Meanwhile back at the Seanad… March 25, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in back at the Seanad.trackback
What’s not to like? The Seanad is in its last sitting or two. We have Senator Terry Leyden demonstrating its efficacy as a national chamber for deliberation by discussing…er… clamping in Galway. Dan Boyle is convinced believer in TINA. David Norris states that he does not believe that Pearse and the others in 1916 were terrorists, nothing becomes Ivor Callely’s political life like his departure from the Seanad, and Eoghan Harris delivers his last contribution.
First up, though, let’s glance at the Irish Times which reports that a referendum on children’s rights and the abolition of the Seanad may be held on the same day as the Presidential Election. But… for there is a but…
The Taoiseach said, however, that preparation of legislation to remove articles from the Constitution linked to the abolition of the Seanad was “not as simple as it sounds” but he had asked his department “to start work on this immediately and we will report progress”.
To which Micheál Martin had the not unreasonable response that:
“the only ones who made it sound simple were people in Fine Gael”.
I’ve talked to a number of people, including some in a party which off the radar investigated the feasibility of the abolition of the Seanad. Their sense from that research was that to disentangle the Seanad from legislation wasn’t just a matter of ‘not [being] as simple as it sounds’, but was a legislative nightmare given that the legislative functions of the Seanad (and its impact upon legislation) was pervasive.
Pity that no-one thought about that before hand. And even if a referendum is put to the people and passed it might take two government terms to securely jettison the Seanad.
So anyone thinking that on foot of a ‘Yes’ result later this year or next the Seanad is going to shut up shop anytime soon may be sorely disappointed.
Anyhow, they were back for a day, perhaps their last day before the forthcoming elections to discuss the Programme for Government. And it was all positivity for the most part with a great big welcome for Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Alan Shatter and the new era, or NewERA, that we now are within.
Until that is we read the following:
Senator Terry Leyden: 
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Shatter, to the House and I wish him every success. I know of his excellent work in bringing forward Private Members’ legislation. He is ideally placed and qualified to be the Minister for Justice and Law Reform. I wish the Taoiseach well in representing Ireland in the negotiations tomorrow. He will have the green jersey on and we must back him 100%. It is in the national interest that we do so. As far as the programme for Government is concerned, we will analyse it as we go along but a certain amount has already been adopted by the Houses.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are dealing with a specific motion——
Senator Terry Leyden: I signed the motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: ——on the programme for Government.
Senator Terry Leyden: I am asking the Government to include a very good piece of legislation put forward by Deputy Simon Coveney who is now a Minister. He brought forward a Private Members’ Bill in 2010 to outlaw these gangsters who were collecting money and clamping private cars in private car parks. I may have been affected in Galway last week. I came across other victims in areas which were not properly marked. The company is called APCOA and it should be investigated by the Revenue Commissioners——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Leyden has no right to name people.
Senator Terry Leyden: I will use my last few minutes in this House to name and shame this company——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator must not abuse his privilege; he must stick to the motion before the House.
Senator Terry Leyden: ——Neil Cunningham and Arne Molden from Norway and the company secretary Emma Hinchey. These people should be investigated by the Revenue Commissioners.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator well knows that they are not here to defend themselves and that he has no right to abuse his privilege.
Senator Terry Leyden: I met a young man in Galway whose car had been clamped. He had run out of petrol on Main Street, pushed his car into a little car park and was clamped——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: What has this to do with the programme for Government?
Senator Terry Leyden: I am very angry about it and want the matter investigated.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator may well be, but it has nothing to do with the programme for Government. There are ways and avenues of raising such matters in the House. The Senator cannot use his privilege in this way.
Senator Terry Leyden: If I am re-elected to this House I intend to reintroduce and reactive this Private Members’ Bill and will ask the Minister to support me in this regard. I want to use this House to expose what amounts to gangsterism. I am delighted I have got the matter off my chest.
And so, no doubt, is his electorate… or perhaps not.
A while later Dan Boyle spoke. What was fascinating was how he was still wedded to the TINA approach…
Senator Dan Boyle: The mandate so emphatically won by the Government must be acknowledged as the 23rd Seanad comes to the end of its life and a new Seanad will soon take its place. That the people have spoken so emphatically on the need to change horses is the political reality that cannot be denied. It is a matter for debate whether they have chosen to change course. While many decisions have been made in the past few years which have been uncomfortable and unpopular, it is not clear, even from this programme for Government, to what extent any of these decisions can be changed, given the underlying and prevailing circumstances in the economy.
If that sinks in eventually, perhaps we can have more open politics.
I’ve always quite liked DB, I know, I know – that’s an unpopular position, but my God, what a conservative politician he has proven to be. Check this out:
It is disappointing that the programme for Government does not go to the heart of the issue on public service reform. Many Members have views on the cost of the public service, the impact of these costs and the efficiencies or otherwise in the delivery of public services. Real reform of the public service needs to go deeper. While we have very many committed and able public servants, there is at the heart of the culture of the Civil Service a kind of sclerosis that prevents real decisions being made in real time to the detriment of whoever is in government at a given time. If the programme for Government is to be grounded in reality, it should tackle that reform in the most immediate sense.
Is there any evidence at all for this ‘sclerosis’? And how expedient to point the finger away from those who are – ahem – elected to govern.
Mind you he’s not far wrong when he notes:
Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about the contribution of this and previous Seanaid to the political life of the country when there is a debate and referendum on the future of this House, I hope it is not what the Minister says it is really about, a symbolic act. If the Government’s policy on not having a second House of Parliament is about a symbolic act to appease a general feeling among the public, that is a shameful statement on which to start such a referendum.
But of course the problem is that he is a weird hangover, as is the entire current Seanad, of the ancien regime. Still walking, but effectively extinct and about to be finally put out of our misery.
Meanwhile, what of this?
Senator David Norris: I congratulate the Government on its very remarkable victory. It is an endorsement that it has produced a most interesting programme for Government. I congratulate the Minister on his success in his election which I watched with great interest. I took considerable pleasure, entertainment and delight in certain aspects of his very feisty campaign. I am very glad that proper vote management resulted in the election of Deputy Mathews. I am sure the Minister will agree that he is a most remarkable man who has advised me and others in this House on the economic situation. He has been a beacon of intelligence and I am delighted he is part of the victorious Government.
No, no, not that… this…
This Government will probably be in situ for the anniversary of 1916. I hope I will be here as well, either in this House or in a more elevated position. I say that because I know some people have said the men and women of 1916 were terrorists. I would like to have the opportunity in 2016, in whatever position, to scotch that and say they were not terrorists. They were people of prophetic vision and extraordinary chivalry. I know what a terrorist is, it is somebody who uses civilian casualties and delights in gore to advance his or her political agenda.
When Pádraig Pearse saw there was an increase in civilian casualties he cancelled the Rising. Everyone can support the ringing words of the Proclamation to cherish all the children of the nation equally. One of the ushers in the House pointed out to me that in 1916 women did not even have the vote, yet the men and women of 1916 addressed the Proclamation with full equality to Irishmen and Irishwomen. I hope I will be here in some official form in 2016.
And here comes the ‘balance’…
It was wonderful to hear the Minister speak about the visit of President Obama. Well done to President McAleese who was blown out of her house in the Ardoyne and who reached out to the Orange people and invited Queen Elizabeth to come here. If she can do that who can dare to naysay her. Roddy Doyle has a wonderful imagination and took the idea of a man with his two children telling them he was under a black dog of depression and that they were to shout, “Brilliant”. That is what we need.
And so…
I will end on a contentious note. As one who was instrumental, as I am sure the Minister knows, in establishing the first Israeli ambassador here, I welcome what his colleague said, namely, that he hopes during the period of this Government to be able to recognise an independent Palestinian state and perhaps have an embassy for it here in order that the representatives of the Palestinian and Israeli people can meet as equals in diplomatic service in this country which has resolved similar problems.
It’s important not to forget one member of the Seanad who has become dear to all our hearts… step forward…
Senator Ivor Callely: I join with others in congratulating Senator Maurice Cummins on his appointment as Leader. Like my colleague Senator Hanafin, I wish him well. We know the road ahead will be a challenging one for those in government. We wish him well on, as Senator Hanafin put it, the easy and the tough decisions. As Senator Ellis mentioned, we are all at one, rightly, in our desire to move forward and address the difficult decisions.
An Cathaoirleach: My hands are tied for time.
Senator Ivor Callely: I am simply seeking an opportunity to obtain fairness. I owe it to the House and to the people of Ireland to make a factual statement about the adverse issues on which I have been ridiculed since I had the opportunity of making my last statement here on 2 June. There have been a litany of issues and I am simply asking for a few minutes.
Senator Ivor Callely: I will conclude by saying that there are others in the House who are finishing their terms and would, I am sure, welcome the opportunity of having a few minutes. Senator Cummins might be able to afford an hour at the end of today for me and others to make comments. Also, I ask Senator Cummins—–
An Cathaoirleach: Senator, your time is up.
Senator Ivor Callely: —–to see if we can have a full week’s business next week.
An Cathaoirleach: I would like to be clear. I consider—–
Senator Ivor Callely: I was hoping to speak on the programme for Government—–
An Cathaoirleach: Senator, please respect the Chair.
Senator Ivor Callely: —–yesterday but I did not have the opportunity. I look forward to a full week’s business.
An Cathaoirleach: I considered the draft statement the Senator submitted last night to my office, but I do not consider this matter to be one contemplated by Standing Order 32A. Accordingly, I have notified the Senator that I will not be calling on him to make a personal explanation to the House today. I allowed the Senator to make a personal statement on 2 June 2010 and I am aware of nothing on the record of the House since then that would warrant the making of another statement on that matter. I call Senator O’Brien.
Senator Joe O’Toole: On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh, I would like to put on the record the fact that the House gave every opportunity to Senator Callely to have a discussion, and adjourned twice one night for that purpose, but he refused to do so. It is not as if he did not have the opportunity.
An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.
Senator Joe O’Toole: In addition, at the last meeting of the committee he was given an equal chance, which he refused.
An Cathaoirleach: I am not going down that road. I call Senator O’Brien.
Senator Ivor Callely: I am seeking, so I take it that Senator O’Toole will therefore agree. Senator O’Toole is denying me the right to put on the record—–
Senator Joe O’Toole: The Senator refused the right—–
Senator Ivor Callely: The Senator is denying me the right to free speech.
An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Callely to resume his seat.
Senator Ivor Callely: Senator O’Toole has now said he is denying me the right to free speech. He is a disgrace.
An Cathaoirleach (Senator An Cathaoirleach): Senator O’Toole is thundering disgrace. He is a sham.
An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to resume his seat.
Senator Ivor Callely: He is a sham. He is a lynch mob. He is part of a lynch mob.
An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator O’Brien. I ask Senator Callely to please respect the Chair, and the House.
Senator Joe O’Toole: We waited two hours for him here, and he did not have the manners to ring back and say he was not coming in.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator O’Brien on the Order of Business, please.
Senator Ivor Callely: You are a sham, do you know that O’Toole?
Ah, the fresh winds of rigorous political debate. Will the next Seanad offer anything of this…er… er… quality… we wait and see.
Finally let’s end, appropriately or not, with yet another example of the ancien regime, showing a softer approach on crime and punishment…
Senator Eoghan Harris: I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. In one respect at least, I strongly welcome his proposal to cut down on custodial sentences. I have long believed that a distinction should be made between crimes against property and crimes against the person. I see no reason crimes against property should be punished by jail sentences, except perhaps in the cases of bankers who cause a whole nation to go into economic meltdown. Otherwise there would want to be very strong arguments for imposing custodial sentences.
Before ending on his usual note…
The only value in having a strong and stable government is that it would be able to tackle to the real Becher’s Brook which is avoided by every government in this country, namely, reform of the public sector, particularly the difficult part of that reform, that is, freezing wages and pensions in the public sector until the private sector catches up with it and passes it out. Government must face the fact that €20 billion must be found every year, the bulk of which goes out in public sector pay and pensions and in social welfare. I may be a former socialist but I am not one for hitting the social welfare class but I am one for hitting the public sector. I do not want it done in any kind of catch-as-catch-can shotgun way. It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system where public servants who are giving value for money are rewarded rather than those who are not. I am afraid there are many thousands of time wasters and time servers in the public sector. I could give chapter and verse about the scandals in the public sector, which are innumerable. We heard about another one in recent days – the privilege days – in which this incredible arbitration was delivered that stated one could not take the days back because it might cause a sense of grievance. The whole point of having this huge Labour Party majority is to impose a sense of grievance on the public sector. I want all of them to be grieving, all of the time servers and time wasters, who come in at 10 a.m., go on a tea break, take another in the afternoon and close up at 4 p.m. We have all been through this with the public sector.
On the general theme of political parties, do not hit me with the nurses, firemen, doctors and gardaí. Gardaí and nurses are well paid by European standards. They do not deserve pity. As I said, those who do are in the private sector, those who get into lorries and cars to commute, who bring their children to the crèche every morning, who are paid one third less than those who work in the public sector who are in pensionable and permanent employment. I repeat that it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a system whereby those doing a day’s work will be rewarded. There should be no mercy shown to those in the public sector who have been drawing down in this brutal recession €1 billion in increments and long service payments just because they are in a job.
Here’s the thing. I’ve had the opportunity over the past six or so years to work closely with the public service. There’s without doubt those working within it who are, as in the private sector, bad at their jobs, complacent even lazy. But I’ve yet to encounter someone who came in at 10 and left at 4. I don’t even know how they could easily manage such a feat. Not saying it can’t happen, just not sure precisely how it would.
And if I haven’t seen it I’m unsure how he has. Perhaps he might help us out by quoting chapter and verse, and given that he has had a platform to do so from within the political system you might think he would have done so. But, no. No, he hasn’t.
Anyhow, he’s going…
Our bankers are facing jail; it is clear where the process is leading. The builders, the so-called capitalist class, are on their last legs. There are no groups in this country that are as well off now, in relative terms, as huge sections of the health executive and local authorities – workers with their days off for Puck Fair and Punchestown. How must this seem?
And he’s gone…
These are my last remarks to this Seanad. I am not seeking re-election and will not want to serve if I am appointed. I have an appointment with a radiographer tomorrow. I want to say what I believe about what happened in the past few years. It stemmed from two things, one of which was a lack of a sense of humility. We in the political class did not have the humility to cut our wages and change our conditions fast enough to appease the public. It would not have solved the crisis, but everything was done too late and too slowly. The obscenity of political pensions and salaries, particularly the pensions paid in the past few months, and judges not taking cuts were the matters that really drove the public mad. As the saying goes, Ní hé an bochtanas is measa duinn ach an tarcaisne a leannan é. They might have coped with the crisis in the banks somehow, but seeing Ministers depart with huge pensions was the obscene insult that really galled them.
Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.
Senator Paschal Mooney: Hear, hear.
Er, no, hold on…
Senator Eoghan Harris: That stemmed from a disease that I call the sense of entitlement all over the national bourgeoisie, predominantly a Catholic bourgeoisie who seem to have lost all Christian principles. The Seanad was set up primarily to provide a forum for Protestants. It was a tragedy that we did not persist with this because if there is anything for which the Protestant tradition is noted, it is a sense of private conscience. They are not all saints, but, by and large, there is a sense of public rectitude and conscience and it is sorely missed in Irish public life.
It would be a barbaric act to remove the Seanad which costs comparatively little—–
Ah, that’s it.
Nope, not quite…
Senator Eoghan Harris: —–and offers us a chance to restore that Protestant tradition, this time from Northern Ireland, to inject into the Irish body politic that sense of rectitude, common decency, value for money and private conscience, without which no reform is possible.
I am not one who believes in all of the highfaluting stuff about a new republic. Legislative reforms will not guarantee good politics. That is a platonic delusion. Aristotle stated that unless there was a change in the human heart, there could be no social change, or as I say, unless there is a change in the sense of entitlement of the middle classes who swan off to university. It is disgraceful that the Labour Party still has not introduced fees to rectify the class injustices. In its carry-on about fees it is the party of the privileged classes. It is also protecting among the privileged classes the public sector.
Acting Chairman (Paul Bradford): I must ask the Senator to conclude.
Great. Thanks. Well that was…
Er… hold on again…
Senator Eoghan Harris: Who will look after the 1.3 million workers in the private sector, the donkeys, who actually get up in the morning and keep the country at work? Fianna FЗil has an open goal. With 1.3 million people looking at it and no leadership being provided, it wonders where it will find a political agenda. I know where it will find it. If I was a young man again, I would be back in power on the back of the private sector. I appeal to Fianna FЗil bring to an end the injustices.
And now he’s….
Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): The Senator might conclude.
Senator Eoghan Harris: I warn the coalition that if it continues with its large majority and does not tackle the public sector, a few years from now it will be before the bar of Irish public opinion and the verdict will be “guilty”. I hope that will not happen. I wish the Government well. I backed it in my writings, but I will not support it on the grounds that it is stable. No, what I want to see is a radical, revolutionary and reforming Government.
And that was that.
Actually not it wasn’t.
During Minister Shatter’s speech there was the following exchange…
Senator Harris was quite incorrect when he said “the Becher’s Brook this Government faces is not the banking crisis”. I suggest the Becher’s Brook this country is facing is indeed the banking crisis. Two and a half years after the outgoing Government took the steps that were allegedly supposed to resolve our banking difficulties, the extent of the seriousness of this crisis will become clearer when the stress tests of all the banks and financial institutions – this work is on the verge of completion – are finally published at the end of March. The outcome of those tests will pose a huge challenge to this Government. It will raise issues of substantial importance with regard to the future of this State and its economy.
5 o’clock
I emphasise that how those issues are addressed will substantially impact on the capacity of this State to bring about prosperity in the future, tackle our jobs crisis and ensure we have the economic growth, and particularly the growth in our domestic economy, that was envisaged when the EU-IMF agreement was entered into. Those growth projections play a crucial part in meeting our debt obligations and tackling the major economic difficulties with which we are confronted. That truly is the Becher’s Brook we must address.
I apologise for dwelling on Senator Harris’s contribution but this is his final contribution in the Seanad. The Fine Gael Members in this Government will work with our partners in government, the Labour Party, to tackle in a united way all the issues, including those that must be addressed to produce a more efficient and cost-effective public sector which is affordable within the limitations of this State. I was curious about the comment he made in respect of the Fine Gael Party in some way flunking whatever it is he thought my party flunked. He made a reference to me as one of the architects of the programme for Government. The Senator seems to have ignored an arithmetical issue which all the other Senators clearly appreciate. The Fine Gael Party won 76 seats in the general election and the Labour Party won 37 seats. With 76 seats, the Fine Gael Party could not have formed a Government.
Senator Eoghan Harris: Of course it could.
Deputy Alan Shatter: It could not.
Senator Eoghan Harris: Fianna FЗil could not pull the plug. Fine Gael could govern as a minority Government and bring in the programme.
Deputy Alan Shatter: It could not have formed—–
Senator Eoghan Harris: The Minister misquoted me all the way.
Deputy Alan Shatter: Perhaps the Senator would restrain himself.
Senator Eoghan Harris: The Minister was misquoting me all afternoon. I did not say the banks were the Becher’s Brook. I tried to give him parole on that. I tried to stop raising the bar of expectations but, by God, if the Government keeps going over to Europe and coming back with nothing, the bar will be raised very high.
Acting Chairman (Paul Bradford): Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
Senator Eoghan Harris: I was merely saying the banks were not within his control. I was actually trying to help the Government.
Deputy Alan Shatter: The Senator clearly has a difficulty with people responding to him in a quiet tone. I merely pointed out to him that no party in the DЗil would have a majority with 76 seats. The electorate clearly determined, in its wisdom, that the new Government should be a coalition and as we face a jobs crisis of 440,000 unemployed, a crisis in our public finances and a banking crisis, all of which are the legacy of the party and the Taoiseach who appointed the Senator to this House, it is crucial this Government can operate with a sense of stability, that the general public have confidence in our ability to last five years and that we have the support of the overwhelming majority not only of Deputies but also those who voted in this country if we are to embark on the enormously difficult task of restoring some sense of economic independence while at the same time implementing what I believe to be the most dynamic and exciting reform programme of any Government elected during my time in the DЗil.
Senator Eoghan Harris: The Labour Party will not permit reform of the public service.
Acting Chairman (Paul Bradford): Allow the Minister to conclude without interruption.
Deputy Alan Shatter: I will conclude, if I may, by again thanking the Senators who contributed. I have taken note of the issues raised to which I had not an opportunity to respond. Those Senators who are currently engaged in election campaigns I wish well and I thank those who are retiring when this Seanad concludes its term for their contributions to public life.
And that finally was that. Though on a side note doesn’t look like there’s much love between the Senator and FG.
Except of course it wasn’t. During a debate on the Mental Health (Involuntary Procedures) (Amendment) Bill 2008 we were treated to his views on ECT.
I kid you not.
But that’s another days work.
Roll on the next (and perhaps last, or if not last, penultimate, or if not penultimate… ach, you know yourself)…
I’m actually glad that Harris went off on his usual imbecilic rant about the public sector. I wouldn’t have wanted him to go out on a sensible, reasonable, note about prison sentences for crimes against property.
As for people coming in late and leaving early, during my time in the public sector a few years ago it was certainly possible to do that on any given day, given the flexi-time system. However, any hours avoided on one day had to be put in on another day.
Re: flexitime, that’s it exactly. As you say, you might work 5 hours one day but 10 hours the next. What Harris is doing is taking the example of a public servant clocking in at 10am and leaving at 4pm, which is perfectly normal practice with flexitime. What he forgets, for obvious ideological reasons, is that the same public servant will have to clock in at 8am and leave at 7pm some other day, to balance things out. Flexitime allows a modest degreee of worker autonomy even to the lowest grades on the PS hierarchy and, so, it’s no wonder the Right hate it. For the business classes ‘flexibility’ means working 11 hours a day five or six days a week, with a half and hour for lunch, ’til exhaustion, death or retirement (whichever comes quickest).
Mark P, I’m presuming Harris wouldn’t see the nuance in the point that you make.
He’s clearly suggesting that this is a ‘norm’.
On a slight tangent, logically given that so much work ebbs and flows flexitime is a perfect solution for commercial and state enterprises, but the antagonism from some in the commercial world is interesting to behold.
Flexi-time implies a level of equality between employer and employee in the decision over when to work the hours, it’s usually decided by mutual agreement, the norm tends to be that it’s no big deal one way or the other, the work will get done, the hours will be put in. Whereas the “flexibility” CMK refers to is the polar opposite of that, it is the employer who micro-manages the time of the employee, who becomes just a cog in the machine, or even more so at least. With the reserve army of labour growing by the day, we must all be thankful for the privilege of work, or some other such BS. Flexi-time, such a quaint leftover from times past, when terms and conditions of employment were negotiated rather than being simply accepted as being better than being out of work.
It is worth noting that we already have a referendum allowing for action to be taken on the Seanad but it is lain idle for 32 years so it’s not impossible that we might have a referendum that would in principle allow the government a mandate to draw up the necessary changes but that it might never actually be acted upon.
It would give the executive even more of the whiphand in dealing with the Seanad in future, but there again the executive has the whip hand, arm and shoulder at this stage in dealing with the Oireacthas.
That sounds like a very sensible analysis as to what may happen next.
Harris is an embarrassment to the Oireachtas (which takes some doing), and it’s an improvement to see his exit from the Seanad. No surprise to see that he marked his exit with blatant faleshoods about the working hours of public sector workers.
And referring to your own cancer(?) for political points before you’ve exited public life is crass, though I suppose that the efforts to use this to shore up support for Lenihan by Harris and his mates have changed the traditional dignified silence that used to be the custom here.
By the way, congratulations on your recent win in Mulley’s blog awards!
Ta EWI, your input over the last year or two isn’t forgotten either.
Meanwhile that’s the problem, isn’t it, those are blatant falsehoods. Desperate.
It was a pleasure to have the CLR around, as I occasionally remember to thank you guys for.
By the way, for those interested in fortuitous coincidences, I see that Lady Enfield was recently given a regular presenter job at Newstalk (prop. Denis O’Brien):
http://www.newstalk.ie/programmes/all/talking-point/
Lady Enfield has just
been given the shove by Madamresigned from the IT and is taking a break from TV3.However, she is retaining her newly-acquired slot at
Spin 24/7NewsTalk.Surprising, that.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/03/25/statement-from-sarah-carey/
Newstalk really is turning into Blueshirt FM, isn’t it?
First the open campaigning (I’m sure that laws were broken) on Nice, now the stacking with FG party members and sympathisers.
At Newstalk everyone can be Kent Brockman. I notice by the way The Sunday Times heavily advertising their coverage of the Moriarty story for this weekend.
if theres to many references to the seanad in the constitution what if the government rip up the constitution and write a new one. was fintan o toole suggesting something like that before christmas and is there not some reference to a constitutional convention in the programme for government?
not agrueing for or against it myself, but don’t know about presumeing that its going to get parked. the conspiritorial side of my mind would think that the call to abolish the seanad is going to be the driver to re write the rules or i might need a nap
You have a good point there. However it pans out it is convenient, to put it mildly.
Is RTE the public service? Harris should speak for himself. Maybe he did no work but others did. he was too busy sticking his nose into party business and ordering people around.