Almost George Lee week at the Irish Election Literature Blog! February 12, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.add a comment
Many thanks to AK who this week has managed to find one or two topical documents… incriminating? Well, perhaps not. But interesting nonetheless. And one from North of the border which is equally topical…
As ever Left things first…
Probably of most interest this week an Independent Socialist Party Leaflet. ‘JOIN The Independent Socialist Party’.
Amongst other things it explains the reasoning behind the party and of course has a Membership form.
From the Democratic Left – Budget 97 and how it benefits you. Quite a detailed leaflet which shows social welfare rates, tax rates etc from the time.
A simple SWP No to Racism Flyer.
Then…
A Margaret Ritchie canvassing Leaflet from the SDLP leadership election.
Joe O’Tooles 2002 Seanad Campaign leaflet
The very clever Beer Mat produced by Lucinda Creighton
Then the man of the moment….
Who said George Lee wasn’t a team player?
Then a large Poster size George Lee Leaflet where the message from Enda says that George “has … a willingness to stand up to vested interests…” (Vested interests Like top FG people trying to keep their own patches?)
And last but not least…
Meeting Room, documentary on Concerned Parents Against Drugs (1980s), will have its world premiere at the Jameson Dublin International Film Festival on February 21st. February 12, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.5 comments
Meeting Room, the new documentary film by James Davis and Brian Gray, will have its world premiere at the Jameson Dublin International Film Festival on February 21st.
The film shines a powerful searchlight on a controversial moment in recent Dublin history. Meeting Room tells the contested story of the Concerned Parents Against Drugs movement from its emergence in Hardwicke St and St Teresa’s Gardens in the early 1980s to its decline with the imprisonment of some of its leaders at the end of that decade. The film includes an interview with Tony Gregory and features Christy Moore, John ‘Whacker’ Humphries, Bernie Howard, Mick Rafferty, Padraig Yeates, Chris McCarthy and Fr Jim Smyth.
CPAD began in response to the explosion of drug addiction in Dublin in 1982. A lack of action from the authorities meant that residents of the flats complexes where heroin was available were on their own. A mass movement was born in response and dealers were confronted with meetings, patrols, checkpoints and late night evictions. These tactics saw the movement spread throughout the city.
But CPAD’s direct action strained its relationship with the authorities and the media. Charges of vigilantism and republican infiltration dogged the movement and undermined it. Hostility in the press, prosecution in the courts and a violent response from criminals was all balanced against successfully tackling the dealers as the movement rose and fell during the 1980′s in Dublin.
Beautifully shot by Palestinian American artist Nida Sinnokrot, Meeting Room reconstructs the social history of CPAD through archival newspaper, film and photographic sources and through the voices of those who participated.
It will screen at Cineworld on Parnel St. February 21 at 3.30pm. 72 minutes. Directors present.
Tickets.
Many thanks to the person who forwarded this which I think will be of particular interest to many of us here on the CLR. We’ll keep you updated with its progress.
Tomás Mac Giolla remembered… in a somewhat unlikely place… February 11, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.13 comments
As was put to me…
If you live long enough you see everything, but I was honestly taken aback
by this.
Indeed…
Edwards affair’s base… February 11, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in US Politics.3 comments
Reading Slate.com’s piece on the John Edwards affair one can only look bemused at the expenditure of energy and resources on keeping it [mostly] secret.
From cash payments concealed in boxes of chocolates to three way conference calls used to keep his wife Elizabeth unaware that Rielle Hunter was ringing him the sheer scale of the deception engaged by Edwards is remarkable. But what is more remarkable is that reading through the Slate article it didn’t work at all. Or rather, Hunter and Edwards appear to have flaunted the fact of it. There often seems to be that in such circumstances, a throw caution to the wind aspect even when all else is deep fried in seeming secrecy. Details such as their kissing in front of campaign aides are beyond puzzling.
Then… and this is equally odd, there is the small matter that he paid living expenses to Hunter, with money from a philanthropist. One would think that in the media saturated world of the contemporary era someone would have thought twice, or three times about engaging in such machinations.
One of the issues about affairs that has always puzzled me is the amount of time and resources they appear to demand. Difficult for most to sustain for any length of time. But for someone like Edwards who wasn’t short of work he should have been doing instead it’s almost inexplicable. And of course, as with the information that aides knew, the boundaries between the secret and the ‘known’ blurred.
Generally my attitude is that the personal lives of politicians are none of my business. Affairs are about those who are involved and those who are directly affected. And it’s difficult to know what goes on in other peoples lives at the best of times and attempting to work out motivations, or worse sit in judgement, seem pointless. Most of this sort of the interest in this sort of stuff seems prurient in the extreme. But where this moves beyond the purely personal is on two levels. Firstly, now that he has admitted what was going on, that he lied about it publicly and explicitly on a continual basis – and while doing so presenting his marriage, and his wife’s travails in an overtly politicised fashion. And secondly that while lying about it he was a serious contender for the White House. And it is that latter issue that raises a particular point… or as … on the always excellent It’s All Politics podcast from NPR (Jan 21 2010 edition) put it..
I always feel queasy about talking about sex scandals of politicians I think there are a lot of reasons why it shouldn’t affect anybody, [though] I understand there’s a lot of things about hypocrisy which upset people…The thing that will always bother me about John Edwards and hopefully this will be the last thing I say about Edwards is that he was still campaigning for the Democratic Presidential nomination and later was offering himself up as a running mate of Obama… while he was in the midst of this affair and of course had it broken in October 2008 while he was on the ticket could have blown a hole in the ship and down goes the ship.. .and while I’m not trying to making the case for the Democratic Party anybody who is so selfish that they could be involved in something like that while selling themselves as a Presidential candidate is just contemptible.
As regards the title of this post – Google it… apologies…
Batt O’Keefe on matters various including a man who has ‘great humanity in him; outstanding humanity’ February 11, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.10 comments
It’s odd about Batt O’Keefe. Many of those of us who remember the day he became Minister of Education and saw the response in the Dáil chamber, clearly unforced, from his colleagues both in Government and Opposition – a response that was entirely welcoming and went on… and on… and on for minutes, seriously, have followed his subsequent trajectory with some bemusement. For it’s almost as if, carried along on that initial tide of goodwill, our Batt has determined that his role must be to reverse it and assume the role of toughest kid in the class. Or somesuch.
The indefatigable Jason O’Toole has interviewed him for the Daily Mail (and by the way, is he our only political interviewer at the moment… to judge from the newspaper media he surely seems to be). So what is O’Keefe up to?
Well, as the article notes, first up the Green Party are unlikely to be impressed by his assertion that:
university fees are certain to be be introduced after 2012.
The minister attempted to bring in fees last year but was thwarted by the Green Party, which said the move violated the programme for government it had negotiated to remain in the Government. Now, in an apparent snub to the Greens, Mr O’Keeffe told the Irish Mail on Sunday in an exclusive interview that he ‘absolutely’ believes fees will be introduced after 2012 when the next Government is formed.
Of course, post 2012 is going to be a different era, and God bless him his optimism, if not his policy.
Speaking on the fees issue, he said: ‘I am convinced that in the future they will form part and parcel [of third-level education].
Looking at funding into the future, I’m in favour of introducing a system of fees or loans for students. ‘I had a report completed and
that report has now been transferred to the Higher Education Authority for them to examine it in detail and for them to make
recommendations in relation to funding in the future.’
So why did the minister introduce the issue last year when he knew his party had already promised not to introduce fees?
Yes, indeed. Why?
‘When I embarked on this, I was aware that it was not Government policy. Yet, in spite of that, I said I’m going to have a proper study done to see exactly where we are, what we’re doing and how we’re going to fund third level in the future.
‘When I started, there were 33,000 millionaires in 2007 and I said, “Why should we as a people be paying for their sons and
daughters to be going to college?” – it didn’t make sense.’
And yet precisely the same argument could be made about education at 2nd and primary level. More importantly the obvious riposte is that progressive taxation, by taking more from those on increasingly higher incomes, should be the mechanism whereby we can pull in sufficient funding in order to cover the social expenditure, and not just in education. If O’Keefe has some problem with ‘millionaires’ being able to send their sons and daughters, who – as an aside, are mainly over 18 and therefore should in all fairness be dealt with as individuals in their own right, it’s not as if there are no mechanisms to address this.
While I’m a little more open to loans or repayments subsequently during a career, that too seems to be merely an attempt to monetise a process which doesn’t need it. There’s little doubt, judge yourself the focus by the Sunday Times this last weekend on educational rankings where the yardstick used was entry to not just Third Level, but to ‘universities’, that those who go into further education after secondary have in general higher incomes. How to claw some of that back? Why taxation again.
What fees do is to introduce a transactional aspect, to differentiate at the basic level between those who pay them and those who don’t, to further reinforce a sense of third level as other, literally as ‘academic’ amongst those who see a greater need to enter the workforce as soon as is possible rather than playing a long game. We are told that the effect of removing them has not yet manifested itself in terms of greater take-up of places by students outside the middle classes. Hardly a surprise given that such a societal change will take time.
None of this rocket science. Other states manage, and moreover the philosophical issue, one where education – at whatever level, isn’t just seen as an issue regarding the individual but as a collective good, paid for collectively, seems a world away from O’Keefe’s thinking. In all of this there is no sense that O’Keefe has thought deeply, if at all, about what education at third level means. No sense at all that he has any concerns about the class structures that manifest and remanifest themselves through third level education. Nothing.
And if one need an explanation for why Fianna Fáíl appear so hugely detached from their traditional support base one need only check out the paean of praise he directs at his boss…
When it comes to his position as minister, Mr O’Keeffe remains convinced that he backed the right horse when he befriended
Brian Cowen on the backbenches, despite the Taoiseach’s lacklustre performance to date. ‘Cowen would be the first man
to admit to himself that in the early stages he didn’t look at his own communications strategy.
Transforming from a ministerfor finance where you kind of stay in the background, whereas as Taoiseach you’re always at the
foreground’, he loyally said of his friend.
‘He has a lot of quality. He has great firepower. He has great resilience. He can take a lot of criticism. He can soak it up. I
think something that’s not really known about him is that there’s a great humanity in him; outstanding humanity.
‘I think his mental facilities will always place him at the head of most people because he’s one of the brightest politicians that I’ve
ever come across.’
Hmmmm
…and consider the fact that…
Mr O’Keeffe is part of the Taoiseach’s so-called ‘Bar Lobby’ clique whose drinking sessions in the Dáil bar are the stuff of
legend. But are the stories just a wild exaggeration? ‘Well, you know, the old perception went out. Sure, it made
great media reading… Certainly there’s no question we’d have a pint from time to time. ‘But I think the excesses of
drinking are not a reality.
Well, I know I feel better reading that!
A short mull on NAMA, civil servants with mortgages & the Minister’s new powers February 10, 2010
Posted by Tomboktu in Uncategorized.14 comments
My mortgage comes to the end of a fixed rate period shortly, which means I am considering my options. I mentioned on CLR before that I was concerned at one aspect of the NAMA legislation: that it could lead to a forced privatisation of the remaining not-for-profit financial institutions in the State (EBS and INBS). However, my musings this evening concern a wider range of Irish financial institutions — any of them that provide mortgages and that the NAMA legislation applies to.
That thought this evening is whether a particular scenario could, legally, arise, a sort of legal or administrative pincer move with the Minister for Finance being the pivot. Let me explain how that scenario might arise.
Arm 1 of the pincer:
When the NAMA process is completed, the Minister for Finances may insist on having a “golden” share in any financial institution that comes into the NAMA scheme, where his vote overrides those of all members or shareholders. legally, could the Minister use this power to instruct
Arm 2 of the pincer:
Civil servants are engaged in (so far) low-key industrial action over the cuts in their pay. Many of them, we can expect, have mortgages with NAMA-covered institutions. That industrial action may escalate to a strike.
The pincer question:
If the civil service dispute were to become a strike, could the Minister legally use his golden shares in the institutions to require them to show no leniency towards the striking civil servants in mortgage repayments — for example, to issue no “payment windows”, and vigorously to pursue anybody who missed even part of a full monthly payment because they were on strike? Could he, in other words, use his powers to break a strike by civil servants?
The meaning[s] of George Lee… February 10, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics.4 comments
Some are saying that the George Lee issue was personality, but I think – as I noted yesterday, that that is wrong. That in fact George Lee symbolises a very specific point that we as a polity have arrived at in terms of the de-ideological times we now live in. Granted Lee brought a certain something extra to the party in terms of his manner and quite ferocious self-belief – well, that too is part of the times we live in. By the by, I’m entertained to see how the former champion of the hard working middle classes is now regarded as filled with a ‘public sector’ entitlement by those such as Sarah Carey (who makes some awful points and then some good points but from a position of such party political partisanship that one wonders if she’s burning bridges as she goes). I wonder, seriously, would such a vacuous phrase have had public currency even twelve months ago. Then there is a remarkable piece by Stephen Collins which notes the wisdom, courage and tenacity of Enda Kenny and his response to this ‘crisis’. Particularly entertaining is the following…
Kenny’s decisive response to Lee’s resignation was a sharp contrast to the way he handled those media interviews. He immediately grasped the politics of the situation and never for a moment considered showing the white feather in the face of adversity.
That impressed all of his frontbench colleagues, including some who have expressed private doubts about his capacity to lead them into government at the next election. The main reason no challenge emerged was that Kenny didn’t waver for a moment. That in itself is a crucial attribute of leadership and an important component of a taoiseach’s character.
Well, one could reasonably ask, what the hell choice did he have? And is Collins seriously suggesting that a committed, if not entirely charismatic, front-line politician of Kenny’s years (and er… what Sarah Carey of his ‘public sector entitlement’ – or dependency?) couldn’t hold it together in the face of Lee’s often absurd behaviour over the past few days. And if Collins isn’t suggesting that he could then what’s all this stuff about ‘crucial attributes’ and ‘important component of taoiseach’s character’? Feck it, I think I’d manage okay under the same set of circumstances.
But for my money the best analysis is provided by Vincent Brown…
In the eight months he was in the Dáil he [George Lee] could have produced a policy document of his own and invited the Fine Gael parliamentary party to discuss it, just as Declan Costello did almost 50 years ago with his Just Society document. But George didn’t. He could have used his celebrity public meetings to enunciate his own views on public policy and he need not have been constrained by being the nominated chairman. But he didn’t.
Declan Costello had a great deal to say; regrettably George had nothing to say.And in a way George’s dilemma is shared by many in the Dáil but for the most part the others don’t mind at all because an unspoken consensus on politics says it for them and they don’t feel the need to be trailblazers on something or other. And that unspoken consensus goes something like this:
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with our politics. Sure there have been regulatory failures and excesses in public policy, but that was a temporary aberration, albeit one that has cost us dearly.
We can get out of this mess if we don’t get blocked by ideological hang-ups and if we take the tough decisions. Yes, the less well off may suffer most but, to be frank, they are used to suffering and eventually it is in their interests that we get back on track. We can’t dampen the spirit of enterprise, that’s essential. Let’s have the steel to do it. Of course there are disagreements on the edges of this strategy but it’s only on the edges. Anyway, there is no realistic alternative, short of communism, and we know what that led to. So brace yourself, Bridget.
Brown has it absolutely correct. This is a deeply ideological issue precisely because it presents itself as not being. And it’s remarkable how he defines the great dislocation at the heart of the economic consensus. Of course it isn’t that communism is the only alternative option. Social democratic and democratic socialist economics, and indeed fairly mainstream centrist economic approaches offer clear and coherent alternatives. But by positioning this in a TINA discourse where only the prevailing orthodoxy has any currency such alternatives are ignored entirely. Although in fairness given that very few have sought to articulate these alternatives clearly one could posit that much of the consolidation of the prevailing orthodoxy has been by default. In part that is because we are as ever an essentially centre right state with a social and political infrastructure which while eschewing the further reaches of racism or right radicalism remains located within conservatism.
And the evidence? Look at the partial and grudging nature of our social provision and welfare state, laced through with private elements as in health (and in a very specific way education), tilting sharply towards means testing rather than universal provision, profoundly limited in scope… The remarkable thing is not that we have so little provision, but that in a way we have any at all given the disposition of political and societal forces, and bleak as this may seem, consider too that much of the provision that exists was a result initially of a Catholic corporatist approach through Fianna Fáil. Small wonder that the left and progressives continue to fight an uphill battle when the very language is distorted so that what is clearly recognised as right of centre in other states is regarded as just good pragmatic politics here.
We don’t do ideology? We sure do. Again and again and again. Just some like to pretend it’s not ideology.
Meanwhile back at the Seanad… Week 3 2010. February 10, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, Uncategorized.1 comment so far
I’ve got to admit. This is great value. A whole bunch of people, plucked from obscurity and repositioned within er… a slightly less obscure obscurity (bar one or two exceptions – they know who they are, and no, the tribal sage isn’t amongst them) who provide a few days conversation, discourse, narrative, upon what concerns us as a society. Or not. It’s hard to tell.
So maybe it’s not such great value.
Or… ah, let them do their job… roll it…
First to the public sector work to rule… Some Senators are effected… and they’re not happy…
Senator Terry Leyden: I agree with Senators Fitzgerald, Boyle and McFadden on the issue of an inspectorate. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, to bring it about immediately. I am quite surprised that, of all the inspectorates, this is the most urgent because people who are disadvantaged at such a level would not have the opportunity to speak out. Elderly people would speak out, but other people are very vulnerable. There were 500 complaints. There is
no cost involved. An inspectorate is absolutely vital and I ask the Leader to urge the Minister of State to come before the House and explain the situation.
We in the Oireachtas are one of the first victims of the industrial action taken by the unions, as passport applications submitted via the fast scheme we have in the Oireachtas have been returned. We have a special arrangement for people with urgent applications. I am aware of a case where a person needs a passport on Friday morning but the application, which I submitted yesterday, has just been returned. I appeal to staff and unions to get real on this issue. We are
all in this together. Everybody is taking cutbacks and this type of go-slow, industrial action or non co-operation is not helpful. I wish to warn my colleagues that the system is defunct until the matter is resolved. It is a disadvantage to our constituents who relied on the system to get
a passport very quickly to ensure they could travel and make travel arrangements, in particular those who lost their passports, whose passports were stolen or who needed to make urgent visits abroad for family reasons. I want to confirm that a passport application which I left in yesterday at noon was returned today and I was told the people concerned have to go through the normal procedures.
I ask the Leader to arrange for an urgent debate on the opening of shops all over the country from which people are now buying drugs legally. Senator Wilson and other Senators have raised this issue. One such shop is opening in Castle Street in Roscommon. They are corrupting young people. The shop to which I refer is called High Times.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: It will be debated tomorrow.
(Interruptions).
Senator Terry Leyden: High Times will be low times for many young people. I commend the people of Roscommon who are marching day and night——
An Cathaoirleach: Thank you. Senator, please resume your seat.
Senator Terry Leyden: ——-in protest on Castle Street in Roscommon.
An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Bradford. Senator Leyden, resume your seat. You have gone way over time. You have made the point.
people throughout the country to march to stop these shops.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Leyden, do you want to be marched out of the House? Resume your seat or you will be outside the door.
Senator Paul Bradford: The previous speaker may have been the first visitor to the head shop in Roscommon.
Senator Terry Leyden: I wish to categorically deny that allegation by Senator Bradford. I was never in a head shop in my life.
And who can doubt him?
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Leyden, resume your seat.
Sound advice.
Meanwhile the Peace Process continued to exercise people…
Senator John Hanafin: I ask the Leader for a debate on the situation in the North, particularly on the issue of devolution. The hardliners in the DUP are holding up an agreement. The reality is that if they had prevailed on a previous occasion, there would have been no devolution.
That devolution resulted in a fresh start being made by the communities in the North and also by Ireland and the United Kingdom. Even though it is called powersharing, we are all aware that in reality it is a division of power. However, it is infinitely better than the situation that prevailed beforehand. On this occasion too we can only hope the people who are right-minded and right-thinking will refuse to listen to the hardliners who will bring them back
to a situation they had not envisaged, where, as outlined by the British Government, we in the Oireachtas will have a greater say in what happens in the North of Ireland if devolution does not continue in its current form.
Not too much, though.
Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I request that the Leader set time aside for a debate on Lá Féile Bríde, which occurred yesterday. Lá Féile Bríde is extremely important from a Green Party point of view, being both an environmental and Earth day. In addition, it is a woman’s day. I
compliment Fine Gael because today its Front Bench is entirely comprised of ladies.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: St. Brigid’s Day was celebrated yesterday.
Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: It is fantastic to see Fine Gael promoting its female Members in honour of St. Brigid’s Day.
Senator Terry Leyden: There are some St. Brigids over there all right.
An Cathaoirleach: There should be no interruptions, interventions or comments.
(Interruptions).
Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: In the past various women’s groups have asked me about the possibility of making St. Brigid’s Day, 1 February, a public holiday. It would be good to debate that matter. There are nine public holidays in Ireland, while in France there are 11, in Italy there are 12, in Austria there are 13 and in Spain and Portugal there are 14. I am of the view, therefore, that there would be great merit in considering this proposal.
Yesterday was extremely important for the Green Party. It was the day on which we overtook Fine Gael——
Huh?
An Cathaoirleach: We are taking questions to the Leader. The Order of Business is not to be used for the promotion of any party.
Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: ——in the context of the number of days spent in government during the past 23 years. We now lead Fine Gael by 964 days in government to 963.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Look at the damage the Senator’s party has done.
Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: That is a good point to make.
Senator Nicky McFadden: The Senator’s contribution began well but has gone downhill.
Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: My proposal that Lá Féile Bríde be celebrated as a public holiday — in honour of women, the Earth and the environment — is worthy of consideration.
Senator Nicky McFadden: The Senator began well.
Senator John Paul Phelan: The Green Party will have to serve in government for a long
period before there will be a Green Party national holiday on 1 February.
There’s actually some good airing of the issues around nursing home care….although…
Senator Rónán Mullen: I support what has been said by various speakers, particularly the remarks of Senator Bradford. I, too, seek a debate on how we are treating the most vulnerable members of our society, particularly older persons in nursing home care. As Senator Bradford correctly pointed out, this concept of a one-size-fits-all solution to the needs of older persons in our society is to be deplored. According to today’s The Irish Times, 10% of older people in
nursing home care are there for social reasons while 30% of long-stay residents have low to medium dependency. It really should stop the traffic that there is no independent scrutiny of residential facilities for older and younger persons with disabilities. It should also stop the traffic that where complaints are made, there is no transparency in how they are handled. We read of cases where investigations took place but we do not know the outcomes of those investigations. We even hear of people, against whom complaints were made, being allegedly moved to another part of the service. Where have we heard that previously?
Senator David Norris: The church.
Senator Rónán Mullen: It is appalling that this could be the reality. Senator Norris has suggested that it is somebody’s church, but it is much wider than that. We should not play politics with this issue.
Senator David Norris: That is where we heard it previously.
Senator Rónán Mullen: We should not play politics with this issue but focus absolutely, unconditionally and consistently on all vulnerable people in our society.
I also support Senator Bacik’s remarks about——
Senator David Norris: I presume the Senator supports the rights of children in gay marriages then.
Senator Rónán Mullen: ——unaccompanied minors disappearing. It is not an argument for the HSE to say there is no evidence that they have been trafficked. It is appalling that they are going missing in the first place. Any other comment is superfluous. Can we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on how we are treating the most vulnerable members of our society, in particular older persons and people with disabilities in residential care?
And here’s something… The sage is having a good day… All is light and sweetness in his world…
Senator Eoghan Harris: It is in the nature of parliaments to foster the critical spirit at the expense of the creative spirit. We do need the critical spirit and, in this regard, some very good comments have been made today. One thing the Seanad does very well is look after minorities. The disabled and elderly have been talked about today. People with mortgage difficulties, who comprise a minority, have been talked about today, which is good. The Seanad should focus
most on looking after minorities in our democracy who tend to be steam-rolled over as the Government and Opposition in the other House look after the great constituencies.
With regard to the creative spirit, it is a pity that Senator Ó Brolcháin’s very fine suggestion about St. Brigid’s Day was not taken more seriously. We are not a gloomy and doomy people; we need our spirits raised and like the light touch. St. Brigid’s Day, which was yesterday, is one of the great days of the year and it is the beginning of the real Irish calendar, the old Gaelic calendar. This is the first day of spring. “Anois teacht an Earraigh, beidh an lá ag dul chun síneadh,” the days are stretching out, and when I am back again among my own people, as Raftery said, “D’imeodh an aois díom, is bheinn arís óg,” I will be young again. While we
may not be young again, it is a good day and we should think seriously about making it national women’s day.
I congratulate Senator Bacik on the news that we will have a women’s debate. I hope she is correct that we will get such a debate in the House. One must foster the creative side of human beings as well as the negative and critical side.
Someone raises a good point…
Senator David Norris: On the economic area, I am a prophet crying in the wilderness. Why did the people meeting in Davos not take up the situation of Standard & Poor’s and Fitch, which dishonestly rated products, were involved in this whole bundling system, helped to walk us into this position and at whose beck and call we are still because they continue to rate people? The Davos world economic forum should have taken the opportunity to get rid of
Standard & Poor’s and Fitch and set up an internationally established independent ratings system, but they did not have the courage to take them on.
….
And then this…
Senator Donie Cassidy: Senators Fitzgerald, Coghlan, Quinn and Norris congratulated the Jekyll and Hyde foundation for the wonderful work it is doing. Senator Fitzgerald outlined the huge difference between the cost of the services being provided by the foundation and those provided by the HSE. It is something we must examine——
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: It is the Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: Jekyll and Hyde is something different.
Senator Donie Cassidy: My apologies. It is the Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation. This is an area where, again, the Minister has an opportunity to address something substantially, which could be of huge benefit both to the young people who receive the services and also to the Exchequer. I support the Senators and will convey their views to the Minister after the Order of Business.
I accept the point made by Senator O’Toole about commencement dates in Bills. This is something we must examine, and I will convey the Senator’s view to the Minister.
Senators Fitzgerald, Bacik, Coghlan, Healy Eames, Callely, Buttimer, Donohoe and Hannigan expressed their concern about the new figures that have been published for unemployment and tax revenues. As Senator Hanafin pointed out, given the weather in the first two weeks in January it is understandable that VAT income is down substantially. Everybody experienced difficulty at that time, particularly people in the retail sector. With regard to the unemployment figures, employment always lags behind growth in the economy. As we know from experience over the years, the economy will pick up and will be in growth for some time
before the unemployment figure starts to reduce.
Various views have been expressed, particularly by Senator Ross, about the tables which illustrate the change and reductions in net pay since 2008. I have a table before me which indicates that the pay of clerical officers at the lowest rate was reduced by 7.3%, the pay of assistant principals was reduced by 16.8%, that of principal officers by 19.3%, that of assistant general secretaries by 24.9%, that of Department general secretaries by 27% and that of Secretaries General by 33.9%.
Senator Shane Ross: There is no mention of bonuses.
Senator Donie Cassidy: There is no reference to bonuses——
An Cathaoirleach: The Leader is replying on the Order of Business and there must be no interruption.
Senator Donie Cassidy: ——and I wish to take issue with Senator Ross. It is pay in one’s pocket. That is very simple arithmetic, and Senator Ross should not try to confuse it.
Senator Shane Ross: The bonuses are not included.
Senator Donie Cassidy: We all know where the Senator is coming from, and I will explain why.
Senator Shane Ross: Enniskerry.
Senator Donie Cassidy: When I allocated time for a debate two weeks ago and had the Tánaiste in the House to participate, the debate collapsed. I see where the issue is at heart for some Senators. I thank the Senators who called for that debate on the Order of Business and who were genuine and sincere in making their points in the presence of the Tánaiste last Thursday week.
Senator Shane Ross: Jekyll and Hyde.
Senator Donie Cassidy: Consistency must be the order of the day on the Order of Business.
Senator Donie Cassidy: Senator Leyden referred to the union-sanctioned embargo affecting passport applications. I will speak to the Minister about this. We all agree fully that if people are in urgent need of a passport, they should be facilitated. No matter what dispute takes place, one should be allowed to return to work in the country in which one is fortunate enough to have a job. Those whose passports are out of date are certainly in a position of hardship and
should be given special consideration.
Senators Coghlan, Boyle and Alex White called for a debate on waste and waste management. This debate is very timely and I have no difficulty in allowing time for it to take place. I take on board Senator Keaveney’s views. I wish well our new Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, who is to begin her five-year term this week. She is a competent, capable person and has certainly proved herself down through the years. She will serve Ireland and the
Commission well in her new role. Senators Ross, Boyle, Regan and Mullen called for the Taoiseach to come to the House to discuss civil servants’ pay. I have outlined the difficulties being experienced in this regard. I wonder at times whether Fine Gael and the Labour Party have parliamentary party meetings
at all because the only such meetings ever discussed in the House are the Fianna Fáil ones. Some colleagues on the far side of the House had a family tradition of being on this side of the House but, because there was no room in the inn, they are on the far side of the House. That is understandable but, really and truly, everyone must be factual in their comments.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: The Leader is losing the plot.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: We are talking factually.
Senator Alex White: That is pathetic.
Senator Donie Cassidy: It is understandable and I take it into account when some colleagues get a little bit hot under the collar when asking certain questions.
Senator Shane Ross: More Jekyll and Hyde.
Senator Donie Cassidy: There are one or two Senators who have a track record in this regard and it is very obvious.
Senator Maurice Cummins: In the Leader’s parliamentary party.
And Dr. Jekyll is never far from Mr. Hyde… for the very next day…
Senator Paul Coghlan: Given that previous speakers began their contributions on a lighter note, I wish to inquire if Dr. Jekyll took his potion last night. If he did do so, how did he manage the actions of Mr. Hyde thereafter?
Senator Donie Cassidy: That is a Kerryman’s joke, I suppose.
And who can say, in truth, exactly what that last means?
Okay… this is strangely good… February 9, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.4 comments
Completely off the political…
An unlikely cover for the Cure…
The departure of our greatest living economist/economic expert/economic correspondent on television news… February 9, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.77 comments
Okay, so Fine Gael were pushed to the precipice, Enda Kenny (who I saw walking by very recently just before all this broke and I must admit struck me as a man carrying the weight of the troubles of the world, or the peculiar math of the Fine Gael front bench. And to paraphrase the old Frank Cluskey gag – which option would be the tougher one?) a millimeter or two ahead of the rest of the pack. One look down though and I suspect they realised that if he went chances are they’d all be following close behind, because while the public may (and God knows I’ve never heard a telephone poll with 16,000 responses in ten minutes paraded as the truth dragged down from the mountain like it was on Joe Duffy and later Pat Kenny on Frontline – like, Pat, y’think that’s rigorous enough?) be ululating today and tomorrow over the departure of our greatest living economist/economic expert/economic correspondent on television news one is probably correct to assume that adding to the sense of panic that briefly engendered may not be the wisest course of action for our supposedly most sober and polite of political parties. And maybe, at root, they recognised one salient fact. It wasn’t just Kenny, or indeed Bruton, but them all who were given the lash.
So, Kenny lives to fight another day. And perhaps despite the current gloom some of that weight has been lifted from his shoulders. Particularly if the Lee love-in with the public turns sour. Now it may be pure coincidence, but the letters page of the IT was filled with rather more critical contributions. Which makes it strangely entertaining reading the articles on George Lee in the same edition of the paper and seeing how they pick gingerly between the various facts of the matter.
And let me also say that in the past twenty four hours having spoken to various people and pols from FF, FG, Labour and points of the political compass beyond those the amount of sympathy for “our greatest living…” is minimal to none.
And, there’s little doubt that the facts are problematic and will, perhaps grow increasingly so for the reputation of “our greatest living etc…” Let’s recount those facts.
Firstly Lee was a wet weekend in the job. Secondly that he had unreasonable expectations. Thirdly that yes, he had an excellent vote share, but that, given the constituency he ran in that was close to a no-brainer – and sure, he got more than the combined votes of the other candidates, but… so what? Is Dublin South somehow the lynchpin of our democracy, the votes there in some way energised to a greater extent than any other? Fourth that his economic expertise has been wildly overhyped.
But of course they can’t quite come out and say any of that because to do so would kill the story dead – man finds he doesn’t like politics and in no-lose situation returns to old employer – and remove a handy stick with which to chastise Fine Gael in the first instance and Irish political life in the second. In these depoliticised and populist times that would never do.
Still, credit where credit is due, the Irish Times editorial actually isn’t too much of an ‘on the one hand, on the other’ balancing act. Indeed Lee reading that today might well have cause to wonder at the wisdom of his actions… he is indeed described as ‘a major political acquisition’...but… ‘Mr Lee had unreasonable expectations’…’Mr Lee was naive if he believed that he could be offered the portfolio of Richard Bruton’ [and one suspects that RB has a symbolic cachet around the IT - wbs]…’The resignation of Mr Lee, a political prima donna’…’Mr Lee can be comforted in the knowledge that he made a financially risk-free decision’…’He can hardly write independently about economic matters for a while’... indeed, is this last the Irish Times calling for a period of exile? “But, Charlie Bird is returning from Washington and the time may be opportune for Mr Lee to serve abroad”.
There are balancing issues, most importantly one of which Fintan O’Toole amongst others picked up. For many many people Lee’s perfectly honed reputation as an honest and impartial purveyor of the economic truth above and beyond the shabby deceits of politics (all politics let’s be clear, both left and right) gave him a profile out of all proportion probably to any one else that they would know and hear of, or more particularly, see. His Cassandra like pronouncements were taken as the final word on the matter. And in this televisual age, for many they were.
That, in a sense, is Lee’s trump card. But how effective it is remains to be seen.
And that effectivity is in many ways impacted by the, at times, quite extraordinary nature of Lee as a personality. Even Elaine Byrne in the Irish Times in a broadly sympathetic piece which tries to stitch together a fairly unconvincing narrative about ‘conservative political way of doing things’ (can she offer us examples of rags to riches rises in other polities? Perhaps but she doesn’t bother to) notes that:
The failure of Kenny and his advisers to adequately accommodate Lee’s sense of self-importance will no doubt saturate newspaper pages obsessed with personality politics in the coming days.
A ‘sense of self-importance’. Consider that. What came over to me on Frontline last night loud and strong was a sense that he believed that this was his opportunity to shine and that in two or three years that would be gone as the situation stabilised. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Except one has the feeling that in his head that particular configuration was reversed. Such a self-belief borders on the risible.
And worse, and this I’d be cautious about presenting, but it seems to me that it does have some utility, a sense of entitlement that is really very very middle class indeed. It wasn’t that he would be a shrinking violet, or hide beneath a facade of modesty. No indeed. He knew that he was the man, again as expressed on Frontline, who was absolutely vital to correcting the course of the ship of state (to which Ivan Yeats made a delayed, but still perfectly cogent, point that that being the case why not join Fianna Fáil?). There was nothing more to it. Fine Gael, already with a significant economic heavyweight in situ (one who had actually served in Cabinet as Minister of Enterprise and Employment) had to stand back and accept this.
This near messianic belief – as Brian Lenihan almost put it (and let’s be clear, it’s a grim day in Irish politics when Lenihan and Yeats are both right – but as we shall see it gets grimmer), is so odd in and of itself to those of us who have toiled with policy programmes and party platforms as to be near incomprehensible. And it truly is a naive view of politics that believes this is something that is amenable to rapid change. This is a society, economy and polity we are talking about. The equivalent of a supertanker, taking kilometers to stop, let alone change direction. And that’s assuming that there were any particularly striking alternatives to be posited by Lee.
Because truth is, whether as some mutterings I hear suggest that Bruton may have been the real problem, Lee was remarkably economic in actually presenting any of these much vaunted ideas. Or as Michael Taft points out, either FG had adopted his original ones, or the government had implemented them.
So we must take his word for it that he was the right man in the right place with the right ideas shoddily wronged by a party that just didn’t ‘get’ him… and that he was the man, just because… Now, I don’t often have a kind word for FG as an entity, albeit I have considerable respect for some within it, but in this instance more sinned against than sinning seems the most reasonable analysis (and let me add that Leo Varadkar was the only one to notice that Lee’s staff will now be… er… unemployed).
And a further irony is that Lee, for all the protestations of thwarted excellence, and cries of outrage from his fans, reminds one not so much of a white hot technocrat as a much more traditional stereotype from our political heritage. From that cue the outrage of the polite and the indifferent and the apolitical and the populist. Always seeking non-revolutionary revolutions, shortcuts and rapid solutions. And if nine months was too long for him, well, it’s too long for them, for those who genuinely thought ‘he was going to change our country’ as one constituent put it.
It’s not what he did really, so much as what he is meant to symbolise, for the truth is that in the nine months he was there he did very little indeed. And while that may in part be the fault of Enda Kenny and Fine Gael, there’s little doubt that he must take a major share of the blame as one of but 166 individuals in this state with the most privileged of platforms.
For a similar view on this with the finest possible title… and this isn’t bad either… particularly on the dynamic which led to FG misunderstanding who and what Lee represented.
