interesting attitudes in this area.
But in fairness in political life the sort of things we see with the current mess are artifacts of the 1980s and early 1990s. From my reading of it it would be effectively impossible for a similar situation to develop today due to the legislation.
Wouldn’t be too sure about that – the recent Prime Time programme on planning in Gorey springs to mind; the fact that such things don’t even cause much of a furore rather proves Garibaldy’s point about the ‘level of generalised corruption’ and the expectation that things will remain thus.
I’d agree with a lot of what is said. But, in economies where everything is geared towards housing as the end goal it’s hard not to see how distortions at local levels won’t enter into the picture. And here we enter the gray area between what the public want, what the developers etc provide, what the politicians facilitate and what the society finds acceptable or not. I’m not sure it’s corruption in the specific sense, but I do completely agree that it’s bad and feeds once more into a narrative of pragmatism which conceals far too much cutting corners… And that is definitely a battle I wish the Greens (who again, Pete, I’m not a partisan for but would agree with you on this score at least) would have fought a lot more emphatically.
Incidentally, Garibaldy, just looking at your last comment. I was talking to someone this week who suggested that the young turks in FG are the way they are because they’ve grown up in relatively comfortable circumstances in a society which is doing relatively well and their approach is that if you can’t make it you’re not trying hard enough. Again, it’s Thatcherism, self-centred, etc, etc. And the person I was talking to also suggested that this is a belief that is growing in the public at large… When things do go downhill, as they will sooner or later they thought that that mindset would be ripe to oversee swinging cuts in welfare, etc… simply because they’re embedded in a view of the world that refuses to accept many many people are constrained by the very system they (the FGers) laud…
Yeah I think they’re a very dangerous bunch of people, and have their parallels not only in the Cameron Conservatives, but also in the likes of Nick Clegg in the Lib Dems. Which makes the FG/Labour love in less likely to last. Then again, I’m not sure that Labour has the strength of character to move much further to the left. Goes against everything they’ve been at for the last two decades, especially the leaders.
On the rise of these attitudes generally, I agree. Ireland (north and south actually) is raising a generation of Green Thatcherites, who lack a sense not only of the economic possibilities of the state, but also of collective interest. The Katy Frenches and her camp followers if you like. The left is in for a serious battering over the next decade and probably more. Which makes left unity all the more important, given the absence of the significant, disciplined coherent party that we really need.
WBS – I must apologise if you took up my reference to parents with insurance as anything along the lines of them looking after you. What I meant was the worries I have, which I imagine you share of the ability of this state to look after the health care of my parents as they progress through their 60s – if this was unclear from the post I’m sorry. On the issue of FF disappearing and FG existing what mean is that in any democracy you will have a party representing the wealthy interests – by character they will be right wing – conversely in malfunctioned post colonial situations or corrupted states such as post war Italy politics have been blighted by populist corrupt movements which fail to represent he working class but still maintains support within this social group through patronage – that is my reading of the FF situation and the sooner it is dispense with in whatever manner – either through Tribunals, concerted Left action or whatever the better – this stuff of they are centre and can be pressured in different directions is running away from dealing with the fundamental problem – something the Italian communists did not do when faced by the Mafia and something we must not do now.
On rereading your reply I think I see the crux of our differing.
‘The very class we seek to assist us in transforming society because of its choices is making a serious error’
All I look for from a Left party is that they represent the Working Class, and as far as possible are of the Working Class. A degree of social change will flow from this, I’m not looking for the working class to aid in some project that is beyond the interests of that section of society – it is my belief that such interests will always be served by socialism, but if social democracy is what we need to settle for so be it, if only stopping co-location is it, then that’s grand. Where a Left party becomes a play thing of non-working class adventurers then we start to have problems. How best to stop this? In my view keep the purse strings controlled by the trade unions, or as was unsuccessfully attempted by in the WP by the prols of the OIRA
Pete, my apologies to you if I took you up wrongly. I agree in large measure with what you say above. My only difference with you is that I profoundly disagree that FG ’serves another class’ and therefore is off the board in some fashion. It’s the old question, does Labour or the Left try to take out FF or FG? My instinct is FG because if we look back we can see how historically FG has been weaker and closer at its weakest to partity of numbers with the left. However, to get there I believe that attacking FF isn’t the right tactic. I think that Gilmore would be better to go a left course that stresses independence of vision and viewpoint… but, it is down to opinion either way and that’s just my tuppence for what its worth. Incidentally I also agree that the unions are pivotal to this.
The problem with the unions controlling the purse strings is that the ICTU has a much better working realtionship with Fianna Fail and particularly with Ahern than it has with Labour. And I think that has historically always been the case. The question is why? If like Pete you pose the question as corruption v anti-corruption then you can’t explain why a large bloc of the working class, has at least since the 1930s, identified with Fianna Fail. They have to have got something out of it. And as among others, Paul Bew and Henry Patterson have argued, they got real social benefits in the 1930s and 1960s.
Pete writes as if the republic is still in the 1950s, with child molesting priests and a backward economy which only an anti-Fianna Fail crusade will drag us out of.
Well Labour was in government during the 1950s Pete and they didn’t close any Magdalan Laundries or Industrial schools. Read what the position that Labour took on the Fethard on Sea anti-Protestant boycott was. And compare it to Devs.
Today this is a wealthy society, which many working people credit FF for. We may not agree, but the level of hysteria apparent in your comments won’t convince too many of them.
I worked with a good few men in London who left this country in the 50s. Those who voted all voted for the British Labour Party (most defintly ‘old’ Labour). They used to rib me about being a leftie and asked who I would vote for in Ireland. I said if I had to, Labour. they thought this was hilarious because ALL of them said they would vote Fianna Fail at home, even though they voted Labour in London and they thought the Irish Labour party was a joke.
How do we explain this?
Finally, I presume you are an ex-WP member. I only remembered that the WP propped up a government headed by the great Satan himself, CJH during 1982. Does this not also leave them with the mark of Cain? Or did they, like any serious Irish socialist relaise that FF would have to be treated like a normal political party and not the ‘monster’ conjured up by Conor Cruise O’Brien and the type of middle class moralist who populates the Irish Labour Party?
Finally, and sorry about the long windedness, I don’t believe that if FG supported hospital co-location than Labour would stop them if in coalition. During the 1980s Labour ministers closed hospitals and started a serious of cutbacks, carried on by FF, that wrecked the health service. Barry Desmond was the minister.