Renua woes…

There’s a great quote in the SBP on foot of the weekend meeting of Renua where Lucinda Creighton departed the political scene for now. I hadn’t realised Billy Timmins resigned from the party earlier in the month. Or perhaps I forgot. Or whatever. Anyhow, one has to wonder what sort of a meeting it was where attendees were subjected to ‘post-election feedback from candidates and members’. After all with only a handful of elected reps, none at national level across the state, where can the party go?

Apparently members complained about ‘poor communication from Renua headquarters and a lack of engagement with constituencies’

‘Candidate selection was flawed and some felt that certain candidates were not 100% committed to the party’s cause.’

And policy?

.. members reported that Renua’s controversial flat tax propel was not explained well enough and that candidates didn’t get enough training on its policies’.

Worse again…

…they also said that Renua needed a plan of action to combat media bias after developing a ‘snarky, aggressive, defensive’ attitude towards the media’.

And:

…the perception that the party is pro-life and anti-public sector was a problem on the doors, according to members who also said the party ‘became pigeonholed as Catholic, right-wing, pro-life’.

That’s really interesting. Is the Irish political environment hostile to parties that openly advocate for policies that seem anti-public sector or overly religious? Indeed is being ‘right-wing’ – at least avowedly so – now a liability rather than a bonus? Perhaps it is, and that would represent a step-change in the performative aspects of politics, whatever about the realities of policy and approach.

Still, the SBP notes that the party will get a quarter of a million euros for simply turning up and getting more than 2 per cent of the vote at the election. What happens next is anyone’s guess. Perhaps Michael McDowell’s musings about a new ‘centre-right’ formation may take form on foot of this. Or perhaps not. The space politically given the feedback above would appear to be limited. Redundant, not radical right.

Though Eddie Hobbs is quoted as stating that ‘the party had a future… it could become an attractive proposition for TDs and senators ‘who find they’re at a loose end politically’. Who could they be now?

And that quote I mentioned earlier?

Hobbs again:

We’re not some kind of ultra right-wing nut job, socially conservative loopers. We’re not.

It’s that second ‘We’re not’, isn’t it?