Daniel Sullivan - he’s a little political

How might you run an election over Christmas?

// July 19th, 2010 // 1 Comment » // elections

The date of  budget 2010 was Dec 9th 2009 which would imply that budget day 2011 is scheduled for Dec 8th 2010, if the governmwent were to fall on the budget vote we would have an election campaign taking place over the Christmas holiday period with polling perhaps falling on Jan 13th?

The 2007 election was held on 24 May 2007 after Bertie called for the dissolution on 29th April  - a Sunday. The election campaign took place over a gap of 21 working days or so. Bank holidays and Sundays are not included in the minimum/maximum period that a campaign must take place over. Christmas has 3 bank holidays but many people take considerably more time off over that period. Would it in fact suit the government better to have the election campaign over a 4 week period almost 2 of which would could not be campaigned during for practical reasons? Or if it is looking like the budget will not pass is it better to campaign for as long as possible in advance of polling day or to have the campaigning time as truncated as possible so that the opposition can’t convince the public which way to jump?

Does Ivor Callely own any property at all?

// July 14th, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

Yesterday Sen Callely said in respect of the property in West Cork that he was claiming allowances and mileage from that “I have a right to reside in west Cork but it’s not in my ownership.” This was in response to questioning from Sen. Joe O’Toole who asked if he owned the property in west Cork. So he has the right to live there but he does not own it. Ivor Callely has also repeatedly alluded to personal family conditions that make his being totally transparent about his living situation more difficult.

So it is beginning to look like Ivor, at some point in the recent past, might have been too clever by half and that all “his” property is not in his name at all but rather it is in his wife’s or other family members names and that this might be the cause of some difficulty for him in establishing what is and is not his principal residence. Cos he might well own nothing and have no rental agreement with anyone and thus not be able to prove that he in fact lives or has a principal residence anywhere. Just why, you might ask, would someone transfer ownership of their assets to others? Well, one situation in which it would make sense was if you were a public representative and wanted to avoid declaring these interests in the declaration of members interests. Did Ivor Callely do this? I don’t know and I’m not going to say he did this.

It is also worth noting that “Mr Callely told the committee the house in west Cork had been for sale since “04/05-ish”. He said he had never denied it was for sale and insisted he would not benefit, in terms of capital gains tax liability, if it was sold.” So he won’t benefit from it at all, again seeming to mean he does not own it or have a financial interest in it. But this begs the questions did he ever own it and if he did when and why did he transfer the ownership.

Now let’s review someone else whose family situation meant they couldn’t be 100% clear with the public about their finances, former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. Bertie had a legal separation agreement with his wife and the terms and details of this could not be made public. This meant we, the taxpayers and as voters his employers,  couldn’t find out exactly what he owned and when he got it or what he transferred to her and his children once the separation was agreed. All very inconvenient the Taoiseach told us as it might he couldn’t be completely transparent with us the voters though he really really wanted to be.

One other thing which is probably entirely unrelated, as we were assured that the former Taoiseach was a God fearing man and didn’t hold with this sort of thing, is the provisions of divorce law in Ireland. These say you might, in order to file for divorce, need to show that you had been legally separated from your spouse for or living apart for a number of years before a divorce might be granted. I’m not sure if this legal agreement needs to actually be publicly available or acknowledged once it is drawn up all proper and legal like and is agreeable to both parties. So such an agreement might exist and we the public would be none the wiser.

One can imagine the situation and in truth rather untenable legal position that a person might hypothetically find themselves in if say they had transferred all their property to their spouse for some reason or other and were years later to find themselves because of changed personal circumstances agreeing a separation agreement with their spouse. After all, once their spouse’s name was on the property they couldn’t legally argue that it was meant to be still their property really. It’s like something out of a badly plotted rom-com.

But back to Ivor, and away from these hypothetical and entirely unconnected people, he continues to defend himself before the Seanad committee who are it seems are bullying him, just like some other people were bullying Sen. Mullen last week. To add insult to injury it turns out the state is fronting Ivor €50 to turn up to an investigation into his circumstances. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Fianna Fail’s real electoral nightmare - Part 1

// June 30th, 2010 // 5 Comments » // Fianna Fail

The real nightmare for Fianna Fail at the next general election is not losing power, it’s not even whether they end up losing 20 or even 30 seats. It is that the wrong people will end up retaining their seats and the right people lose out. By right and wrong, I mean people best equipped to undertake the necessary work to revive the party and to ensure that they make a decent fist of opposition, something they’ve only had to do for two and half years in the last 23 (this could be a quarter of a century by the time the election comes around) or so.

This isn’t about who I like in FF but about who is more able to articulate a position that might find resonance with the nation faced with a FG and Labour government.

Take Mayo as one example, if Bev ends up saving her seat at the expense of Dara Calleary does anyone realistically think that FF can put her on the front bench as one of the main people to do the hard slog of re-building the party? The same is the case in Meath East were Thomas Byrne to lose out to Mary “Wednesday” Wallace. Or where Jim McDaid ends up as the sole FF rep in Donegal North West, or if FF in a fit of desperation ran Pat the Cope yet again in DSW and he held a seat but in doing so ensured the departure of Mary Coughlan. It’s not merely a matter of how much they lose but who they lose. That as anyone in FG will tell you made the path from 2002 down and outs to 2007 contenders all that much harder

And there are many others, just a few of which I’ve listed below

Cork North Central - Noel O’Flynn instead of Billy Kelleher

Kildare North - Michael Fitzpatrick instead of Aine Brady

Dublin North West - Noel Ahern instead of Pat Carey

Dublin South Central - Michael Mulcahy instead of Sean Ardagh

Cork North West - Michael Moynihan instead of Batt O’Keeffe

Dublin North - Michael Kennedy instead of Daire ?O’Brien

Wexford - John Brown instead of Sean Connick

Meath West - Johnny Brady instead of Noel Dempsey

and there are more. Just imagine that it’s the last week of the campaign and FF are still polling consistently under 30% and they finally know they are in the territory of  a FG in 2002 style bloodbath, who in the party hierarchy is going to be in a position to make the hard calls on behalf of the party and put the resources behind the ones they will need to recover. FG needed someone to do that in 2002 and it didn’t happen and the effect was that the party wasn’t able to close gap when it came to 2007. The difference is that FG has been through long periods of opposition before, so coming close didn’t fracture the party but instead bound it together even more. FF on the other hand with a much reduced local election base looking towards at least 2 terms in opposition might turn in on itself in manner we’ve not seen in Irish politics before. The main players being the tribalists against those who view the party as the best means to power but with any number of smaller factions coming to the fore.

The end of Enda

// June 11th, 2010 // No Comments » // enda kenny

He has been an excellent leader of the party and has the qualities to make a great Taoiseach but the electorate have fixed in their minds a view of him that is inaccurate, not based on his performance and even at times simply unfair. Yet it would seem that a large portion of them are not for shifting in this view.

It would appear that the public has decided that Enda is the soccer guy who clears out the dead wood, sets up the youth academy, brings through new young players and buys well even wins a few cups but having done all that just can’t seem to connect with them and the squad he has assembled in order to win the league. It’s frustrating and undeserved for Enda Kenny but I think that if the government wins the confidence motion next Tuesday that we as a party should immediately make a smooth transition to a new leader in the form of Richard Bruton and look over the course of the summer to iron out a deal with the Greens that transitions them out of government ASAP. Offer them 3 Taoiseach’s nominee seats in the next Seanad for 3 of their TDs that lose their seats to let them recover as a party in opposition (we’re going to win the Seanad elections anyway with a minimal amount of cllr discipline) and we could look at implementing some of the outstanding Green policies from the PfG that aren’t that awful. A properly constituted directly elected Mayor for Dublin isn’t a bad idea, nor is reform of the planning system.

What the poll shows is our problem that FG are obviously not getting the party’s message across well enough. I get quite annoyed at some of our spokespeople for the their inability to get across a cohesive and consistent narrative of what a vote for FG would mean and what the change that would result from a FG win would be like.

Enda Kenny’s leadership isn’t separate from that but nor it is the whole story.

The rise in Labour’s support is quite impressive for what it is but also very interesting for what it isn’t. It’s not an endorsement of Labour’s policies because they don’t have any. They have a series of well expressed if ill defined goals but not detailed policies to achieve them.

I think the truly massive implication from this poll and other recent ones is that the electorate are hugely volatile. FF have lost the faith of the public and neither FG nor Labour or SF have 100% convinced them to date otherwise Labour would have been over 30% much earlier. There are a lot of voters who are open to listening to a new message and it would seem they are taste testing at the moment. And we should take our lucky stars that we don’t have a rabid party of the right looking for scapegoats amongst racial minorities or minority sections of society.

What this poll does prove once and for all is the folly of many left leaning people in their desire to get FG off the pitch so that a real left/right contest could emerge. It has always been the fact that FF were on Labour’s territory that prevented that sort of contest coming about.

Should FG change leader? I don’t believe so but the question is now will FG change leader? I think it is more possible than it was 6 months ago. There won’t be any movement (with that I’ve probably just damned Enda’s chances of staying on) on the FG leadership this side of the no confidence motion. After all it is entirely possible for McDaid and McGuinness to go walk about, for Lowry to decline to support Cowen (anyone miss his Oxegen ticket give-away?) and Jackie to fail to make the train up from Kerry. And were that to happen all bets are off. For now though it looks to me like the End has started.

“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.

Is Brian Lenihan off his game?

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

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?

Are FF in fact the Green Party’s mudguards?

// March 3rd, 2010 // 4 Comments » // Uncategorized

With the various commentary about the future of the Greens and how they might deal with it. Once the government goes to the country whenever that it, I was wondering are FF’s 2nd candidate TDs in fact the Green Party’s own constituency mudguards?

It is frequently noted that the smaller party in government with FF ends up as it’s mudguard taking most of its flak and ultimately paying the price at the polls. But is that really the case for the Greens?

Let’s go through each of the Green TDs and consider more closely the local situation for them

Cuffe is most likely gone because too much (might only be 500/800 1st preferences but it would be enough) of his vote will drift over to Richard Boyd Barrett while he will not get the same transfers from Lab and FG next time. Plus the constituency has gone from a 5 to a 4 seater. So it’s not so much an uphill challenge as it is vertical with some overhang. Verdict: barring miracles a loss here

Gogarty is given some space by the fact that the only FF had the votes last time to challenge for a 2nd seat and that wouldn’t be the case next time. With Harney likely to go FG will gain her seat and SF (who did better than even they expected with Joanne Spain given the ructions over her late adoptioj as the SF candidate) would be the main threat to Gogarty but it is unclear if they will repeat given the underperformance of SF across Dublin in 2009. Verdict: A probably hold.

Sargent is still personally popular and again it is FF that is in poll position to take the first loss here not the GP (that would be a seat loss to the Socialist Party), and neither Lab nor FG appear to have high profile 2nd candidates in the field as yet. Verdict: A probable hold.

Mary White – FF will certainly drop one and FG will get their 2nd here but it is Labour’s weakness (divided across the two counties and with internal division aside from that which were papered over for years by Seamus Pattinson’s holding of the seat) that could let Mary White back in on FF transfers. Verdict: A possible hold.

Eamon Ryan – with FF possibly going into the next election with not outgoing TD standing if Tom Kitt makes good on his threat/promise and the possibility (though don’t write off FG just yet) that Alex White will be a TD already. It is possible that Eamon Ryan could hold on, getting the last seat ahead of the 3rd FG candidate on foot of FF transfers from their eliminated 2nd candidate. Verdict: A probable hold.

John Gormley – FG and Labour will be gunning for a 2nd seat, most likely at Gormley’s expense with Labour best placed to take it on paper and geography if cllr Kevin Humphreys is the 2nd candidate. But DSE is a strange place and many that voted for McDowell last time might give Gormley a vote with a view that he has been firm and placed a sticky wicket (I think that’s a game played down there) passably well. FF might decide to rope in Eoin Ryan to secure their seat if it looks under threat at the expense of Chris Andrews. Verdict: A possible hold.

So were the opposition to (on the QT mind) not beat up on the Greens locally too much they could still come back with a few TDs and a party able to rebuild.

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.

An Irish liberal party - what about a progressive caucus instead

// February 22nd, 2010 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

In performing a little exercise set for me by Jason O Mahony I was given to thinking about the calls that come every once in a while from some quarters that we should have new Liberal party or similar in the absence of the PDs. I would oppose such an idea for a number of reasons that I won’t bore you with right now but I do think there might be an opening not for a new political party as such but rather for the emergence of the American style caucus model in Irish politics.

The point would be to have a broad viewpoint, in this case, one that is liberal/libertarian and then at election time to endorse individual candidates who were amenable to those beliefs. The caucus would literally talk, on-line for the most part, about policies and political principles that it should advocate and seek support for.

I’m not suggesting that we’d get too many takers at the outset from the existing public reps, in particular TDs, but it might be better anyway to start by appealing to members of all parties and none.

So I might, in the next short while, try and drop some worms in the water and see if anyone bites.

A short history of the economy in 80s Ireland

// February 5th, 2010 // 3 Comments » // Uncategorized

I normally don’t post links to p.ie but this obviously took too much effort and is too excellent not to reach as many people as possible. Massive kudos to Edo. Full extract below but better to comment on p.ie

Edo “Oh why am I bothering to engage with this thread………..the itch has to be scratched I guess.

The 83 - 87 Fitzgerald governments economic performance has to be taken in a variety of contexts for one to come to some kind of an objective conclusion - then again this being P.ie - context and objectivity are a foreign country - subjectivity and the opportunity to quote out of context is the modus operandi for most here, who judging by their contributions were mostly in short trousers or a twinkle in their daddy’s eye at this time and seem to have a major adversion to actually doing a bit of reading and studying anything except newspaper headlines and modern day accepted myth about this era.

If one is looking for a significant turning point in the management of Ireland’s financial and economic affairs - I think you have to go back to the 1970 budget where Minister George Colley became the first Irish Minister of Finance to run a current and ongoing budget deficit. Up until this time - since the foundation of the state in 1922 - Ireland had always balanced its books -It was a net creditor - an exporter of capital - in its financial dealings with the rest of the world up to then - unbelievable I know - but a fact - under Blythe,McEntee,O’Kelly,Aitken,McGilligan,Ryan,Swee tman and Lynch - all under the stern conservative secretaries of the Dept of finance like O’Brien,Brennan and McElligott and even the watchful eye of Whittaker - Ireland balanced its books- at whatever cost. All governments from the 1920s to the early 60’s were run on this principle - balanced books, small government and we spent whatever we earned - primarily in agricultural surpluses - in a way - for the first 40 years of our independence- the most important numbers defining our economic well-being was not the annual budget - but the prices for Irish meat and dairy produce on the auction floors of Billingsgate (The wholesale London food markets).

Now for all my FF friends here -many of whom are newly converted zealots to the joys of financial thrift and prudence - while balancing the books produced intense orgasms in the Institute of Chartered Accountancy and made Ireland look good in the eyes of Whitehall ( the overwhelming need to look good in front of the Brits and imitate and finally outdo the Brits at whatever the Brits were currently doing -from sports to economic policy- no matter how crazy or backward the policy or that it was bound to end in falling off a cliff - we Irish could out do the Brits in anything -((something that hasn’t changed it would appear to anybody who objectively witnessed our property boom))- was a countrywide phenomenon regardless of political affiliation,religion or class - this need to ape Britain at every juncture - no matter how unsuited to Ireland - was to have major ramifications) - the negative effects of this policy were very clear too - domestic economic activity was subdued and decreased and didn’t recover until the mid 60’s - the result of this was the usual spiralling circle of decreased economic activity, resulting in lower tax takes, resulting in cutbacks in spending and tax increases, which resulted in capital moving abroad, which resulted in a further credit tightening, which resulted in the further decreasing economic activity,which resulted in diminishing tax returns, which resulted in.. yeh know how the story goes………..are you watching Mr Lenihan?… we’ve played this tune before and it took us the bones of 40 years to change the record! -

All in All - even given FF increased spending in social welfare as it reversed Blythe’s cutbacks - it was paid for by higher taxes on higher earning and capital - Irish economic activity plateaued for the bones of 30 years - its stability kept in place due to the fact that we borrowed f.all for anything, emigration,a basic healthcare system and a poor diet kept the dole and pension queues small and short lived (its gas when you look back on Gov papers from the”Emergency” years - guess the one thing that had the Government sh^tting it and preparing for the worst and words like ” it could sink the state” being said around the cabinet table? - German invasion? - nope - British invasion? - nope - it was the fear that the 250-300,000 Irish men and women who joined the British armed forces and worked in the factories , would all come home at the end of war when Britain demobilized,join the dole queue and sink the state!- I kid you not! - all in all it just about sums up Irish economic policy during this time - keep it cheap -keep them poor and pure - pray for good agricultural prices and make sure any potential troublemakers are on a boat out of here (Irelands own Transportation policy)

It was lemasses rise to Taoiseach, a changing of the old guard at the both the cabinet table and at cabinet secretary level and lemass’s determination to break the previous cycle - through borrowing for investment and state intervention - that started to set the economic story of Ireland for the next 50 years. The 60s saw a period of economic growth with the liberalisation of trade barriers - the effects of the killing off a lot of private enterprise that had been protected previously under tariffs was camouflaged by the arrival of FDI and the expansion of the state and state sponsored enterprises - the arrival of Television increased the populations desires for the better things in life - the fact that Northern Ireland was clearly much better off materially, with superior social services was something that also irked - there was also much union agitation for higher wages on an annual basis - which were caved into most of the time and were going to be unsustainable in the long run unless economic performance - particularly exports radically improved - something that Whittaker clearly flagged on his retirement from the Dof in 1965 - by 1966 the bloom had come off Irelands export expansion and Englands devaluation in 1968 didn’t help matters either

Fancy that eh? - A FF Taoiseach and a Dub - even a born northsider and man of the people leading the country into an unsustainable domestic consumer boom built on the balanced books left to him by his predecessors and a minor export boom that quickly fizzled out - yet left with the higher wages and costs and a domestic credit party so drunk that they didnt realise the bus that brought them had left and they would need expensive taxis to get home ?- I mean where have we heard that before eh - I’ve always wondered if Lemass saw this coming and decided to get out while the going was good - funny the parallels with Ahern isn’t it tho?

That said - the 60’s “boom” was nothing compared to the late 90’s - and thats why Lemass is revered rather than burnt in effigy as Ahern will be - but it did start a worrying trend of borrowing for consumption rather than serious investment - Lemass was on to the right idea - but he underestimated the Irish people’s capacity for the quick stroke instead of patience,long term investment and delayed gratification and our wonderful capacity for disappearing up our own posteriors and believing that the world owed us a living cos we’re Irish (something 40 years of nation myth building and isolation did nothing to mitigate) - the 60s and the advent of modern communications had opened our eyes to how sh^t poor we actually were in comparison to the rest of Europe - especially in living standards - we wanted some of that - it was a pity we compared ourselves to Germany, the Scandinavian countries and the Benelux - a more accurate comparison would have been our current comrades in the PIGS troope - Portugal,Greece and Spain - also the 1968 revolts gave our union brothers - a cranky narrow-minded workshy bolshie lot even before then - even more succour for industrial disruption in their unquenchable desire for more pay for less work and to hell with the consequences. In short we wanted German living standards on a Greek level of economic sophistication and productivity and anybody who would tell us any differently could go to hell or into opposition in the Dail - the stage was set for the 70s and 80s - auction politics (never far from our hearts since Strongbow set about dividing and ruling after 1169 when you think of it) big time! - the other big thing about the 60’s was the reversal of immigration and the fact that we started to multiply like rabbits again - with consequences for the future.

Colley was the first to start the serious borrowing after our economy gave up the ghost of trying to keep up with our desires. In a desire to stop the 70’s being socialist and with a little help from the penultimate constituency gerrymander and the promise of a liberal helping of “whatever you’re having yourself” -FF comfortably won the 1969 election - seeing as we were only borrowing a “little bit” - I think we were talking 0.8% of GDP - sure why don’t we borrow another little bit while we wait for the economy to recover - its only around the corner! - well Lynch, god bless him - finance was never his strong point - even when he was Minister of Finance (then again at least he didn’t cash his paycheque in the Dail bar and keep it in a tin under his bed saving for his kids education when you could have got 10+ % interest in the Banks at the time - knowing f.all about economics or money is no impediment to being minister for finance when you’re in FF obviously) -in fairness he (lynch) with the North going Supernova and negotiating entry into the EEC obviously had other things on his mind - yet the economy did not pick up - exports were flatlining - and the babyboomers of the late 60’s and 70’s started to make their appearances in the demand for social services ( i was born in 72 and there were 38 in my class in a small rural village) - so we kept on borrowing in the hope that EU entry would help correct our finances - Lynch went to the polls in 73 under the reasonable expectation of winning but got pipped at the line by an FG/Lab effort that got it its sh^t together that made the even more attractive promises to gild the lilly of the average voter and get the economy “moving” again and put manners on the slowly climbing inflation and unemployment rate - with EEC membership and increased revenues from agricultural sales looking a given - it seemed a reasonable bet.

Yon kippur 1973 came and went and so did the world economy in the same space of time and that was the end of that. The rocketing increase in the price of fuel and disruption that went with it in the aftermath of the war and embargo- allied with the fact that US ways already weary with its Vietnam commitments - pushed the world economy into freefall, surging inflation and massive borrowing to get the economies back into the black - This was the high season for that bastardised version of Keynesianism that appeared in the 60’s - for Ireland and Richie Ryan - the minister for Hardship - it was a very difficult time - 73 to 76 was very difficult with increased industrial unrest, requiring tax increases and a severe struggle to get borrowing under control ,let alone start decreasing it - by 1977 a degree of very very fragile stability was returning - increased and unexpected revenues from CAP were helping prop up what was elsewhere a very very dodgy scene - our export earnings were by nowhere near keeping up with our demands for more disposable incomes to spend on mainly imports and and better and more social services.

In 77 - Cosgrave went to the polls , like lynch in 73, in reasonable expectation of winning -given, by the standards of that crazy decade, things were relatively stable, and materially, the average citizen never had it so good to borrow McMillans quip. like 73 - Fianna Fail ,a very poor opposition, desperate to get back in government - promised the world and the kitchen sink to everybody and his donkey - reading the manifesto today - man - was there anybody with a calculator within a 100 mile radius when they were drawing up that piece of infamy? - did they seriously believe that this level of borrowing could be sustained - on top of what was already being borrowed! -

It earned 90 seats and government - Martin O Donoghue - the author of the manifesto was given his own “super” makey-uppey Department , with Colley again in Finance - It became obvious in mid 79 that we were reaching the end of our credit limits and that the borrowing level could not be sustained - the EEC were sounding warnings - then the Arabs threw another spanner in the works by jacking up the price of oil again -starting off another world recession - the unions - particularly , the public sector were after inflation busting payrises (not realising that it was this that was considerably contributing to the inflation spike - or did they care?) - also with our entrance into the ERM - the bonuses from CAP came to an end and prices started to fall due to serious overproduction - a proposal to impose a 2% levy on the farmers came to a quick and decisive end when Colley was forced to back down - with Haughey one of the main populist dissenters . Regardless Colley was gone by 80 - Haughey was in charge - and he knew that we wouldn’t get the same deal off the IMF and international financiers that he had got off AIB - ie 50% of our Public Debt written off - so in midst of all the strikes etc etc -he went and gave his famous broadcast - it was very convincing for a good proportion of the population hearthily sick of the state we had got ourselves in - So with a comfortable majority and fair approval from the electorate - why the F. did he turn around and do exactly the opposite? - caving in to every feckin sponger who turned up at his doorstep? - were the internal tensions within the FF party that bad? was the militant wing of the labour party that much of a threat? - looking at FG manifestos from 81/82 - FG were offering leadership,trust ,Garrett and tough decisions - but very little by the way of financial bribes - why did Haughey have to go on a final financial bender ? - Its a real pity that easily the most gifted,controversial , yet insecure Taoiseach we ever had never wrote an autobiography or published a diary -even for posthumous release - we’ll never know the answer.

So thats the prologue for Garrett Fitz’s reign of infamy in the 1980s - public borrowing totally and utterly out of control -forecast for 35% of GDP in 1981 until the election and Bruton managed to get it down to under 30% - rampant inflation -the price of taytos went up on a weekly basis it appeared to me- rising unemployment -the economy crumbling and totally uncompetitive where a direct phonecall from Donegal to Dublin would have to be arranged the day before with the local operator -the population totally sugared out of their heads on unsustainable bribes -a rising population looking for and requiring vastly more than the creaking education and health services could provide - the unions who though they ran the country and coalition with a unruly and divided labour party suffering from militant infestation and constantly looking over its shoulder for fear of being out flanked on the left - Dont forget kids- there really was a Soviet Union back then with real nuclear missiles and most of the left here truely believed that it was the land to be imitated and that capitalism was on its knees after the turbulent 70’s -one more push and it would fall over - over half the membership of the labour party and everybody further left than them believed this - if the 70s didnt go socialist - well then the 80’s were definitely going to.

Given this - it was no surprise that Brutons budget fell - Kemmy couldn’t stomach it , neither could many in the Labour party so it was kind of convenient in a uniquely Irish moral kind of a way that we could nail it on Brutal Bruton and his tax on kids shoes - I not going to talk much about Haughey’s brief interval in 82 - suffice to say not much happened - the debt kept on going up as Haughey kept McSharry on the leash and the workers party wouldn’t vote for the budget that was needed and the rest of the time was total GUBU and internal FF infighting on live TV every night. Not surprisingly, as funny amused and totally enrapted as we were by the FF Telly Novella -if the situation hadn’t been so unbelievably dire I think we would have stuck with FF -it was great gas around then- political infighting and intrigue,terrorists everywhere,kidnappings,fingers being cut off, real snow, betting on how late the train would be into the station ,if it didn’t break down or go on strike,etc etc etc - Jesus it was like living in the episode of the A-Team where they go off to some third world banana republic - the people wearily turned to boring FG but of course gave them the delusional brothers for company- the stats do speak for themselves - to keep the government an ongoing concern and the uppiddy and short-fused socialists on board - compromises had to be made between a short sharp shock or a more transitional approach - the immediate effect of such austerity measures was an immediate rise in unemployment and emigration as uncompetitive and hopelessly dependent domestic industry started to die off - the world recession saw the end of motor manufacturing and the first wave of FDI leave these shores too - but were replaced by HP,Intel and others putting down roots - making these jobs gold-dust - the unions went ape at every opportunity - but after 1984 and the vision of Thatcher started to sober up - its no co-incidence that it was after this time that the Gov got the leeway to start serious cutbacks and that inflation dropped away from over 20% in 1981 to 4% in 1987 - the hard medicine was being dispensed and the country was not enjoying it - but the EC and IMF approved and Ireland’s credit rating slowly began to turn - in 1987 - Garrett FitzGerald could point to a much better record in managing the economy than any gov since the 1960s - but once again the population voted for the party that promised” to put money back in your pocket” and boldly proclaimed from Billboards the country over that ” cuts hurt the aged, the sick and the poor”

Sure - The Garrett Fitz gov could have done better - with 20/20 hindsight - the non-implimenation of the Telsis report and labour blocking Bolands reform of the public sector come to mind and they boobed big time falling for AIB’s bluff over ICI- but as we say these days - they were where they were.

Anybody who thinks that people voted for FF to implement the continued progamme of cutbacks and economies that they did in 1987 -is completely out of their minds and is denying reality - Haughey’s populist opposition during 82 to 87 is a shameful episode in FF’s history. He threw the FF manifesto out the window and let McSharry off the leash - because he had no other choice - The EC,IMF and even Dukes and Fitzgerald in private conversation with Charlie during the interim left him in no doubt that the hard medicine had to be followed - anyway he had become a figure of hate on the left and none of them would support him so he had rule as a minority gov with only the support of FG and the PDs on economic matters only - now, with only his backbenchers to fear - he went and did the right thing.

The big question - that shall forever remain unanswered is - what would Haughey have done if he had won an overall majority on the populist ,more borrowing ,more spending manifesto that he ran on in 1987?

Its a very good question!

then main lesson to be learned from all of this ? - if we have to borrow - we borrow for investment - not consumption - as relevant in 2010 as it was 1960- and that the population have to be educated into where wealth actually comes from - ie not the government or feckin houses.

Context Context Context folks - trying to analyse and comment on history or anything by isolating it chronologically is a total waste of time”