Speaking of Christian Solidarity… May 21, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Dublin Central Local Election and By-Election Promotional Material, Uncategorized.22 comments
I’m very grateful to the person who passed this material on… here is the Christian Solidarity Party candidate in Dublin Central….worth a read, not least in light of the appearance on the Vincent Browne show earlier this week (of which more briefly soon)…
The political discourse in the North West EU Constituency… May 21, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, Irish Politics.3 comments
I know I’ve got a bit of stick here for continuing to find Libertas of interest. And I’ve been told I should be looking at the platform of other parties. But now and then I’m going to continue to look at that group, and I think it’s possible to justify that beyond my narrow obsessions.
Firstly this is this site with this sites concerns and interests – others are covering various parts of the political ground much better than I could. Secondly, and to be honest, we pretty well know what the other parties propose (and in fairness I’m doing my bit as I see it by trying to deal with matters economic and show up the supposed solutions of our centre-right parties). But thirdly Libertas is such an exotic flower in this state that it bears examination, of which more later in this piece. And if none of those reasons were enough what of the fact that every day I open the papers and I see mention, not just by the Irish Times but by other media outlets of one issue or another concerning Libertas and more significantly how Libertas is shaping the political agenda.
For example, yesterday we see that Fine Gael candidate Joe O’Reilly, candidate in North West is declaiming loudly that:
…Fine Gael had always been committed to policies that respected human life…
And why should this be? Oh… it’s because…
…despite the claims of Mr Ganley [Libertas European Election candidate], who is running in the same constituency…
“Mr Ganley talks about euthanasia and abortion like he is the only person who holds any moral ground on these issues, when in fact Fine Gael hold an impeccably high moral ground on all issues,” said Mr O’Reilly.
Tell me, when was the last time that we saw social matters, or abortion in particular, brought into such stark relief as an issue (even a tactical one) at an European Election? Or indeed any Irish election? When did it achieve such prominence? Now, some will argue that it is precisely at these contests that such issues should be aired, but I’m dubious about that. Obama was on to something the other day when he noted that such issues are essentially irreconcilable (incidentally, I thought that was a fine speech). They’re near zero-sum. For one side to win the other side must lose absolutely. And this in the context of the EP elections makes absolutely no sense. Moreover as an element in the political discourse it is absolute poison.
On this site we’ve been discussing the merits or otherwise of Marian Harkin, someone who I’ve had some dealings with as it happens, who strikes me as a typical centrist with a mildly progressive outlook for whom abortion simply hasn’t been an issue, but who is now being forced into assuming a language which has absolutely no relevance to the contest at hand except as a means of defending herself from the charges of Declan Ganley and his minions. And let’s also note that she is being accused of guilt by association, that she is a member of ALDE in the European Parliament, the liberal grouping, is translated as explicit agreement with abortion (by the by, guilt by association is something that Libertas members detest, as evidenced by their staunch efforts to put distance between them and their further and far right allies in Europe over on P.ie). Now, that can’t be right. Not least because individual positions on abortion do vary and people in all sincerity hold viewpoints on that matter that diverge even if their broader positioning is progressive, or indeed conservative. And politically I’ll settle for a Marian Harkin, whatever her views on abortion and however regrettable her necessity to tilt right on the matter, over a hard-edge party of the social Christian right any day.
The appalling aspect of this is that, as noted above, a centrist and liberal individual, is being forced to adopt a profile that pushes her towards a much more hard-edged iteration that simply hasn’t been an issue hitherto.
Should Harkin take a stand? Cynical as it may seem I’m not convinced. Much less has been made of the fact that an individual with her general stance should take a seat in the North West than perhaps might have been, particularly in the wake of Dana. This might suggest that the independent vote there is a little like ballast, shifting from one side to another as long as the crucial word ‘independent’ is beside the name, but that aside one cannot blame Harkin for wondering whether there is a strong if subdued anti-abortion constituency amongst her vote. Indeed she might be forgiven for wondering just what is her vote?
But what of Joe O’Reilly, who one would think in a much better position than Harkin? After all, he’s regarded as a shoe-in for a seat. If he is directing fire on this matter against Ganley what does that tell us about the nature of the political environment he is operating in? Indeed is this a sign that transfers may be going awry? Certainly his words seem very very strong…
He added that Fine Gael has its roots in Christian democracy and its policies and beliefs reflected the ethos of that political movement which was pro-life in the deepest sense.
Now, am I the only one who finds this massively depressing? Depressing because none of this needs to be said…
“Fine Gael in Europe is aligned to the European People’s Party (EPP) or the Christian Democrats, who are known for their Christian values and beliefs,” he said.
A Fine Gael spokesman said that the party’s position was that the dignity of the human being was central. “We regard the human being as the subject, not the object, of history. This brings us to respect human life in all its forms and at all stages, to respect human dignity in medical and genetic advancements.”
And what precisely does that mean? Does this mean we can expect Fine Gael to kick back against ART etc? I’m guessing not, but again, that it should even be raised…
Mr O’Reilly said he wanted to assure people who might be inclined to vote for Libertas that Mr Ganley was not the only candidate in the North-West who was voicing Christian opinions.
“How dare he claim to be the only candidate in the North-West constituency with any high moral grounding; this is utterly disgraceful. He has no God-given right to declare a monopoly of integrity.”
And it gets worse…
Mr O’Reilly added that he had been involved directly with the EPP through his membership of the Council of Europe and had been very impressed with the way the organisation operated with Christian values at its core.
“One of Mr Ganley’s candidates in the Netherlands is avowedly pro-abortion, while he has tried to create the impression that he is the only candidate in the North-West constituency who is anti-abortion. That says a lot about his tactics,” said Mr O’Reilly.
This is a fine example of a political discourse buckling. None of this has any relevance to the European Parliament, and little enough to the European Union. There is no chance at all that Ireland will lose competency as regards its position on abortion. The issue is introduced purely in order to attack political opponents.
And that tells us something about the nature of the political campaign that Libertas is waging.
And it’s not as if smaller formations can’t influence the political landscape in a pernicious fashion. Gaze upon the prevailing wisdom as regards the economy and note the way in which the Progressive Democrats, gone, but never forgotten, have shaped that.
That might be for the future as regards Libertas, who have an inchoate but not dissimilar economic programme (such as it has been articulated). And they appear to take an opposite viewpoint from the PDs (who famously wanted to write God out of the Irish Constitution) on social matters. Moreover without a political base in the Dáil they remain marginal at best. But the idea that they’re not an issue and that they aren’t having an effect seems risible. It’s there in the papers and in the very language of these political debates.
And if we’re not watching we should be.
Sarah Carey’s love letter to the Labour Party? Well… not quite. May 20, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.67 comments
Now… before I start, let’s remember that for Fine Gael there is one route to power, and one only. They refuse to do a deal with Sinn Féin, the Progressive Democrats are no more. Few would bet on the Green Party returning a cohort sufficient to make up numbers in the aftermath of the next election…
So… that leaves…
Ah no, wait a while and let’s consider the latest column from Sarah Carey in the Irish Times. And let’s look into the soul, or at least the deep blue throbbing heart, of Fine Gael to assess what their attitude towards their only potential coalition partner is.
Finally, poor Eamo [Gilmore] got the message [from the weekend polls] and did what he should have done at the start of this campaign – ruled out coalition with Fianna Fáil. I only wonder how he thought he could get away with it for so long.
You can’t campaign for change if you end up putting Fianna Fáil back into power.
Poor Labour. Of all our political parties, Labour has the least self-awareness and so it is the unhappiest. It’s also the most divided, torn between dreamers and pragmatists who pull and push it from one strategy to another.
Let me stop right there. For anyone to argue that Labour, of all our parties, is least self-aware is quite a statement. If anything one could argue that it has suffered from a surfeit of awareness and a consequent inability to act.
The pragmatists accept that they live in a perverted tale of Cinderella. They have to go to the ball with one of the Ugly Sisters.
The dreamers cling to the hope that the Fairy Godmother will show up with 40 Dáil seats and a rotating taoiseach. As always in life, the pragmatists are happier. They hunker down and get on with the dirty job.
Which is?
The dreamers are miserable and frustrated. They disdain Fianna Fáil, but loathe Fine Gael even more. They speak in the loftiest of tones about the national interest and cannot understand that people vote in their own self-interest. They stand up for what is right but then go all self-righteous. In a nation reared on self-deprecation, it’s just not the right tone. Left-wing people don’t just believe they have better policies, they think they are better people and that bugs the rest of us.
But mostly, they sulk because they think our traditional loyalty to civil war politics is a poisonous wart on the face of a respectable western democracy. They dream that one day the veil will be lifted from the masses in the great estates of Dublin and Leinster.
There is a nation (and a state beyond those geographic locations). But a telling statement nonetheless.
Soon, surely, and especially now, these old-fashioned notions will be abandoned and a natural left-right split will shatter the status quo. At last the Labour Party will emerge as big brother instead of little sister in a coalition.
This dream ignores many realities, not least that Labour is the only party that actually was around during the civil war.
Er… which means precisely what? If she’s trying to say that that somehow means only Labour is locked into civil war politics… no, no… why am I even bothering here? If she was to hand this up in an history essay in secondary it would be a risible point. That it appears in our paper of ‘record’…
They keep talking about offering an alternative to “working people”. But we’re all working people. Well, except for the unemployed, and I presume they want to offer them an alternative too. What we are is a deeply conservative people with broad agreement on where we want to go, if slightly different views on how to get there.
Are we a deeply conservative people? I’m not so sure. I think many are conservative, that much is true, but to argue that we’re deeply conservative begs the question as compared to who? The American mid-west? Portugal? Saudi Arabia?
Or is the truth that on some axis, like all peoples, we’re conservative and on others we’re liberal, and on still others we’re progressive (at least in some measure)? And let’s – for further good measure – throw in a significant dose of hypocrisy wherein our elites (oh, yeah, even including FF and FG members) have amongst themselves led lives wildly at variance with the supposed ‘deeply conservative’ norms of this society.
There is no politically identifiable group called “the workers” who will rise up and demand the redistribution of wealth. Instead, we have a diamond-shaped society. The vast bulk of people are happily middle-class with an isolated underclass and a privileged oligarchy existing untouched at the edges.
Now, this is most instructive. No doubt that is the view from where Sarah Carey lives, and unfortunately it is one that is shared by more than a few in this society. But it’s a crock. We don’t actually have a society where the vast bulk are ‘happily middle class’… what we have is a society where there are still very clear differentiations between classes. Where the vast bulk are working people.
That many people are aspirant, that there are blurrings of categories, that there is a degree (although nowhere near as much as is made out) of social mobility is true. But as Conor of Dublin Opinion, who has engaged with this issue as it pertains to Ireland in the most forensic and effective way I’ve seen yet on the internet, here and here, notes:
The point here is to show that talk of a disappearing working class belongs with Mark Twain’s obituary. Nor should the fact that the majority of Irish working people find themselves in working class occupations and positions be of any surprise to anyone with even the faintest understanding of how a capitalist economy works. The middle class majority in Ireland is a middle class myth.
And, by the way, Conor also deals on this issue here…
Of course, as we can, such niceties (or as I prefer to call them ‘interpretations based on facts’) aren’t an issue to Carey.
Labour complains that “the workers” have to bail out the banks, but the truth is that those with most to lose have been hit the hardest. The upper middle-classes have lost their shares, their pensions, their jobs and their dreams. They are not going to swing to a party that alienates them by using loaded political terminology.
One has to wonder at how this particularly asinine analysis made it onto the page. So, only the ‘upper middle-classes’ bleed – eh? Only they have dreams, or at least dreams that have been ‘hit hardest’. Honestly, this is such nonsense.
Why should today’s unemployed architect vote to become tomorrow’s kulak – shot for trying to save himself?
Fantastic. So the Labour Party, that mildly centre left formation, that essentially moderate grouping, is somehow the equivalent of the worst excesses of the Soviet Union (and these are the views of the people Gilmore regards as his future partners in government?).
Yet this hyperbole – offensive hyperbole as it happens – is interpreted by Carey as the necessary data to arrive at her chosen QED…
So, there is no left and right; there is a cereal shelf on which Fianna Fáil is cornflakes and Fine Gael is porridge. Labour is muesli which is just porridge with nuts and dried-up fruit. Muesli is expensive and the unemployed middle-classes can’t afford it.
How droll. Or not. But entirely unsophisticated, if not downright crude and incorrect, in what one presumes is meant to be a more than half-way serious piece of political analysis. And note again that the concern is for ‘the unemployed middle class’. I’ve got to say I’m enormously impressed by how overt she is in her class allegiance – however impoverished her understanding of class. For I think back in vain for such compassion for the ‘unemployed working class‘ in the past from tribunes of Fine Gael (with one or two honourable exceptions).
But Labour still shifts between those who persist in the false dream and those who accept that a general election is simply a referendum on Fianna Fáil.
You’re either with them or against them.
But why? What essentialism does she divine that puts Fianna Fáil beyond the pale? When the choice is between cornflakes and porridge, what sort of choice is that at all? Which makes me wonder if in a sense she isn’t ultimately arguing for the continued domination of Fianna Fáil? Because she doesn’t make any effort to explain what difference there is between our parties – our post-Civil War parties [sic] – in this middle class wonderland and why that would weight our choices one way or the other.
That’s why for a party that prides itself on its honesty, Labour’s effort to play both sides of the coin was completely dishonest.
Actually there she’s utterly wrong. If there is no choice between the two, and again she does not give us any reason to believe otherwise, then it is entirely honest of Labour as the party with even the most mildly ideological divergence to play them off each other to its own advantage. Were the position reversed would she make such a clearly foolish point?
The poll shoved Gilmore off the pot but he still has work to do.
He has to stop complaining that we are bailing out the banks and get on with explaining where we’re going to find the money to do it. He has to accept that the public sector gravy train is over and how he intends to reform the system. He has to convince that in a coalition government, Labour can contribute something other than hand-wringing over public service cuts.
I believe he has explained that, so that’s something of a spurious argument. As to the others…what gravy train? What reform? Has she even read the OECD reports on this very matter? Answer – to judge from this encounter with Carey on the Irish Left Review – most probably not.
If he wants honesty in politics then he has to start being honest with the electorate and with himself.
In other words, he has to stop dreaming.
In other words, he has to be Fine Gael.
So, everything that the LP stands for, its long history and its far from ignoble efforts to attempt to articulate an alternative view, everything that differentiates it from the other parties, is irrelevant to her. It’s only purpose is to support Fine Gael. Why? Not because of any superiority as regards that party’s ability to govern, for she gives us no examples of same. Simply… because.
And this, this is a prominent voice of the ‘new’ Fine Gael speaking. This is what the future holds for us. The same blend of arrogance and ignorance, not entirely different from the current one, but with an added dash of ‘upper’ middle-class supremacism. If I were Eamon Gilmore I’d be putting as much clear blue water between myself (and my party) and this bunch. Because the naked contempt for the Labour Party and what, in its own inchoate and sometimes messy but entirely genuine way, it stands for isn’t just near palpable. It’s absolutely explicit.
They disdain Fianna Fáil, but loathe Fine Gael even more.
On the evidence of this, who could blame them?
And how, precisely, does Sarah Carey think her words are going to improve the mood music for a Fine Gael/Labour coalition after the next election. Because that’s the thing with arrogance. It’s remarkably cloth-eared.
Just askin’ – y’know?
The Dublin Central Local Elections and by-election Promotional Material – Christy Burke and other Sinn Féin candidates… Part 9 of a continuing series. May 20, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Dublin Central Local Election and By-Election Promotional Material.21 comments
Here’s a clever piece of literature from Sinn Féin which seeks to maximise – or perhaps more accurately prod to life – voter knowledge about their candidates in the local, by-election and European Election contests. So we see a clear emphasis on Christy Burke in the by-election, and then on the reverse “1 day 3 elections” promoting Christy, Mary Lou McDonald and Ruadhán MacAodhán. The comment about Tony Gregory is – for once from a politician putting themselves forward in DC – far from inaccurate.
As ever I’ll gladly post up any literature from left and center-left candidates/parties as I get it or as it is sent to me… usual address see email on right hand column.
Participation in the European Elections… and meanwhile, as ever, Lisbon May 20, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, Irish Politics.26 comments
The news that the Lisbon Referendum, still yet to have a date fixed, and as Mary Lou McDonald noted yet to see the new terms and conditions announced, is cruising ahead in terms of support for a Yes vote is hardly unsurprising. The events of the last twelve months have made the possibility of a second No vote much less likely. Not absolutely impossible, but now support is at a level where the chances of a reprise of the last vote seem minimal.
52 per cent for, 29 per cent agin and 19 per cent undecided is the sort of polling data to make the Yes side very happy since distributing the undecideds brings it home nicely for the Yes side. Still, many a slip…
I admire MLM’s steadfast critique, but I think the game is up on this one, something that may prove a quandary for Sinn Féin further down the line, particularly if by the implementation of Lisbon some of the heat is removed from the issue of the EU. I don’t for a second doubt the sincerity of the line taken by her and SF, it is one that has developed over decades (and some advance warning now of a document I’ll be posting in the Left Archive on Monday which related directly to this issue). I take a different line on the matter, and I suspect events will supersede the current problems. Which leaves SF in a position not dissimilar to its relationship to the North in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement. There too, in the South, the heat has gone out of the issue which has led to a certain softening of the SF vote as it must come to terms with engaging on more mundane, but equally important social issues that make its position less clearly distinct. Again, that’s not to in any sense suggest that SF doesn’t have a distinct position, just that it doesn’t operate in quite the same way within the Irish polity as it did even five years ago prior to the end of decommissioning and the restoration of the Executive.
Which means that SF may have to decide between two divergent paths (it may not, of course), one being outright euroscepticism (something perhaps a little more pointed than the No2EU campaign in the UK), and something that might implicitly point to eventual withdrawal from the EU, or alternatively a more considered, yet still critical, engagement with the EU as it currently exists. One can see elements of both approaches evident (and I’ve noted previously the very slightly different rhetoric emanating from the SF MEPs on either side of the Border) even now and if I were to bet on it I’d suspect it will be the second path that will be taken. But, to carve out a clearly distinctive position from there will be an interesting challenge.
Meanwhile, whatever position we take on the EU, whether critically supportive or fundamentally critical, there’s little comfort in the news earlier in the year that:
Less than a third of European citizens say they will definitely vote in the European elections, prompting fears of a record low turnout in June.
This comes on foot of:
An EU-wide survey due to be published today shows 28 per cent of EU citizens say they will definitely vote in the elections while a further 6 per cent say they will probably vote. British voters are the least likely in Europe to turn out, with just 21 per cent saying they will definitely or probably vote compared to 30 per cent who say they will definitely not vote.
Aren’t these astounding figures when one stops to analyse them? The fury, the heat that the European project and in particular the Commission and Parliament engender is apparently hardly worth a vote.
Now, one argument is that people may feel that their votes are essentially meaningless in the deflecting or even influencing what is often regarded as an elite and technocratic project. But while high up there in the figures that’s not the entirety of the story:
The reasons for not voting are: not knowing enough about the role of the parliament (64 per cent); thinking voting will not change anything (62 per cent); not being sufficiently informed to vote (59 per cent); believing that the parliament does not deal with problems that concern them (55 per cent); and being against Europe, the EU or European construction (20 per cent).
So, while lack of a sense of power is one factor, lack of knowledge and a sense of not being sufficiently informed is almost as great or greater in terms of building a self-perception as to the EU project. And isn’t that 55% believing that parliament is remote a fascinating figure.
Actually the 20 per cent figure against “Europe, the EU or European construction” (sic) is low enough, but not entirely surprising. It would be interesting to see if it is geographically localised.
And even if we put such matters to one side the following statistics are revealing:
Some 53 per cent of EU citizens say they are not interested in the European elections, compared to 44 per cent who say they are. Some 79 per cent of Latvians and 74 per cent of Czechs say they aren’t interested while 61 per cent of Irish citizens say they are interested in the upcoming elections.
Irish people are more likely to vote in the elections than most Europeans, with 45 per cent of citizens saying they will probably vote in June compared to an EU average of 34 per cent. But this would represent a sharp fall from the last European election in 2004 when turnout was 60 per cent.
I’ll bet we’re more interested than most.
So, all told it’s business as usual for this rather unloved, and admittedly sometimes unlovable, project. Some serious thinking in Brussels is required as regards how to bridge the gaps that are clearly extant in the relationship between European citizens and their supposed representative institutions at a pan-continental level. And although the solutions to this may be complex and raise difficult issues it’s vital that some effort is made to produce them. Because while it is true that national voting figures are also declining, although not as precipitously, any political project of the breadth and complexity of the EU requires democratic validation.
Granted, this is a near-impossible problem to solve. How to rebalance away from national sovereignty and agreement at Council level towards democratic legitimacy at Parliamentary level. Those two are, almost inevitably, going to be in tension. Or, perhaps the solution is a reworked structure, one where the EU does eventually fissure along the lines of core nations who wish to work more closely with the rebalancing tilting towards more clearly evolved pan-continental democratic institutions and – ironically in view of positions taken on these issues – an outer core where national sovereignty entails those states dealing on a more closely bilateral relationship with the core and each other.
Libertas and the Presidential Harp… May 19, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in European Politics, Irish Politics.13 comments
Rare enough to see a political leaflet incur controversy over its use of logos, and let’s not even start on the issue of the vanishing Fianna Fáil logos… but … guess what… Libertas has managed to do just that.
This leaflet here from Caroline Simons has raised problems…
THE DEPARTMENT of Enterprise has expressed concern about the us of a gold harp in election literature circulated to homes in Dublin by Libertas candidate Caroline Simons.
Under election law, Ms Simons, like all other candidates, is entitled to send a litir um thoghchán to every home in the constituency at the State’s expense.
What’s the problem exactly?
…her literature shows a gold harp on a blue background, which is similar to the image that was registered with the Chief Herald as the official arms of the State in November 1945, and which is the sole property of the State ever since.
The emblem is protected internationally as a state emblem under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883, and is more commonly seen as the presidential standard.
And Áras an Uachtaráin aren’t exactly ecstatic by this new usage…
Áras an Uachtaráin yesterday raised the use of the emblem with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government after the matter was brought to its attention by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Last night, a spokesman for Enterprise, Trade and Employment said: “We have had indications of concern on this issue from a number of quarters. Because the presidential shield is involved, we drew this to the attention of Áras an Uachtaráin, who we understand has raised the matter with the Department of the Environment in view of that department’s responsibility for electoral law.
The Chief Herald of Ireland commented as well…(incidentally can I recommend a book by historian Susan Hood on the Office of Arms – later the Genealogical Office – since its retention by the Free State after Independence. A fascinating read on how newly independent states have to come to terms with vestiges of the ancien regime, and how symbolism sits at the heart of political endeavour)
The Chief Herald of Ireland, Fergus Gillespie last night told The Irish Times that the arms “constitute the symbolic representation of the authority of the Government of Ireland”.
He added: “The registration of the arms of Ireland forms the legal basis of the State’s exclusive right to use and display them. Clearly, then, the use of the State arms by private citizens is not permitted.”
It really is amazing, amazing beyond belief, how many of these ‘missteps’ seem to occur in the course of this campaign. The excuse from the minions of the Chairman?
So far, it is not clear if Libertas will face prosecution. Last night, Libertas said it understood it could use the harp “as long as it was not being used to sell a product”.
The blue background has been used in all of Libertas’ election literature, but Ms Simons had wanted to use the harp as a symbol of Dublin. “Putting the two together was unfortunate, and for that we apologise,” the Libertas spokesman said.
Prosecution?
“In so far as this department is concerned, our position is that Section 97(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1996, states: A person shall not, without the authority of the Minister, use in connection with any business the State emblems of Ireland notified under Article 6 of the Paris Convention or emblems so closely resembling the State emblems as to be calculated to deceive in such a manner as to be calculated to lead to the belief that that person is duly authorised to use the State emblems,” said the spokeswoman.
This provides that a person who, without authority, uses any of the State emblems of Ireland registered under the Paris Convention in connection with any business is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a €1,270 fine and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine of €127 for every day the offence continues.
Well, I guess that won’t break the bank…
Another small thought, following on from the observation that attacks on other candidates such as we see above aren’t necessarily a brilliant way of gaining transfers is it possible that those advising Libertas are unused to multi-seat proportional representation contests? Surely not.
As bad an alternative… Fine Gael proposals on the banking crisis or Nama? May 19, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics.5 comments
Some might have thought reading Brian Lucey’s [associate professor of finance at the School of Business Studies in Trinity College] piece in the Irish Times yesterday, or rather the subhead: Fine Gael’s bank plan makes more sense than Nama (whose ultimate head doesn’t know what’s going on anyway). All roads still lead to nationalisation…
…that Lucey was arguing that the Fine Gael plan was in some sense superior. But reading further the text takes a different turn…
NAMA IS dead in the water, moving only due to political inertia. It is drifting towards legal reefs and organisational shoals that were clearly visible on the charts.
Six weeks after its announcement in the Budget, nine months into the domestic banking crisis and the Government is reduced to pleas to trust them that the operational details will be revealed, eventually.
And…
To make matters worse, back at home, Michael Somers, the ultimate head of Nama (the National Asset Management Agency), more or less suggested to an Oireachtas committee that he had no idea how the organisation would or could work.
So… any alternative must be better… say an FG alternative?
In this regard, Fine Gael’s plan for the banking system is to be cautiously welcomed. It represents an attempt by that party to engage with the complexity of the banking crisis, and although in my view potentially flawed, is superior in almost every way to Nama.
Except reading further again one comes to the conclusion that by ‘superior in almost every way’ he means it’s an almost but not quite equal heap of smoking rubbish. And I think he does and I think he’s being entirely satirical in his praise for the plan.
The Fine Gael plan seeks to create a National Recovery Bank which would be capitalised by the State. This National Recovery Bank would underwrite or guarantee the SME (small and medium enterprise) lending of the existing banks via short-term Government-guaranteed borrowing from the European Central Bank.
The recovery bank would signal the end of the blanket guarantee on interbank and debt instruments after September 2010 in an effort to force the holders of those instruments to take a share of the losses on toxic lending; and it would create good and bad banks from the existing stock of banks – the bad banks then remaining as workout vehicles to run themselves to liquidation.
And more…
The Fine Gael plan would create a system which, at least for a while, is populated by undercapitalised or zombie banks, banks which are not be able to carry out their normal role in the economy. As well as undercapitalisation, the banks would be illiquid. As a consequence of the announced end of the guarantee, banks would not be able to source any funds that extended beyond September 2010 (when the guarantee ends) and so would be forced to rely only on the sluggish interbank markets, with the certainty that as the end of the guarantee looms, they would only be able to source short-term expensive funding.
The banks would not be able to extend new credit, nullifying the desire to pump credit to the SME sector.
Indeed, the effect of the drastic reductions in capital that would be a consequence of the banks having to, on their own, absorb toxic loans would be to reduce the banks to a state where they were unable to continue in business.
While it is proposed to rectify this at the end of the guarantee period by carving good banks out of bad, the plan would result in at best temporary zombification of the entire system and at worst a closure of the banks.
This, this is superior in every way?
The consequences of this for the economy are well known and would be utterly disastrous. There is an issue common to both Nama and the Fine Gael plan: an assumption that they will, if implemented “get credit moving”. This is fallacious, as no plan thus far suggested can, in fact, increase credit.
A combination of a shrinking economy and shrinking capital bases of banks will inevitably result in shrinking lending. It cannot be otherwise.
Utterly disastrous? So what pray tell is the way forward?
Finally, the Fine Gael plan contains within it, as does Nama, the acceptance that the State will end up the owner of the banks – nationalisation. It states that if the new banks that are carved out are not able to raise funds, the State will provide.
It is certain that were any Irish bank, no matter how clean, to go to the international equity markets in late 2010 and seek funds, they would get a cold reception.
So nationalisation of the active bank system would be required. As all paths identified in the debate so far lead to the same end, nationalised banks, it is surprising that discussion on how to get there persists. It is only delaying the inevitable.
Put aside the entertaining route Lucey takes to get to his destination and his conclusion seems about right to me. But the thought also strikes me that there must be a fair few FG inclined readers just a little puzzled by the tone of the piece… And one wonders did the IT’s sub-editors appreciate Lucey’s intent or was the sub-head just thrown in for good measure?
That Committee of Public Accounts session on NAMA and other matters… May 19, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economics, Economy, Irish Politics.10 comments
There’s no end of fun to be had parsing Michael Somers, head of the National Treasury Management Agency, words in front of the Committee of Public Accounts. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
Still, for me, the real meat of his testimony is when he discusses how NAMA will operate in terms of purchasing of debt. Because whenever we hear how the charge that the Irish Government is bailing out the financial sector is simply wrong – an assertion made with wearying regularity in the Sunday Business Post amongst other sections of our media – it’s worth noting what NAMA entails in terms of its impact on the public purse. It’s also worth noting that our supposed inability to raise funds on international markets is rather less difficult than has been proposed in the most over-heated analyses… an analysis which a few voices have been willing to point out is… incorrect. At best. And deceitful at worst.
Total sovereign borrowing by European governments this year is expected to be more than €1,300 billion, up one third from the 2008 total of €997 billion. The US budget office announced on Monday that it would borrow a record $1,841 billion in 2009. In 2008 the NTMA issued two new benchmark bonds which raised €11 billion. In addition, we used the short-term commercial paper markets to build up Exchequer cash balances to over €20 billion towards the end of 2008. This has assisted in the timing of borrowing in 2009, ensuring that the NTMA can raise sufficient funds as opportunities arise without having to enter the market at particularly turbulent times.
The first four months of this year have seen a continuation of the volatility that has characterised the global capital markets since August 2007. Nevertheless we have been successful in raising funds through a variety of initiatives. Two new benchmark bonds were issued by syndication, one in early January and one in February. They raised a combined total of €10 billion. Auctions of existing series of bonds raised a further €2.2 billion. In addition, we launched a new treasury bill programme in March which has raised €4.6 billion to date. The success of these deals reflects the continued confidence of investors in Irish Government debt. However, the spread in the cost of funding that Ireland must pay over the German benchmark rate began to increase towards the end of 2008 and rose sharply in January as a result of a number of global and domestic factors. These included: the prospect of continued contraction in Ireland and the major economies; the sudden and steep deterioration in the public finances; adverse comment regarding the bank recapitalisation programme; and the speculative activities of participants in the credit default swaps market. Spreads have been falling steadily, however, since the middle of March.
Funding the deficit and refinancing the existing stock of debt call for the maintenance of an active and liquid market in Irish Government bonds. Relatively, Ireland is a small issuer, with less than 1% of the euro government bond market and most Irish Government bonds – around 85% – are now held by investors outside the State. The NTMA actively markets Ireland’s bonds and has already undertaken a number of roadshows in 2009 to highlight the positive features of the Irish economy.
“Continued confidence in Irish Government debt”… “Spreads have been falling steadily since the middle of March”… “highlight the positive features of the Irish economy”. Wait a second! That can’t be right. Surely the narrative has been one of utter crisis, a state that is so embattled financially and economically that where other countries (as mentioned above) can borrow their way to recovery we can’t…
And what of this intriguing analysis?
When the NTMA was set up, Ireland’s national debt was one of the highest in Europe, at around 100% of GNP. By 2007, the year under review today, it had fallen to its lowest level in recent years, 23.3%. The borrowing requirements published in the supplementary budget 2009 imply that the ratio will rise significantly over the next few years. Using the standard EU measure, the general Government debt to GDP ratio rose from 25% in 2007 to 43.2% in 2008, and is forecast to peak at 79% in 2012. It should be noted that the forecast euro area average for 2010, the latest year for which the Commission has published a forecast, is 83.8%, and Ireland is forecast to remain below this average. Additionally, the EU measure is a gross measure and does not allow the assets of the NPRF or the substantial cash balances that the NTMA has built up to be offset against the debt. These assets currently represent more than 20% of GDP.
In terms of the burden that the cost of servicing the debt places on the Exchequer, interest payments were almost 27% of tax revenue when the NTMA was established in 1990. This had fallen to less than 4% by last year. This ratio is also forecast to increase significantly over the next few years and, while it will reach around 18% in 2013, this is no greater than the levels experienced in the mid-1990s. Throughout the decade from 1998 onwards, the Exchequer was either in surplus or broadly balanced. However, as a result of the deterioration in the public finances, there was a relatively small deficit in 2007 and in 2008 the Exchequer recorded its biggest borrowing requirement ever, €12.7 billion. The supplementary budget forecasts borrowing requirements of around €20 billion each year for 2009 and 2010; almost €18 billion in 2011; €13.4 billion in 2012; and €9.4 billion in 2013. In funding these deficits, the NTMA must now compete not only with other euro area sovereign borrowers as they fund their deficits and recapitalise their banks, but also with banks as they rebuild their balance sheets with the backing of government guarantees.
So let’s get this straight. Even compared to the situation extant when NTMA was established the figures place in a better stance than then? Albeit in a more competitive market for borrowing as he notes finally. And yet, somehow, even in that more competitive market we’re able to continue to borrow and the spreads are falling. How could that be? Or could it be that the general mechanisms adopted by other states to deal with this crisis are – in their own way – allowing us a greater flexibility for movement than otherwise might have been the case. After all, if everyone is at it then that becomes a shared rather than a specific risk. And markets, all too aware that governments are now tied to the concept of underwriting debts, however far into the future, to sustain them, the markets, aren’t entirely averse to that notion.
This, surely, puts the talk about the centrality of the public finances into a rather different light. Because it would appear that one other factor is what is blowing us entirely off course. And that factor would be?
The projections for borrowing and debt levels that I have given today do not include any increased issuance in connection with the proposed NAMA.
Ooops.
Now, I may be utterly wrong here, but my analysis over the past couple of months – for what its worth – has been that excluding the financial sector our situation is actually one where, even given the vagaries of the global crisis we could borrow while simultaneously reforming our tax base in the happy near-certainty (for what is certain these days?) that economic growth would eventually reassert itself. But the financial crisis is what is really screwing the economy down.
But look here… just how does NAMA et al impact on the economic well-being of this Republic?
The purchase of property-related assets by NAMA, at a discount yet to be determined, is expected to be paid for by the issue of Irish Government bonds directly to the banks. This will result in a significant impact on gross debt ratios, with the ratio rising to over 100% over time depending on the level of the discount applied and the fiscal deficits. The income streams from the NAMA assets will mitigate the cost to the Exchequer of servicing the additional debt and the proceeds from their eventual sale will accrue to NAMA and the Exchequer. The establishment of NAMA will require legislation. However, last week the Government announced the appointment of Brendan McDonagh, NTMA director of finance, technology and risk, as interim managing director of NAMA to proceed with the implementation process pending legislation.
That can’t be good. That really can’t be good.
And it is that added to his evident discomfiture about the viability of NAMA as presently conceived which really worries me.
Here is Somers again…
The banking crisis is not something which fell within our remit and we were not, nor are we now, staffed to deal with it. A number of my colleagues, as well as doing their ordinary jobs, have had to get closely involved, at the request of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in dealing with the various crises that have occurred since August or September 2008 and have spent a significant amount of their personal time, including weekends and nights, in trying to deal with this.
Depending on how the NAMA project develops, we will have to look again at staffing arrangements. I am told within the commercial banks there are probably between 3,000 and 5,000 people looking at many of the impaired loans. It would be a disaster if we were to try to build up a similar complement of staff to deal with this. I am still not sure how the proposed NAMA operation would interact with the NTMA. Government statements have said it would be under the aegis of the NTMA. There are different models.
And more…
If it becomes a function of the NTMA, it would then fall to us to determine the appropriate organisational arrangements. If it falls to me, my preference would be to try and have a small, core staff and leave this function with the banking sector, who have the experience and have been dealing with these loans. It would set up a subsidiary with these people or we would enter into some sort of deal with it, under which it would continue to manage the loans.
Hmmm… poachers and gamekeepers spring to mind. But the next statement is the one of particular concern…
I have no idea whether this would work because we have no experience of bank restructuring or the whole new area which is coming our way and we will be on a very steep learning curve. Much will depend on the form of the legislation. If it turns out to be a managing director and an advisory board or committee, it would seem to be a function of the NTMA. If it takes some other form, I am not quite sure what the role of the NTMA will be in dealing with this new project. It will depend on the legislation, which is in the committee’s hands.
And as has been covered elsewhere there is the small issue of Merrill Lynch being brought in as consultants to the NTMA…
In regard to the banking problems, we have acted solely on the directions of the Minister for Finance. We have no role. There is significant legislation covering the NTMA which sets out specifically what we are to do in every area for which we are responsible. None of that includes the recapitalisation of the banks or dealing with the banking crisis. We have dealt with that on the directions of the Minister for Finance. We were directed to hire Merrill Lynch. That fee is not the end of it. The total fee will be approximately €6 million. These people do not come cheap. The problem at that stage was that every other financial institution seemed to be either conflicted or was in such dire financial straits that it was in no position to give advice. We do not feel comfortable about paying €6 million to these people but we were asked to get the advice and that is unfortunately what it will cost.
Of course that’s not where the costs end… how about these gems?
Deputy Jim O’Keeffe: Am I correct in saying that NAMA is not in a position to offer any comfort to the taxpayer that this approach will end up without a very significant cost to the taxpayer?
Dr. Michael J. Somers: There is an appalling dilemma here. The size of the loans that have been advanced are enormous. Our dealings with the Irish banks over the years would have been very limited. I do not think they saw much profitable business with us. They pulled out of the primary dealer role they used to have in regard to our sale of Government bonds. Our dealings with them would have been very limited. We have seen figures for the loans they have extended and the combined totals. It is not an exaggeration to say we were aghast at the amount of money that has been extended. We are not talking about tens of millions or hundreds of millions of euro but billions of euro lent to individuals. Much of this money has just been lost. We must have an operatiing—–
Deputy Jim O’Keeffe: The taxpayer carries the loss.
Dr. Michael J. Somers: Yes, and obviously the shareholders.
Deputy Jim O’Keeffe: My approach is that the taxpayer should not be the person who carries the loss.
Dr. Michael J. Somers: We must have an operating banking system in the State.
Deputy Jim O’Keeffe: If it became an issue as to whether the taxpayer should carry the loss or the existing bond holders should lend money to the banks, would Dr. Somers agree that in such a situation the taxpayer should be the last to be called upon?
Mr. John C. Corrigan: There is a close relationship in terms of how the capital markets view the bonds outstanding in respect of the banks and how they view Ireland as a sovereign borrower. Walking away from the bank debts and allowing them to default on the bonds, in effect their senior debt, would have a very negative read across for Ireland Inc. I have little doubt that the cost of borrowing to the State would hugely increase if that approach were to be adopted.
Hmmm… So the state can’t walk away from bank debts which it did not incur (since said banks were private enterprises and perish the thought that the state should intervene in any serious fashion in their affairs) and the perceptions of those beyond the state yet again are seen as essentially the only consideration in how we treat this matter and – as all roads lead to Rome – force the taxpayer into carrying the can for a private financial sector that can only be described as having gone systematically and comprehensively beserk. But who in our media cares that this process is forcing this state into indebtedness that the effects of the global downturn on our public finances into something almost approaching a footnote in comparison.
Now that’s a sweetheart deal, if ever I heard of one.
There’s more and this is one Committee transcript that repays close reading.
A one and two half and one quarter party system? Part 2. May 18, 2009
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.18 comments
Typical. No poll for ages and then two come along at the same time. For here is the Sunday Business Post keen to throw extra data into the mix. For them the figures are a little less awful for Fianna Fáil and a little less exalted for Fine Gael than the Irish Times poll on Friday. The SBP figures, as most of us now know, are FG on 34% (+1 on the last RedC poll), FF on 24% (+1), Labour on 18%(-1) , the Greens on 5% (-2), Sinn Féin 7% (-1) and Independents (+2). This compares with the IT which had the following figures:
Fianna Fáil 21 per cent (down 1 point); Fine Gael 38 per cent (up 6 points); Labour 20 per cent (down 4 points); Sinn Féin 9 per cent (no change); Green Party 3 per cent (down 1 point); and Independents/others, 9 per cent (no change).
Firstly good to see Labour doing so relatively well (although again, the disparity between the SBP and the IT while not huge is sufficient to indicate that talk of a new dawn is a little premature… 18% on the day would be a very very good result. Let’s hope it comes to pass). For those of us who, whatever our doubts about Labour’s positioning as regards coalition in the future, find Gilmore to be a strong and quietly effective leader it is heartening to see that in the Irish Times poll he has a satisfaction rating of 51% against 33% for Enda Kenny and just 18% for the Taoiseach (although I wasn’t quite so heartened to see the reports that Labour had ruled out coalition with FF after the next election… because that leaves only two options and one of those is well-worn at this stage).
The figures for Dublin tell their own story. Fianna Fáil is on 13%, and while I know I’ve been suggesting that Maurice Ahern has more going for him than might have been previously thought I’m beginning to think he may have less going for him than he might hope. That field might be opening up nicely for a.n.other.
Who that might be is an open question. Fine Gael are on 28% in Dublin as a whole, while Labour are on 19% and Sinn Féin on 10%. The Green Party is attracting 4% there. And 13% goes to Independents – a huge figure, really. Still. All this remains subject to considerable numbers who either will not vote or haven’t decided. Rough calculations indicate that in Dublin those two groups could be as high as 13%. Plenty of room there for a shift back to Fianna Fáil amongst those unwilling to attest to their party allegiance and enough to bounce it back to the higher teens which would be closer to its national poll level.
And I should note that contrary to previous reports I heard the Sinn Féin vote is holding up quite nicely and certainly well enough to retain most of their local election seats and make some gains. Which is good.
Really this can be seen in light of three different areas. Firstly the contests on June 5th. Secondly the general shape of Irish politics in the mid-term, and finally the potential for the next General election.
As regards the first I’m very intrigued by the tone of the Irish Times editorial on Friday which argues that:
…while poll figures suggest that Fianna Fáil will do badly, the outcome may not be as dire as anticipated because of the attraction of local personalities. In spite of pressure, the Green Party could hold its own. Fine Gael performed so well in the elections of 2004 that its advances on this occasion are likely to be more modest. The big winner could be the Labour Party. The intriguing question will be whether the public draw a distinction between the national and European elections where personality poolitics may be more dominant. But, the pressure on Mr Cowen is expected to grow.
And the IT points to a certain slippage around the edges of the Fine Gael vote which, were an election called, might drag it somewhat down from the current lofty heights it hovers in…
One note of caution for Fine Gael came in the response of voters to a question about who they intended to vote for in local elections, which showed a segment of the party vote slipping to Independents. The adjusted figures for party support were: Fianna Fáil 20 per cent, Fine Gael 33 per cent, Labour 20 per cent, Sinn Féin 10 per cent, Green Party 3 per cent and Independent/other 14 per cent.
That’s quite an interesting statistic. One wonders if Fianna Fáil could given time do anything to entice that 6% or so back into the fold, because they remain there for the taking and their loyalty to Fine Gael would seem to be slightly less than one might imagine at first sight.
It’s not much of a silver lining for the embattled government, is it? And how this plays in the European Elections… well, roll on another poll please.
Meanwhile there are the usual voices of doom…
The further slide in the satisfaction rating of the Government and the Taoiseach is ominous for the future prospects of the Coalition.
A massive 86 per cent of the voters are now dissatisfied with the performance of the Government and that figure rises to 89 per cent in Dublin. The better off AB voters are the most unhappy of all.
Among Fianna Fáil supporters 63 per cent are dissatisfied and just 32 per cent satisfied with the Coalition’s performance.
Among Green Party supporters the figures are appalling, with 93 per cent expressing dissatisfaction with the way the Government is running the country.
And what of Stephen Collins writing in the Irish Times on Saturday?
IF THE outcome of the elections on June 5th is anything like the result of the latest Irish Times/TNS mrbi opinion poll, a political earthquake is in the offing. There is no telling what the landscape will look like in the aftermath.
As if its all just a matter of time now…
Unless there is some dramatic reversal of fortunes in the next three weeks Fianna Fáil will slip into second place in a national election for the first time in 80 years. Even worse for the party, the indications are that it will end up trailing far behind Fine Gael in terms of its share of the popular vote.
Such a beating will call into question the future of Taoiseach Brian Cowen, and the future of the Fianna Fáil-Green Party coalition. It is simply difficult to see how a Government without a mandate can continue in office for very much longer, particularly in the throes of such a deep economic recession.
Well, the first though is that as Vincent Browne noted on his programme last week the supplanting (to a limited degree at best) of one centre right party by another centre right party with near-indistinguishable policies, both of which have been alternately the governing parties in this state since its foundation doesn’t quite seem to the political ‘earthquake’ that Collins suggests.
But I’d go further and reiterate what I noted previously. On June 6th the local and byelections are over. The European elections will be history and the pressures that would otherwise exist in terms of fractious and anxious candidates will be on hold until the lead in to the General Election. One could even point to a small level of victory for Fianna Fáil in managing to retain its integrity at local level in light of the current situation over the past number of months with only a limited number of defections.
That doesn’t for a second mean that June 5th is going to be a happy day for them. Or June 6th for that matter. But any direct threat to the Government from attrition or defection is limited thereafter to the context of the Dáil. And there the binding logic of three years remaining until the last possible date of an election comes into play. Indeed this point was echoed by the man from RedC polls on The Week In Politics on RTÉ last night, that if they can weather this storm there is plenty of time for them (and more importantly FF) to build on their bedrock vote. Better to work within that time than to precipitate an early election. And all the chatter about how a Machiavellian Fianna Fáil might go early in order to hand the mess to a Fine Gael that might then screw it up just in time for FF to recover misses the fundamental truth of political activity which is that parties tend to hold on to what they’ve got.
None of this is going to be easy. Currently the Government has a limited majority and remains more dependent than it might like on Michael Lowry and Jackie Healy-Rae. And whether those worthies will stay on board in the event of the harsh budgets that we are promised await us is an important question. I’d tend to think yes, for the moment.
In a way though, and looking to the second and third areas I mentioned above – that of the shape of Irish politics in the medium term and the next General Election, isn’t it astounding that the shift isn’t towards a genuine alternative, however insipid that may seem from certain viewpoints, but to a party that in its public utterances offers essentially the same but more so. Because the rhetoric emanating from Fine Gael hardly marks any sort of serious economic departure from the status quo. If anything there seems to be even less chance under FG alone (granted not a likely prospect, but one must take them at their current words) that we’d see what we might broadly accept as positive societal impacts from their policies.
But, all that said, it’s meet the potential new boss. Hardly any different from the old boss.
Except read Collins again and you’ll see that his thinly veiled enthusiasm at the prospect of change is due to a very specific factor.
The other side of the coin is that while the Opposition parties are all capitalising on the weakness of the Government, significant differences are beginning to emerge about how to respond to the economic crisis. Fine Gael accepts in principle that the public finances have to be restored to health before there is any prospect of economic recovery. Even though the party is not spelling out the detail of the pain that will have to be inflicted, it has not dodged the principle that it is necessary.
By contrast Labour not only refuses to spell out the details of any cuts that might be necessary, it is insisting that the public finances are not the central issue and that the Government should come forward with a jobs stimulus package. On the banks there is also a difference of views with Labour arguing for outright nationalisation and Fine Gael opposing it.
Well, I and others would argue that the perspective Collins takes as to the ‘public finances’ and their centrality to the current situation is simply incorrect and diversionary. So fair dues to Labour for at least dissenting from the supposed certainty there. But he continues:
While an early election would almost certainly give Fine Gael and Labour a comfortable majority between them, they would have serious difficulties agreeing a programme for government. The real danger is that they might agree on a compromise programme that put the really difficult decisions on the long finger.
One great advantage any new government will have is a mandate to take action but, if that is frittered away, it could quickly become as discredited as the current coalition. The stakes have never been higher for all of those engaged in political life, because the country is in desperate need of a government with credibility and authority, that is capable of inspiring people to make the sacrifices necessary for our future prosperity.
Sacrifice and pain. It’s always about that for Collins and a number of other commentators in the Irish political media. And ‘capable of inspiring’? Surely that’s short hand for ‘capable of imposing’. Fabulous.
What of Labour? If this situation continues it might be very good news indeed in terms of a future General Election. Consider that the core FF vote is going to transfer amongst itself (indeed think if this is sustained about how Fianna Fáil are going to have to manage candidate selection in constituencies where they can no longer be certain that they will get two seats… fun and games lie ahead there) but not to Fine Gael. One other likely recipient of those transfers will be Labour. Who in turn will also attract transfers from Fine Gael. That should be worth a couple of extra seats. And add that to the pile that 20% of the vote would deliver, and remember it was 19% in 1992 which returned 33 Labour seats and we might be looking at historic highs for that party. Or slightly less if it is 17 – 18%.
And that in addition to potentially excellent results for Fine Gael. 51 seats as they now have? Higher, no doubt. Again, in November 1982 Fine Gael under Garret Fitzgerald had 70 seats as against Fianna Fáil on 75 seats. The percentiles are useful there with FG on 42.2 and FF on 45.2.
Previous elections give some clue as to seat numbers for the larger parties when their percentiles dip. For example in 1992 FG had 24.5% and returned 45 TDs. In 2002 FG had 22.5% and returned 31. Mapping those figures onto the FF vote is obviously fraught with difficulties, I’d tend to add on at least 10 extra seats from the word go, but… again, it would tend to suggest that if FF remained mired around 25% or so of the vote they would be looking at the mid 50s in terms of seats. Not a melt-down, at least by the standards of other parties, but hardly the legacy that Brian Cowen intended (an entertaining, but essentially futile experiment, is to throw those figures into the numbers in the Dáil and look at the configurations that emerge).
So all told it may well be a case of staggering towards the finishing line. Staggering to the finish line. What a way to run a country.
