Why is Michael Martin fighting a battle he reckons he can’t win?

// January 18th, 2011 // No Comments » // 2011

People are looking at the talk around the FF confidence motion and wondering why is Michael Martin doing this now, and why is it him that is leading it?

The main reason I suspect is that the heave is designed to allow particular FF TDs who are standing in the next election to nail themselves down in the minds of the electorate as the official FF opposition to Brian Cowen and the government’s harsher measures and thus ensure that it is they and not their running mates that will be the people returned to the Dail at election time. I had noted previously that the makeup of the FF parliamentary party could be so changed in the aftermath of the election such that the prospects of one leader ship contender might increase while those of another decreased. Martin didn’t go for a heave long before now because in his view Lenihan would win any outright vote with the current parliamentary party.

However, by moving this close to the election and with the opinions and pronouncements of the likes of Michael Kennedy or Michael Moynihan fresh in their minds many FF inclined voters might cast their vote for those TD rather than their constituency mates. Thus altering the balance of support within the next FF parliamentary party.

This heave is but the first major engagement of the sure to be bloody battle of Mount st. as the supporters of various generals who would be the king over the water in the next Dail try to shift things one way or another in the interests of their favourite. And it won’t be the last engagement before election day either.

What changed in FF in the last week?

// January 17th, 2011 // No Comments » // 2011

People are asking what changed in FF to prompt the challenge to Brian Cowen, was it Anglo was it his answers in the Dail, was it the new info about who else was there? It wasn’t. It was as I noted on Political Reform on Saturday, the fact that many TDs with the election looming had actually gone out on the doors in seriousness for the first time in years. And they started with areas they knew had always been good for them.

FF activities of the last while mirror nothing as much as the frankly deluded manner in which FG approached the 2002 election. The party was completely blind as to the reality they were being presented with by the polls and carried on as it was business as usual when in fact the changed economic environment in a time of plenty meant that the usual rules didn’t apply.

It appears that only in the last week or so has it appeared that reality has dawned on them. Perhaps this is because with the starting of a countdown last November by the Greens to the calling of the election, some of their senior people like Batt O’Keeffe and their supporters have actually had to go out on the doors for the first time in earnest in many years and the reaction is far, far worse than they ever imagined it might be. With people who they knew well and had voted for them personally for years telling them bluntly that they would not do so this time out. They each thought as individuals that while the party might have lost support that they would personally be ok, the mentality that lead people to think that Alan Dukes or Nora Owen couldn’t possibly lose their seats or that DSE couldn’t possibly not elect a FG TD.

So now we appear to have FF TDs seeking to be either for or against Cowen heading into the election with the hope that the public will give them the benefit of the doubt in the polling booth and that enough of them survive for there to be a FF party to rebuild. It is a risky strategy as it is possible that such divisions will harm the intra-party transfers that FF will need to safe seats. Too divided a local ticket and they might as well be running for different and opposing parties.

Decent, honest and honourable – it isn’t enough.

// January 14th, 2011 // 5 Comments » // 2011

In recent days I’ve read on p.ie and elsewhere and heard on the airwaves about people who are decent, honest and honourable and for this set of reasons should be public representatives or hold high office.

One of the most impressive moments of the 2008 for me wasn’t any part of the razzamatazz but I guess surprisingly a contribution from Sen. Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate with Gov. Sarah Palin. Yeah, I’m that much of an anorak I watched it and even paid attention to what was said.

It’s about 2 minutes 45 seconds  into this clip of the later stages of the debate* in which the nominees were asked about bi-partisan ship. It highlighted for me a problem with modern politics in general and with an interesting Irish quirk to it. The problem is that too often people on the left and the right tend to question the motivation of their opponents. To listen to members of the left you’d swear that those on the right were oppose to people having good paying jobs and good schools and access to decent health care. And you’d swear blind after listening to some of the right that those on the left were planning to lock us all up for thinking a thought that diverged from the acceptable norm or buying for extra lessons for our kids after school.

The real focus in political shouldn’t be arguments over the motives we imagine for ourselves that others must have but their judgement and the substance of their argument that they make for the policy position they are supporting. It’s part of the key difference between those who are politics for personal ambition and advancement and those of us who want to see changes in matters of policy and substance.

The Irish quirk is that we have become so used to the widespread myth that all politicians are inherently dishonest, indecent and dishonourable that the mere fact someone comes forward who it is suggested is decent, honest and honourable even if they are from the same party as the incumbent that this is is a sufficient reason to vote for them. To give them a go this time. It’s not!

Instead, those traits and others like them should be a necessary** condition but not a sufficient one for voting for someone. We should be able as adults to presume unless it is shown otherwise that all those who put themselves forward for election are decent, honest and honourable. Those who crow loudest about being decent, honest and honourable are implying that all others in the field aren’t. And the same goes for the I’m local, I’m ordinary, I’m just one of you, schtick we often hear from candidates.

I don’t think Brian Cowen or Brian Lenihan or the rest of the members of the government are somehow inherently dishonest, indecent or dishonourable. I do think they is balls out wrong with the approach they’ve adopted with dealing with the various problems we’ve been faced with and they were plain wrong in how they dealt with the economy prior to the crisis which in turn made a bad situation into an awful one. Like kids that played with matches and burned and badly damaged the family home, it’s not that they did it out of shear badness but rather out of lack of cop-on.

*The full text is below but it reads much more dryly than it come across on tv at the time.

Sen. Biden “I have been able to work across the aisle on some of the most controversial issues and change my party’s mind, as well as Republicans’, because I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield.

Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day — he — I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, “What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?” I said, “I’d feel like a jerk.”

He said, “Joe, understand one thing. Everyone’s sent here for a reason, because there’s something in them that their folks like. Don’t question their motive.”

I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I’ve disagreed. I’ve questioned their judgment.

I think that’s why I have the respect I have and have been able to work as well as I’ve been able to have worked in the United States Senate. That’s the fundamental change Barack Obama and I will be bring to this party, not questioning other people’s motives.”

** I’m channelling my inner engineer with recourse to a standard maths phrase of a condition “being necessary but not sufficient”. In other words, it’s presence doesn’t prove a thing but it’s absence does disprove something.

The upcoming bloodbath of Mount St

// January 5th, 2011 // 4 Comments » // Fianna Fail

As the prospect of securing a return to government recedes and the race for the succession gathers pace, the role of the Mount st insiders and where their loyalties lie could lead to a chaotic situation in FF headquarters.

In constituencies where the party has two or more outgoing TDs (TDs A,  B and C) and if  TD A for example is perceived to be a Michael Martin man but more of Lenihan’s people are in situ in key positions at the Mount st HQ they will work more to save TD B who seems to be more their guy at all costs. It will be bedlam at HQ as the factions try to safe their own. Those whose interest is in the wider party will be pushed roughly to one side as the .

This is just another danger arising from the failure to put to bed the question of the future leadership of the party prior to the general election at a time when we all know that the first business of Fianna Fail in opposition will be to oust Brian Cowen as a means to plot a return to government as quickly as feasible. With dozens of outgoing TDs likely to not return either through retirement or defeat at the polls along with a much reduced Seanad line up then every vote will be vital. The support of a mere dozen colleagues on the first ballot could allow someone to emerge up the middle as an interim unity candidate to ensure that the factions don’t do too much damage to the party in a leadership battle.

But with many of those at HQ likely tied to various contenders, the problem for FF is that in the view of some lackeys losing TD A and thus the seat entirely might be preferable to their return to the Dail if their support was to be for  someone other than their man. With no one in FF HQ of the necessarily influence and gravitas within the broader party who has the interest of the entire party into the future as their sole priority, FF’s HQ manoeuvrings could end up throwing half a dozen savable seats overboard for the sake of the interests of the factions.

FF’s strategy for salvation

// September 20th, 2010 // No Comments » // election 2010

For a good while now, I’ve thought that FF would use the next budget as a platform for the election. They would fight the election campaign on the basis of the detail of the budget and force the opposition to produce (at short notice and without immediate access to the resources of the Department of Finance) their counter proposals. It allows FF to get the agenda on the economy and to make the election be about the 2010 budget rather than the overall budgetary strategy over the next 5 years.

The FF electoral strategy at the next general election, whenever it would be, has to be to ensure that they finish within Labour of a majority i.e. that the seat totals of the two parties adds up to 84 (83 if they can get someone from outside their numbers to be Ceann Comhairle) or worst case that they have enough seats combined with the right people to be able to convincingly challenge for that outcome at the next election. That has always been the case, but now FF might be realising that going now might not be any worse or better than holding on to pass two harsh budgets and past the point once the full effects of the measures already pass have been felt by the public at large.

I think we are getting close to that situation now, preparations for the budget would (in the broad outline form at least) be reasonably well advanced by now by the department of Finance – it’s around now that the old Book of Estimates would be produced.  Exactly what the individual departments would think of their allocation would not be known, but it might even allow for ministers to claim this program or that initiative might be spared. So if the election were called at some stage in the next few weeks, the election could take place then the Dail resume and elect a Taoiseach but then this new government is pretty much be stuck with the outgoing governments figures as happened in 1987!

The stumbling block for the main government party might be that the opposition don’t allow them to conduct a leadership contest before calling an election but rather force a vote in the Oireachtas and collapse the government with no leader in place.

“I take full responsibility” Brian Cowen

// June 11th, 2010 // No Comments » // brian cowen

So on foot of the banking reports, An Taoiseach, Brian Cowen says that he takes full responsibility but what does that mean? Is he going to resign, is he going to decline to lead FF into the next election? not a chance! Will he forego his pay until the next election, or return his money earned as Minfin? You tell me once you get off the floor.

Last night on Prime Time Cowen was bigging up his proposals in 2006 to eliminate property incentives which came into final effect in 2008 despite he becoming MinFin in 2004.

So what does “taking full responsibility” for An Taoiseach actually mean? Especially, when he then says his decisions were correct based on the faulty information provided by the ESRI, the IMF, the OCED. Where did they get the info to make their projections from except the department of Finance? And who was the minister in charge of that? He constantly demands endorsement of his government’s “right decisions” after the banking crisis happened despite that crisis being large due to the decisions he made before it came about which he wants to avoid discussing as “that’s history”. So what he is telling us is that he made the correct, the logical, the right decisions based on the information provided to him by others, which turned out to be wrong but sure no one could have known it was wrong and that he himself wasn’t able to read the raw data for himself and so had to rely on the views of others as to what this information meant. So he lacked the skills to be minister for Finance but sure what did that matter cos he was the man to take the decisions! Except that when he took the decision, he wasn’t taking it so much as it was taking him.

Yet FF TDs were going up and down the country telling us that we were building more houses than ever before when people raised the issue of rising house prices, did he not think that an exponential rise in building starts might constitute a bubble? We had 100% and 100% plus mortgages, no deposit required, did that not look like reckless lending to him? Did he not read a newspaper or listen to a radio ad in all that time?

Cowen is like the footie manager you see on the telly who says he takes full responsibility for his teams performance but then publicly blames each and every failing in a match on his players. Or on the ref! Players he bought, trained and picked who were playing the game according to his tactics.

It’s like a kid who breaks your window and says “I’m sorry” in a resentfully, snaring voice and then walks off saying he will fix it but does nothing about it. I’m analogied out but you get the picture.

Err in haste, repent at leisure – Brian Cowen and the DDDA

// February 24th, 2010 // 1 Comment » // Uncategorized

It’s a matter which got lost in the hubbub yesterday evening but according to a thread on p.ie Phil Hogan has seen “The Minutes of DDDA Board meetings show that, in October 2006, it took then Finance Minister Brian Cowen just 21 days to grant a loan extension to the DDDA.”

So might this apparent ‘haste’ and perhaps the absence of any documentary back up of say advice from civil servants suggesting that this deal represented good value for money for the taxpayer, involving as it did a partnership with developers who might be viewed by some as a long standing donors/supporters (from what I recall) to/of FF, be the aspect of the report that Deirdre deBurca thinks is the smoking gun? Tomorrow’s Dáil session should be interesting at least.

The Rules of the Inquiry into the Banks

// January 21st, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

#1 The first rule of the inquiry, is you do not enquire about the inquiry!

#2 The second rule of the inquiry, is you DO NOT enquire about the inquiry!

#3 – If someone says stop, feels peckish, goes to the bathroom, cites the national interest or the vulnerability of the economy the inquiry is over.

#4 – There are two sides at least to an inquiry. All sides are entitled to legal counsel at the taxpayers expense.

#5 – One Inquiry at a time.

#6 – No loud shirts, no Hawaiian shorts, no home-made shoes, no sandals.

#7 – The Inquiry will go on as long as it has to.

#8 – If this is your first time at the Inquiry, you have to answer. Unless, of course, you don’t feel like it, which is ok cos we don’t feel like enquiring into this either. It’s just that public opinion made us feel we had to seem like we were doing something.

*Hearing about John Gormley’s defence of the government’s Enquiry into the banks that “It will not be secret, it will be held in private” So the notion that it’s not a secret, you just can’t talk about it to anyone else lead me to the above.

Budget 2010 – where do we go from here?

// December 10th, 2009 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

I think the core belief for the minister for Finance is that earnings in the private sector are already down and that the public sector earnings which are paid for from taxes levied on those private sector earnings had to follow them down. So I tend to agree that we had to bridge a 4 billion gap but I don’t agree with how it was done. (this notion that because we agree about the size of the problem that we all agree on the approach is lunacy but lunacy that you can get away with because of the lack of numeracy and more generally confidence with maths that exists in the media. People work in the media because they were good at English or had good social skills and could express themselves not because they could add. No more than people get the big prizes or the big for Physics, Economics or engineer not because of their ability to coordinate their wardrobe or be the first with the bon mots). Agreeing the gap is 4 billion is like saying the gap across that river is 400m, that doesn’t mean you agree with the suggestion of others that we dam the river or build a bridge or a raft.

Taking just one example of where I think we’ve gone wrong. I have to wonder at the mentality behind the cuts to those under 25. Why does a single person of 30 need more than one of 20? If ever there was a sign that the state does not have any time or faith in younger people then that was it. The notion that some adults should be at home with their parents is not even Victorian. I’m well past being in that cohort but I would have thought the last thing someone in authority with any appreciation of history would do during the worst downturn since the 30s is target young people with time on their hands and muscle at their disposal. All that is necessary now is a harsh winter and some demagogue to appear with a winning and simplistic way out of this and we’re well on our way to civil unrest before the summer has started.

Perhaps, that is all part of Lenihan’s plan make some elements of the population so angry they abandon democracy rather than vote for any of the opposition.

I personally think that the trade union movement as it is exists primarily as a public sector beast is facing a massive moment. I can’t see strikes this side of Christmas but a phased and escalated plan of action starting in mid Jan has to be almost certain now. Truth is if the unions had the faith that their members were 100% behind them they would go out 1 day a week more each week until they were completely out on strike and they would sit outside the Dáil or some such public buildings a la Ukraine. The problem is that I suspect the union membership aren’t all that convinced of their own argument, sure the lower paid, those on 30K and under are righteous but I can’t help think that some of those on 50K and more wouldn’t feel less than bullish about sitting out for a few nights to defend their salaries.

The odd thing is that the government may welcome such a confrontation as some voters who have drifted away from them because of their dithering over the last 2 years might be attracted back because of a show of strength even if it is just a show.

The longest petition for political divorce in Irish history

// October 1st, 2009 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

The Greens have leaked or had stolen from their HQ some of their policy ideas for the new Program for Government. Engaging in some verbal theft of my own from Gerald Kaufman MP, who said of the 1983 Labour party manifesto that it was the longest political suicide note in history, I would say this set of ideas is the longest petition for political divorce in Irish history.

While some of the ideas are quite sensible the question is whether FF will be in any position to wear them given the state of the economy. I simply don’t know, but my guess is that they won’t. Agreeing to them would open the cabinet up to a list of ideas from their own backbenchers. Below are some of the Green thoughts and my own feelings on them

A reduction in the number of TDs, – no real problem there, but how big a reduction?

major changes in the electoral system – I would agree with the need for changes but what changes exactly. Not sure that top up TDs is the way to go.

a new third rate of income tax – I’d go for 4 rates of tax, with a new one of 55% and have an introductory rate of 10% which would apply to those on the minimum wage.

the abolition of the PRSI ceiling, – If we’re abolishing the ceiling then don’t we have to abolish the ceiling on the benefits of PRSI too? Otherwise it’s a tax by another name

the integration of the income levies with the tax rates – yes

and a clampdown on tax exiles. – By all means, not sure how much it would raise. But it seems the right thing to do.

An animal welfare Bill that would ban hare coursing, stag hunting, fur farming and the importation of wild animals to be used in circuses is another objective.- I’m sort of ambivalent about this

The Greens are also insisting that basic social welfare entitlements and overseas development aid should not be cut in the forthcoming budget.-

I’d cut the base rate of the social back to the nice round figure of €200 including reducing the non-contributory pension by the same amount (not to the same figure) while leaving the contributory as is.

They also want a massive shift of emphasis from investment in road building to public transport initiatives in the Government’s capital programme.- Let’s buy lots and lots of buses, and extend the frequency and capacity of the commuter rail network.

The party is also seeking a commitment from its partners that the value of social welfare payments should be protected for the next three years. – After the reduction above, I wouldn’t see any reason to reduce them further.

A total revamp of the health service with the introduction of a universal single-tier system is another key part of the plan.- i.e. this is the FG and Labour plans in essence so I’ve no problem with the over arching aims here.

Tax incentives for private health insurance would be abolished.- over time that makes some sense but we’d want to have fixed the health system first.