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.

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.

Convert % of bank deposits into Bank Equity?

// March 22nd, 2010 // 1 Comment » // anglo-irish, bank bailout, bank of Ireland, brian lenihan, irish politics

Could we, overnight, convert a % of deposits into equity for the banks? Or is this simply a bonkers notion? Say 2.5% of all deposits under €20,000 which was the previous limit up to September 2008 and say 5% from €20,000 to €100,000 per depositor per institution and 8% of deposits over that level. If the banks were to commit to buying back the shares plus interest so issued as profits allow over a 10/20 year time frame, might this not be a better first port of call rather than all tax payers having to fund the bank bailout via state borrowings? After all those with the largest deposits have benefited most from the state bank guarantee without it they could have lost a lot more than 8%.

Or might we suggest that the banks do this themselves in September of this year by repaying the money given by the state when the guarantee runs out and could reasonably be expected to be modified? Of course the problem with such a notion is that any announcement of it would have to apply instantly or people with the most would withdraw their deposits.

Is Brian Lenihan off his game?

// March 11th, 2010 // 4 Comments » // brian lenihan, democracy, Fianna Fail

I suppose someone at some point has to ask the awful question but this incident whereby the government forgot to oppose a Labour party amendment to the Finance bill and following on from the manner of his defence of Willie O’Dea which struck many people as not being typical of Brian Lenihan and the fact that Martin Cullen has raised the issue publicly of the impact of certain types of medication on a person’s ability to perform their normal duties in the same way as before, is Brian Lenihan now showing signs of his performance being affected by his treatment?

We, the public are not privy to the form or the duration of his treatment, if it is the case that the worst of it is over and a minor slip here and there is going to be the extent of the impact then fair enough let him continue in office but if it has got some more months to run (in particular into the summer months when preparation of the budget will be underway) then we have to ask is the upcoming reshuffle the right opportunity to make a change. At the very least someone senior in the cabinet has to be designated as his 2nd.

I know people will say that’s I’m merely trying to score political points but I honestly can’t think of anyone more capable in FF than Brian Lenihan to be in the position of MoF at the moment. And while I don’t agree with much of the detail and some of the substance of what he is doing, he is, when playing at the top of his game, incredibly able. The question remains is he playing at the top of his game?

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.